You are right. What I should have said instead is if we intend to influence then we too should be open to the possibility of being influenced if our goal is true enlightenment. Thanks!

Then how am I able to understand what you are saying if I wasn't able to change my mind? I am not arguing about how people are sometimes close-minded. I am saying that it would be better to be open-minded no matter your situation. so that you can understand others and share their knowledge. Of course, there are things that may determine whether you are close-minded or not and these things prevent us from evolving. I believe if we can identify these things then it will be beneficial for all of us.

"How do we expect other people to be open to the possibility that there is something which they don't know/understand if we ourselves aren't?"
— akourios

Terrapin Station: We realize that not everyone is the same (especially not in every situation)?


So does this mean that the cause of close-mindedness is being different?

Then how can we influence if everyone sticks to what he believes to be true because he/she is different?
— akourios

Terrapin Station: One way that people are different from each other is that not everyone sticks to what they believe no matter what. Also, people who do stick to what they believe no matter what do not all do that on every topic. And there are plenty of topics where various people are not sure what they believe, whether they're talking to someone with an effectively immutable belief on that topic or not.

In your 2nd reply, your first statement says that being different sometimes results in being open-minded. Your second statement is irrelevant since we are talking about being open-minded to everything. Your third statement says people are not sure what they believe and this means that they question their beliefs so they are open-minded.

So what is your point?

.

I can't really understand what you are saying. The things you said in your first reply prove wrong the things that you said in your second reply

So is your point that the cause of close-mindedness is being different? Because 2 of your statements in your last reply suggest the opposite.

You are absolutely right my friend. It seems that my post was much simpler than it should have been. I will try and figure things out!

So there are people that think that they know everything without question. Then how can we influence if everyone sticks to what he believes to be true because he/she is different? You don't. Unless you understand that being different comes with different beliefs and values and then you question why there are different beliefs and values. How would science progress if everything was taken for a fact and not being tested for its validity? Isn't being open to the chance that you don't know everything better for our development?

How do we expect other people to be open to the possibility that there is something which they don't know/understand if we ourselves aren't? For example, imagine two people with opposite opinions which they are not willing to change. Then there is no communication since they cannot be influenced. What is left is inaction or in extreme cases violence.

But lets say I am talking about something that I am certain I am right. For example, killing is bad. Why is it bad? because of moral principles.hen questions like what are moral principles and why have them arise. I believe if someone questions your moral principles then you should expect an explanation for why to reject them which I believe is the same as providing alternative mechanisms for common sense.

totally agree

That is why intelligence from both sides is needed. If the conversation is not aimed at something of mutual benefit then it is manipulation.

I agree. Maybe my view of humans is simpler than it should be but it is not clear to me yet.

If you are referring to emotion as our non-rational behaviour then what is emotion really? I think it is a mechanism which developed in primal ages and utilises logic. For example, if people didn't fit in with others then they were unlikely to survive, so emotions acted as a feedback mechanism. Feeling down would make them realise that something is not right and needs to be changed in order to survive.

But maybe there is something that I am missing.

I believe communication is the issue.

If we communicate to influence others, then we are probably aiming to change their perception. If this is the goal of the conversation then we too should be open to the possibility of being influenced since doing otherwise would negate our intend to influence others in the first place. How do we expect other people to be open to the possibility that there is something which they don't know/understand if we ourselves aren't? For example, imagine two people with opposite opinions which they are not willing to change. Then there is no communication since they cannot be influenced. What is left is inaction or in extreme cases violence.


If the goal is to argue effectively and with purpose, we need to be comfortable with changing our beliefs/values and trust that the conversation is aimed at something that’s of mutual benefit. This is important because thinking that the conversation favours only the other side then their facts would not be influential because they don’t improve our position. The possibility for change is also as important because it is the cause for all evolution, the relevant evolution being an improvement in the way of thinking. Now, if you don’t believe in evolution then the only way for common understanding is convincing you that evolution is real, or you convincing me that it is not. Still, changing one’s beliefs/values is considered evolution. However, the level of understanding in the conversation would depend on the communicators’ ability to process information and that depends on their intelligence and common sense.


I define intelligence as the amount of information that you know, how well you validate this information (truth from falsehood), how well you can link this information together, and how well you can recall it. This definition of intelligence may explain how arguments/ideas are limited to the amount of information that one possesses, how capable we are of using information (e.g. 1+1 equals 2 and not solely 1+1), and how the true result of the conversation can be influenced by our ability to recall all the relevant information in order for it be used in our interpretations. In this context, if a person does not have well-developed forms of intelligence, then his understanding would be limited to his level of development.


Assuming that perception is relative to the individual, to effectively engage in conversation we would need common sense. Common sense can be characterised as the ability to mentally unite the information conveyed by the five physical senses. Then, to be able to talk about the information gathered, we labelled and named the things (common language) that are associated with it. That is common sense. Now we can say that without common sense, the conversation would be meaningless and incomprehensible. For example, a transman is not a man unless he presents the biology of a man. Suggesting the opposite would mean that I am not using the five physical senses or that I am refusing the international label/name, thus there is no common sense. Of course, common sense can be associated with intelligence because again, "If a person does not have well-developed forms of intelligence, then his understanding would be limited to his level of development" and his perception would vary. However, if we choose to neglect the roots of common sense (physical senses + common language) then we should provide improved mechanisms for making sense of the world, or humanity will regress due to lesser cognition.


Often, an atheist cannot convince a theist that his definition of God does not exist like the theist cannot convince the atheist that his God exists. The reason is that both sides expect to receive information that is related to their level of intelligence. However, if your aim in the communication is to really influence, then you can’t say things like “lack of knowledge leads to faith” or “if you don’t believe you will suffer” because this would destroy the conversation by corrupting mutual trust. Instead, we should communicate at a level that slightly exceeds the opposing side’s level of intelligence. For example, talk to babies like a baby and all they learn is baby talk. Talk to them like adults and they won’t understand a thing. The solution to this problem is finding the moderate where they mostly understand what you say but they are challenged at the same time. Then you would ask why would we want to challenge them? Because it opens them to the possibility of change and allows them to process information gradually.


Therefore, intelligence from both sides is the key to effective communications and common sense is the medium.

How can knowledge of the world and of god come through consciousness only?

Again, this is testimonial evidence.

To be 100% confident in making a decision whether to believe in god’s existence or not, you need to study all the related topics (e.g. biology, physiology, psychology, evolution, all religion, etc). Then you would need critical thinking skills to evaluate truth from falsehood and any connections between the subjects. You would also need a lot of time, money and will to do that and this is the reason why so many people cannot speak about the subject meaningfully. Science is valid because of evidence, and evidence needs to be adequate to approve or disprove a hypothesis. There are multiple forms of evidence but science focuses on gathering empirical evidence because it is viewed as the strongest type of proof. Empirical evidence is information collected through MULTIPLE observations and experimentation. It focuses on observing behaviours of different things and experiments with different interventions to observe their responses. Looking for evidence to approve god’s existence you will find only testimonial evidence (e.g. Bible). Like in courts, testimonial evidence is information spoken or written under oath. This type of evidence strongly relies on the witness’s understanding which can be inaccurate. This is why it is considered weak evidence. In order to prove or disprove god’s existence we would need his presence in order to observe his behaviour.
If we refer to god as the all loving/caring father who guides us and waits for us in heaven, then there is no sufficient evidence for his existence. To the extent of my knowledge, the only evidence present are the bible, the church, religious people and their sayings, and personal need for greater purpose. The validity of the bible is questionable since through the years it was probably tampered with. If we assume it is 100% original then the problem is that it is simply the testimony of men. Thinking about ancient religions, we can see how our ancestors worshipped their gods. However, beliefs seem to change through the years and this may suggest that it is a human tendency to believe to something greater and noble. Often, people claim that they encountered god’s face (or a loved ones) in smoke/fire etc. They are probably not liars but there is some science behind that. For example, in psychology, pareidolia is a term for the tendency to see patterns and interpret them as something meaningful. There is also auditory pareidolia (hearing things). Then there is the personal need for purpose. Refusing this feeling would result in a meaningless life. Understanding that feelings act as a feedback mechanism for optimal living/survival and that behaviour has been developed through evolution, then we might be susceptible to a new meaning of life. It seems that as I improve my knowledge my belief diminishes. However, drawing absolute conclusions with so many questions is ignorant.
If we refer to god as a creating force then the meaning of life would be survival and evolution. Survival would depend on our decision making (free will) and reproduction (passing our genes to the next generation) and evolution would depend on personal growth. In this case, religion would be symbolic. God allows suffering for adaptation, thus greatness, thus closer to him. For example, in exercise physiology, stressing/damaging a muscle results in its growth. So suffering is part of evolution. I grew up as a Christian, switched to atheism, and now I believe that god (the creator) is not something that we can comprehend (at least at this point). If you know human physiology you can understand that electricity is also present in the human body and not only in the surrounding environment. Oxygen too. What I want to say is that the existence of life is linked to the matter that surrounds it. This might be the reason our ancestors thought the Earth as a god. Maybe we are part of a giant organism that is too sophisticated for us to understand. If god exists, it is not a mere religion.

We are a very sophisticated creation that it is hard even for ourselves to comprehend. Humans evolved from single-celled organisms who adapted to external stimuli and eventually evolved. If you study anatomy and physiology you will realise that products of the outside environment (e.g. electricity, oxygen) are also present within are bodies and are vital for the continuation of life. Therefore, our existence is not self-dependent but hinges on the surrounding matter.
The mind is the body, they both matter and are co-dependent. Oversimplified, the conscious mind can be seen as an evolved mechanism for survival and optimal living that utilises the decision making process. It will take a long time for science to clearly explain how consciousness works but it is clear that our psychological state is linked to our physiology (psychophysiology).
Even if science explains our behaviour and the process of evolution, this doesn’t mean that our existence is meaningless. It is rational to look for a reason to serve the world when the world gives you suffering. The real question should be does life have any positive meaning? Do you really get something out of your efforts? In most cases, suffering is the consequence of malevolence and this may suggest that malevolence should be ameliorated in order for life to have a positive meaning. To ameliorate malevolence, we must voluntarily take responsibility for our own being and the suffering that comes with it. We must live a life that manifests itself as meaningful and to do that we need to discover goals that bring us joy.
“Arguments like what difference is it going to make 10 billion years in the future when the Earth is destroyed, aren’t hyper-rational objections to the nature of being itself but hyper-rationalistic excuses for failing to bear the responsibility of living properly moment to moment, hour to hour.”