Demanding empirical evidence and verifiable data on any claims does not make one close minded....

[Humanist_Activist]

to be close minded, you must believe something in the face of contrary evidence, denialism is a more recent example of this, whether its on climate change, evolution, vaccines etc.

Skepticism is the very opposite of this, to be truly skeptical, all you have to do is judge a claim on the strength of the evidence that supports it, and the weakness of any contrary evidence.

If you claim you can bend spoons with your mind, or levitate, or any other claim of that sort, am I close minded if I don't take your word for it? Of course not, that's silly, and why should religious claims be judged any differently?

[humblebum]

1. Demanding empirical evidence and verifiable data is not in the least

close-minded. But, to uncategorically say that empiricism and verifiable data determine the boundaries of intellectual inquiry is to limit free thought.

[Humanist_Activist]

2. What else is there that expands knowledge or understanding? n/t

[laconicsax]

3. Wild guesses, imagination, and fantasy.

Just don't ask how those expand knowledge in any real way. It's a "mystery."

[rrneck]

4. The arts. nt

[Humanist_Activist]

6. Please elaborate, that isn't an answer by itself. n/t

[rrneck]

13. There are any number of

internal states in the human experience that cannot be quantified or understood with the scientific method. The arts (visual, literary, audible, and kinetic) that help us understand our internal states, which include emotions. They help us understand why we do the things we do and why they are important to us. And perhaps more importantly, they help understand the motivations of others.

For a long time religion was the only game in town when it came to helping us understand why we do the things we do. Fortunately, that's not the case now. Since the enlightenment you don't need a pedigree or property to "examine your life to make it worth living".

The arts, just like religion, don't do squat when it comes to understanding the specific gravity of water, the speed of light, or the birth of the universe. But they help us understand why we want to know these things. And that's why the arts and religion frequently butt heads. Both practices serve basically the same function and religion doesn't want anybody cutting into their action (or profit).

We can be just as skeptical about our own feelings as about a scientific proof. The best art prompts that sort of skepticism and we can return to it again and again to be thrown back into ourselves in a search to give our lives and the lives of others meaning. They don't call it the "humanities" for nothing.

[Deep13]

5. Provisionally agree.

Much understanding is based on emotional consideration, especially within human interactions. Nevertheless, it is good to understand the limits of that intuition. And that does not make baseless and fanciful claims of religion any more tenable. Indeed, if our basic, intellectual and emotional objections were not stunted by the implicit (sometimes explicit) threat of damnation or at least ostracism, children would see how implausible its claims are.

[rug]

7. Stop it. This forum is not a sophomore science class.

[Humanist_Activist]

8. Of course not, half of the class would have failed...

such as yourself.

[rug]

9. And the other would be roaming the halls looking for the right class

such as yourself.

[darkstar3]

12. Just because you don't want science "intruding" on your religion doesn't mean you get what you want.

[Boojatta]

10. First, I want to encourage you to maintain a conscientious approach to ...

judging whether or not a statement is true.

Some people judge the evidence, and reach the conclusion that there is a God. However, their conclusion is not necessarily a claim. They might not claim that there is a God. They might simply believe it, and act accordingly. Or they might believe it and nevertheless act as though there is no God.

Evaluating the strength of evidence requires judgment. If you slip into the role of technician, then you will be applying tests that work in routine situations, and you might not know what assumptions the tests are based upon. You might not know under what circumstances the tests cannot be relied upon.

One detail: I think that you meant "closed" (as in shut), not "close" (as in near) minded.

[darkstar3]

11. To pick a nit: "closed-minded". Other than that, good point.