Are Atheists Open Minded?

"Faith does not imply a closed but an open mind. Quite the opposite of blindness, faith appreciates the vast spiritual realities that materialists overlook by getting trapped in the purely physical." -Sir John Templeton

I think it is fair to say that as a whole Christians viewed by the world are closed minded, un-accepting, and ignorant people. I have gathered these thoughts while reading Case for a Creator and reflecting on some of the MySpace forums, namely one of the more dysfunctional forums I have visited, Hardcore Christians Living Hardcore. I think it is important to point-out this is directed to the stereotype of Christians and to those who do not believe what we believe.

I know that there are Christians who are closed minded, un-accepting, and ignorant but there are many who are not. I find in modern society it seems so important to be “Open Minded” and it is often with new social agenda that Christians are seen as the closed minded group of them all. I base the combined experiences not on any one person that I have talked to but common thought processes that have been made apparent to me through my interactions with people that don't think like me. As I think of one of the most interesting situations to me are the people that insist that everyone should be accepting. I believe this has to do with the definition of “judging”.

A common thing I noticed in the pursuit that everyone must be accepting is that those who are not accepting are seen as racists, bigots, or hate mongers. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the mindset that everyone must accept everyone rather un-accepting? To many people it seems to be a good idea to accept everyone, but is that entirely healthy. I have certainly come to appreciate far more are the freedoms I have because I am an American, and the freedoms I defend as a soldier of the US Army. If we are to have a well rounded society we must have conservatives and liberals and some extremists on both sides can be needed to not lose focus on what is really important from time to time. I just wanted to have these premises.

I found that between talking to atheists and the stance of some promising atheists mentioned in the Case for a Creator there are some interesting aspects to what Atheism actually is and how much faith it really requires. I find this even a little more relevant due to I think there is somewhat of a big issue throughout the nation about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution in public schools. Back to the title question are “Atheists open minded?” I believe it to be not as much as they think they are. In the debate of Intelligent Design the most important thing was "What does the evidence suggest?" Are features of the physical and natural world suggest that the universe, galaxy, solar system, planet and successively smaller echelons of development going down to the chemical level suggest there is intelligence in all of this? There are those of us that are willing to allow more possibilities, such as intelligence in the natural world and such a crazy idea like creation when current evidence seems to agree with this theory the best?

I remember on one of the first days of our studies in the evolutionary process in high school the teacher stated that intelligent design/creation studies did not follow the scientific method so they did not count as real scientific arguments/issues. I honestly think my teacher through that tidbit out there because there was enough of the class that would at the very least approach the subject of evolution with a raised eyebrow. After reading Case For a Creator I can now confidently say that the theory of Intelligent Design is a valid theory according to the scientific method. I think Werner Von Braun, seen by many as the father of space science, said it quiet well, "the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

I find it interesting that in the world of the highly educated atheists, they have faith that the evidence for a self sufficient naturalistic theory will come. Yet their hope is called science because it concerns a scientific theory at hand. I cannot remember what periodical that I read, commenting on the ID debate going on in Pennsylvania, but it opened with such a statement somewhere along the lines of "all scientists agree that evolution is fact." Something that rivaled such a claim as a PBS documentary that had a response of 100 renowned scientists stating that the theory of evolution is far from settled and is not in the best of condition. To me maybe it is just the media's assumption similar to that of Lee Strobel in his own search or lack of search until he was really challenged those years ago to investigate Christianity, Faith and his most recent book Creation. To have a basis that something I took as fact actually being recognized by more than the Christian science organization I find empowering. In addition to requiring some serious faith in evidence that will prove a theory, it breaks the line between science and faith that is supposed to be present in the search for truth.

Remember faith is a hope in what is unseen and untouched? Be it an immaterial being like a spirit or empirical evidence. If I started to get into the discussion of consciousness that would drive atheists into another hard spot. Atheism implies the materialist point of view; Christianity implies a form of the dualist point of view. Correct me if I am wrong but if one is limited to a certain point of view such as the materialist limited to that of the physical world then isn't it only natural that a mindset that allows for something beyond the physical is more open minded? After all isn't that the goal of society to be open minded? And yet Christians are criticized because we are so closed minded.

In the midst of the popular secular idea that evolution is the adequate explanation about human origins, I asked myself why that might be. Then it hit me, it makes perfect sense why so much of American society would adhere to such a naturalistic approach? I had to get to college “Intro to Philosophy” before the idea that there is more to the world than the measurable was introduced to me in the realm of public education? Yet, since I can remember we were taught in Sunday school, sermons, and other church lessons, there has been more to life than the measurable from the beginning. I think this issue might give reason to why many people that I have encountered today refuse to believe that there are empirical evidences that support the faith I already had.

Think about this, to a person that had not grown up the possibility of there being more than the empirical world in formal education, is it shocking that so many people would cling to something as improbable as evolution to explain so much of their purpose? The funny thing is that although public education does not touch the subject until our latest stages of education it is something that all of us have pondered on our own just wondering the more basic and puzzling questions of our existence at some time or another. Maybe that could turn into a movement to include philosophy in more high schools, then again I have heard that it is a subject in many high schools, just not at the one I attended. These months that I have been actively seeking out the materials and arguments of many people I have heard about I honestly believe that there is enough information that if enough Christians would present it to the world I think we can change the course our country has been taking for years.

As I mentioned in Why Don’t I, I recently watched a sermon series about the reliability of the Gospels. I heard similar information that I read about when I attended the Alpha course about what history books use as valid history for the Roman empire. For instance, the ancient histories we have about the first century are based off of the Gallic Wars and the writings of Tacitus. Of the 10 copies known the earliest copy of the Gallic Wars is dated 900 AD. Tacitus wrote 30 volumes, we have 2 copies of half of what he wrote and his copies are dated at 900 and 1100AD. Historians do not dispute the information and history in those ancient texts. Why do so many people dismiss the historical value that the Gospels contain when there are thousands of copies that have been dated to be 50-70AD? Even better, there are copies of Paul's letters that are dated up to 2 years after Christ's death. Why do intelligent people toss those documents aside because they are "religious"? It is because they report supernatural things, namely Christ's miracles? People will use their bias and experience that miracles can't happen and that in turn makes the miracles in scripture unbelievable. Why else would logically thinking people disregard ancient texts about a Jewish carpenter that are in greater number and detail than the cumulative history of the Roman Empire in the first century?