I recently had a conversation with a friend who claimed to be searching for some sort of answer. Our conversation revolved around where did we come from (because of the up front conclusion that the Bible is bunk) so the answer supposedly being sought was also involving cosmology.

What I encountered was the firm belief that this individual was operating with an open mind, and thought only closed minds accepted what they read or were taught.

I don’t think I argued this properly or clearly enough, but what I was trying to get at with her was that you can’t say you are working with an open mind and then say you won’t accept any systematized truth as being the answer. If you do this you are working with as many artificial rules and boundaries as those who seem to buy into that “false” sense of truth. The way I’m perceiving this situation – if truth presented itself, no matter the form, this open-minded person wouldn’t accept it. The “doubt everything” perspective seems to look like a genuinely inquisitive and searching point of view, but in fact it is as blind as someone following an incorrect teaching.

(messed up graphic but it works for now)

I am not arguing for any particular cosmology at the moment, but I want to argue that when one has an open mind, they cannot rule out anything until they have rigorously determined that falsehood… and even then they have to be open to the fact they might have been wrong in their estimate.

I want to know how to inoculate a mind (my own included) against the arrogant self-interest of thinking that I will know truth when I see it yet not have to analyze a thing. A simple question can be useful to test if one is convinced of their own ideas, which is fine. But if one thinks that those simple twisting questions will determine for themselves the truth, I just don’t see much success for them.