What is rational about saying that you are never going to dismiss anything ever?
I said it was 'dangerous' - not that I (and others) never do it!
The problem is that if, rather than "not dismissing anything, ever", one decides to "sometimes dismiss some things", how does one decide which things to apply that to?
To stick with my technological analogies, if, a few centuries ago one had said anything about the advanced electronic technologies which exist in the 21st century, then I imagine that (to quote myself) most people would have 'dismissed' the idea on the basis that " there was 'not (yet) any proof' and that it was 'beyond all credibility and common sense' " - but they would, of course, have been 'wrong' to dismiss it.
There are a gazillion religions. Can they all (potentially) be truthful? Seems unlikely given that they differ so much.
Exactly. That's why I said at the very start that all of the 'formalised religions' are 'clearly nonsense'- so that the discussion should not be about them. What, in my opinion,
does deserve some consideration is the concept underlying all of them, that there are some 'supernatural' factors at work (currently totally beyond our understanding) which the religions call 'a god', but which could be (to name but one possibility) something like a 'collective consciousness'.
I used to call myself agnostic, in part because I didn't want to be accused of being close minded, then I realised that those people that called me close minded were people that blindly believed in a god because someone else told them to.
Well, as we know, the 2021 census determined that, for the first time, more than half of the UK population described themselves as not having any religion - so if you're 'close minded', you are in very good company! It's probably still a bit different in terms of religions like Judaism and Islam but in terms of those in the UK who would traditionally have described themselves as 'Christian', I would imagine that the number of 'practising' ('Church-going') Christians in UK has probably dwindled to a very low level.
Mind you, that all leaves nearly half of the UK population claiming to subscribe to (hence, presumably, to at lest some extent 'believe in') some religion - but I suspect that a substantial proportion of those are probably 'god-fearing' ('just in case') rather than actual 'believers'.
And seriously... Noah was over 600 years old, dinosaurs never existed? I could go on, and on, and on.
Indeed - and that the earth (probably universe) is only a few thousand years old, and all life (as we know it today) was created more-or-less simultaneously in 7 days etc. etc. As I said, the specific 'beliefs'/teachings of most (probably all) of the formalised religions are clearly total nonsense - but that doesn't negate the possibility that there are relevant things which we currently 'just don't understand' (currently regarded as 'supernatural').
I don't have a problem with people wanting to believe something, that is their choice, but I reserve my right to question their position whilst they simultaneously question mine.
Of course, and exactly the same for me. However, I am perhaps a bit more 'open minded' than you, in that I feel inclined to 'question the position' of those who appear certain that there is nothing 'supernatural', just as (like you) I certainly also 'question the position' of those who have strong 'belief' in some specific religion.
Religious belief is an amazingly strong thing. I often tell the story of a friend of mine who was a highly respected and 'eminent' professor of a very scientific disciple and, as such, was notorious for relentlessly demanding 'rigorous proof' of anything one said, claimed or asserted [prior to becoming my friend he was once my 'examiner', and gave me a very hard time during an oral exam at uni !]. However, he was also a devout Christian (and a 'lay preacher' who, ironically, eventually 'dropped dead' whilst giving a sermon). I often tried to get him to reconcile those two positions, but without success - whilst, in every other context, he demanded 'rigour proof', he (obviously) could not provide any 'proof' to support his undoubtedly very strong belief in Christianity!
Rumour also has it that a good few people who would normally describe themselves as agnostic or atheist have been known to 'pray' when they consider themselves to be in 'mortal danger' (again, 'just in case'!).
Kind Regards, John
-) ), as you say, a fair amount of it relates to 'learning about learning' (and learning about ways of thinking and communication), with the subject matter of one's education much less important. Once one has 'learned to learn, think and communicate', one can fairly easily apply oneself to other subjects if/when one has to.
