At the discussion on August 1, we examined what it means to have an open mind. It was generally agreed that this entailed a willingness to examine one’s own set of beliefs about a particular topic. However, there are several impediments to doing this, such as ego, pride, fear of being seen as weak or vacillating or simply a lack of interest in examining others‘ viewpoints.

One does not have to change one’s belief in order to be considered as having an open mind. After considering a particular viewpoint and deciding to keep your original concept intact, you have at least been open-minded enough to consider the issue, so you cannot be faulted for not changing.

The discussion continued by examining what might be sufficient rationale for holding a belief. If one continues to hold a concept when there is objective evidence to the contrary, would that indicate a closed mind? Who or what is to be considered a legitimate authority in establishing objective evidence? Is faith alone sufficient to justify retaining a belief? On these points, there was not general agreement, nor is there likely to be at anytime in the foreseeable future.