An Open Mind???

"An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about the ultimate foundations either of Theoretical or of Practical Reason is idiocy." ------ C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

Often those of us who "stick to our guns" are called "Narrow-minded bigots." (Why the rules don't apply to EVERYONE pertaining to name-calling and hatred is something I still haven't figured out) So, should we be more "open-minded" when it comes to the changing of the values of America? Should we be more lenient when contending for Faith, Virtues, Logic and Right and Wrong? The short answer is, "No."

I am aware that "keeping an open mind" is a good thing, perhaps, when referring to matters of preference and taste. I have friends that absolutely will not try anything "out of the ordinary" when we go out to eat together. Even shrimp would be something that would be considered exotic and off limits. On the other hand, I like to try new things. I enjoy occasionally perusing a menu for something I haven't eaten before or a book to help broaden my senses and knowledge. I'm all for "experiencing life." However, when we begin hewing at foundations such as Truth, Logic or Right and Wrong, all in the name of "keeping an open mind," that is where the line must be drawn.

The term "idiocy" is described as "extreme folly or stupidity." The fact that this word even exists should be a clue to those who don't want a firm moral or logical "law." For this word to even have a place in language assumes there is a standard by which thought, logic, and theory is to be measured. To ignore basic foundations in your creed or belief, basing your "facts" or theory on self-serving opinions rather than rational thought or reason is simply termed "idiocy." To try and change society's views, society's standards of right and wrong, all the while claiming your own standard is "right" and society is "wrong" is "idiocy." It is an argument that cannot be sustained and is, in logic, termed as non sequitur (A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it).

You see, the problem is that those who would remove Right and Wrong are not intellectually honest with themselves or with those whom they are debating. There is a reason for this. If they were to be intellectually honest, there would be no argument to begin with, and therefore, they would have to admit they are wrong. In today's world, it is "old-fashioned" and "bigoted" to stand for Truth. While I certainly respect your right to disagree with me, I will gladly wear these labels as badges of honor as it pertains to Logic, Faith, Virtue and Right and Wrong. Live life to its fullest....but don't ignore the absolutes. It will get you hurt every time.