I agree completely. To me, being sure of something means accepting it as a good working hypothesis. I might act as if I believe something to be true, but I'm open to changing my mind if need be.

It is simply a question of perspective, rather than certainty; I shall not conduct my life according to that which is not supported by some amount of evidence since it may be wasted effort.

There is much which our senses are thoroughly incapable of telling us, that is why scientists do not rely upon perception if any other means of measurement is possible.

I so not choose to associate with closed minded people.

All religious "true believers" are, by definition, closed minded. But, the same is also true for true believers in any political or economic ideology.

I am a pessimist in most situations, I expect the worst, so if I am wrong, that is a good thing. The same with what I believe to be true, if I am wrong, I am wrong, if I find I am wrong, I have learned something.

I echo the same sentiments as already voiced before me in this thread. Human limitations may be a bitch, but we've only got what we've got - at least for now.

There are things we can know that are not built on perception or belief. For example the laws of modus ponens and modus tollens. To hold those as facts enables the consideration of much else, whereas to hold those as questionable stymies reason and thought.

Yes. I think that's the proper attitude of a scientist (or anyone who wants to always be getting closer to the truth).

Science allows for (even demands) corrections of possible mistakes/misinterpretations. Religions? Not so much.

Science can easily be refuted with newer evidence or theories. It's harder to prove if there's a god or no god. The further we evolve in science, the closer we come to refuting religion/existence of any deity whatsoever.

Science is built on probabilities whereas religion is built on faith. If something has a probability of 98% because it has been tested repeatedly and the tests have been verified I feel justified in believing that something. The religious believe as Hebrews says "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." If you believe in something hoped for and that you never saw evidence for, that's closed-mindedness. If you believe in something that has repeatedly been tested and verified by many people that is accepting evidence. I go with the evidence.

I absolutely agree with the post. That is actually the main reason I embrace the label of " agnostic atheist." However, it is worth emphasizing the vital difference between the adjectives "open-minded" and "gullible." We should always try to apply critical thinking skills to evidence presented to us. I don't mean that anyone here suggested otherwise, but it still seems to need defending. Exhibit A is the "intelligent design" fake science that tries to fabricate or twist evidence to suit their agenda, rather than respecting actual scientific methodologies and rigorous peer review that is an essential part of science.

There is a related issue that today's problem of balkanized news sources and separate demographic paradigm bubbles has led to a lot of people insisting every opinion is equally valid and equally deserving of respect. College professors in the social sciences are increasingly complaining of their students getting furious and utterly insulted-feeling when they are called out on their made up factual statements. "Open-minded does not mean "willing to accept everything at face value." Factual integrity still matters.

What you're saying (if I understand your point) is actually exemplified in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In essence, it states that the more certain you are of a particles position, the less certain you are of it's velocity. And the reverse is also true. The more certain you are of it's velocity, the less certain you can be of it's position.

There are very few things that can be proven as absolutes. But, the burden of proof is on the positive, not the negative. Prove to me there are not leprechauns or unicorns. It's not possible to disprove them. We can only show no evidence that they exist.

Science works on evidence. It relies on repeated observations that agree with previous results. This is why a scientific finding is still called a "theory" even when proven repeatedly. Science admits it's open to change. Religion does not. "God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow" is a mantra for many religious zealots.

The bottom line... my "very sure" does not equate to the "very sure" of religion. My "very sure" is open to change based on experiments and results which can be repeated and verified. Religion is based on faith that what I believe is true regardless of experiments and their results. And that is a huge difference.

Being open minded does not mean being so open that your brains fall out.

I would attribute this but I suffer from CRS.

I sense this is one of those thinly disguised arguments against outspoken non believers. If you are definite about what is not proven then you are being close-minded. As non believers have muscled up over recent years in confronting religion, this has been used against us. It comes down to intellectual rigour; anything might be true, but in the absence of evidence then it's just speculation. Speculate all you want, but don't weep on my cookies about how much you want to believe and how sincere you are. Come back when you've got some evidence. Believe in God? Where's your evidence? Jesus was son of God? Where is the historical, artefact and archeological evidence? Believe aliens visit the earth? Interesting idea. Where is the conclusive proof of that? No? Well keep looking. It's not close-mindedness to reject these things. It's consistent rigorous human thinking. And the world needs more of it, not less.