How can you be confident that you're an open-minded or free thinker? Doesn't it seem likely that even the most prejudiced, dogmatic individuals view themselves as free thinkers (or, at any rate, appropriately responsive to evidence) with respect to their own views?

Would you consider a 16 year old an adult, i.e. a rational agent who is capable of of making decisions on their own? To what extent can you hold a 16 year old, or similarly aged person, accountable for their actions?

Is there any way to prove that you are telling the truth when it seems false to others?

I am often unable to decide upon an opinion, as I know that my knowledge of the subject is incomplete. For example, I am unsure of whether the (as it currently seems to me) few insights that psychology can add to our knowledge of the human mind and human behavior that cannot be found out using reason and individual observations is worth spending my and others’ time and resources on. Another example is my unwillingness to pick a side in the debate about free will, as I know that there are arguments I am not aware of. This inability to decide upon an opinion among many chooses, as I know there might be valid counter-arguments to my view that I do not know of, heavily impacts my life. The psychology example illustrates these consequences well: as I cannot decide on whether psychology is worth studying or not, I feel insecure about taking the big step to starting studying psychology, as it might be the wrong thing to do. My doubting of the very foundations of many opinions, and as in the example of free will,...

What grounds does a non-expert have for taking a position on an issue that the experts don't agree on? More specifically, how can I be justified aligning myself with a particular ethical theory, explicitly or implicitly (e.g. when I make a reasoned ethical decision), when there isn't a consensus among philosophers, and when I have spent comparatively so little time thinking about it?

Is it right to call a believer rational even if she cannot prove articulately or give good arguments for her belief in God? Let's just say I ask a believer "Why do you believe in God?" and she simply answered, "Because I've experienced God's grace in my life," and she needs no arguments or other evidences for her belief, is her position justifiable? I personally thinks it is but if that is the case, then what would make belief in God irrational, if simply certain personal experiences can justify such belief?

The universe appears to behave in logical ways. All of the individual physical components of the universe, as far as we can tell, are likely governed by logically consistent laws of physics. According to physicalism, human beings are nothing more than complex physical systems. That means that the physical components and functions of a human being, including those that give rise to human thought, are governed by the same logically consistent laws that govern the behavior of electrons, etc. If the physical processes that give rise to thought are rational how can a human being have an irrational thought? Where in the system does irrationality arise? It seems that human beings are in fact capable of irrational thought. If two people hold mutually exclusive ideas then at least one of them must be wrong. But if irrational thought is possible where does it come from? Is this an argument against physicalism? Does it mean we are more than just bits of matter? Or does it mean that the universe itself doesn't...

Debating with a theologian over the validity of biblical condemnation of homosexuality i've been offered a sequence of arguments that seem to me circular. First argument: Divine directives 1. God has given the directive to establish the eterosexual marriage 2. Homosexual acts are condemned in the BIble 3. Homosexuals brake the divine directive Second argument: Perverse heart 1. To brake a divine law willingly is perversion 2. Homosexual acts are condemned in the Bible 3. Homosexuals are perverse Third argument: social deviance 1. To diffuse behaviours that are condemned in the Bible is a form of social deviance 2. Homosexual acts are condemned in the BIble 3. Homosexual are social deviant To me it is obvious that all these arguments implies, as a second premise, the condemnation whose validity is in question. When i have made this observation i have been offered a curios answer: anyone has a worldview that starts from certain unquestionable premise, that are in themselves circular but not invalid....

Is it always irrational to procrastinate, or is there a way where procrastination as a choice can be rationally justified?

It seems to me that today's rationality is completely irrational in a sense that it attacks everything that is not rational. But who define what is rational? For example, many people like to back up their beliefs by scientific arguments or by pointing on the bad parts of religion. Yet in 19. century frenology was considered science. Today we call it pseudoscience. Is it lacking humility for most people or something else that they cannot accept that in 200 years people will laugh at our modern "science"? And, if we are so deeply influenced by beliefs of our times why wouldnt relativism allow for more open minded approach in a sense that it would allow people to believe anything they want (without the need for justification) instead of using relativism primarily for attacking "old" beliefs (example would be the view that christianity is obsolete)?