I don't want to play the 'generalization' card as it's seriously fuggin annoying, but nevertheless I would argue this list applies to only a very small portion of either.These are some assumptions they share:
1. The human mind has the capacity to determine the nature of all things.
2. The answer to this question is simple and obvious.
3. Those who do not share our conclusion are flawed (evil vs. stupid) and the world would be better off without them.
4. Certain questions are considered off limits.
5. It is based on a system of dismissal.
For example, I consider myself a strong atheist and only #1 fully applies. #2 and #5 can at times apply, but it's largely situational, contextual, and/or born out of social frustration. #4 doesn't make much sense to me; I can't see how it applies, but I admit, the case could certainly be made for #3 in some circumstances; I don't think anyone could disagree outright.
This is somewhat of a non sequitur, though. Are we talking about truth, or are we talking about growth? The two aren't necessarily inclusive, and each claim - in my mind - needs to be supported independently.Humility of thought is the quickest path to truth from what I can tell. The ability to examine the limitations of the human mind is a necessary first step towards growth.
That works as am NF definition. An NT might break it down between metaphysics and epistomology, the nature of being and the nature of knowledge, which is the working philosophical model.It is a different mental process altogether. It focuses on examining assumptions, withholding judgment, approaching all aspects of the question and the people who hold them with respect. It is a willingness to ask questions, the process of formulating questions that lie at the boundary of human perception. It is a willingness to accept that not only can we not find every answer, but we are also unable to ask every question.