Something for Believers
August 10th, 2007 by 
drunkentune
Is ‘Freethinker’ Synonymous with Nontheist? Well, no. It isn ‘t. Atheists need to drop the sham; I am a freethinker by definition, and am positive that there have been numerous deists, theists, supernaturalists, pantheists and polytheists that have come to their conclusions on metaphysics as freethinkers. There were long expanses of time when pre-scientific answers were reasonable (case in point, animism at the ‘Dawn of Humanity’) or when the existence of a philosophical First Cause/Unmoved Mover God as ‘essence’ (think deism at the turn of the 18th century) just worked. Of course, being an atheist, I think those arguments have been undeniably refuted as science has continued to explain much of the mysteries of the universe. But still, if you embrace theism as a freethinker and can demonstrate how you came to your conclusion, I salute you. Isn’t that a good part of what this site is about? Discussions on matters of truth, critiques of argument, debates on important questions, tentative vindications of worldviews? Yet, I think the disparity of belief between scientists and the public (.pdf) says a great deal about free thought and science.
Posted in atheism, belief, definitions and descriptions, epistemology | 
August 15th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I have a few observations on freethinking. First, the concept ought be seen as a continuum, not a dichotomy. For example, on one of the sites that linked from your link, there is a debate about whether to refer to Christians as drones. As though people can be classified as one of two groups based on the criteria they seem to employ when deciding how to modify their worldview!
That is my next point: much of what we think is derived from the unconscious mind. We all looked to authority (our parents and teachers) and tradition (our language and culture) as we grew. It’s all still up there, exerting its effect! When a freethinker claims no regard for authority and tradition that is silly, just go to any scientific conference and watch them take sides when controversial data is presented. The guys and gals from MIT, Cambridge, and Stanford will say one thing, and the poor souls from Tallahasse State who’ve just broken with orthodoxy will be laughed down, even though time will prove them correct. It’s the same social process as a denominational synod.
My final point is what about the disparity of belief between Child Molesters and the public? Does that show there are two paths to atheism today: need for denial of a deity to justify paraphilia or need for denial of a diety to rise up in a scientific academic heirarchy? People self-select their life paths, so what if undergraduate believers chose private sector careers and their atheistic associates chose academia? What if we showed that top corporate executives were less religious than the population, what exactly would that prove?
August 15th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Ed,
I.
Imagine this: I look for authority in a study published in the BMA, confident that it has jumped through the necessary hoops of rigorous peer review. I appeal to authority because science is an authority.
If, however, that paper was published exclusively in Social Text, my confidence would drop to zero Kelvin.
As a Popperian, I don’t agree with Kuhn: science is freethought in action. I cannot think of an epistemological difference between the rich and the poor that would be of interest. If there is any clear-cut epistemological difference, it is between science and non-science.
II.
Besides, I think it would be offensive to you if I said, There are two paths to theism today: a prepubescent longing for a father-figure, or need for acceptance of a deity to become socially accepted.
Of course there isn’t! There is at least a third: freethought. (Won’t the believer in Free Will apply it equally without prejudice? I think there is at least a fourth: there is an underlying push within the human psyche to believe in the existence of the supernatural; it is an evolutionary adaptation.)
III.
Ah, you might say: But are there any atheists that believe in a deity for emotional comfort or personal gain?
Perhaps there are. But that doesn’t interest me; we’ve moved from the question What is ‘God’, and does he exist? to Are atheists/believers as individuals and groups justified in disbelieving/believing God exists? The first is philosophical, and I think the atheists have the better answers. The second is psychological, and involves population studies, brain chemistry, candid interviews, &c. Furthermore, no matter the answer given by either the atheist or believer, the questioner can always knock it down as an excuse: ‘loss of a father figure’, ‘he’s got much to gain by lying’, ‘perhaps she’s not telling the truth’.
After all, we cannot know what others think.
October 10th, 2007 at 8:50 am
To further my point that the secular scientific world has no advantage on freethought, here is an interesting reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?em&ex=1192161600&en=53bfd0df7f448ca4&ei=5087%0A . When a religion emerges all of a sudden, isn’t there some compelling reason that people find it to be true? Jack Wilson preformed the feat of being shot at close range by a shotgun without injury, a miracle to those watching, and he had a message of love and peace, seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_dance. But, I don’t trust that miracle or his message, finding flaws in both. However, I do find the miracles of Jesus compelling, and his message, and the subsequent miracles and effect of the church. I refuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
October 14th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
One interesting part of freethought is there is a necessity of relying on observations from others. The question is then: which people’s observations do you trust? If you presuppose that a theist’s observation of a miracle is always wrong, then I posit you are not a freethinker, you are a presupposer!
October 20th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Ed,
(It’s wonderful to hear from you! I’ve had so much to do; comments have stopped.)
(1) No, an emerging religion doesn’t provide an argument: the human condition — our desires, our neuroses, our psychology — has little to nothing to do with such philosophical truth statements as “The Mormon/Christian/Jewish/Muslim god exists.” Perhaps the “reason” isn’t reason to believe it is true, but is a comforting (but not necessarily true!) message of that growing religion, or it is a fad, or its members are quite adept at making convincing (but faulty!) arguments, or it is beneficial to be a member. Part iii of Comment#2 addressed this. We cannot know why someone believes, only if her belief (say, in green Martian men stealing her socks) is possible, plausible, or reasonable.
(2) Do you trust the testimonies of those that have observed the “miracles” of Sathya Sai Baba?
If so, I have a bridge to sell you; if not, why not?
(3) Ed, I found an interesting online book by Richard Carrier, Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False?. It might interest you.