From the freethinkers of colorado, explaining the homogenization of fretthinker "freethought."
What is freethought?
The use of logic and reason to evaluate the credibility of a claim or statement; especially when that claim or statement pertains to the supernatural affecting the natural or to the bestowing of a "revealed" truth to an individual or group that can't be independently verified.
What is a freethinker?
A person who uses freethought to evaluate the likelihood that a claim is true. A freethinker depends on the quality of the evidence to reach a conclusion and is not intimidated or influenced by religious dogma or authority. A freethinker is not constrained by tradition and is unafraid to challenge unsubstantiated and unverifiable testimony, regardless of its emotional appeal.
Are all atheists freethinkers?
No. Atheism is the absence of a belief in god or gods. An atheist could still hold a belief that is not substantiated by the physical evidence (such as astrology or UFO's) which would "disqualify" him or her as a freethinker.
Are all freethinkers atheists, then?
No. An agnostic (someone who claims an absence of knowledge to argue either for or against the belief in a god) could be a freethinker and a theistic philosophy such as deism (a belief that the supernatural exists, but it cannot affect the natural) is usually considered to be compatible with freethought as well. Most rationalists and humanists are committed freethinkers too.
I believe in God and I'm a freethinker! Who are you to tell me I'm not?
Hmmmm ... well, if I say I believe in Thor and Zeus would you consider me a freethinker? Probably not. First of all, how do you define "God"? That is a serious inquiry and not just an attempt to beg the question. If you define God as something like: "a supernatural entity that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient and who transcends space and time", then YOU are the one begging the question! Re-read that definition again and honestly try to make sense of it. It is even more problematic than the anthropomorphic (having human attributes) notion of Zeus and Thor.
I'll believe what I want! Isn't it arrogant to tell someone what to believe?
Yes, it's very arrogant, so don't do it! Freethought is concerned with how to recognize what a "bad" belief is, but a freethinker acknowledges that NO ONE has the right to force another human being to believe anything. If you keep your beliefs private, then it's absolutely nobody else's business! It's only when unverifiable religious or supernatural notions encroach on our public policy that a freethinker will take a stand and speak out. Surely, any reasonable person can see that the "separation of church and state" protects everyone's freedom to believe as they like.
What about morality and ethics for freethinkers? You have no moral foundation!
Really? Name one moral "cornerstone" that a freethinker would be delinquent in. This question also suggests that freethinkers are prone to amorality or even immorality. Such a perception is not only insulting, it is flat out wrong. Just look at the statistics for divorce, white-collar crime, violent crime, drug use, and just about any other non-virtuous behavior you want to compare. What you'll find is that believers who "succumb" to such conduct are represented in the same proportions as everyone else in the general population, so where's the advantage that would be expected for the faithful? Freethinkers place great value in trustworthiness, diligence, strength, compassion, and love -- not because it's mandated by a "great spirit" but because it enhances the quality of life for all of us. If anyone can show that freethought leads to someone loving their children less or decreases respect for human life, then, and only then, is such a question even relevant.
How do freethinkers find purpose and meaning in life?
Freethinkers have come to the stark realization that the universe is completely indifferent to any of the wants and needs of the human intellect. Strangely, if you give serious thought to this situation you'll understand that it provides us with the greatest amount of hope possible in assigning purpose and meaning to our lives. We, alone, are in control of our happiness and, conversely, our despair. To proclaim, instead, that an all-powerful god personally intervenes in our affairs is not only self-centered and arrogant but it's also an excuse to evade personal responsibility. Freethinkers know that purpose is arrived at through honest inquiry and that meaning is determined by the importance we assign to something. An ultimate goal is happiness. The attainment of happiness is best accomplished by helping others to achieve their best.
Why would a freethinker object to public prayer?
If, by that, you mean praying in public, then there's likely no issue. It would simply be an individual decision. If, on the other hand, you mean sanctioned, approved, encouraged, or otherwise endorsed prayer through a public entity, then stop for a moment and consider the ramifications. How could such a policy NOT infringe on the personal liberties of others? What would be the public benefit of such a decree? Besides, if an omniscient god existed, wouldn't he already know about every want and need without prayer? There is ZERO evidence that prayer has any effect on the natural world. To paraphrase Mark Twain, "before you pray for rain it's best to first check the weather forecast."
Aren't freethinkers "hung up" on denying God? Why make such a fuss?
There is a church constructed for about every 5,000 people in population. Most of these structures are built with tax deductible donations and, once built, generate NO property tax revenues. That is A LOT of money - billions upon billions of dollars every year! Here's something else to consider, the men (and occasionally women) who run these churches are often smart and motivated, but instead of using that talent to become doctors, scientists, engineers, or business leaders, they ... well, what do they do? Assist an infinitely powerful being? If anyone can explain how it's even possible to do such a thing, then there will be no more "fuss". Furthermore, freethinkers aren't "hung up" on god. If psychics, for instance, were using up such large sums of tax exempt money or if they were trying to post tarot cards in public schools, the challenge from freethinkers would be no different!
What if you freethinkers are wrong about God?
There have been about 100 billion human births since modern Homo sapiens first appeared. If we're wrong, then we are in the company of about 96 billion others who didn't believe in whichever god it is you want to advocate. Does it really make sense that a deity would remain so elusive to so many? Is it truly illogical for the freethinker to conclude that Zeus, Adonis, Allah, Bali, and Jehovah all have the same mythical origins? If you are compelled to adhere to a belief that would admonish honest inquiry or if you worship a god that would eternally punish those who trust logic and reason over the claims of a supposed revealed truth, then it will be a hollow paradise that awaits if you happen to be correct.
Why not believe? What's to lose?
First of all, what you (or I) believe will have no effect on the reality of our world. What you choose to believe will, however, either enhance or degrade your understanding and perception of how life and nature unfold. Contrary to the philosophy of "Pascal's Wager" that believing risks nothing but not believing risks everything, there is a risk in "just believing". Consider being wrong, for instance - that's a lot of time and money spent during a lifetime that could have been better used! And what about believing in the wrong "supernatural explanation"? Who's to say that "godly punishment" actually awaits those who didn't display the courage and fortitude to standup for logic and reason and simply dispense with the myths!
Over 95% of people claim a belief in a "higher power", can you explain that?
Most freethinkers would not deny the possibility that a "higher power" exists. Nevertheless, the quality of a belief is not enhanced by the quantity of believers. Besides, a number such as "over 95%" is very misleading. If you break down what people believe, then nearly everyone could be pigeon-holed into nice little "5% categories": Christian, Hindu, Wiccan, Muslim, etc. Then, under Christian, you have Protestant, Catholic, Episcopalian, etc. Under Protestant, there is Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. Then there's Freewill Baptist, Reformed Baptist, ad infinitum. So, EVERYONE is in the minority with their beliefs! The better question is, "Is the god who keeps score concerned more with unbelief or with perpetuating the wrong belief?"
Why can't you at least acknowledge the evidence for an Intelligent Designer?
Not to beg the question, but what evidence? First of all, although science is essentially defined as whatever a scientist does, there are some ground rules -- namely, that science must be accountable to the data. It can say nothing either pro or con about the existence of the supernatural without data to evaluate! If someone infers that there is a complexity in the natural world that cannot be accommodated by a purely naturalistic explanation, he may be correct. However he has NO CHANCE of proving such a thing with the naturalistic methods of science! An appeal to the supernatural requires an element of faith, yet strict science is completely and utterly devoid of faith. If you give just a moment of thought to that requirement you will discover that it can be no other way.
How about the existence of extraterrestrials?
The possibility that intelligent (technological) life exists elsewhere in our galaxy (and in our universe) has a very promising likelihood. We know from the spectral analysis of distant stars that the same physics and chemistry which governs our solar system, governs distant star systems as well. Therefore, there is no logical or scientific reason to preclude the formation of some other organic, self replicating life "out there" somewhere. What an exciting and exhilarating discovery it would be! However, to suggest that one or more extraterrestrial civilizations has visited the earth is a different hypothesis altogether. First of all, how would they even know we are here? Our broadcast signals have only traversed about 75 light years - that's far less than 1% of the distance across our galaxy. There are hundreds of millions of stars in our Milky Way and perhaps billions of other planets to chose from - the odds of "picking" us are remote to say the least. Then there is the logistics of just getting here. Even a civilization that is 1000 times more technologically advanced than we are, would still have to expend an enormous amount of resources to travel here. And for what? To covertly dissect cows in Montana or secretly abduct the rural inhabitants of some town in Brazil?
How many freethinkers does it take to change a light bulb?
Just one. But it helps if the light bulb is willing to change! By the way, the brilliance is wonderful!
