In another article, Stephen Dunhom wrote:
Well, Jan, the answer would be to get your "freethinkers" together to make a group.
Time, time, and time are three things lacking in my life right now :)
BTW, please invite me, because, even though I am a Christian, I am also a "freethinker", unless you have a different definition for it.
The traditional definition of a "freethinker" (as coined some hundred years ago) is of one who is unencumbered by any philosophy in which s/he is subject to the rules and/or whims of a "higher power" or deity. As a Christian, that is something you are not. The term seems to have been expanded lately to include those who merely have "open minds," but when it comes down to it, when you (Stephen) make an important decision, do you trust your own judgment, or, as a good Christian, do you leave the decision to your god, whether through prayer or asking yourself "What would Jesus do?" If your god and its rules mean anything to you in terms of running your life, then you are not, strictly speaking, a freethinker, no matter how open your mind happens to be. (The term was coined by atheists and agnostics who wished to have a label with no preexisting biases or prejudices attached to it, as the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" certainly do. Keep in mind, it's bad enough now, in the late 20th c. to be labeled an atheist, but it was a lot worse a hundred years ago!)
In life,
Jan
Rev. Jan wrote:
The traditional definition of a "freethinker" (as coined some hundred years ago) is of one who is unencumbered by any philosophy in which s/he is subject to the rules and/or whims of a "higher power" or deity. As a Christian, that is something you are not. The term seems to have been expanded lately to include those who merely have "open minds," but when it comes down to it, when you (Stephen) make an important decision, do you trust your own judgment, or, as a good Christian, do you leave the decision to your god, whether through prayer or asking yourself "What would Jesus do?" If your god and its rules mean anything to you in terms of running your life, then you are not, strictly speaking, a freethinker, no matter how open your mind happens to be.
OK, here's the thing, though. I continue to have an "open mind" throughout my Christian faith. At anytime, I am able to stop believing. I do not HAVE to follow God. He doesn't hold me down, nor does He threaten me with lightning bolts or the such if I don't obey Him. Obeying God or disobeying Him is totally up to me and each has it's consequences. I can't force you to believe. Because If I do, then you don't. Freewill is NOT sacrificed by believing in God.
Stephen
From mozz.unh.edu!christa.unh.edu!jan Thu Apr 17 18:08:26 EDT 1997
In another article Stephen Dunhom wrote:
Rev. Jan wrote:
The traditional definition of a "freethinker" (as coined some
hundred years ago) is of one who is unencumbered by any philosophy in which
s/he is subject to the rules and/or whims of a "higher power"
or deity. As a Christian, that is something you are not. The term seems
to have been expanded lately to include those who merely have "open
minds," but when it comes down to it, when you (Stephen) make an important
decision, do you trust your own judgment, or, as a good Christian, do you
leave the decision to your god, whether through prayer or asking yourself
"What would Jesus do?" If your god and its rules mean anything
to you in terms of running your life, then you are not, strictly speaking,
a freethinker, no matter how open your mind happens to be.
OK, here's the thing, though. I continue to have an "open mind" throughout my Christian faith. At anytime, I am able to stop believing. I do not HAVE to follow God. He doesn't hold me down, nor does He threaten me with lightning bolts or the such if I don't obey Him. Obeying God or disobeying Him is totally up to me and each has it's consequences. I can't force you to believe. Because If I do, then you don't. Freewill is NOT sacrificed by believing in God.
The point I was trying to make is that it's perfectly possible to have an open mind and be a Christian, but it is not, by the accepted definition of "freethinker", possible to be a "freethinker" and a Christian. It would be like calling yourself a Christian Atheist. I'm not going to get into arguing whether you have an "open mind" or not, but as a Christian, you are not, technically, a freethinker, since a freethinker is a person who is an atheist or an agnostic. (That's not my rule, that's just the accepted definition.)
The states of having freewill, an open mind, or being a freethinker are NOT -- I repeat, not! -- synonymous. I could be very closed-minded and still be technically a freethinker; or I could be open- minded and not a freethinker. Neither of these has anything to do with the Christian concept of free-will, which you describe above.
At this point, in arguing semantics, I must remind you that if we cannot agree on a set of definitions, then we cannot have a discussion. You can insist until you're blue in the ... um ... fingers that you are a freethinker by YOUR definition, but since that's not the same as the accepted definition, then I will have to shrug my shoulders and say "Fine, write your own dictionary."
At such time as you stop believing in god, I will be perfectly happy to welcome you into the freethinking fold :) However, the point I was trying to make in mentioning the difference in the way we may make our decisions was not that you can't make up your own mind -- certainly you can, and your "freewill" concept makes that pretty clear -- but that, as an evangelical Christian, the norm is to leave the decision up to god, be it through prayer, meditation on the Bible, or asking yourself what Jesus would do in a given situation. Although, since I do not believe there is a god, I don't believe that you're going to get any help from that corner (at least not via revelation or inspiration, though you may have help from the moral lessons of the Bible), in the Christian tradition, you are not making the decision for yourself, god is. And you are supposed to be living by his rules in your day-to-day life. Anything less is a sin, from my understanding.
Let's go over the definitions just once more, so we can all be working
on the same level:
Freethinker: one who does not follow the rules or precepts of a
given supernatural authority; generally applies to atheists and agnostics.
(Coined in the 18th or 19th century to escape the prejudices inherent in
the term "atheist" as it had been used in an extremely pejorative
sense.)
Free will: the doctrine that the Christian god does not directly interfere in the decision-making process of those who do not want interference. (Does that sound right?)
Open mind: a very open term :) usually indicating that the person in question is willing to consider various points of view other than hir own. (Does not, or should not, indicate that they *accept* every other viewpoint as 100% valid, because to do so would be self-contradictory.)
Any others people can think of? Anyway, I want people to remember that "freethinker" does not mean "open-minded" no matter how similar they may sound. If you call yourself a freethinker, be prepared to be understood as meaning that you are an unbeliever, because that is the traditionally accepted definition.
In life,
Rev. Jan
From mozz.unh.edu!christa.unh.edu!jan Thu Apr 17 18:08:31 EDT 1997
Okay, just to be sure that I had my words right, I looked up "freethinker" in my dictionary (Webster's college). He's got:
n. A person who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independent of authority or tradition, esp. one whose religious opinions differ from established belief. (1685-95) (Syn: skeptic; agnostic; atheist)
freethought: n. thought unrestrained by deference to authority, tradition, or established belief, especially in matters of religion. (1705-15)
So, my dates were off by a couple of centuries, but that's Webster's definition of a freethinker. If you're a practicing Christian, you hardly form opinions independent of authority or tradition; and your thought is (or should be?) highly restrained by deference to god, the ultimate religious authority (as well as being restrained by established belief, e.g. the Trinity, death and resurrection, etc.). I rest my case :)
In life,
Rev. Jan
From mozz.unh.edu!usenet Thu Apr 17 18:08:45 EDT 1997
By definitions, you are correct. My premise was "I think freely,
so I am a freethinker" when in fact you were using freethinker in
a specific sense. Mea culpa.
Stephen
From mozz.unh.edu!hopper.unh.edu!jan Thu Apr 17 18:09:13 EDT 1997
In another article, Stephen Dunhom wrote:
By definitions, you are correct. My premise was "I think freely, so I am a freethinker" when in fact you were using freethinker in a specific sense. Mea culpa.
Quite all right -- happens to everyone. I probably should have capitalized
"freethinker" to make clear that it was a proper noun, not a
normal noun :) But now you know, and can go on to enlighten the next non-atheist/agnostic
who calls hirself a Freethinker. (BTW, I realize it's sort of a loaded
term -- clearly, who doesn't want to believe that they think freely? But
that's exactly what those who coined the word had in mind: they wanted
theists to realize that they were not, in fact, thinking independently
in many matters.)
Rev. Jan
From mozz.unh.edu!gaf3 Thu Apr 17 18:08:37 EDT 1997
In a previous article, Rev. Jan wrote:
Okay, just to be sure that I had my words right, I looked up "freethinker" in my dictionary (Webster's college). He's got:
n. A person who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independent of authority or tradition, esp. one whose religious opinions differ from established belief. (1685-95) (Syn: skeptic; agnostic; atheist)
But you said your thought was unencumbered by any sort of Philosophy. That sounds like a lack of reason.
freethought: n. thought unrestrained by deference to authority, tradition, or established belief, especially in matters of religion. (1705-15)
So, my dates were off by a couple of centuries, but that's Webster's definition of a freethinker. If you're a practicing Christian, you hardly form opinions independent of authority or tradition; and your thought is (or should be?) highly restrained by deference to god, the ultimate religious authority (as well as being restrained by established belief, e.g. the Trinity, death and resurrection, etc.). I rest my case :)
So what you're saying is that the established authority follows and upholds the practices of Xianity? Like, the virgin birth, rising from the dead, etc. etc.? I seriously doubt that.
And besides why is it better to solely defer (via the definition of
freethinker as opposed to a Xian deference to God) to reason alone? By
what reason can you support that claim?
Gaf
From mozz.unh.edu!christa.unh.edu!jan Thu Apr 17 18:09:02 EDT 1997
In a previous article George A Fitch III writes:
In another article, Rev. Jan wrote:
Okay, just to be sure that I had my words right, I looked up "freethinker"
in my dictionary (Webster's college). He's got:
n. A person who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independent of authority
or tradition, esp. one whose religious opinions differ from established
belief. (1685-95) (Syn: skeptic; agnostic; atheist)
But you said your thought was unencumbered by any sort of Philosophy.
That sounds like a lack of reason.
I said no such thing!! What I said was:
"The traditional definition of a "freethinker" (as coined some hundred years ago) is of one who is unencumbered by any philosophy in which s/he is subject to the rules and/or whims of a "higher power" or deity."
There is a HUGE, MONUMENTAL difference between being unencumbered by ANY sort of philosophy, and being unencumbered by a philosophy lacking a deity. Unless you somehow believe that I can't have a philosophy at all without a god? (And in that case, you'd better wake up and smell the twentieth century!)
freethought: n. thought unrestrained by deference to authority, tradition, or established belief, especially in matters of religion. (1705-15)
So, my dates were off by a couple of centuries, but that's Webster's definition of a freethinker. If you're a practicing Christian, you hardly form opinions independent of authority or tradition; and your thought is (or should be?) highly restrained by deference to god, the ultimate religious authority (as well as being restrained by established belief, e.g. the Trinity, death and resurrection, etc.). I rest my case :)
So what you're saying is that the established authority follows and upholds the practices of Xianity? Like, the virgin birth, rising from the dead, etc. etc.? I seriously doubt that.
What I said was that God is, in Christianity's case, the ultimate established authority. That has, in this argument at least, nothing to do with government (which is the "established authority" that you're thinking of, if I read you correctly). I think you need to read other people's articles a little more carefully before you go and attempt to discredit them, George.
And besides why is it better to solely defer (via the definition of freethinker as opposed to a Xian deference to God) to reason alone? By what reason can you support that claim?
What makes you think any freethinker resorts to reason alone? The definition, as Webster has it (and I don't always agree with him 100% on his definitions of atheist matters, mind you), merely states that a freethinker uses reason INSTEAD of established authority or tradition to make decisions. That is, instead of consulting the Pope, I choose for myself what kind of birth control to use, or where I'm going to send my future children to school. I may also be influenced by my emotions (e.g.. I would prefer not to use abortion as a form of birth control because I feel that I would develop an emotional attachment to my future child), but that does not change the fact that reason also plays a part in my decision.
As for your demand, I would ask you: by what reason do *you* (theoretically) support deferring your decisions to a higher power? There is NO GOOD EVIDENCE for the existence of a deity that other factors can explain (and don't give me "I can't IMAGINE the universe forming without God" or somesuch -- the universe is in no way inhibited by your imagination!), so why should I base my decisions on something that a fictional deity is supposed to have said? That definition says that a freethinker uses reason instead of superstition. It says nothing about what other factors a freethinker might use, only that s/he will not use religious authority.
I also like the fact that you say "Why use reason alone?" and then demand a reason for it. I can say, "All right, I won't use reason alone; and my reason is that I feel like it." Kind of self-contradictory, aren't we?
All said, I think you would stand to gain from re-reading people's posts until you know EXACTLY what they said before you jump into the ring. It's just good policy :)
Peace, love, and Happiness,
Rev. Jan
From mozz.unh.edu!hopper.unh.edu!jan Thu Apr 17 18:09:24 EDT 1997
In another article George A Fitch III) writes:
And besides why is it better to solely defer (via the definition of freethinker as opposed to a Xian deference to God) to reason alone? By what reason can you support that claim?
I should have mentioned this last time but, as I said, I don't always agree with Webster's definitions concerning atheists. He wasn't one, clearly, and didn't bother to find out what atheists thought when he wrote his definitions. If I had written this one, I would have focused on the freedom-from-established- religious-thought aspect, and, while mentioning reason, would not have tried to make it sound as though you can't have emotions unless you're religious.
The second thing is, when the term "freethinker" was coined, reason was seen as the ultimate "power", emotions being far too subjective to be any good in the decision making process. I agree with that, but only to a point, because though I recognize that reason is the best tool we have for dealing with most situations, there are times when you simply have to call in the more emotive side of the brain.
The third thing is, I do not represent the entire Freethinking community. No ONE does. You can ask me what *I* think, but to demand that I support a claim that I did not personally make is going a little far.
In life,
Rev. Jan
(What, no one's going to ask me what the "Rev." is for?)
From mozz.unh.edu!gaf3 Thu Apr 17 18:09:48 EDT 1997
In another article, Rev. Jan wrote:
In a previous article George A Fitch III writes:
And besides why is it better to solely defer (via the definition of freethinker as opposed to a Xian deference to God) to reason alone? By what reason can you support that claim?
I should have mentioned this last time but, as I said, I don't always agree with Webster's definitions concerning atheists. He wasn't one, clearly, and didn't bother to find out what atheists thought when he wrote his definitions. If I had written this one, I would have focused on the freedom-from- established-religious-thought aspect, and, while mentioning reason, would not have tried to make it sound as though you can't have emotions unless you're religious.
Well, if you don't agree with Webster had to say about freethinkers why'd you bring up his definition? And why is your altered definition better than the one you originally disagreed with? If you can change the definition offered by the most credible source, why can't someone else?
The second thing is, when the term "freethinker" was coined, reason was seen as the ultimate "power", emotions being far too subjective to be any good in the decision making process. I agree with that, but only to a point, because though I recognize that reason is the best tool we have for dealing with most situations, there are times when you simply have to call in the more emotive side of the brain.
But what if someone basis part of the religious beliefs on emotion, for example, to follow God, wouldn't they then fall under your definition of a free thinker? You say reason is usually a good idea, but sometimes emotions is OK. Does that go against the common Xian belief system? Do they make every decision in their life, like lunch choice, class selection, exam answers, based on faith/emotion? Or do they in fact use exactly what you subscribe to, a mix of both? It's both. So what makes you so different from them, other than the specific choices?
But wasn't the whole point of calling someone a freethinker to say they were free of emotionally guided choices? What else are they free of?
And most importantly, can someone make a choice based upon reason, without using emotion? You might want to read a little Hume before you answer this one. If you don't use reason to support reason (that's a violation of the rules o' reason: circular argument) what's the only alternative support?
The third thing is, I do not represent the entire Freethinking community. No ONE does. You can ask me what *I* think, but to demand that I support a claim that I did not personally make is going a little far.
You said "I'm a freethinker" and then someone disagreed with what you felt was a freethinker, so you posted a definition of what a freethinker is. But now you're saying you don't hold that definition? Then why did you bother to post it?
Gaf
From mozz.unh.edu!christa.unh.edu!jan Thu Apr 17 18:10:38 EDT 1997
In another article George A Fitch III writes:
In a previous article, Rev. Jan wrote:
I should have mentioned this last time but, as I said, I don't always agree
with Webster's definitions concerning atheists. He wasn't one, clearly,
and didn't bother to find out what atheists thought when he wrote his definitions.
If I had written this one, I would have focused on the freedom-from-established-religious-thought
aspect, and, while mentioning reason, would not have tried to make it sound
as though you can't have emotions unless you're religious.
Well, if you don't agree with Webster had to say about freethinkers why'd you bring up his definition? And why is your altered definition better than the one you originally disagreed with? If you can change the definition offered by the most credible source, why can't someone else?
I assumed that, like myself, most people are more willing to say "Yes, you're right" when confronted by a dictionary definition. I wanted to make sure that I was on the right track in MY definition of a Freethinker, and, finding that I was, I decided to share it with UNH, just to make clear that I wasn't making up the term as an exclusive for atheists/agnostics. My "altered" definition is not necessarily better than his; it's really not changed much, except that it's a little more explicit. Everybody has their own shades of meaning for terms with which they associate themselves; and so I was offering my own. This does not *change* the definition; it merely adds a dimension.
The second thing is, when the term "freethinker" was coined, reason was seen as the ultimate "power", emotions being far too subjective to be any good in the decision making process. I agree with that, but only to a point, because though I recognize that reason is the best tool we have for dealing with most situations, there are times when you simply have to call in the more emotive side of the brain.
But what if someone basis part of the religious beliefs on emotion, for example, to follow God, wouldn't they then fall under your definition of a free thinker?
No, they would not; my definition and the historical one are both exclusive to atheists and agnostics. I wasn't talking about basing a belief SOLELY on emotion (which is what you seem to be suggesting); anyone who makes a decision SOLELY on emotion needs to get their head examined. Besides, what I said (or at least, what I had in mind; I guess it didn't come out clearly enough for you) was that I don't use reason EXCLUSIVELY but tend to TEMPER it with emotion when it is necessary.
You say reason is usually a good idea, but sometimes emotions is OK. Does that go against the common Xian belief system?
Not as far as I know. (BTW "emotions" is a plural term; your verb choice should match.)
Do they make every decision in their life, like lunch choice, class selection, exam answers, based on faith/emotion?
I would assume that they don't; but MAJOR decisions (which is what I was referring to), like whom to marry, whether or not to use birth control, what church to attend, whether or not to circumcise their sons, etc. are generally faith- or religion-based, at least for dyed-in-the-wool theists.
You seem to think that I have classified people as EITHER using reason or using emotions or faith. None of these is exclusive. It is certainly possible to use reason and faith; emotion and faith; reason and emotion; and all three at once, during various events of one's life. The only thing that sets a Freethinker apart is that s/he does NOT use faith, only reason and/or emotion (which is awfully black and white; of course there are other resources as well, but I do not wish to list them all every time I respond to your posts).
Or do they in fact use exactly what you subscribe to, a mix of both? It's both. So what makes you so different from them, other than the specific choices?
The way they make decisions was merely an example. See above.
But wasn't the whole point of calling someone a freethinker to say they were free of emotionally guided choices? What else are they free of?
I never, ever said that a freethinker was free of "emotionally-guided choices". What I have repeatedly said is that freethinkers do not use faith in god(s), established religious authority, or other theism-based principles in their lives. That is all.
And most importantly, can someone make a choice based upon reason, without using emotion? You might want to read a little Hume before you answer this one. If you don't use reason to support reason (that's a violation of the rules o' reason: circular argument) what's the only alternative support?
Yes, I believe that it is possible to make a choice using reason alone. (What does this have to do with the second part?) I do use reason to support reason; I was trying to make fun of the way your post sounded to me, if I have to spell it out for you, in *satirically* saying something like "I use reason because I feel like it" which I obviously do not mean.(Incidentally, I am familiar with the rules of logic. Do not assume I am uneducated, please.)
The third thing is, I do not represent the entire Freethinking community. No ONE does. You can ask me what *I* think, but to demand that I support a claim that I did not personally make is going a little far.
You said "I'm a freethinker" and then someone disagreed with what you felt was a freethinker, so you posted a definition of what a freethinker is. But now you're saying you don't hold that definition? Then why did you bother to post it?
I've said that, while I agree with 99% of that definition, I think it could have been better. I have never said that I don't hold that definition. I explained above why I posted it. Just out of curiosity, do you have anything better to do with your time besides nit-picking at my arguments -- misquoting me all the way? I am perfectly willing to hold a "discussion" with you about religious matters, but I must insist that you be more sure of your propositions before you make them. If this is what it takes, read everything I wrote twice or three times -- go back and read the previous ones -- find out EXACTLY what I said before you go putting words in my mouth. Hyperbole and misquotations are not effective forms of argument; they just make you look clumsy in the least, and stupid in the worst cases.
Patiently, I think,
Rev. Jan
From mozz.unh.edu!gaf3 Thu Apr 17 18:10:47 EDT 1997
In another article, Rev. Jan wrote:
In a past article, George A Fitch III writes:
And most importantly, can someone make a choice based upon reason, without using emotion? You might want to read a little Hume before you answer this one. If you don't use reason to support reason (that's a violation of the rules o' reason: circular argument) what's the only alternative support?
Yes, I believe that it is possible to make a choice using reason alone. (What does this have to do with the second part?) I do use reason to support reason; I was trying to make fun of the way your post sounded to me, if I have to spell it out for you, in *satirically* saying something like "I use reason because I feel like it" which I obviously do not mean. (Incidentally, I am familiar with the rules of logic. Do not assume I am uneducated, please.)
Is it me, or is that grammar a little funky? Why so many semi-colons?
Again, with what do you support your use of reason? According to the rules of reason, any claim that supports itself, such as "The Bible is the Word of God because it claims so, and God wouldn't lie", and has no other support is a circular argument and thus unreasonable. "I use reason to support reason" is a equally circular argument which is self contradictory to boot since it's not even a reasonable argument!
And speaking of Logic, what does any logical argument need to make a meaningful (since you can bring tautologies in for no reason, but you never gain any support from that act) claim? Premises. And in any argument, the claim is not based upon the rules of Logic, but in fact on the premises. Reason is not a premise. It's a system; a process for carrying out what is already inherent in the premises. The premises move an argument, not reason. So one cannot make an argument based using reason alone. No argument can lead to action or decision without an "I feel" or an "I want" which are not reasonable premises. They must simply are.
In short, the idea of a freethinker is bunk. One cannot make a decision based upon reason or even partially based upon reason. All decisions are based upon emotion/desires/etc. Reason can better serve those emotions, but it is the emotion that always call the shots. It is the primal urges that start that acts. Reason may better serve those acts, but reason is empty without emotion. As Hume put it "Reason is the Slave to the Passions".
Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the established authority (whatever the established religious authority is in this country) is irrelevant. Why is some idea objectively "free" because it's different than or the same as what other people believe? What makes it "free" if it's based in the same thing as everyone else? The branches may be different but the roots are the same.
And besides, there is no established religious authority in this country. So not only is the idea bunk, no one's truly a freethinker (in this country). They just believe what works for them on the basis of their emotions, and some draw different conclusions than others. Nothing more. Thereís really no difference (with respect to free thinking) between you and Xians. That's all I wanted to say since you thought there was a difference, and tried to make a distinction between the two. Your thinking is no more free than theirs is.
Xians may stress experience and faith more, and you seem to stress reason more. But the best way for a tree to be is to have deep deep roots in the Earth, and branches that stretch to the Sky.
Gaf
From mozz.unh.edu!christa.unh.edu!jan Thu Apr 17 18:10:54 EDT 1997
In another article, George A Fitch III writes:
In a previous article, Rev. Jan wrote:
Yes, I believe that it is possible to make a choice using reason alone. (What does this have to do with the second part?) I do use reason to support reason; I was trying to make fun of the way your post sounded to me, if I have to spell it out for you, in *satirically* saying something like "I use reason because I feel like it" which I obviously do not mean.
(Incidentally, I am familiar with the rules of logic. Do not assume I am uneducated, please.)
Is it me, or is that grammar a little funky? Why so many semi-colons?
There's nothing wrong with the grammar; and I happen to like semicolons.
(Did you chose this because you couldn't come up with anything better, or what? I notice you completely ignored all the other statements I made; does that mean you can't refute them, or that you just didn't feel like making a fool of yourself again?)
Again, with what do you support your use of reason? According to the rules of reason, any claim that supports itself, such as "The Bible is the Word of God because it claims so, and God wouldn't lie", and has no other support is a circular argument and thus unreasonable. "I use reason to support reason" is a equally circular argument which is self contradictory to boot since it's not even a reasonable argument!
I can't believe this. You don't want me to use reason, because you claim I can't support it, and then you go on to use it as an argument yourself? Well, ignoring that for a moment, logic and reason (and I've been using them fairly interchangeably, just so you know) are really the only tools that we have to work with besides emotion and intuition (which are often faulty). In other words, one tends to get better results using reason than with intuition. Let me put it this way. Suppose you're about to cross a street. Suppose that your emotions say, "It will feel good to get to the other side," and so you step out into the road, and are immediately run down by a semi (truck, not colon :). If you had used reason, "it" might have said, "It's noon. There are a lot of cars on the road. Cars can kill me if they hit me. I'd better wait for the green light before I try to step out into the road." It's an extreme example, but in general, I have deduced, through much experience, that I get better results in my life when I base my decisions on facts, rather than on feelings. That is the basis of reason, and that is why I think that reason is often a better tool than is pure emotion. Happy now?
And speaking of Logic, what does any logical argument need to make a meaningful (since you can bring tautologies in for no reason, but you never gain any support from that act) claim? Premises. And in any argument, the claim is not based upon the rules of Logic, but in fact on the premises. Reason is not a premise. It's a system; a process for carrying out what is already inherent in the premises. The premises move an argument, not reason. So one cannot make an argument based using reason alone. No argument can lead to action or decision without an "I feel" or an "I want" which are not reasonable premises. They just simply are.
I agree whole-heartedly. You have to have ACCEPTABLE or TRUE premises before you can use logic to make a decision. However, since there are no (I repeat, NO) proofs for the existence of supernatural agents, it is inappropriate to use them as premises.
In short, the idea of a freethinker is bunk.
This does not follow from your "premises" above.
One cannot make a decision based upon reason or even partially based upon reason. All decisions are based upon emotion/desires/etc. Reason can better serve those emotions, but it is the emotion that always call the shots. It is the primal urges that start that acts. Reason may better serve those acts, but reason is empty without emotion. As Hume put it "Reason is the Slave to the Passions".
Maybe YOU can't make a decision based on reason, but most of us can. When you decided to come to UNH, was it because you "felt good" about the program you were going into here, or because you knew that eventually, it would help you get the job you wanted? If the latter, then the decision was made using reason, not emotions. I may not feel good about being at UNH, but I know that eventually, it will get me where I want to be. I did not chose UNH based on my emotions, but on the expected results. That is reason, not emotion.
By the way, have you ever taken a course, or learned independently, about logic circuits? Did you know they have amazing parallels with brain circuitry? You are proposing that the human mind is INCAPABLE of functioning using logic/reason, and that's just bunk (as you so eloquently put it).
Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the established authority (whatever the established religious authority is in this country) is irrelevant. Why is some idea objectively "free" because it's different than or the same as what other people believe? What makes it "free" if it's based in the same thing as everyone else? The branches may be different but the roots are the same.
I never claimed that everyone in the country followed one, ubiquitous established religious authority. However, any system of religion -- unless you make it up COMPLETELY by yourself, is based on an established authority. Nor did I claim that any idea was "objectively free". There are few, if any, philosophies or ideas that are objectively ANYTHING. However, since Freethought is NOT based on the same thing as "everyone else", and its roots are NOT the same, it is different. It is free of supernatural influences. It is not free of the laws of physics; of the potential for fallacies; or of any of the other rules that govern the universe. Just of supernaturalism. Can you grasp this?
And besides, there is no established religious authority in this country. So not only is the idea bunk, no one's truly a freethinker (in this country). They just believe what works for them on the basis of their emotions, and some draw different conclusions than others. Nothing more.
There's really no difference (with respect to free thinking) between you and Xians. That's all I wanted to say since you thought there was a difference, and tried to make a distinction between the two. Your thinking is no more free than theirs is.
I already stated that I wasn't referring to some magical, single "established religious authority". Of course that is impossible in a plural society such as ours. However, any religion that borrows elements from its roots is acting from an established authority. People are, by definition, Freethinkers if their lives are not based around the supernatural. We are talking about a *definition*, remember. You can attempt to discredit this definition until your tongue falls off if you like, but it will not change the FACTS of the matter.
There is a HUGE difference between me and Christians: I reject the notion that anything supernatural affects this world. That makes my thinking entirely free of all the rules and regulations that go with organized religions -- don't read this, eat that, sleep with them, worship on this day, etc. etc. etc. I still have an ethical system, but it is based on what I have found to work, and not what some guy in a desert thought was right for his people at that time. Can you see the difference here, or am I just talking to a brick wall? Now, I know that you're going to say, "What makes your ethical system better than theirs?" and the answer is, nothing. If it works for them, fine. There is no objective "This system is ALWAYS better than that one" here. Mine may be more flexible; theirs may be more complete. That's just the way it is. But the fact is, mine is based on my thoughts, and therefore it is free of established authoritarians' influences.
Xians may stress experience and faith more, and you seem to stress reason more. But the best way for a tree to be is to have deep deep roots in the Earth, and branches that stretch to the Sky.
In your analogy, yes. But I and my philosophy are not trees. I have roots, yes, and I am looking to the future. But I refuse to tailor my life to Leviticus, Allah, Jesus, or anyone else whose ideas could not be substantiated with facts. That is all.
Freethinking still,
Rev. Jan