my thoughts on free thinking

[Matt5678]

i am pretty interested in the philosophical debate. i will admit in the grand scheme of things i am ignorant on the subject. As are most of us. but i keep seeing the term "Free Thinker" according to the Sacramento free thought society... " A freethinker is a person who forms his or her own opinions about religion independent of tradition, authority, or established belief" i totally agree with this statement, but sometimes its taken to the next level. i see some people go as far as saying only atheists are free thinkers. i think that is pure hypocrisy! i will admit i am a Christian. i formed my religious belief through my own opinions and research. but apparently because i did not arrive at an atheist's conclusion, im not a free thinker. just an "confused theist" as i was once called. i also found it humorous to take the free thought fun quiz on the SFT website. one of the questions was if i believed that there is any kind of existence after death. if i answer yes my score on the quiz goes down. i think that violates the whole idea of free thinking. Plus why is there a quiz to tell me if im a free thinker? . anyway the point to all my ranting is i think we are all free thinkers because we have all arrived at our own conclusions. what do you guys think

[Rainman]

Well are you talking about religion or just in general, thinking? I believe that "free thinking" of any kind is EXTREMELY rare. Every person who lives in any kind of society is directly and indirectly effected by it. No one can formulate their own thoughts on their own. Every though is influenced by someone else, or by society in some way. There are of course exceptions to this, but in general I'd say no member of any society is a free thinking. It's phsycologically impossible.

[Neruo]

If it was ANY sort of a proper test, it would be "do you think life after death exists? A) Yes, certainly B) Likely C) Unlikely D) No, certainly not. Where A) gives you minus 100, D) gives you minus 50, B) does nothing to your score and C) gives you plus 100. Why? Because of the lack of proof. It just happens to be that some very influential forces (religion) say a certain thing, without proper underlying proof. Saying "life after death certainly exists" is a conclusion no pure-logically-thinking robot would EVER make with the knowledge we have in the world currently. One could say that die-hard Christians are indeed not free thinkers. There is no reason to hold one religion over another. A person can just not logically end up at absolutistic belief in a deity if that person is rational. Agnostics, can be totally free thinking, I think. Actually I think the real question is, whether religion-induced 'personal experiences' of some sort of divine power or magic counts as lack of free thought. Some people have the impression just because they 'felt it themselves' god/magic exists, it is a case of "open-mindedness and free thought" if they believe in some deity of magic. I think the people that so blindly trust their experiences, personal or not, and use them as absolute evidence are not real free thinkers, to be honest.

[Matt5678]

[QUOTE=Rainman;500347] Every person who lives in any kind of society is directly and indirectly effected by it. hmm, that is actually a good way to look at it.

[Lamneth-25]

True. However if used relatively, yes there are free thinkers. I mean nobody is 100% above any influence but there are those who are think progressively...the relatively free thinkers. No proof of afterlife...well that depends. There are those who physically die and you have the classic out of body experience and you also have OBEs on psychedelics and dissociatives. The experience of ego loss has led me to discover my true self...my soul. I kind of see it as no side of the argument is wrong atheist vs theists vs scientists vs psychics. Perhaps there is no separation between the physical and spiritual besides one's own ego boundaries Perhaps both "worlds" are the yin and yang of the same world. Scientifically OBEs are the influence of large amounts of DMT release upon death...hmmm...

[Ahhchuu]

" A freethinker is a person who forms his or her own opinions about religion independent of tradition, authority, or established belief" that doesn't mean you cant form your own conclusions based on what other religions have said. if you have the opinion to suggest their definition is wrong then you are a free thinker.

[Matt5678]

if they believe in some deity of magic. i believe in god,i dont call him a deity of magic...... of course going any further into this comment will spark a long debate about what god is.

[shaftmonkey]

there is a level of free-thinking that one has. But since everything is starting to get more structured in terms of society, things like education can sometimes force things upon people.

[Neruo]

i believe in god,i dont call him a deity of magic...... of course going any further into this comment will spark a long debate about what god is. Your god IS a deity by every definition of Deity. It doesn't matter or it's a man-in-the-sky or something other. A Christian god always has a certain personality or way of acting that makes it fit in the category if 'deity'. If you are stupid enough to act like just because 'your god is better than the others' to the word 'deity' no longer applies to you, then Yeah, you are as much of a free thinker as a sheep.

[Xaqaria]

In my opinion, free thinking involves exploring multiple sources and avenues to find if you arrive at the same conclusion; or rather, allowing yourself to arrive at a conclusion alone without simply being lead there. Yes we are all influenced by society, and no one can truly come to any conclusion solely on their own but the ability to ask why something is and to search for a satisfying answer is what makes a free thinker in my mind. If you can honestly say that everything you believe makes sense to you and you can explain why then you are a free thinker. If you realize that there are things you believe that when broken down actually don't make sense, then you are not.

[Xaqaria]

Your god IS a deity by every definition of Deity. It doesn't matter or it's a man-in-the-sky or something other. A Christian god always has a certain personality or way of acting that makes it fit in the category if 'deity'. If you are stupid enough to act like just because 'your god is better than the others' to the word 'deity' no longer applies to you, then Yeah, you are as much of a free thinker as a sheep. Personally, I don't believe its possible to be Christian and consider yourself a free thinker for one simple reason. Without the bible there is no way to arrive at the conclusion of Christianity, and therefore your pattern of thinking is defined by a single book. There is nothing free about the concept of defining your entire world view around one single source of (outdated) information.

[Neruo]

Personally, I don't believe its possible to be Christian and consider yourself a free thinker for one simple reason. Without the bible there is no way to arrive at the conclusion of Christianity, and therefore your pattern of thinking is defined by a single book. There is nothing free about the concept of defining your entire world view around one single source of (outdated) information. Yeah, actually, that's a better argument. : )

[jaasum]

Actually I think the real question is, whether religion-induced 'personal experiences' of some sort of divine power or magic counts as lack of free thought. Some people have the impression just because they 'felt it themselves' god/magic exists, it is a case of "open-mindedness and free thought" if they believe in some deity of magic. I think the people that so blindly trust their experiences, personal or not, and use them as absolute evidence are not real free thinkers, to be honest. Hmmm. I would have to disagree with you here. And many statements in this thread. I for one, have read the bible (along with many other things) and I have had experiences. Now I know by just saying that, you all have formulated an opinion around me already. Not only about how I think but also any possible legitimacy of my (or others) experiences. Then I would have to say, you are limiting yourselves and not truly as much of a free thinker as you think you are. Just because people claim to have experiences, or follow a religion in no way hinders the legitimacy of their capacity for abstract though, and for critical thinking. Don't get me wrong, I am not defending Christianity, the part you guys attack is very worthy of attack, because most of it and most "experiences" people have are very much ignorant and blind. I know I have had some stupid moments in my walk of faith, and I have some very explainable experiences. But there are some (and some of others) that I cannot shake. I don't feel the need to list them because I would see that as an attempt to impress you all, and I know that what you read on the internet would not change your mind. But consider this. Perhaps the Bible (now I try to look at the bible very analytically) can be better viewed as a list of experiences. Not some divine holy book of ultimate truth. This is a book that has been carried down of peoples experiences with "God". Some of it very philosophical, some of it very carnal, some of it an account, and some of it opinion. If anyone says "You get all your information from one book" you are ignorant right there, because the bible is not "a book" it's a collection of various books and texts compiled together over hundreds if not of thousands of years (the oldest apparently with Genesis which was oral tradition.) If these experiences have any sort of validity, then it is worth thinking about. Now I don't limit my ancient texts to the bible alone, I have read much of the apocrypha because some of it is just (if not more) valid than scripture. And much if paints a completely different picture than what we read and assume about scripture. The Christians too often read the bible as "The One Holy Books" without knowing much at all about it. If you dismiss all religion as automatically false then you aren't a free thinker at all, but a lot of Christians aren't very good thinkers either. I guess what I am saying is that it isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. You believe only what you are told, much like Christians do.

[RooJ]

If we take the position that freethought is possible then: I think an essential prerequisite of freethinking is open-mindedness. It comes down to being able to question things, even things within your current belief system, and approach that in such a way that you understand you might be wrong. If you can't approach a subject with the thought that yours, and other peoples preconceived ideas might be wrong, then you simply arn't freethinking. I think in order to freethink you should be able to take in all of the evidence available, and hear what others say, and really think about that without prejudice or bias. Thats not to say that only things with evidence are true of course, but it would be foolish to discount others scrutiny and conclusions off hand to defend a belief system without first exploring their ideas and satisfying yourself that their ideas are incorrect or don't apply. I believe it takes a leap of faith to reach nearly any conclusion. To be honest im not sure most freethinkers, i mean true innate freethinkers, ever actually reach a conclusion on the major questions. A freethinkers thoughts are only as thorough and free as the information he/she has to work with, and if that freethinker thinks about this, then they know they could always be wrong Thats if freethought is even possible.

[jaasum]

How can you say you have found the truth if you only explore limited options?

[RooJ]

How can you say you have found the truth if you only explore limited options? I can't, hence the entire last paragraph.

[Neruo]

blabla You claim that religious people can still think free. I disagree. They can still think free, from there. That doesn't change that they are not absolute free thinkers, since they accepted religion/god as an absolute truth. It doesn't matter that outside of that belief system you think free, once you say "god certainly exists" or "the bible is absolutely true", you are not a free thinker. You are always wrong with an absolute statement, you can't 100% exclude other possibilities. Nothing is impossible, but that certainly does not justify believing blindly, absolutisticly in a god.

[Matt5678]

If you are stupid enough to act like just because 'your god is better than the others' to the word 'deity' no longer applies to you then Yeah, you are as much of a free thinker as a sheep its more of the word "magic" that got to me

[nerve]

You claim that religious people can still think free. I disagree. They can still think free, from there. That doesn't change that they are not absolute free thinkers, since they accepted religion/god as an absolute truth. It doesn't matter that outside of that belief system you think free, once you say "god certainly exists" or "the bible is absolutely true", you are not a free thinker. i'm a free thinker, if you come to me with any idea or thought i will gladly discuss it with you in hope of coming to a reasonable conclusion. i'll talk about evolution, i'll talk about homosexuality, anything you can think of i'd love to discuss and or research (because i enjoy learning and searching for the truth). i do believe in God. i believe in God because God is love. (1 John 4:8) so, if i believe in God, yet i'm willing to discuss anything with anyone with the understanding that my thoughts may not always be right, is that not free thinking?

[Conforming Non-Conformist]

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. " -N. Chomsky I like this thought when it comes to pondering free thinking, even if acknowledgment of this particular idea also adds to how restricted any free thought begins as and how far it can hope to develop.

[Serkat]

Chomsky is definitely right. I think that 1) the ideal of 100% free thinking is not reachable and not desirable to reach and 2) free thinking is a skill that can be learned and that has to be cultivated constantly. Also free thinking starts with yourself. It starts with psychological self-analysis. How are you to think freely about the world if you don't know of your own frames of thought? If you don't question yourself first and foremost, you'll probably just end up being delusional about how free thinking you are. I think that is highly important, to understand yourself, understand your own patterns of thought, what people influence you, how you were brought up and all of that stuff.

[jaasum]

You claim that religious people can still think free. I disagree. They can still think free, from there. That doesn't change that they are not absolute free thinkers, since they accepted religion/god as an absolute truth. It doesn't matter that outside of that belief system you think free, once you say "god certainly exists" or "the bible is absolutely true", you are not a free thinker. You are always wrong with an absolute statement, you can't 100% exclude other possibilities. Nothing is impossible, but that certainly does not justify believing blindly, absolutisticly in a god. I am a free thinker in that I am truly trying to understand the human conscious. How is this for free thinking. I don't believe in either free will OR predestination. I think they are one in the same. I think that both ideas are a result of people not thinking freely. I think that "God" may in fact just be the best solution our minds can come up for the reasons we even ponder such a topic. I find that religion points a better path to peace within the human psyche than hopeless deconstructionism and carnality. Wether or not God is a literal being or a supernatural conscious I don't know. I know that religion is a path to understanding this better. You say I limit myself to the bible or the ultimate truth that God exists, I don't at all. I draw many ideas from things like this but I am not limited to them. You are limited because you automatically dismiss anything of the sort as below you, when in fact you might be missing some key aspects to understanding your own existence or understanding yourself as a human being. You have done no true research into anything otherwise I am sure you wouldn't have such a small view.

[Neruo]

I am a free thinker in that I am truly trying to understand the human conscious. How is this for free thinking. I don't believe in either free will OR predestination. I think they are one in the same. I think that both ideas are a result of people not thinking freely. I think that "God" may in fact just be the best solution our minds can come up for the reasons we even ponder such a topic. I find that religion points a better path to peace within the human psyche than hopeless deconstructionism and carnality. Wether or not God is a literal being or a supernatural conscious I don't know. I know that religion is a path to understanding this better. You say I limit myself to the bible or the ultimate truth that God exists, I don't at all. I draw many ideas from things like this but I am not limited to them. You are limited because you automatically dismiss anything of the sort as below you, when in fact you might be missing some key aspects to understanding your own existence or understanding yourself as a human being. You have done no true research into anything otherwise I am sure you wouldn't have such a small view. There isn't a ounce of doubt of the existence of any kind of god. That is where you fail, regardless of your good intentions.

[jaasum]

I don't think you understand the concept of "God" to be honest. Rightfully so you dismiss it based on religion zealots. But I don't think you understand the original intentions of it.

[Matt5678]

I don't think you understand the concept of "God" to be honest. i find a lot of people try to boil the concept of god down into a philosophy fit for a six year old. and then attack its simplicity.