Let's begin with the definition of "Freethought": (At this point in time,) Wikipedia says:
"Freethought holds that individuals should neither accept nor reject ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their beliefs on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any factual/logical fallacies or intellectually-limiting effects of authority, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmatic or otherwise fallacious principles. As such, when applied to religion, the philosophy of freethought holds that, given presently-known facts, established scientific theories, and logical principles, there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena.
A line from "Clifford's Credo" by the 19th Century British mathematician and philosopher William Kingdon Clifford perhaps best describes the premise of freethought: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." (see evidentialism) Since many laws, doctrines, and popular beliefs are based on dogmas, freethinkers' opinions are often at odds with commonly held established views."
That kinda gets us there. Freethought requires evidence before belief. Freethinkers are not exactly anti-religion, but the philosophy often leaves them at odds with some religions, particularly those that use a very literal interpretation of their particular dogma.
6 comments:
Robert,
From your initial posting, I see that "free-thinkers" have questioned religious beliefs, teachings and I presume even the very existence of a Higher Power in this vast universe of ours.
Therefore, I conclude that "free-thinkers" have, by and large, been atheists and agnostics as opposed to people who hold religious beliefs. If I am wrong in this conclusion, please advise.
From your posting: "As such, when applied to religion, the philosophy of freethought holds that, given presently-known facts, established scientific theories, and logical principles, there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena."
Now, being a student of the engineering sciences myself, I fully support the scientific approach, logical thinking, mathematical principles and so forth. And it is certainly true that no one has ever produced solid factual evidence and/or a clear line of scientific reasoning that either supports OR REFUTES the existence of a Higher Power.
The religious person would make the case that the concept of God Of The Universe is beyond the limited comprehension of mortal man. Further, the person of faith would argue that, although man can think, reason, problem solve and create, the mind of man pales in comparison with the awesome mind of God.
Going a bit further, the person of faith would challenge the atheist and the agnostic who leans heavily upon scientific knowledge, human reasoning and logical thinking and who refuses to believe any thing that cannot be scientifically proven beyond a shadow of doubt nor any thing which he cannot readily understand.
But allow me to proffer a few questions for consideration to non-believers:
1. We cannot see, touch, smell or taste LOVE, and yet we all agree that it exists. When a mother sacrifices greatly for her small child, we call that motherly LOVE. When a man and a woman commit to one another in a monogamous relationship, we call that sexual LOVE. When two young teenagers hold hands while strolling through the park, we often call that puppy LOVE. There are other forms of LOVE as well ... the kind you observe when two elderly people hold hands in a nursing home, the kind that so amazing when one human being gives up his life to save that of another, and so on. So where does LOVE come from? Where does the capacity to LOVE come from? Have we scientifically proven that LOVE exists? The answer is we haven't, yet we belief in LOVE.
2. When we look all around us and observe the amazing world we live in, the intricate complexities, the interdependencies of all life forms, etc., we are in awe. Yet, the experts, the "scientific thinkers" postulate that what we see all around us began with a BIG BANG billions of years ago purely by accident, purely coincidental. They deny any possibility whatsoever that a Higher Being, God, the Designer of all Designers, the Engineer of all Engineers "designed or created" the universe we live in. Yet, they have NO scientific proof that a Higher Power does NOT exist. To believe in God admittedly requires a GIANT LEAP OF FAITH AND A HUMBLE WILLINGNESS TO SUSPEND OUR DESIRE TO BE IN CONTROL, OUR NEED TO PROVE EVERYTHING. To believe that everything around us is just a product of pure chance, an accident of our universe, random and unguided evolution of the species, that also requires a GIANT LEAP OF FAITH. But it also requires human arrogance. It requires that we believe that we are so omnificent that we can know ALL things and that we can discover ALL truths through the scientific process.
As for me, I think, reason and believe that it is possible for one to be a "free-thinker", open to and receptive of scientific and logical thought, while at the same time humbling one's self to the acceptance of the existence of a Higher Power through nothing more than personal FAITH AND BELIEF.
Question: Were any of the Hermann "Free-Thinkers" men of faith and belief? Is there any record of membership and any way possible to know how the Hermann group split on the questions of organized religion and/or spiritual belief?
Good posting, Robert! You caused me to THINK.
_Truman_
Thanks _truman_, for your response.
I don't know exactly what the "original freethinkers"* thought about a higher power, but I don't think that they put a high priority to refuting religion. Writings attributed to more contemporary freethought organizations (Secular Humanists, for example), however, seem to have that aim as their primary cause.
To the "original" freethought writers, a distrust of religion is apparent, but only as a result of their belief that logic is the most likely explanation for nearly everything, and religion often defies logic.
I'm in the camp with the older writers. I don't doubt that a higher power has created our universe...the complexity of our world and the magic of life cannot have happened completely by accident. But I can't abide the many fantastic things that are attributed by religions to "God" (or whatever higher power a religion may name) that defy logic. But I don't approach Freethought as a means to refute religion like many current-day writers seem to.
* I use the term "original freethinkers" here to describe the expatriate Germans of Missouri (like Eduard Meuhl) who wrote under that banner in the mid-19th century. This is still early in my study of freethought, so I don't know if these men were really the "originals" or not.
Robert,
Thanks for the response! I am most happy to be a member of the Hermann Freidenkerbund ... IF I am not required to denounce my individual religious faith and my belief in an Almighty God.
I understand that I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the Heavenly Father in Whom I trust and believe. I simply rely upon the "circumstantial evidence" that surrounds me .... and make a personal leap of faith.
In all other matters, I rely heavily upon the scientific method, logical reasoning and logical problem solving. My mind is open to the exploration of new ideas and to the consideration of other peoples' viewpoints. I look forward to participating on your blog.
Best regards,
_Truman_
Robert,
I appreciate your response to me, and this is all very interesting!
I would be curious to know the names of the original group or founding members of the Hermann group of German free thinkers. I don't think I will find any of my relatives in the early
"freethought" society as my grandfather first came to the USA in 1924 or thereabouts.
I would be interested to know what they discussed in their group meetings and how they interacted with other Hermann citizens in their time. Did they have a certain agenda, certain objectives and so forth? Were they political and/or business leaders in Hermann? How did they relate or interact with other groups like church groups, civic groups, masonic groups and the like?
Is there a website where I might read more about this early group of Hermann settlers?
On another topic, I am wondering where this blog is headed? Are we just going to study the original Hermann "freethinkers" OR are we going to debate controversial issues of our modern times? In other words, what are your objectives with this blog?
Regards,
_Truman_
_truman_ said: "...I am wondering where this blog is headed? Are we just going to study the original Hermann "freethinkers" OR are we going to debate controversial issues of our modern times? In other words, what are your objectives with this blog?"
Both, I think. I plan to research Hermann's pioneers of freethought, beginning with Edoard Muehl and Carl Strehly, and also to apply the principles of freethought to discussions of modern issues. Beyond that narrow description, however, I would prefer not to limit the discssion, but to follow where we may let it drift.
Thanks!
Thanks! I will standby to read more about the Hermann "freethinkers".
Post a Comment