Talk:Freethought
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 |
|
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
|
For more information and how you can help click Show →
|
||
[edit] Freethought in the early USA
Why no mention of Founding Father freethinkers such as Thomas Paine? 67.101.146.71 (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bright Spots?
Ahem:
"...There is a very old tradition and re-invention of individual intellectual freedom and freethought, in most philosophical and religious thought systems, against and despite the literalist interpretations and constraints. That tradition holds that everyone can find one's way, through personal effort, with help from friends and mentors. From prehistoric shamans engaging on a personal journey to the superior world, to the Indo-Asian world, to the Mediterranean gnostic synthesis, to medieval Islam, to bright spots and trails of the Middle Ages, finally to the modern individuation from metaphysics through the scientific method of experimentation and falsification.
Bright spots of the middle ages? So this article is essential saying that freethought is the light, whereas religion is the darkness? Kind of seems like the very definition of a biased statement 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed info:
- One may be viewed a freethinker by simply not conforming to an area's dominant religion, while still believing in (some form of) god or divinity (neither capitalized, as existence is not assumed).
- In that context, in the predominantly Christian nation of the United States, one may be a freethinker simply by being a pagan. Some think all pagan religions cults, and thus pagans are not freethinkers.
because rationality is not different in America than elsewhere. A freethinker should be free to accept the dominant view if that happens to coincide with its own. See also the text I wrote in the article to replace the above. --FvdP 19:58, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I want to know the dictionary defintion too and not just the POV self definition. Here is the Merriam Webster definition
- one that forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma
- Andries 21:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- the is not a predominantly "Christian" nation. This is primarily a Deist and Agnostic nation, persuaded by a media and peer pressures of atheism, naturalism, materialism, fascism, relativism, open theism, and political correctness. Freethinking is an illusion. Whether aware of it or not, you are molded, conditioned, and told what to believe. The choice is either go with the flo or just say no. Truth exists. Right and Wrong exist. People like to think that the way they perceive reality is right, even when it may not agree with reality at all. Is freethinking really freethinking?
[edit] False dichotomy
I believe that this article falsely pits freethought against religion and authority. This is most especially done with a negative connotation being ascribed to the word dogma as being unreasonable or stifling thought, which is false, based on the Dictionary.com definition of dogma. Examples:
- This definition as for example is applicable to thought based on rejection of religious dogma.
The rejection of religious dogma(which is simple a doctrine held authoritatively to be absolutely true) doesn't entail freethought because the authority of a dogma is irrelevant to the rationality of that doctrine or belief. For example, the authority that is held by scientists is achieved through academic rigor and reasoned experience. I believe that the definition of freethought should be better qualified and explained.
Another thing I have issue with is the following:
- No freethinkers accept religious dogma as providing either an acceptable explanation for the origin of the universe or a realistic basis for how properly to live in it.
This simply appears to be an unsubstantiated and overgeneralized assertion based the aforementioned definitions which I believe I have shown to be misleading. Btboy500 01:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Supernaturalism
"Freethinkers believe that there is insufficient evidence to support claims of supernaturalism." To me, this seems inconsistent with the later statements that religious believers may consider themselevs freethinkers. I'll do an edit to try to make more sense out of this.--Bcrowell 7 July 2005 04:35 (UTC)
Despite a few comments to the contrary, according to this definition, I see little difference between athiests and freethinkers. There is an implicit assumption conveyed by the article that perhaps believers are not as 'free' or as 'thinking' as athiests.
I do believe that it depends on the context. In many Universities, where a great many 'freethinkers' reside, contrarians who form their own pedagogy may have evangelistic outlooks, or atleast religious leanings. Would these individuals not be the exception to the rule, where the established beliefs or prejudisms are profoundly secular? - me
To make such a claim about freethinkers as a group is in contradiction with the ideas of freethought. While there are probably few theist freethinkers, there are certainly some who hold spiritual beliefs, or at very least are empirical agnostics. --horsedreamer 02:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, sorry I'm not logged, but my password hasn't shown up in my inbox yet; in the mean time, I'm himuraserahpina. Now, to say that "freethinking and atheism are little different" shows a bias towards lumping non-theisms together. Atheism is a skepticism or inablility to believe in god (read: any of the various forms of deities and the theisms that define them) due to the lack of logic or evidence of god. "I'll believe it when I see it, and so far I haven't -- and the 'miracles' don't count, because they can either be explained, or no one can prove they happened" could be the motto of the average joe who considers himself atheist. Yes, it can get far more complicated than this, but regardless of deep philosophy, logic, or science, atheism begins and ends with the lack of belief in god, for what ever reason. This is the starting point of atheism. Freethinking, on the other hand, leads to atheism (read: lack of belief in god, supernatural, religions,etc.) in general, though some freethinkers consider themselves religious, after thought, logic, science, or whatever basis of free thinking one uses places religion, its dogma and authority, and the presence of god, in perspective. When this happens, logically, religion cannot be justified in the sphere of freethinking (except among the few who somehow do manage it), nor can the 'faith' in tradition and the authority of the Church, or various churches. That is not to say that aethism cannot lead to free thinking, but at that point one becomes both. aethism and free thinking are not mutually inclusive as neither free thinkinh nor athism require the others presence. Atheism by no means must include free thinking - some athists and schools of thought are as dogmatic at that which they cannot accept as part of their logic. himuraseraphina 04.06.06
- Freethought does not explicitly deny the existance of a God (or gods), so technically one could be an atheist, theist, polytheist or agnostic and still be a true freethinker (as long as such beliefs did not also involve things like supernaturalism and the like). However, if one chooses to apply the philosophy of freethought to every aspect of their lives, it will be incompatible with any organized religion they may be part of. --124.168.92.221 06:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rationalism
I added rationalism this to the "See also" section. I'd like to see described in this article how Freethought differs or has a reciprocal relationship with rationalism. - RoyBoy 800 02:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] North Texas Church of Freethought already mentioned in text
As of 27 dec 2005, the article began with " Freethought is a religion of the North Texas Church of Freethought."
Article already refers to "1994 ... founding of the Church of Freethought, which now exists as two active congregations of freethinkers: the North Texas Church of Freethought and the Houston Church of Freethought", so I've removed this inappropriate beginning. -- 27 december 2005
[edit] Freethought vs. "freethinking"/"free thought"
Please try to distinguish this article from the philosophic freethinking article.
- Usernamefortonyd 04:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me how the topic of your new article differs from this one? Mdwh 05:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- The difference is that this "Freethought" article is representative of the religion of Freethought and the freethinker article is about the philosophy of freethinking. Buddhism is the same way. Buddhism, which is practiced either as a philosophy or religion, has seperate articles as well. -Usernamefortonyd 19:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
You are talking about the difference between secular Buddhism and theistic Buddhism, which is like the difference between secular Christianity/Islam/Judaism and theistic Christianity/Islam/Judaism. There's no such thing as theistic freethought. If religion=a system of theistic beliefs and theism=belief that supernatural entities/forces cause natural phenonmena, then freethought is not a religion. I don't understand what you mean by "religion of Freethought." If you mean naturalism or anti-theism, then just say "naturalism" or "anti-theism," instead of changing the definition of religion into worldview and making freethought seem like a worldview, rather than just a method of thinking that can lead to a naturalistic worldview and anti-theism. -nalalina
Sorry, when you call it a Church, it is an organized religion, that's the word we use to define a group of people that gather together regularly for group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. Most forms of freethought are also directly related to the opposition of religion, nowhere in this article, or the related institutions does it say otherwise. Jjmckool (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with "freethinking" article
This might not be a good idea. Freethinking is a way of life, where freethought is simply scatterings of the process, or a way of describing unmitigated philosophical discussion. Amitst 15:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Freethought probably should be edited to remove the references to "freethinking" as freethinking is a label for a type of philosopher that does not prescribe to preset morals and values.
First off, the freethinking article is secular and not affiliated with the North Texas Church of Freethought like this Freethought article.
Second, "Freethought" isn't even a word... it was apparently made up by the migrating Germans and its usage was continued by the Texans as discussed in the history section of the Freethought article.
There are two seperate belief systems in these articles and they should not be combined. -Usernamefortonyd
Merge! The freethinking page and its rationale is both redundant and absurd. Freethought is the philosophy which - if meaningful - also can include religious free thought. Just because there are a couple of churches in Texas that have appropriated the name does not matter. They are free to have that thought. Vsmith 02:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- PS - moved the new talk to bottom of page per wiki convention (or is that anti freethought :-) Vsmith 02:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. --129.21.223.82 00:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. --horsedreamer 02:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the articles should be merged, with Freethought being the article and Freethinking being the redirect. No need to belabor this. It's obvious. Freethinking is what is done in Freethought. But you really can't talk meaningfully about one without the other. So why force people to read two articles when the combined version wouldn't even be that long? -- Fredwords 15:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Definitely Merge Freethought into Freethinking. I am only aware of the concept of Freethinking (Freethinker) and that FreeThought is what a Freethinker does. I would also like to see this article cover the founding fathers (signers of the Declaration of Independence) of the USA as the Freethinkers that they were.
Merge them. Though they have different meanings, they're about the same thing. When I read an encyclopedia, I prefer to be given all closely relevant information. Freethought and freethinking are as closely relevant as the action and the action performed. Holla at ya boy. -Juerelle
There are two different phenomenons: Church of Freethouht and Freethinking; word Freethought relates to both of them. Therefore, I think that Freethought should be a disambiguation page leading to the articles Church of Freethought (to be created) and Freethinking. And then and if necessary Freethinking should be complemented with information on freethinking containing in Freethouht now.
grimsky, 28 February 2006
Merge. I agree with Fredwords, Juerelle et al. It would make a great article. Alpheus 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed merge - Also started a discussion about merging freedom of thought, see Talk:Freethinking#Merge_freethinking.2C_freethought_and_freedom_of_thought nirvana2013 17:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed merge - Two pages are redundant. Prototime 16:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Because of the great support for the merge and the amount of time that has passed since the proposal, I have gone ahead and merged the two pages. Prototime 05:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] symbol of free thought
The pansy has long been a symbol of freethought, and is used in the literature of the American Secular Union. This is because the flower gets its name from the French word pensée, which means "thought". It was so named because the flower resembles a human face, and in the month of August it nods forward as if deep in thought.
- This needs to be cited. Somerset219 04:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deism
Deism is generally considered a freethinking philosophy. They deny dogma and revelation for the same reasons atheists and agnostics do. The favor logic and reasoning as well as scientific inquiry. They believe in an impersonal God, and are far closer to atheists and agnostics in their worldview than they are to theists (who believe a personal God exists that interferes on our lives and can be revealed in dogmatic sources). So I will add it. Read about it at here: [1] [2] Zachorious 22:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anon taunt
why do you guys all think that your thoughts are so important? you act like evrtyhing you think is smart when do you even wonder how you got the brain to actually have the luxuary of thinking? sure, you don't have to conform and be the crazy chritisan who believes every damn thing you hear but you dont have to go to the opposite extreme and depend on your own thoughts to govern everything in this world. dont you guys know that you're just atheists in disquise?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.138.0.11 (talk • contribs) .
- Thanks for sharing. So, let me get this straight, if I don't have to do all of my own thinking, who should I get to do my thinking for me? Is that, like, a service I can buy in from a call-centre? Cool. To save me from googling around, who do you get to do your thinking for you? I mean, in that last piece you wrote, was that you thinking, or did you contract it out? Thanks in advance for any top tips! --Plumbago 17:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
^ LOL!
PS: Sorry for the pointless nature of this post... 81.151.146.238 21:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather be an Atheist than a ranting psycho telling everyone not to think. Also, yay first post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy?
Removed the following unsourced essay as WP:OR:
- ==Controversy==
- It ought to be said that the term used to describe this particular secularist movement which calls itself "free thinking" is disputed by both atheists, agnostics, and theists as expressing an intrinsic bias against religious ideas. It is admittedly on both sides considered a polemic term which carries connotations indicative of the mindset its followers argue for. It ought to be pointed out, in all consideration of fairness, that a believer would likewise claim freedom of thought as a perogative of their particular point of view as well as an atheist, and that long traditions of philosophy, theology, and attempts to reconcile reason and faith permeate religious discourse.
Maybe, It ought to be said that..., but who did the saying? Vsmith 20:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why was this removed? It is 100% accurate. Wikipedia at its best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.151.231 (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Buddhism and free thought
I've removed the large quote used to support the idea that the Buddha was an early freethinker. Using quotes to indicate a certain person's view is a mistake, IMO, and it would be better to find a reliable secondary source. We have no way of knowing if the quote is representative of all Buddha's teachings, or if there are different translations or interpretations.--Nydas(Talk) 19:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External link: Sir Isaac Newton: Logical framework that frees
That last youtube link cannot be right? Check it... it's nuts... Does wikipedia have some "annotate" feature? (ala cvs/svn "blame (praise, annotate, ann)"...) --Hugovdm 16:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- The scientific roots of freethinking ARE religious, if only in opposition to the Inquisition (and I'll be showing in years to come a series of papers proving it). Newton was at least as much alchemist as scientist, and was faced with the problem of getting his work accepted in Europe. This is why such bodies as the Royal Society were predominantly free-masonic, because it provided them with a way of disseminating their work without official censorship, you must remember that there was a serious possibility that early Reformation England might return to Catholicism under James II. Newton and the others were faced with the pressures from the Inquisition already experienced by Galileo (1616-1640) and van Helmont (1621-25), which may have been intended to control Inquisition assets used in their alchemical works. The Inquisition was challenged originally by the Bretheren of the Free Spirit, working through the Beguines and Beghards, whose own roots lie partly with Peter Abelard's split from the School of Notre Dame in the twelfth century. His opposition in the Victorine Order had links with the Cistercians who were the roots of the Inquisition, through Jan van Ruusbroec and Konrad von Urach's activities in Brussels, which appear to have been protecting an asset which was sufficiently important as to justify Phillip II of Spain spending 10 years of the Spanish GNP at the height of their Imperial strength on the Escorial to house it.Jel 07:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] criticism
can we add a criticism section here, or is criticism to the so-called freethought movement too obscure?
critics of freethought don't see the point of the term, as it seems to be synonymous with common sense. it seems to them to be a term invented to allow atheists/scientists etc to label themselves with something of an identity. arguably, this need for an identity or niche has been traditionally served by the very religious schools of thought this movement generally sees itself superior to.
on could say that freethinkers, in fact, belong to the religious school of freethought, which is founded on a single pillar of dogma: that belief unexplainable by scientific evidence is inferior to belief explainable by scientific evidence. it logically follows that freethinkers have selected the rational mind as their definition of the superior, which they essentially worship in the same way that any other religious group worships their god.
obviously there is a lot of irony in this movement, from certain points of view. is this not common enough thought to be discussed within the article?
--Harlequence 08:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- First, freethought does not see itself "superior" to anything. It is simply a philological approach to life itself through reason and logic. Second, freethought is not a term that allows atheists/scientists to label themselves. Atheistic is a label in itself so why would freethought be a label to atheists. Third, on your statement "freethinkers, in fact, belong to the religious school of freethought" makes no sense. Religion and freethought are contradictory. One cannot believe in an omnipotent being and absolute logic and still call themselves freethinkers. Criticism or the opposite of freethought in simple terms is an illogical point of view trying to justify his or her own beliefs.Dumaka (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Origin of term ‘freethought’?
Can anyone date the first use of this term. Ted Porter almost suggests that Karl Pearson invented it – see p.109 of ISBN 0691114455) “Despite frequent appeals and invitations, he (KP) was too strong-willed and idiosyncratic to join anyone else’s movement. Instead he definied his own, which he called “freethought.” TPKP109
-
-
-
- Johnbibby 14:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] freethought in the present era is an orwellian doublespeak
if you don't fit in the shoes of traditional freethinkers, then you are considered irrelevant and nobody will listen to you; they might even try to censor you, all the while claiming to stand for freedom! hypocrisy knows no bounds. thoughtcrime is inevitable with triumphalist fanatics, off to secularize the world in their own minds of progress. dig in your heels, they'll shove it down your throat and tell you it's good for you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiblastfromthewikipast (talk • contribs) 00:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] freethought is not science or logic but an attitude
I want to present this concept that maybe is more general but more closer to the motivation o free thought
"Freethought believe on intellectual work completely separated of dogma, authority, fear, prejudice and tradition"
The intellectual work started with the firsts philosophers on Greece and is a fighting for understand the world
Yes, now the science and logic are the best that we have but maybe in the future the science method will be changed
Apologies for my bad English
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Circles of Free Inquiry
I think "defend the freedom of critical thought" might more accurately be "enforce the principles of Freethought". After all, critical thought that disagrees with their dogmatic presupposition is not something that they tolerate. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Contradictio
The contradiction that's just been tagged isn't really in the article, it's unavoidable in treating the subject of the article: Freethinkers have a tradition of not being traditionalist, and make a dogma of not being dogmatic - as well as, in some times and some places, forming a party that claims to be non-partisan, and even groups to enforce Freethought. I won't say anything about their appeals to emotion or to authority -- there's a whole book of that just came out lately. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Symbol of Freethought?
Is the symbol of freethought really a pansy? That seems kind of ridiculous to me. :\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.183.177 (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
wtf.. I thought the same thing.. I looked at the ref and google searched it myself.. While there arn't many references (and a few cite each other) there are some references. May be a hoax started with a couple websites and propagated on to make solid references? I only say this because none of the websites that I google searched could really cite anything, they just quote each other. Cs302b (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
