How to Be a Freethinker

Scott Berkun, essayist, blogger, and author of Myths of Innovation and Making Things Happen, wrote about the importance of freethinking and the three challenges that continue to enslave minds in today’s society:

  1. The fear of being wrong.
  2. Conformity to other people.
  3. The difficulty of being alone.

He also suggests ways of overcoming these challenges, such as learning the value of mistakes, going on a retreat, and exposure to diversity, warning us about the dangers of only “preaching to the choir,” something even a group of freethinkers are susceptible to:

Joining a “Free thinking” group can be nothing of the kind [wake up call to become free], especially if everyone in the group shares the same brand of atheism, deism, or anything-ism. Freedom grows best in diversity. The more ideas you hear, understand and compare, the greater the odds you’ll think freely about all of them. This can’t happen if you mostly spend time “philosophizing” with people who share 97% of your philosophy. Instead you’re likely just sharpening your prejudices. Sharpening prejudices can be fun. I do it all the time. But it’s not thinking, free or otherwise, and it’s not good philosophy either.

It’s an interesting and relatively short essay — recommended.

15 comments

  1. Instead you’re likely just sharpening your prejudices. Sharpening prejudices can be fun. I do it all the time. But it’s not thinking, free or otherwise, and it’s not good philosophy either.

    Another note. Prejudices, per se, are not categorically "bad." The statement above implies that it is. This is not the whole story. I guess this ought to be revised. In fact, to have prejudices is the only way to think – one cannot think as in a blank slate. What is needed, however, is to constantly workout our prejudices – understand them better. This "attempt to understand" applies also to others who supposedly has "irrational prejudices" (i.e, the religious and superstitious). Thus, I doubt the merit of blind criticism to others who are supposedly "prejudiced" (e.g. because they are tied to religious dogma; or they still have superstitions). It is time for a "reality check", as FlipAnon points out: we ourselves are prejudiced. Working out and understanding prejudices so that the false ones are discarded while the true ones are retained, to me, is the prime goal of "thinking" as such; and not those cheap and misguided "critiques" which are proliferated in the Internet by those who profess allegiance to this movement: for instance, the too old antagonism of Science and Religion (I am tempted to name a few, to be honest).

  2. @FlipAnon
    I admire the humility despite the anonymity. I myself of guilty of arrogance and impoliteness (listen to the tone of my first comments).

  3. filipinounfreethinker very well said. I concede. Guilty as charge of arrogance and contempt. I just realize how easy I fell prey to these two things. I guess it's time for a reality check.

  4. "Or as Karl Popper puts it, loosely quoted, “science acts ‘as if’ things are explained” should read:
    "Milton Friedman, an economist, claims that science often proceeds in an "as if" manner – in manner which has assumes a lot, provided that the assumptions need not be interpreted as 'religious claims.' "

  5. @FlipAnon
    You reply is an evidence of pure arrogance. Neglect of historical thinking – neglect of those who have gone before you: that is what it is. I surely have nothing to say of your convictions and the method at which you arrived at them – you (supposedly) have the right to it; whether or not you earned that right, that is the question. Think historically – that's what I'm proposing; true understanding, sir. If I have not made it clear, I am not against this "movement". In fact, at least this all suggests that, Filipinos, we, have some sense of intellectual consciousness – our intellect is not confined to mere trivialities (mobile phones, Boy Adunda, the idionsyncratic TFC and Philippine Television in general). However, and this is my point, it surely is a mistake to rely our thinking on, to quote this site, "Reason. Science. Freedom." These are all empty ideas – the west introduced it; unfortunately, they also had, to some extent, repudiated it. Now, the question is: are we are of this? If not, then we lag behind them, intellectually speaking. Let us "update" ourselves. Consider other modes-of-thought (perhaps, Asian modes-of-thought; Buddhism influences the thinking of Hegel and of Heidegger IMHO), and not just settle on such coined fashionable (which, frankly, is out-of-date) terms.

  6. @francis

    Anyway, I scanned through all your comments and their rebuttals and I’ll leave most of your misguided and semantically plagued reprobations behind to answer your last/latest words.

    Why are they "misguided"? State your reasons. If they are "semantically plagued", that is because it is my hope to make it clearer; now I am guilty of the crime of oversimplifying. Apologies, from now on I will state my arguments in a less simplified manner.

    The purpose of Filipino freethinkers coming together is not to bash and express our contempt of religion (albeit some bashing and joke cracking still arise at times).

    Point taken. But then again, some of you do. And basing from the over-emphasis of this site: "Reason. Science. Freedom" – to me, it implies that art, religion, metaphysics does not have those three qualities!

    We do not define ourselves, as I think you believe we do, as people who are anti-something, in this case, religion. We define ourselves more positively, and that we are also a part of society and warrant acceptance, just as homosexuals and other groups do.

    Point taken. However, if you warrant and are needy of acceptance, then it implies that you are a separate, unwanted group. Realistically speaking, you are, of course. Philippines is largely still "superstitious and irrational" in its day-to-day proceedings. However, do you really want to be "just a group, amovement"? I don't know. Remember however that "grouping" and "fencing" ourselves from others always implies antagonism to those who do not belong to 'us' (i.e, in our group). And this is the last thing we need, as Filipinos. We do not need division – we need a unified goal; we need Understanding. Of course, this does not preclude our option to form groups, but where antagonism is the rule between groups, there is nothing achieved. I will take it that your group is not based on antagonism and contempt to those who are "unscientific, unreasonable, and unfree." But then again there are those (your members which are many of them who have blogs/journals of their own which has the effect of spreading more ignorance) who do not recognise this, and delights to highlight the supposedly "infirmities" of those who do not share their views, and declares that they are "unreasonable, unscientific, irrational" – which is equivalent to saying that they are "bad" and in all circumstances should be avoided. That priests and bishops are fools; that quack-doctors are liars; that old women and widows, fundamentalists who still believes in sin and the after-life are laughable – these are the reactions and views I detest. Instead of giving undue remarks about their "irrationality" ("irrational" from your or your colleagues perception, I suppose), why not seek the historical phenomenon behind this to achieve understanding?

    I also think you’re mistaken if you think there are no lies, uncertainty etc in science, but in fact there are. Science, as Carl Sagan puts it, has a built-in error correcting mechanism which religion for example, barely has.

    Why that is the whole point. Why do you think science admits an "error correcting mechanism"? Or as Karl Popper puts it, loosely quoted, "science acts 'as if' things are explained" – i.e, that "all is well" until no suitable theory is conceived to dispose of the existing one. But what is the motivation behind this? Why build an "error correcting mechanism" – what is its justification/purpose? Why treat the theories "as if" they are true? Of course, science, in itself, has no answer to these ontological questions – in fact, it deliberately avouids these very questions for they "lead to nothing" (That will be the subject of a "meta-science", perhaps ).

    But in our daily lives, it is mere stupidity to act without any purpose in mind: we act "teleologically." Though our explanation of our actions (the "science") rejects the idea of teleology, it cannot escape it. In fact, science is teleology in action. Notice for instance its goal on experience. It views experience as "a source of truths". It supposes that experience will, in the end, be objectified in a rigid body of knowledge (as exemplified in experiments, reasearch, surveys and other conventional scientific methods). You cannot deny that as a man-of-science. Basically put, "there are no science without any presuppositions." Those "presuppositions" I claim as irrational, or rests on an "informal" grounding, which religion rests, too. If you attempt to contrast them, you will unfortunately fail – but more importantly, their contrasting (or antagonising) achieves nothing, for they too are the same in a very important sense which is usually neglected.

    And what made you say that "religion does not have, or barely have, 'error-correcting mechanisms'"? Please provide an instance.

    Why choose science over religion you ask? One reason is because science can give you the exact time and date when an eclipse will occur, when a comet will pass by, and so on.

    These are just mere practical consequences. In the end, the arguer here is providing a "utilitarian"/pragmatic view of science – that is, if we prefer science over religion, that is because only of pragmatic reasons. Hmm..But there is no scientific basis to prefer the secular/pragmatic over the unsecular/religious/holy! Can your science provide that? No – this simply shows that science, in the end, is a mere utility of a phenomenon before science – before science there was human instinct!

    I doubt you could give any religious doctrine across history which can match such certainty.

    Well, science, in this sense, is in the same boat. Notice all the revisions, outdating, replacing of existing theories of new ones. So if both are "uncertain", why prefer the former over the latter? What will be the "scientific basis" of that? There is none in my opinion. So, again, "science. reason.freedom" can never be the true banner of "a promising movement."

    Science does not have a monopoly of the truth but it’s many magnitude greater than the alternative, i.e. religion, pseudo-science , the supernatural, occult, the list goes on.

    No decent man-of-science would claim that he has. However, in the same sense, he will not deny that he has "presuppositions" which he shares with the most religious of men. Albeit ready for revision, the fact remains: the man-of-science has presuppositions, prejudices, irrational assumptions; the religious man has presuppositions too; then the man-of-science and the priest are the same. I challenge someone to refute this claim; but, there is no point in refuting! "Why?" you ask – because it is futile to contrast them in the first place; that the preference over "reason.science.freedom" is in the end unfounded – it cannot justify itself. What is needed, in the end, is understanding of history; of moving and motivating truths which can make a nation great – which propels men to action and greatness.

    Thanks for your time though, it was fun reading your comments.

    You are welcome. It is my point and hope that this movement should not be treated as the "final answer and action neccessary." I have pragmatic views in mind – namely, national transformation; our nation, Philippines, needs this transformation of the intellect. I see this as an attempt to do so; I am sad to admit that the ground assumed by this movement ("freethinking") does not totally hit the goal in my limited mind – my goal being unity and true Understanding of our history, culture, and nation – a nation-historical-cultural consciousness, which can use science and reason as tools, but only as tools and not ends.

  7. Hi again filipinounfreethinker,

    Sorry if it has taken me so long a time to get back here and reply to you. Anyway, I scanned through all your comments and their rebuttals and I'll leave most of your misguided and semantically plagued reprobations behind to answer your last/latest words.
    The purpose of Filipino freethinkers coming together is not to bash and express our contempt of religion (albeit some bashing and joke cracking still arise at times). We do not define ourselves, as I think you believe we do, as people who are anti-something, in this case, religion. We define ourselves more positively, and that we are also a part of society and warrant acceptance, just as homosexuals and other groups do.
    I also think you're mistaken if you think there are no lies, uncertainty etc in science, but in fact there are. Science, as Carl Sagan puts it, has a built-in error correcting mechanism which religion for example, barely has. Why choose science over religion you ask? One reason is because science can give you the exact time and date when an eclipse will occur, when a comet will pass by, and so on. I doubt you could give any religious doctrine across history which can match such certainty. Science does not have a monopoly of the truth but it's many magnitude greater than the alternative, i.e. religion, pseudo-science , the supernatural, occult, the list goes on.
    Thanks for your time though, it was fun reading your comments.

  8. Filipinounfreethinker you are way wrong. Readers might have the impression based on your rants that you are stressing a point. But dude that mishmash of quoting philosophers after philosophers just masks the fact that your arguments are infantile. So you are an authority on almost all philosophical thought? Frankly, I also find it amusing how some people thinks philosophical babbles will resolve a debate. Well maybe it gives you the air of an intelligentsia. But in all probability all these stuff just prevent a person from getting laid. 🙂 Did I read Kant or Schopenhauer to realized that dogmatic religion is a pile of bullshit? Nah! I was once sitting in the toilet bowl hearing that little shit of mine made a little "plop" and voila it dawned on me that having a shit in the first place makes the poetry of a divine being obsolete. I like to call it the "shit consequence". Well, I can practically build a whole new branch of philosophy based on that little shitty experience of mine. Freethinking is by essence an ideal. Just don't be too mash into it, or as you have so eloquently stated "frustrated-masochistas who found refuge in the intellect." That's one point we have to agree on.

  9. Now freethought is about seeking your answers by applying reason and scientific knowledge while not subscribing to religious dogma.

    The despicable aspect however of all this is that when the freethinker "thinks" that his method "is the only method" proper to conduct one's life. His criticisms on religious truths rebounds on him: it shows that he has a great lack of understanding of history; he thinks unhistorically, and surrenders all his capacity of thought to "logic" and "science" alone. Science is not an end in itself; in fact, it does not believe if there are such "ends/great purpose/destiny." That is why it needs justification; that is why if one proceeds under the banner of "science" he inevitably will fail, and miserably fails.

    I am not against science per se. What I'm against, or I am doing this to remind ourselves, we Filipinos, that this is a mistaken step. Science is but a step. Our poor country needs some direction – science can be used to that, but it is not the source of a "sense in direction."

    Another thing. This whole "movement" seemed to be particularly contemptuous of dogmatic religion. But then again there is no scientific basis of all this contempt. So why still proceed as if one is "being scientific" if one criticises religion? That should be the final nail in the coffin, so to speak.

  10. You have a very good point about instinct and reason. I don't deny that everybody may desire the same common things. Only, the way of getting them may be different. In fact, there's one guiding principle that I always remind myself: that people do the things they do because they think that's a good thing to do – and they can reason enough based on his assumption and rationalize his actions. Nobody wanted to be on the wrong side. Even Hitler probably thought he was doing what's the right thing to do. Now freethought is about seeking your answers by applying reason and scientific knowledge while not subscribing to religious dogma. So freethought is not about thinking freely the way you characterize it. Freethought is one word and defined narrowly.

  11. @ksw

    Science doesn’t need to justify itself. I don’t know what you mean by religion providing justification. Justification for what? And even if it does, what good is this justification if the religion that provides it is built on fantasy?

    When I say "justification", I meant "purpose." The question (the justification) the man-of-science usually asks himself after a long work is this: "Why am I doing all this (e.g theorising, observing, calculation, etc)?" In short, teleology my dear sir: whither is all this scientific thinking? What for? Why desire certainty? Why desire explanation of natural phenomena? Why discover the laws of nature?

    But. Of course, the scientist, at least with the aide of Kant, of the Enlightenment, finds this questions non-sensical and a waste of time. To him, such questions do not lead to development; to greater knowledge – they are useless questions. Thus modern science proceeds "objectively". It does not pretend that any of its work has some purpose; it proceeds because it proceeds; in short, it needs no "justification." There is no justification in the first place; only one's desire; one's hunger for knowledge.
    Hmmm..that smells of justification too.

    I will ask you, sir: Why desire truth; why certainty; why predictability, reason, cause-and-effect, logic? Why notrather untruth, lies, appearances, deceit, uncertainty, ignorance, illusions? I wager that your answer is very similar to the most religious priest, you man-of-science! What hypocrisy!

    “Which is superior “Reason” or “Instinct”?”

    Can you build an airplane using your instinct? The two things are different. Comparing them must be futile.

    Why, in the first place, build an airplane? I will provide some explanation for such need.
    We need an airplane to:
    Travel.
    Travel fast, because if by sea, much longer.
    We need to go to places as fast as possible.
    We need to go to placesas comfortably as possible

    Hmm..desire for speed; for comfort. Aha! Is not that instinct? What is the logical foundation to desire comfort? There is none! Logic is blind of emotions! Instinct, instinct! What the instinct wants, reason obeys and is used accordingly! Do you not get that sir?

  12. @francis

    But granted for argumentation’s sake that we are, I’m not sure you can make us stop since though it is your right to voice out your opinion, and so do we.

    That is the danger and stupidity of democracy, which is the product of the Enlightenment. Authority is questioned without or with less consciousness as to its history. Yes sir: lack of historical consciousness. That is how almost all "rationalists", "positivists", Kantian-scientific thought proceeds.

    I’m not also sure how you got to the conclusion ‘thinking ensures being free’ since the label is Filipino Freethinkers, i.e. those who think free without irrational and pseudo-scientific bias."

    I invoked that observation because the statement "freethinker" is misleading, by virtue of the argument, that "when one thinks, one has an object of thought; that object in one's thought is the agent's occupation; because the agent has some occupation, therefore, he is unfree." If we want to be truly free, stop thinking; do not occupy yourselves; in short, resign yourselves of life – but that's impossible! So, why, in the first place, formulate an impossible statement, a statement which does not yield some truth, but only contradiction, and misunderstanding?

    Lastly, being scientific in its truest sense (See Carl Sagan for example) does set us free, or at least orders of magnitude more free relative to what any religion in the history of mankind has to offer

    Are you sure that the scientist is free? Think again. Notice his preoccupation with method; with observation, with theories; ha, is that being free?

    "…I don’t think science needs justification from religion (religion in this case btw means irrational and no-proof search for the truth)"

    Read Alfred Whitehead (a british Mathemitician); his views on Religion and Science should enlighten you better. Anyway, I will ask you this: What drives the scientist "to explain things"? You might answer: "for knowledge's sake". Then that certainly betrays his religiousness! Are you aware that the ancient priests had this creed too?

    "Thank you though for your comments and opinions, albeit they’ll be phrased in a much more cordial manner next time"

    I will try to be cordial; but sometimes, if you want to communicate some insights, you need to, as it were, "hammer it."

  13. "Science needs justification – which religion provides!"

    Science doesn't need to justify itself. I don't know what you mean by religion providing justification. Justification for what? And even if it does, what good is this justification if the religion that provides it is built on fantasy?

    "Which is superior “Reason” or “Instinct”?"

    Can you build an airplane using your instinct? The two things are different. Comparing them must be futile.

  14. Hello there filipinounfreethinker,

    Am I/are we to take it you're on Religion's side? I do believe that at some point some religions profess moderation and benevolence towards other men and creatures, but which I don't necessarily see from your response.
    It may seem as though we're just a band of people clinging to one another for solace in a religion-driven world, though I don't think that pegs us exactly. But granted for argumentation's sake that we are, I'm not sure you can make us stop since though it is your right to voice out your opinion, and so do we.
    I'm not also sure how you got to the conclusion 'thinking ensures being free' since the label is Filipino Freethinkers, i.e. those who think free without irrational and pseudo-scientific bias.
    Lastly, being scientific in its truest sense (See Carl Sagan for example) does set us free, or at least orders of magnitude more free relative to what any religion in the history of mankind has to offer. A decent man of science abiding by the true sense of the scientific method would certainly not laugh at us. I don't think science needs justification from religion (religion in this case btw means irrational and no-proof search for the truth) but the reverse would certainly be welcome to religious people I think.
    Thank you though for your comments and opinions, albeit they'll be phrased in a much more cordial manner next time 🙂

    Amen 🙂

  15. Ha. I would count this as another idiosyncrasy floating around the Internet. I am a Filipino. What do you call "Filipino Free thinkers"? I don't know. Please, stop this non-sense. You are just a set of frustrated-masochistas who found refuge in the "intellect."

    Freethinkers. The lousiest word I've heard. AS IF THINKING ENSURES YOUR BEING FREE!. Have you read Schopenhauer? He is a 'freethinker'. Crap, crap, crap! This site should be put down. I hope the hosting company will not renew this site. It just adds to the ignorance the internet is contributing.

    It even is under the banner of "Science", "Reason", and "Freedom". What crap! Is your being scientific setting you free? Of course not. A decent man-of-science would laugh at this non-sense. Science needs justification – which religion provides! Read, read, read! Is "Reason" the one then? Ah, the classic antagonism of Reason vs. Instinct. Which is superior "Reason" or "Instinct". Plato knew the answer. Socrates knew it better. "Freedom". Sartre should be hanged. "Freedom" is overrated thanks to him. The French really are getting annoying.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here