To those who actually haven’t googled the term, Wikipedia defines freethought as:
In the FF forum and Facebook page, every once in a while someone oblivious to the standard definition butts in with the assumption that freethinking means setting the mind completely free – unrestrained even by reason, logic or reality. More commonly, people have assumed that freethought is synonymous to atheism.
It is important to note that the free in freethinking only means freedom from dogma imposed by “authority” – but not from the rules of logic and the cold test of science. In fact, freethinking is actually a very strict discipline that keeps the mind on its toes, preventing it from jumping into convenient conclusions. Once an argument commits a single logical fallacy, all its conclusions are automatically void; long-held scientific theories are discarded like yesterday’s paper once contradicting evidence is found. (Scientific theory differs from the layman’s definition of theory in the sense that the latter is actually just a hypothesis.)
As such, freethought is a journey where one takes the road paved with science, logic and reason; atheism, agnosticism, deism, and even philosophical theism are just the destinations, none of them final. This may come as a surprise, but while the majority of the vocal Filipino Freethinkers are atheists, we do have some members who acknowledge the possibility and even the probability of God to a certain degree but are well aware that all they have are circumstantial evidence and logical arguments, not proof. There are no fundies in Filipino Freethinkers or even strong theists (#1 in Dawkins’ spectrum) who claim not just to believe, but to know that there is a God. Remarkably, there are also no strong atheists (#7 in Dawkins’ spectrum) in Filipino Freethinkers, or at least none have declared being so at the forums. More importantly, our beliefs (or non-belief) matter less than how we arrived at such beliefs (or non-belief). So you’ll never hear the words “because the Bible says so” from a freethinking theist or “because Richard Dawkins says so” from a freethinking atheist.
So what does it mean to be a freethinker? I guess it means being a truthseeker, relentlessly holding on to reason amid powerful forces telling society that blind faith is preferred. The Filipino Freethinkers are sometimes accused of being angry at religion. Well I can’t say that we aren’t, because religion, being very influential, pervading education and politics, has become the embodiment of ignorance and the eternal cause of poverty, overpopulation, and the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases while the churches continue to rake in the offerings. And yet they have the guts to say that we are the bad guys.
But how can freethinkers be the bad guys? We never ask people to give up anything – not their money, not their reason, not their freewill, not even their beliefs. Freethought is not telling anyone to believe in a certain freethought doctrine or creed; it is merely asking that we open our eyes and use our minds, to see for ourselves what is right, what is good, and what is true. How can that be bad?
I hope you be not feigning ignorance, GabbyD.
i'm serious. why is the difference between religious authority and scientific authority "willingness to be challenged"?
Okay, let's put it this way: Try telling the CBCP that their interpretation of "go forth and multiply" is outdated, and that condoms are the only thing that can save our country from poverty, overpopulation, and AIDS. If they are willing to have their authority challenged, they will give you a logical answer based on scientific studies that will debunk your claim about condoms.
ah, ok. so freethinking is about a rejection of speaking from authority.
the problem is that ALL arguments, at some point, will need to rely on authority because not everything can be proved. you've got to have assumptions at some point to base your decisions on.
the key issue, is that some authorities you like, and some authorities you dont. specifically, religious/supernatural authorities.
is an this accurate description?
When it comes to the religious/supernatural, I don't "like" any authority at all.
Scientific authority differs from religious authority in the sense that it is “willing to be challenged, although normally we would not go around challenging every one all the time. It is the willingness to be challenged that is important”.
i dont understand.
people routinely challenge and disregard religious authority all the time. moreover, religious authority recognizes this too.
morality is usually associated with religion… but that does not mean it could not exist in a freethinker… what i know is that there is no "santong kabayo" among free thinkers… hehehe. awesome piece by the way! 🙂
What's the difference between a freethinker and a philosopher?
ok. i'm glad u wrote about this, coz i'm confused about freethinking.
what is the freethinkers' guide to living in a society? relationships?
what can science/logic tell us in general? are there general principles that all FTs hold? or is each freethinker a unique snowflake — each one can have his/her own assumptions/first principles?
logic/science are methods/tools. but when it comes to living, you need more to pin things down!
What is the freethinker's guide to relationships and living in a society? NONE. Are there general principles that all freethinkers hold? Other than the principles of science, logic and reason – NONE. When it comes to living, each freethinker is responsible for his/her own principles.
if there is no social/moral dimension, what is the point of being a free thinker?
just to be clear, re: what is the point?
its no good (logically) to define things with what it is NOT. its a great literary device (see the bible, on what love is not… and what it is…), but as a statement of a way of life, devoid of content.
anything is possible, in this case.
to point out at least one thing: not everything can be proven. at some point, you have to believe something. is there no guide to this? no principle?
an example: a parsimonous moral principle is the "golden rule". this rule need not a necessary consequence of logic, reason or science. at some point in time, the guy who thought of that believed that it is the right way to go.
I guess the point of being a freethinker is that one isn't easily led to believe baseless (hence, probably false) things just because they were spoken by someone in "authority".
Freethought in itself is not a holistic philosophy as far as morality and way of life are concerned. However, there is at least one other philosophy compatible with freethought that deals with the issues you raised (including the Golden Rule), and that is Secular Humanism.