I mentioned in one of my comments that a “Christian freethinker” is an oxymoron, or loosely a “contradiction in terms”. I realize I should not have made such sweeping statement that might antagonize some liberal or progressive Christians. I am sorry.
Wikipedia defines freethought as “a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any dogma.” A freethinker is therefore someone who practices freethought.
On the other hand, a Christian, in the broadest sense, is one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. By this definition, Christianity seems to be incompatible with freethought because the former relies on the “divinely-inspired” authority of religious doctrines to learn about the supposed teachings of Jesus while the latter repudiates such doctrines due to hearsay and circular reasoning, hence my use of the term ‘oxymoron’ to describe “Christian freethinker”.
But upon deeper reflection, I am beginning to believe that there are actually many Christian freethinkers (note the lack of quotes this time) out there. In fact, I used to be one. But it has a lot to do with the timing. Freethought holds that beliefs should be based on reason instead of authority, but most Christians had already acquired their sacred beliefs long before they were capable of rational thought, and so while they would now think critically when presented with new issues or claims, I guess they simply didn’t get the chance to evaluate the quality of the cognitive process by which they originally formed their religious beliefs way back in childhood.
In my personal experience, it was relatively late in life when I encountered cogent arguments against the tenets of my faith. For a long time I merely skirted the Problem of Evil, taking comfort in the belief that God has a purpose for everything, a grand plan that is just beyond our human understanding. My faith was even strengthened after reading Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time because it somehow seemed to imply the necessity of a Creator, offering “scientific support” for my belief. (I felt uneasy at the part where Hawking suggested how the four-dimensional space-time could be finite but with no boundaries – like the two-dimensional surface of the earth – so the universe could have no beginning nor end but simply be, negating the need for a creator. I was later relieved when he said that such wave-function scenario could only happen in imaginary time, and in real time in which we exist, there will always be boundaries.)
At this point, was I what you would call a freethinker? A lot of people would probably say no because I wasn’t a critical thinker. According to The Critical Thinking Community, critical thinking is “the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.” And based on that definition, I surely was not a critical thinker.
But critical thinking is not the same as freethinking. While freethought values science, reason and logic, critical thinking is more concerned with how scientific is the evidence, how rational is the argument, and how logical is the conclusion:
Freethought is the general process; critical thinking is the quality control. As such, I personally believe that it is actually possible for a Christian to be a freethinker as long as he honestly tries to be rational, regardless of the quality of his rationality.
But once he is presented with a compelling argument against the basis of his faith, he will have to choose between Christianity and freethought. He will either have to remain blind and stubborn – or start reexamining his beliefs. And in my case, it was this image that changed everything:
Once I realized that this “Word of God” is actually just hearsay and might as well be stories concocted by fallible humans with their own personal interests in mind, it was almost immediately that I stopped considering myself a Christian.
To the Christian freethinkers (again, note the lack of quotes), I know it isn’t easy to question one’s faith especially if one believes that questioning will jeopardize one’s immortal soul. But ask yourselves, who are you questioning -God, or just the self-proclaimed human messengers? Once you realize it’s the latter, I bet you wouldn’t think twice about applying critical thinking to every belief you hold sacred. And then you could honestly say that you are, as you always have been, a freethinker, regardless of your beliefs.
its funny how this site defines "freethinker" – someone who is supposedly guided by "reason, science and secularism"
a true "freethinker" acknowledges that he does not know everything yet, that he could be wrong on areas outside "reason, science and secularism"
a true "freethinker" has no room for prejudice
i seriously doubt the "freethinkers" here can sincerely say to people 'not guided by' "reason, science and secularism" the famous words of Voltaire – i don't agree with what you said, but i will fight for your right to say it
a true "freethinker" is open to dialogue with religion
come on people – this is already the 21st century. the post-modern era
Well said my friend
A couple of years ago I came across a couple of self-professing atheist with a disdain for religion (particularly Christianity) that was just beyond sensibility. The problem with those types of atheists is that they presume that all people of faith are irrational and that because of that they tend to be misguided when it comes to morality. I argued that it is not specifically the irrationality of faith per se that is the problem; the problem is really about the utopic exclusivist and fundamentalist mindset, which non-religionists can be very much vulnerable to, as well. For more on this, please visit:
http://hgamboa.multiply.com/journal/item/72/The_D…
The author, of course, is correct to say that Christians (in the broadest sense) believe in the teachings of Jesus “the” Christ. However, professing to believe in Jesus’ teachings is one thing… to know exactly what the teachings are is a different story. The thing is, I don’t see this being a matter of conservative Christian understanding versus liberal (or progressive) Christian understanding. To me it is more a matter of competent versus incompetent Christian understanding. Jesus the Christ was someone who broke prejudicial barriers in his time. He was a revolutionary, a dissenter; he was someone who lived a message announcing that there was no status defined by religion, by tribe, by culture, by cult, by ritual, or by illness that could separate any person from the love of God. Christians with competent understanding of the teachings of Jesus the Christ can be both freethinkers and critical thinkers.
The New Testament does not employ circular reasoning, in fact, it is utilizing linear reasoning by upholding the validity, historicity of its truth claims. The Bible makes (x) a basic affirmation of truthful facts AND THEN makes declaration about the truthfulness about God (y). That's not circular. It becomes circular when the the basic affirmation of truthful facts (x) is solely buttressed by (y).
Look at the method of the apostles: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched–this we proclaim concerning the Word of life." (1 John 1:1).
These apostles have the right tools to construct inarguably an inductive argument, and arguably a deductive argument.
Question: How do we know that the truth claims in the Bible are true indeed?
The Christian Freethinker is not an oxymoron. It's an empty set. While we cannot take "thinking" away from the Christians, their Christian-ness should go away once he starts thinking away from tradition and dogma. Come on, who is a thinking person can ever accept Jesus Christ did magic?!? They cannot have it both ways.
well no one can explain everything. Can you?
An essential part of Christian theology is Christ's resurrection – the fact that he did indeed rise from the dead after three days.
A little hard to swallow given that all the references claiming his rising from the dead are straight from the bible, and the only witnesses mentioned are also from the bible.
Circular reasoning.
that is if you make a prejudice that the New Testament is not historical writing
Actually, I would argue that the NT is not really historical writing in the sense that the writings chronicled the life of Jesus during the lifetime of Jesus. The Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, John, Luke) were not written until way after Jesus was purportedly killed. The very first writings of the NT comes from Paul and Paul never really knew or met Jesus the Christ personally.
Hi,
I'm home. It has been awhile since you posted this thread.
Freethinker magazine (1881), founded by G.W. Foote, was purposely conceived as an anti-religious magazine. Foote wrote:
"The Freethinker is an anti-Christian organ, and must therefore be chiefly aggressive. It will wage relentless war against Superstition in general, and against Christian Superstition in particular. It will do its best to employ the resources of Science, Scholarship, Philosophy and Ethics against the claims of the Bible as a Divine Revelation; and it will not scruple to employ for the same purpose any weapons of ridicule or sarcasm that may be borrowed from the armoury of Common Sense."
Wikipedia traced its history and noted that "the term Free-Thinker emerged toward the end of the 17th century in England to describe those who stood in opposition to the institution of the Church, and of literal belief in the Bible."
Freedom from Religion Foundation defines "free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.
"No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth."
+++++++
Clearly, organized freethinkers consciously excluded religious persons from their in-groups. Christian freethinker, by default of their postulate, is an oxymoron.
+++++++
However, if we take a second look at the wikipedia definition, there are two basic elements of freethought as a philosophical viewpoint: (1) opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and (2) should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any dogma.
(2) does not necessarily imply (1). It means that authority, tradition and dogma do not necessarily connote irrationality. The argument here lies in the reasonableness of religious belief. It means that religious people are also thinking people. They also experience awe and wonder, not only through their encounter with the sacred, but also through their appreciation of the value of the human mind and its discoveries in science and technology.
A jesuit priest and expert in genetics, Paulinus Forstoefel, has this to say:
"In all public appearances as a scientist, I made no effort to disguise that fact that I am also a committed man of faith. I always wore clerical garb (the Roman collar) at the scientific meetings I attended. I was aware that some of my colleagues thought it remarkable that I could be a bona fide scientist and a priest at the same time. I also knew that often young men and women coming with naive and unexamined religious beliefs to secular universities such as Ohio State could not justify their religious beliefs when challenged by scientific theories and therefore abandoned their religious practices. I myself had to face the same challenges and come to some honest resolutions of them."
The work of brilliant christian philosophers, who devoted their life in search for truth and excelled in their field, are no less critical thinking persons. take the case of Anthony Flew and many others.
It is the bias of some freethinkers against authority, tradition, and dogma as irrational that divided the field of free-thought in two groups: the atheist/agnostic/bright thinkers in one side and the religious thinkers in other side.
It should be noted that there are thinkers (philosophers and theologians) who are critical to the institutional church particularly in the area of authority, tradition and dogma. The are called dissenters by the conservatives but they called themselves as progressives. They are against authority, tradition and dogma but they remained believers of God. In fact, they challenged the conservatives to go back to the basic and fundamental teachings of the church; back to jesus of nazareth and the historical jesus, who walked in this earth, to recover its original intent in proclaiming the kingdom of god; re-examined the dogma and challenged it; etc.
It is in this spirit that I remain a believer yet critical on authority, tradition and dogma of my religion. In a sense, I am a christian freethinker. In my view, christian freethinker is not an oxymoron.
//(1) opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and (2) should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any dogma.
(2) does not necessarily imply (1).//
You may have missed the conjunction 'AND' between (1) and (2). 🙂
I fully agree with Paulinus Forstoefel that a christian freethinker is not an oxymoron. I believe science and religion can still complement each other. By religion I do not mean the organized and institutional religion but the essence of what Jesus Christ really taught us. I started questioning Catholic teachings when I was still in high school. And through the years, I have peeled the church's dogma one layer after another until now I find what is really left is the pure, loving and simple teachings that Jesus Christ taught long ago. I feel my religion should revolve on the spirituality of His teachings and not on dogma. And that science and logical reasoning should prevail. But I also feel science is empty, meaningless if not nourished and sustained by a belief in a Higher Being. Because in the vastness of the universe, where no man has even seen the edges of space, do we even know what we are negating? Do we even have an idea of the immensity of That whom we are saying does not exist? Just my two cents worth.
hiya kuya Jong,
I have something to share po with you regarding this topic,
try researching about Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne and Bernard Lonergan S.J. they are the forerunners of process philosophy and transcendental Thomism.
I hope that these readings would somehow enlighten you ( as I have been and still being) regarding the implications that are posited by the theodicic questions in FF.
Process philosophy and the consequent process theology it develops is a major movement in Christian thought througout the last century and until the contemporary period.This is what I am trying to enmesh in my beliefs as a liberal theist; pardon the vagueness, but I promise to make a definitive article on this once I have enough research and reference ( and time of course, i'm studying kase eh.haha XD).
to Aletheia be the glory!
i think a christian freethinker is someone who takes an extra step to weigh different points of view, and accepts whichever is more rational – rather than rationalize and choose whatever suits his prior conclusion/belief. A christian freethinker is someone who questions and seeks answers even outside the premises of his church. He is a man in a journey who is willing to change directions as needed to get to the truth.
Well if the topic ‘Christian religion’ is discussed then Christian freethinker is indeed an oxymoron, because based on the compartmentalization or cognitive dissonance these topic is excluded from critical thought. So you can have a freethinker who is religious but in all kind of evidence based science matters using logic and reason via his frontal lobes, but as soon the topic is reaching religion the ‘reptile brain’ e.g. the emotional processing the limbic system is taking control and all logic and reason is willfully ignored.
Sam Harris conducted a study which areas are involved when talking about non-religious topics versus about religious topics with theist and atheist using fMRI brain scans. The link is leading to the PDF with the findings. http://www.project-reason.org/images/uploads/cont…
[But ask yourselves, who are you questioning -God, or just the self-proclaimed human messengers? Once you realize it’s the latter, I bet you wouldn’t think twice about applying critical thinking to every belief you hold sacred. And then you could honestly say that you are, as you always have been, a freethinker, regardless of your beliefs.]
Well-put 🙂
What a lot of the conservatives I have met fail to realize is that try as they might to explain away the divinity of their chosen deity, in the end, they're still getting their info from a third-person source, be it a book or a preacher.
It's like trying to do science with gossip 😉
that is to assume that all third-person sources are unreliable. a third-person information that a certain Charles Darwin existed is not invalid.
on a side note, the theme of Big Bang Theory, the sitcom, says, "math, science, history — unraveling the mystery." LOL
A third-person information that a certain Charles Darwin existed is unreliable on its own, but corroborating it with information from other sources increase its reliability. How many other sources corroborate with the truth claims in the Bible?
That criteria goes the same with the study of the truth claims of the Bible. I would even invite you to study archaeology, numismatics, paleography, history, etc — to corroborate the truth claims of the Bible.
Take archaeology for example, Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, has said:
"No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by phoebe hannah, FilipinoFreethinkers. FilipinoFreethinkers said: New Post: The Christian Freethinker https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/07/22/the-christian-freethinker/ […]