Can an Atheist be a "Free-Thinker"

[StevePr]

A recent story broadcast on ABC Nightline on March 28th was titled “A Church for Atheists?”. It is still available for viewing on the ABC News website. It is a story which explores a regular Sunday gathering of a humanist society, complete with their version of a “Sunday school” for the children. In an interview with a member family which included a little girl (about 6 years old?), the girl says a couple of times that she is a free-thinker. Her dad says that he grew up as a Christian but now he thinks everything can be explained by science, so he is atheist.

As a cradle Catholic myself, who is also a well educated and practicing physicist and engineer, I have struggled at times with explaining the logic of believing in God when I deal with scientific evidence in my daily work.

But watching that Nightline show made me curious about how and whether an atheist deals with the concept of free will. Granted, not all atheists accept the same premises, but we have an occasional columnist in our local town newspaper who was once an active Evangelical, fundamentalist preacher who is now a very vocal atheist. He also refers to the free-thinking mentioned by the girl in the Nightline story, although he uses the term “critical thinking”.

Where in the scientific model of the physical universe does an atheist get his “free-thinking” from? In my several decades of academic and professional scientific study, I have never come across a free-thinking atom or molecule. I’ve never seen reference to a free-thinking asteroid or volcano. When Isaac Newton described his laws of motion and gravity, he didn’t ascribe free-thinking attributes to the planets in their orbits. If the atheist is simply a particular complex physical arrangement of the same material described by science in the stars and planets, where then does the atheist get his free-thinking from?

Modern science is a description of the way the universe is, in all its dimensions of space and time. To the scientist, the universe is simply accepted as existing as it is, without any source or cause of its existence proposed or denied.

The idea that any of us can be a free-thinker within this universe is something which is not denied by science but it also cannot be described by science.

Free thought presumes an independent agent of cause. If an atheist argues that he has chosen to be an atheist, or has chosen to write a message on a discussion forum or an article in a newspaper, then he is arguing that he is causing some part of the universe to be that otherwise would not be. This is a creative act (causality) at some level.

The true atheist cannot, to be consistent, accept the existence of a creative agent for any part of the universe. He must accept that his atheism itself is just part of the way the universe is - not caused by any truly free choice on his part. By his own logic, a person “considering” atheism is not really considering it in any meaningfully independent sense - rather, his process of consideration is also just part of “the way the universe is”, the same as the existence of the stars and planets, rocks and trees.

Any system of logic is based on certain fundamental premises which implicitly contain all the conclusions which can be derived from that system of logic. A person who argues that he is atheist or considering atheism, and believes that his thought process and final conclusion are truly free acts, has already assumed enough to disprove atheism. To assume free thought is to assume the existence of at least one creative causal agent (oneself). There are, of course, many different ways to formulate theism, but it seems the most basic element of any theistic system is the existence of a creative cause - something which the free-thinking seeker of atheism has already assumed a priori.

It is interesting to me that I have not yet come across anyone claiming to be an atheist who truly acts in a way completely consistent with the logical implications of his atheistic system (I have to acknowledge the same is true of the theists I know, as well). Atheists I have known act as though they have a free will, which is a fundamentally theistic concept.

I would be very interested in reasoned comments from any atheists on these forums.

 

[Sideline]

Where in the scientific model of the physical universe does an atheist get his “free-thinking” from? In my several decades of academic and professional scientific study, I have never come across a free-thinking atom or molecule.

Presumably, you haven’t come across an atom that was able to procreate, or consume nutrients, either. What gave you the impression that human behaviour should be reducible to the behaviour of individual atoms?

I’ve never seen reference to a free-thinking asteroid or volcano.

Have you ever seen a tree explode into a pool of lava? No one ever said that everything should behave like the molecules they are contructed off. I’m really at a loss as to how you are trying to tie these things together.

An iron girder can’t float, but that doesn’t mean that steel can’t be made to float.

When Isaac Newton described his laws of motion and gravity, he didn’t ascribe free-thinking attributes to the planets in their orbits. If the atheist is simply a particular complex physical arrangement of the same material described by science in the stars and planets, where then does the atheist get his free-thinking from?

If rocks and barley are basically made of the same stuff, why can’t we make beer out of boulders?

The idea that any of us can be a free-thinker within this universe is something which is not denied by science but it also cannot be described by science.

It can’t be described by physics. If you want to understand animal behaviour, that falls under biology and psychology.

Free thought presumes an independent agent of cause.

Yes.

If an atheist argues that he has chosen to be an atheist, or has chosen to write a message on a discussion forum or an article in a newspaper, then he is arguing that he is causing some part of the universe to be that otherwise would not be. This is a creative act (causality) at some level.

Yuppers.

The true atheist cannot, to be consistent, accept the existence of a creative agent for any part of the universe.

Why can’t he?

He must accept that his atheism itself is just part of the way the universe is - not caused by any truly free choice on his part. By his own logic, a person “considering” atheism is not really considering it in any meaningfully independent sense - rather, his process of consideration is also just part of “the way the universe is”, the same as the existence of the stars and planets, rocks and trees.

Yes, I am just a part of the universe. However, I am a thinking, feeling, choosing part. Just because rocks can’t make choices doesn’t mean that I can’t. The same way that it doesn’t mean that birds can’t fly because rocks can’t.

It is interesting to me that I have not yet come across anyone claiming to be an atheist who truly acts in a way completely consistent with the logical implications of his atheistic system (I have to acknowledge the same is true of the theists I know, as well).

It’s because your “logical implications” don’t logically follow.

I would be very interested in reasoned comments from any atheists on these forums.

I hope they came across as reasoned.

 

[ricmat]

Presumably, you haven’t come across an atom that was able to procreate, or consume nutrients, either. What gave you the impression that human behaviour should be reducible to the behaviour of individual atoms?

Reductionism, or more specifically, materialist reductionism says just that. It basically denies the existence of free-will or the existence of God, and says that (I’m paraphrasing here) everything is pre-determined by the natural forces of gravity, electrostatics, motion, etc. Everything can be reduced to molecules or atoms or quarks, or (whatever the most basic particle is these days). And everything is just a sum of those parts interacting in a predictable way determined in advance by the laws of nature.

Of course, Catholics don’t believe this. And recently, the uncertainties involved in quantum physics and chaos theory leave some holes that even the materialists must admit to.

A couple of books which go into this in more detail are:

The Science Before Science - Rizzi
and
A Meaningful World - Wiker & Witt

 

[Sideline]

Reductionism, or more specifically, materialist reductionism says just that. It basically denies the existence of free-will or the existence of God, and says that (I’m paraphrasing here) everything is pre-determined by the natural forces of gravity, electrostatics, motion, etc. Everything can be reduced to molecules or atoms or quarks, or (whatever the most basic particle is these days). And everything is just a sum of those parts interacting in a predictable way determined in advance by the laws of nature.

Sorry, I thought it was a serious question not just another straw man. I should have learned by now.

 

[ricmat]

Sorry, I thought it was a serious question not just another straw man. I should have learned by now.

Please, answer the original question as an atheist…I’m not trying to shut you down. I posted the response primarily for the OP’s benefit - in response only to one item. The books I mentioned cover this in detail.

 

[Tick_Dawk]

Atheists use the term “Free-thinker” to assert that they don’t subscribe to a religion or specific philosophy–in other words, they’re free to think what they want, without having to fit themselves in a specific doxology. It’s not what you’re making it out to be.

 

[buffalo]

Liberalism is a Sin - Liberalism and Free-Thought

 

[Dameedna]

An Athiest can be just as much of a “free-thinker” as anyone else has the potential to be.

Science has not come up with an explanation of conciousness or what we call the human-will yet. That doesn’t mean they won’t. This theme of this post is commonly referred to as the “god” of the Gaps.

Because “science” cannot prove where something comes from, in is then explained through a mechanism called God. A free-thinker is not as likely to simply make up an explanation when they don’t have an answer. If that had been enough to settle the debate(the god of the gaps), then we would never have been able to achieve what we have through science, since it is a continual search for answers.

Be careful of the God of the Gaps. Where will your faith go, when consciousness can be explained scientifically?

As to the actual freethinking part, or why athiests often consider themselves to be free thinkers, is that their “thoughts” are not restricted by something they need to believe, or desire to believe.

People completely and utterly deny any truth in Evolution. This isn’t because we didn’t evolve but because their faith is dependant on a certain series of events. An Adam and Eve, a special place for humanity in the grand scheme of things, and a human soul. Regardless of the evidence and the very real science that has come out of evolution, they will deny it. Why?

If we DID evolve(which I have no doubts on personally), to these people, it means their religion is wrong.How easy is it to think freely, and to be honest with ones ideas when ones very own thinking is completely dependant on their emotions and beliefs?

I’ve alway’s thought, and still do that an individual cannot find God until they accept completely that there isn’t one. It’s a paradox. You can’t find the truth, if your own biases , beliefs, pride and human emotions stop you from finding it.

That can apply to anyone(also athiests).

And I also don’t think our “free-will” or our “free-thinking” is quite so free as we want to believe. There is a reason we now have a concept such as the “criminally insane”. People who’s minds/brains are so damaged, we cannot hold them accountable for their actions. But thats a whole other discussion really.

 

[buffalo]

An Athiest can be just as much of a “free-thinker” as anyone else has the potential to be.

Science has not come up with an explanation of conciousness or what we call the human-will yet. That doesn’t mean they won’t. This theme of this post is commonly referred to as the “god” of the Gaps.

Because “science” cannot prove where something comes from, in is then explained through a mechanism called God. A free-thinker is not as likely to simply make up an explanation when they don’t have an answer. If that had been enough to settle the debate(the god of the gaps), then we would never have been able to achieve what we have through science, since it is a continual search for answers.

Be careful of the God of the Gaps. Where will your faith go, when consciousness can be explained scientifically?

As to the actual freethinking part, or why athiests often consider themselves to be free thinkers, is that their “thoughts” are not restricted by something they need to believe, or desire to believe.

People completely and utterly deny any truth in Evolution. This isn’t because we didn’t evolve but because their faith is dependant on a certain series of events. An Adam and Eve, a special place for humanity in the grand scheme of things, and a human soul. Regardless of the evidence and the very real science that has come out of evolution, they will deny it. Why?

If we DID evolve(which I have no doubts on personally), to these people, it means their religion is wrong.How easy is it to think freely, and to be honest with ones ideas when ones very own thinking is completely dependant on their emotions and beliefs?

I’ve alway’s thought, and still do that an individual cannot find God until they accept completely that there isn’t one. It’s a paradox. You can’t find the truth, if your own biases , beliefs, pride and human emotions stop you from finding it.

That can apply to anyone(also athiests).

And I also don’t think our “free-will” or our “free-thinking” is quite so free as we want to believe. There is a reason we now have a concept such as the “criminally insane”. People who’s minds/brains are so damaged, we cannot hold them accountable for their actions. But thats a whole other discussion really.

Quantum physics is pointing in the direction of God.

But, taking the God of the gaps argument to its conclusion if there are no gaps then we will be God. We cannot be perfect, therefore we cannot be God, therefore there will always be at least one gap.

 

[StevePr]

Am I proposing a “God of the Gaps” argument? Not at all - I would reject that argument as much as Henry Drummond (the philosopher to whom the term is first attributed) rejected it. In his Lowell Lectures on “The Ascent of Man” (1893) he was criticizing Christians who use things which have not yet been well described by science as “gaps which they will fill up with God”. His position was that we must see ALL of nature as the work of “an immanent God”, the “God of Evolution”, “infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker”. This fairly reasonably represents my own concept of God. But this was not the topic of my original post - which in fact never mentioned God.

My original post was about the concept of causality and the implications it has for one who rejects the physical universe as being caused by anything apart from the universe itself. It seems that if one is just not sure of whether the universe is caused by something else, then one must be in the category of agnosticism. But agnosticism is much more susceptible to the possibility of a “God of the Gaps” because an agnostic admits that she/he is not yet sure based on the evidence so far.

I guess this is a free country and I’m fine with the fact that anyone can define what atheism (or Christianity or Islam …) means for himself, but my original post was directed to the atheist as one who positively rejects causality of the universe as being from anything other than the universe itself.

It seems to me that once one begins to go down the road of saying that at least some part of the universe is caused by something else, such as my free will, then one is departing from a consistent atheist position.

I realize that, in practice, many people may call themselves atheist because atheism is just broadly seen as a rejection of the concept of God, and these are people who are rejecting the concept of God they see others promoting. They see hypocrisy on the part of various religious believers, or they see inconsistency between scientific and religious descriptions of the physical universe. But to serious philosophical thinkers, rejection of the religious explanations they have observed as promoted by others cannot get them as far as an atheism which rejects the possibility of creative causality of the universe unless they also reject the possibility of their own free will.

My apologies if I didn’t present it clearly enough, but I intended this thread to be about that aspect of atheism which rejects causality of the universe as being from anything but the universe itself. If that does not describe your atheism, then we need to be in a different thread. If there are NO atheists who hold that position, then … I am puzzled and surprised.

 

[StevePr]

Thanks to those who replied to my original post.

Sideline:

What gave you the impression that human behaviour should be reducible to the behaviour of individual atoms?

No one ever said that everything should behave like the molecules they are contructed off. I’m really at a loss as to how you are trying to tie these things together.

If rocks and barley are basically made of the same stuff, why can’t we make beer out of boulders?

It can’t be described by physics. If you want to understand animal behaviour, that falls under biology and psychology.

Yes, I am just a part of the universe. However, I am a thinking, feeling, choosing part. Just because rocks can’t make choices doesn’t mean that I can’t.

Dameedna:

Where will your faith go, when consciousness can be explained scientifically?

In fact, beer CAN be made out of boulders, but it is not done because the energy and complexity of the process is not cost efficient when barley is so readily available. One of the early synthetic processes that became widely used is the production of synthetic rubber, invented by a scientist at Notre Dame in the 1920s. Because of the fact that natural rubber is derived from the sap of trees grown in tropical areas of South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia and the US was concerned about being cut off from these supply routes during WWII and the years leading up to it, synthetic rubber became an important industrial product.

Besides being a physicist and electrical engineer myself, I routinely work with many other scientists including chemists and occasionally biologists. I don’t know any of them that would deny that our bodies and the bodies of animals are completely made up of the same material as stars and rocks and trees, but just in a different and more complex arrangement. All of the higher level sciences, such as chemistry, biology and psychology are in fact based on physics as their basic building blocks.

Many parts of our and animals’ behavior is already described scientifically, including parts of what we might call consciousness, and I expect more will be so described in the future. None of that threatens my own faith in the least because scientific descriptions of the universe have nothing to do with causality.

If we need to discuss the nature of science, and how it is used to describe the physical universe, I will be happy to do that. However, as I noted in my earlier reply (#10 above), this thread was intended to assume knowledge of the nature of modern science and really be a discussion of the implications of causality on the concept of free will.

 

[Dameedna]

Quantum physics is pointing in the direction of God.

But, taking the God of the gaps argument to its conclusion if there are no gaps then we will be God. We cannot be perfect, therefore we cannot be God, therefore there will always be at least one gap.

If there are no Gaps, this means for many that there ISN’T a God, not that WE are God. Not sure where you got this bit of logic from.

 

[buffalo]

If there are no Gaps, this means for many that there ISN’T a God, not that WE are God. Not sure where you got this bit of logic from.

If your are omniscient then you are what we call God.

 

[Dameedna]

Many parts of our and animals’ behavior is already described scientifically, including parts of what we might call consciousness, and I expect more will be so described in the future. None of that threatens my own faith in the least because scientific descriptions of the universe have nothing to do with causality.

I agree, and in fact don’t have any problem with this. But if people are going to base a faith on a God of the Gaps, the more the gap fills, the worse off their are going to be.

I do not think that “science” or “evolution” actually threatens a belief in a higher power of any kind. I do think, however it threatens certain people’s faith if the “proof” of their God, is based on the Gaps in scientific understanding. I also think that it can and does threaten individual people’s ideas on what is good or not, and who is evil or not, but that’s perhaps another debate.

I feel sad for those that use the God of the Gaps because they are going to live with a constant tension that is not really required. They will also have to deny a lot of what we know and understand and twist themselves into mental Knots rather than live with the mysteries of life. It is in reading about and trying to understand the universe as we currently know it, that has in part led me away from my former militant Athiesm.

It hasn’t actually “led” me anywhere specific, but the universe is just more than a little spooky.

 

[Dameedna]

If your are omniscient then you are what we call God.

Am I also omnipotent if Science has found all the answers?

Making a statement that I am “omniscient” and therefore God, is rather meaningless to me I’m sorry to say.

 

[hasikelee]

I thought free thinker was a term that basically says I can believe whatever I want and discard that belief whenever I want?

Lots of people are free thinkers about a lot of things. At some point in time, we generally make up our minds or at least come to rest on a predictable structure of living. Humans crave structure and stability, even if they search for it in relativism and chaos.

This reminds me a little of no-schoolers or free schoolers…homeschoolers who do not follow a specific, traditional curriculum but rather decide to learn all the time with whatever they might have at the moment.

For some people it works.

Anyways, what is your field? Sometimes your scientific references fall into physics, but a lot of your questions are psychological or sociological.

 

[Dameedna]

My original post was about the concept of causality and the implications it has for one who rejects the physical universe as being caused by anything apart from the universe itself. It seems that if one is just not sure of whether the universe is caused by something else, then one must be in the category of agnosticism. But agnosticism is much more susceptible to the possibility of a “God of the Gaps” because an agnostic admits that she/he is not yet sure based on the evidence so far.

No, not really.

I guess this is a free country and I’m fine with the fact that anyone can define what atheism (or Christianity or Islam …) means for himself, but my original post was directed to the atheist as one who positively rejects causality of the universe as being from anything other than the universe itself.

They don’t “reject” it, they simply don’t have any evidence of it.

And beyond that, if there can never be any understanding of conciousness, you have another whole set of problems in determing which “belief” system holds any truth, when there is no evidence of those belief systems themselves.

It seems to me that once one begins to go down the road of saying that at least some part of the universe is caused by something else, such as my free will, then one is departing from a consistent atheist position.

But athiests aren’t saying that. They aren’t saying that the universe is caused by something else. If they were, they wouldn’t be athiests.

You are the one that seems to believe that your free will comes from something outside of itself. That’s fine, you may be right. But what has that got to do with Athiesm?

I realize that, in practice, many people may call themselves atheist because atheism is just broadly seen as a rejection of the concept of God, and these are people who are rejecting the concept of God they see others promoting. They see hypocrisy on the part of various religious believers, or they see inconsistency between scientific and religious descriptions of the physical universe. But to serious philosophical thinkers, rejection of the religious explanations they have observed as promoted by others cannot get them as far as an atheism which rejects the possibility of creative causality of the universe unless they also reject the possibility of their own free will.

Firstly, there are many deep thinkers who are athiests. One has to presume we have free will, in the first place, which we may do, and may not.

And again, having free will does not negate that it is a result of natural biological processes. It doesn’t “need” to come from anywhere.

My apologies if I didn’t present it clearly enough, but I intended this thread to be about that aspect of atheism which rejects causality of the universe as being from anything but the universe itself. If that does not describe your atheism, then we need to be in a different thread. If there are NO atheists who hold that position, then … I am puzzled and surprised.

It is entirely possible that the universe “simply” exists, and that there is no first cause. In a sense, it is no different than saying that “GOD” has alway’s existed and that there is no first cause to God, he is the “required” first cause.

The universe can simply be the cause and a means to an end, and free will , or free thinking could simply be a result of natural processes, or may not exist at all.

To me, we really don’t know, but I think it’s just as possible as anything else.

 

[Sarpedon]

If the atheist is simply a particular complex physical arrangement of the same material described by science in the stars and planets, where then does the atheist get his free-thinking from?.

This is one of the crucial flaws in atheism. Another question is how we know that the “free-thinking” we have is accurate, if it’s just a physical arrangment.

In case you aren’t aware of this, Alvin Plantinga addresses a form of these arguments in his “Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism” (EAAN).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism

 

[Dameedna]

This is one of the crucial flaws in atheism. Another question is how we know that the “free-thinking” we have is accurate, if it’s just a physical arrangment.

It is only a “crucial flaw” if you think that we actually have the ability to “know” something beyond our biology.

You may claim we can “know” beyond our biology, but if it’s your biology telling you that who will YOU ever know it?

It’s not a flaw, it’s simply inconsistant with theist philosophies

 

[Dameedna]

I thought free thinker was a term that basically says I can believe whatever I want and discard that belief whenever I want?

Ahh…well let’s define free-thinking shall we? But who’s definition of free shall we use? Are we “free” to think what we want and change our minds. Are we free to use a definition of free, that some-one else has given us?

Actually, every single one of us has that capacity to think freely. I say capacity only!! We are all 'able" to think freely, but it doesn’t mean we do.

So what stops us from thinking freely?

For me, it is a cherished or indoctrinated(use of fear) belief. If you want to hold close to an idealology(and you have fearful or special reasons for doing so), then your ability to think freely, will be tempered by your belief, and as such you cannot be free.

But a free thinker, still needs to 'decide" and make a movement in the direction of what they are thinking, so they are still tied, to their previous thoughts and conclusions all which may be assumptions and completely lacking in any real form.

I don’t think we even remotely understand the concept of freedom. To me, it is paradoxical. To be free, we first have to realize we will never be free. By the very nature of freedom we have to restrict our behaviour.

IE, if I believe in freedom, then I am not "FREE’ to kill another human, since I therefore take away their freedom to live, and negate my own belief in freedom.

Freedom of thought is just as paradoxical. I cannot be free in my thoughts, until I realize my thoughts will never be free in and of themselves.

Lots of people are free thinkers about a lot of things. At some point in time, we generally make up our minds or at least come to rest on a predictable structure of living. Humans crave structure and stability, even if they search for it in relativism and chaos.

Yep.

The OP seems to be asking what Athiests think about “free-thought” and where “conciousness comes from”. It doesn’t seem to be a question so much about free thought really, but I could be wrong.

It seems more about a question as to where free thought comes from in the first place. Perhaps I misunderstood.