Can an Atheist be a "Free-Thinker"

[buffalo]

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.

Well then we will just call you “all-knowing”.

 

[Sarpedon]

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

Even our knowledge of biology is contingent upon our brain working a certain way- and I have yet to see a legitmate atheistic explanation of why the brain works that way or how we know that it works that way.

As a theist, I have faith that God designed the brain that way. I see no reason why undirected atomic structures would orgainize in such a way, with no design, as to be able to infallibly interpret reality correctly.

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

Its not biology, its faith. To try to rely only on biology to prove the accuracy of the mind implodes upon itself because the very method by which we could know the idea to be true is contingent upon the idea being true in the first place.

X= accuracy of the mind
Z= biological brain (assuming materialism)

1. If X can only be proved through Z
2. And the accuracy of Z is contingent upon X being true
3. And there is no way to verify X without using Z

See the problem?

Theists can verify X through faith.

 

[StevePr]

Thanks again to all those who have responded. As I look at how the discussion is going, it seems to me that it needs to be focused more on a central concept of the original posting, namely the meaning of “free”.

hasikelee:

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

Dameedna:

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.

free will , or free thinking could simply be a result of natural processes, or may not exist at all.

An idea closely related to “free” is the idea of “choice”, and we often will see the words used together as in making a “free choice”. Sometimes a useful approach in a debate or discussion over an idea is to examine its opposite, or to examine cases where it is not true. I think that approach will help in getting across my basic question.

Are there aspects of our physical universe where we agree that free choice does not exist? I would propose that much (if not all) of modern physical science assumes that what is being studied by the scientific observer does not possess a free choice. For example, gravity and electricity.

One of the basic features of the scientific method is that if one scientist makes a set of observations, in nature or in an experiment, another scientist should be able to make the same obervations to verify the results and conclusions of the first scientist. This only works if the object under observation does not have the freedom to choose how it will behave. If gravity can choose to move the Moon in one fashion when I observe it, but in another fashion when you observe it, we cannot come to any mutually agreed conclusions about the Moon’s motion based on the scientific method. In fact, that is what many ancient cultures believed about the Moon (and stars and planets, etc.), namely that they were individual persons (gods or heros) whose motion was determined by their choices.

A central feature of the theory of biological evolution is the age of the earth being a couple billion years old. This is determined (in part) by scientists measuring the age of rocks. The age of rocks can be determined from the ratio of certain isotopes in the rock which are the product of radioactive decay. We can measure in our lab the radioactive half-life of each isotope and then calculate how much of each isotope should be present after a certain amount of time has passed (i.e. the age of the rock) … unless, of course, the rock has a free choice in deciding how much of each isotope it is going to produce. If the rock has a free choice, then we cannot use the scientific method.

So, the question becomes: For the sake of our discussion, are there certain things in the physical universe which we can agree DO NOT have a free choice? Stars? Planets? Rocks? Oceans? Atoms? Molecules? The bottles of chemicals sitting on my lab bench? Gravity? Electricity? Your cell phone? Your car?

 

[strngrnrth]

A person can freely think starting from any viewpoint. The thinking will lead to a conclusion eventually and then it will narrow accordingly. An example would be finding an underground spring. A surveyor explores an area of a hundred square miles. He learns that there are trees growing in a twenty-square-mile area in the eastern part of the larger area. He then narrows his thinking to the possible location of the spring in that section, where the roots of the trees are finding water. When he locates the spring, he narrows his thinking further to the issue of how to write his report and deliver it on time. The job is done. He is still free to think whateer he wants about other subjects, but thinking leads to answers, which make further asking of the same questions unnecessary unless the answers turn out to have problems. For example, he finds that the trees are dying, and all were planted there recently. Now he knows he must start over.

 

[Wintermute]

amazon.com/Freedom-Evolves-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0670031860

Determinism doesn’t conflict with any rational concept of free will.

 

[AndyF]

StevePr:

Not since he has received the Word.

That is the unfortunate dilemma for he who wishes to not mature. Since he now knows the truth, feigning ignorance is no longer an excuse. As he progresses further and the “things to observe” job sheet becomes ignored, it further gets stacked against him. Worse, as he becomes responsible for the upbringing of youngsters and feeds them with his garbage, thus withholdings, by false knowledge or refusal to assist, his knowledge of seeking a spiritual life that he is aware of exists, he puts himself in a worse state he could ever be in.

Russian Roulette in it’s true sense.

Andy

 

[AgnosTheist]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and not be influenced by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.

Can an Atheist be a “Free-Thinker”? ABSOLUTELY.

 

[buffalo]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought*Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and not be influenced by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.*Can an Atheist be a “Free-Thinker”? ABSOLUTELY.

Agreed - Catholics can not.

**Chapter 14 Liberalism and Free-Thought

…**In all such institutions Liberalism reigns and, in consequence, free-thought. No Catholic can remain a Catholic and affiliate with them. We are Catholics all-in-all—or not at all. We cannot dwell in an atmosphere where God is not. There is no true spiritual life where Jesus Christ is not, and He has given His promise to be with His Church forever. He who abides not in Him lives in the outer darkness. How much do perverse Catholics serve the devil by obstinately clinging to such associations and participating in their works! In the folly of their ignorance, which they assert against the wisdom of the Church, they harden their consciences to the practical guidance of the Holy See and blindly enlist in the service of an enemy whose cunning deludes them into the slavery of Hell—under the disguise of freedom! They forget that the Truth alone makes them free. To know and serve God is the only freedom, and Liberalism completely severs the bond which links man to God. With a just and rational horror does a good Catholic regard Liberalism. Ultramontanism will never cause you to loose your soul; Liberalism is a broad road to the infernal abyss.

 

[Starwynd]

The lone Catholic in a sea of protestants could be considered a “free thinker”.

 

[Wintermute]

Even our knowledge of biology is contingent upon our brain working a certain way- and I have yet to see a legitmate atheistic explanation of why the brain works that way or how we know that it works that way.

As a theist, I have faith that God designed the brain that way. I see no reason why undirected atomic structures would orgainize in such a way, with no design, as to be able to infallibly interpret reality correctly.

Its not biology, its faith. To try to rely only on biology to prove the accuracy of the mind implodes upon itself because the very method by which we could know the idea to be true is contingent upon the idea being true in the first place.

X= accuracy of the mind
Z= biological brain (assuming materialism)

1. If X can only be proved through Z
2. And the accuracy of Z is contingent upon X being true
3. And there is no way to verify X without using Z

See the problem?

Theists can verify X through faith.

Anyone can ‘verify’ anything through faith. That’s the problem with faith. Believing something doesn’t make it true.

 

[Holly3278]

I would think that the terms “Atheist” and “Free-Thinker” would be contradictory. Why? Because to exclude God from your thinking would necessarily restrict your thinking!

 

[Sarpedon]

Anyone can ‘verify’ anything through faith. That’s the problem with faith. Believing something doesn’t make it true.

The point of my argument is that atheists must use faith to validate X. Tell which of the following you would find more reasonable to have faith in:

1. An intelligence created the mind to accurately comprehend truth
2. Atomic and molecule structures assembled in such a way, with no guidance or direction, as to be able to accurately comprehend truth. This wasn’t planned and didn’t have to be, but it happened anyway.

You can place faith in either of these. You have to pick one, unless you want to live in a world where it is impossible to know whether you can say, do or think anything true. For me, 1 seems a lot more reasonable.

I believe that we intepret reality correctly, as does the Church and almost all atheists. The question though, is how we can justify this, and whether a reasonable explanation exists from the atheisitc perspective.

 

[StevePr]

Wintermute:

Determinism doesn’t conflict with any rational concept of free will.

Thank you for joining the discussion.

Can you tell me how you define determinism and how you see determinism in relation to the question of the original post, which is whether it is logical for an atheist to hold that his thought is that of a genuinely free agent?

 

[theAuthor]

StevePr,

Atheists think we are indeed deterministic “wet robots.” That is their expression, not mine. They see free- will as not making sense.

Secondly, they tend to apply the rules of the physical sciences to all aspects of life and the Universe. I am a scientist by training too. How I get around your quandry it is to look at human knowledge as a library. I don’t look into the physics section to find out why the universe exists, or why life exists. Science concerns itself with the “how” of those questions. Atheists/ materialists try and use only one type of human knowledge (science) to the exclusion of all else. That means no metaphysics, no philosophy, no spirituality. If you press atheists about why life exists, you get told to stop asking stupid, pointless questions.

As such, I don’t believe an atheist can be free-thinking. Any more than a fundamentalist can. They are subject to an agenda which they must promote and defend. The irony is that science, which they hold as a god rather than a tool, is founded on a spirit of curiosity. What happened to their spirit of enquiry on non-material matters?

 

[buffalo]

StevePr,

Atheists think we are indeed deterministic “wet robots.” That is their expression, not mine. They see free- will as not making sense.

Secondly, they tend to apply the rules of the physical sciences to all aspects of life and the Universe. I am a scientist by training too. How I get around your quandry it is to look at human knowledge as a library. I don’t look into the physics section to find out why the universe exists, or why life exists. Science concerns itself with the “how” of those questions. Atheists/ materialists try and use only one type of human knowledge (science) to the exclusion of all else. That means no metaphysics, no philosophy, no spirituality. If you press atheists about why life exists, you get told to stop asking stupid, pointless questions.

As such, I don’t believe an atheist can be free-thinking. Any more than a fundamentalist can. They are subject to an agenda which they must promote and defend. The irony is that science, which they hold as a god rather than a tool, is founded on a spirit of curiosity. What happened to their spirit of enquiry on non-material matters?

This continues to puzzle me - why would atheists limit themselves so much?

 

[theAuthor]

They have to tow the party line.

If an atheist admits to the existence of anything paranormal, metaphysical, or spiritual it becomes very easy to win the debate for God’s existence. It’s the thin edge of the wedge. They have to remain closed.

In my experience, the free-thinking atheist is a myth. Atheists are anti-Christian. The free-thinker is agnostic.

 

[Telemachus]

Ok, I’m going to come back to this thread later when I have time. But a proper definition of “free-thinker” really needs to be agreed upon before an actual discussion can ensue.

Might I suggest the following from the Catholic Encyclopedia. This is a Catholic forum after all.

Those who, abandoning the religious truths and moral dictates of the Christian Revelation, and accepting no dogmatic teaching on the ground of authority, base their beliefs on the unfettered findings of reason alone. Free-thought, of which they make a profession, is an exaggerated form, though a quite logical development of the doctrine of private judgement in religious matters. The free-thinker holds such principles, whether of truth or of action, as he is persuaded he can prove; and he gives assent to no others. He is a rationalist. But since the persuasion of having proved (or of being able to prove) even the doctrines of natural religion by reason alone varies infinitely with the individual, it is difficult, save on the most general lines, to class free thinkers together. This difficulty is apparent in the case of the Deists, to whom the appellation was characteristically applied in the latter end of the seventeenth century. They all agree however, in refusing to accept the doctrines of an authoritative Christianity; and it is on this negative ground that their position is most clearly defined.

newadvent.org/cathen/06258b.htm
Underlining mine, as it explains why this thread is so disorderly.

This is much better than Wikipedia (a pox upon it), and the best that I’ve ever found in general.

 

[StevePr]

Hmmm. I must say that I am a bit disappointed. Perhaps I have not been patient enough. My browsing through other threads has pretty much confirmed what I have experienced in this thread, which is that these discussion forums are not really about discussion. They are mainly forums for people to fling statements at each other from the anonymity of their keyboards and then move on.

The exceptions are those threads where someone is asking for information or suggestions or references - where people already basically agree. That is fine. But I expected a thread in the Philosophy Forum to be treated as an opportunity for opposing sides on a question to seriously debate a topic.

A discussion requires (at least) two participants who are willing to stick with a line of thought and explore it in some sort of cooperative manner. Of course, anyone can participate - this is a public forum after all. But my objective in making the original post for this thread was not to “preach to the choir” and merely have a Catholic-viewpoint description of what we think atheists think. I was hoping to actually have a reasoned discussion with any atheist subscriber(s) willing to make their case on the topic by arguing from their own viewpoint. This would include sticking with the topic by proposing questions on topic and answering those posed, rather than just flinging criticisms of what someone else wrote and moving on. It appears that this is not the place to find that discussion.

Thanks to all who have contributed. Patience being a virtue, I will probably remain subcribed to this thread for a little while … waiting for a real, respectful, sincere “discussion” to break out …

 

[theAuthor]

They all agree however, in refusing to accept the doctrines of an authoritative Christianity; and it is on this negative ground that their position is most clearly defined.

This is the bit I would have emphasised.

As a Christian (and this lumps together all who believe in the sacredness of Scripture), we are called to make every thought captive to Christ:

2 Corinthians 10:5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. As such we are told specifically to not lean our own understanding.

A free thinker, by contrast, does exactly that. They (ahem, we ) lean on our own understanding.

An atheist is like the Christian in reverse. They do not rely on their own understanding but tend to be dictated to by a naturalist worldview and their own heroes like Richard Dawkins. They simply cannot be open to the divine, the supernatural or even the metaphysical! Closed-mindedness isn’t free-thinking.

 

[Dameedna]

I would think that the terms “Atheist” and “Free-Thinker” would be contradictory. Why? Because to exclude God from your thinking would necessarily restrict your thinking!

An Athiest does not “exclude” god from his thinking. If he did that, he would never have come to the conclusion he was an athiest.

Try again