Philosophy What is 'free thought', or a 'free thinker'?
- Thread starter Blobbenstein
- Start date
A free thinker is someone who isn't attached to any particular ideology or guru or tradition or school of philosophy, and who is able to make up his/her own mind about any issue. Well, something like that.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 19,504
- Age
- 64
- Location
- I'm liek, in Cali, dude.
- Lifestyle
- Vegetarian
OP
OP
what about the philosophy of science?
Surely you don't have to be free of any beliefs, or philosophy in order to be a free thinker?
OP
OP
As I understand it, freethinker is another way of saying atheist, but don't quote me on that.
OP
OP
I'm interested in the idea of what really is free thought. For someone who believes in God, then that is part of their world view, but that is not part of an Atheist's world view. Is someone who is a free thinker free to believe in God?
OP
OP
I feel as someone who has religious beliefs that I am more free to think things and explore idea, than someone who is chained to some kind of scepticism dogma. I suppose that any set of beliefs may restrict someone's thoughts, so that is always a danger, and I personally must keep trying to acknowledge to myself that I don't really know what God is, and that it may be impossible to really know.
You can be an atheist or a theist, you can hold beliefs and be well versed in science and philosophy, but the important thing is your attitude when trying to answer the big questions, i.e. when searching for Truth. You must acknowledge and put aside your biases, and be able to entertain ideas that may seem repulsive or dangerous or out-of-fashion etc. when viewed through the glasses of our culture / group. And consider said ideas with fairness and super-human objectivity, and perhaps a bit of enthusiasm as well. Free-thinking is an enjoyable pursuit after all!
(All this is pure opinion of course.)
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 19,504
- Age
- 64
- Location
- I'm liek, in Cali, dude.
- Lifestyle
- Vegetarian
This statement doesn't make sense to me, at all. First of all, a skeptic is not "chained to dogma". A skeptic questions dogma. Skepticism in itself is not dogma. Second of all, I've always felt that a skeptic/freethinker/atheist/agnostic is more free than someone who has religious beliefs to think things and explore ideas. A person with religious beliefs is the one chained or bound to dogma, whereas the skeptic may study different sets of dogma before choosing what means the most to that person, or choosing no dogma at all. And if they are an atheist, they may say they choose rationality and science over irrationality and faith.
By the way, I once saw a bumpersticker that read: "My karma ran over your dogma".
Clueless Git
Plant powered
Very loose definition ...
It's when any conclusion (no matter how inconvenient) is accepted if it fits the facts and evidence available.
The opposite being when facts and evidence (no matter how obvious) are not accepted if they don't lead to a convenient conclusion.
Veganism (which, let's be honest, is one huge pain in the *** of an inconvenient conclusion to arrive at?) is a good example of the former.
Anything angled towards the taking of other lives in order to benefit our own lives (omnivorism, pro-abortion, death penalty, etc) always provides prolific examples of the latter in action.
It's when any conclusion (no matter how inconvenient) is accepted if it fits the facts and evidence available.
The opposite being when facts and evidence (no matter how obvious) are not accepted if they don't lead to a convenient conclusion.
Veganism (which, let's be honest, is one huge pain in the *** of an inconvenient conclusion to arrive at?) is a good example of the former.
Anything angled towards the taking of other lives in order to benefit our own lives (omnivorism, pro-abortion, death penalty, etc) always provides prolific examples of the latter in action.
Last edited:
OP
OP
I didn't say they were, but they can become chained to dogma. As when everything has to fit into a 'it has to be able to be tested in a scientific way' framework, I think that is dogma.
According to a quick online search, a free thinker is someone who rejects authority and or tradition and more often than not, religion. They base their opinions and beliefs on science and logic. See, all you had to do was google, lol.
So based on that, it seems there's a difference between having the freedom to think something and actually being a free thinker.
So based on that, it seems there's a difference between having the freedom to think something and actually being a free thinker.
Clueless Git
Plant powered
There is a significant difference twix theory, proof and law in science, Blobbers.
Contrary to common conception scientists regard most things as unproven and tend to hold them in a 'yet to be proven/disproven' suspense account.
Gravity is one example of a phenonema that has passed into scientific law, for instance.
I found it quite interesting to read a scientist explaining that even the law of gravity is still regarded as only having been proven to be reliable for a considerable period of time, though.
Strictly speaking it is kinda held more as "not disproven yet" rather than as an absolute that would not have to be reviewed if further evidence/proof comes to light.
The definition of dogma is; "a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted"
If we start saying that questioning and doubting things (scientific process, basicaly) is also a form of dogma then we render the term dogma to be absolutely meaningless.
Clueless Git
Plant powered
And here comes the joke ...
Q. What did the buddhist say to the Catholic?
A. My kar-ma just run over your dog-ma.
Q. What did the buddhist say to the Catholic?
A. My kar-ma just run over your dog-ma.
OP
OP
I know that scientists should have the view that you can't prove anything, only gather evidence.
Unless we really know what gravity is, who is to say that it wouldn't change or disappear, when the token in the meter runs out?
I think it would be a scientifically accurate statement to say that we don't know whether every part of reality can be subjected successfully to the scientific process, but many people say it has to be or they won't believe it. I think that is when things become dogmatic, and fit your definition.
Unless we really know what gravity is, who is to say that it wouldn't change or disappear, when the token in the meter runs out?
I think it would be a scientifically accurate statement to say that we don't know whether every part of reality can be subjected successfully to the scientific process, but many people say it has to be or they won't believe it. I think that is when things become dogmatic, and fit your definition.
