Posted: 12 November 2012 Updated: whenever
This page represents a response to a blog post upon which I'm not able to comment, for technical reasons. If you wish to communicate your opinion regarding this topic, you can contact me at cdoswell at earthlink.net - either use the email hyperlink or cut and paste after replacing _at_ with @. However, if you're not willing to have your comments posted here, along with my response, don't waste my time or yours.
The content of the blog is in plain text. My responses are in red text.
Let’s examine the phenomenon commonly and often quite immodestly
portrayed by some involved as free thought. Many even write it as one
word, “freethought“, as if jamming the adjective and noun together
somehow is distinctive, hip, or innovative. [Analog: "Hey, I drive a
'silvertruck', work asn a 'atmosphericscientist' and grow an
'organicvegetablegarden'; see how rad, groovy, alternative, and
independent I am from the constraints and oppression of societal
linguistic mores." Uh, no! I simply would sound like a self-important
fool.]
Is this compound noun such a major issue that
it's worth devoting most of an entire paragraph to it? I can
understand a pet peeve, of course, but this seems to be going out of
the way to find fault with a concept – and its adherents.
"” (in reality, two words). From dictionary.com:
*free
adjective, freˇer, freˇest, adverb, verb, freed, freeˇing.
adjective
1. enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery: a land of free people.
2. pertaining to or reserved for those who enjoy personal liberty: They were thankful to be living on free soil.
3. existing under, characterized by, or possessing civil and political
liberties that are, as a rule, constitutionally guaranteed by
representative government: the free nations of the world.
4. enjoying political autonomy, as a people or country not under foreign rule; independent.
5. exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as
a person or one’s will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent;
unrestricted.
*thought
noun
1. the product of mental activity; that which one thinks: a body of thought.
2. a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion: to collect one’s thoughts.
3. the act or process of thinking; mental activity: Thought as well as action wearies us.
4. the capacity or faculty of thinking, reasoning, imagining, etc.: All her thought went into her work.
5. a consideration or reflection: Thought of death terrified her.
Dictionary.com doesn’t have a definition for the bogus combination
freethought; but quite clearly, it would be a combination of free and
thought. “Duh!”, you may say…but bear with me.
Was all the preceding really necessary?
Seems to me to be mostly a long-winded but pointless introduction that
shows your inclination toward pedantry and little more. That
something this trivial should require this dictionary quotation seems
like killing flies with a thermonuclear device.
Clearly, from number 5 under free, the most literal meaning of free
thought is: thinking that is exempt from external authority,
interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one’s will. In short,
purely free will in thinking–the free thinker as a basal concept.
So-called "freethinkers" act like they're elite, special, a clique or
club of the intellectually elevated, who somehow have moved beyond the
shackles of external imposition on their contemplations. In fact,
almost all human beings are free thinkers to some extent; and most
“freethinkers” indeed have bound themselves and are not so "free" after
all. Let’s explore how.
Your sweeping generalization about how
freethinkers regard themselves and others is simply a caricature that
matches your own perspective rather well, unsurprisingly. If you
find some folks (who consider themselves freethinkers) condescending,
perhaps you should examine your own comments in a similar light.
I don't see that you’ve "explored how"
freethinkers are not so free in what follows.
Consider the realms of thought–outside extremes of insanity or mental
handicap–as a series of nested archetypes, astronomical orbital systems
or spheres. Consider Matryoshka dolls if you prefer a physical analog.
Each one but the biggest is a subset of the next largest, and each one
but the smallest includes (but covers more than) the next smallest.
What follows is at best a pseudo-analytical
presentation. Unlike the nested dolls, whose physical volume
creates a logical and, in fact, necessary hierarchy, your various modes
of thought can’t be so easily arranged. You’re evidently making a
value judgment about each type of thought, but for which no measure has
been offered by which to order things. The argument of a
hierarchy of thought is flawed by having no foundational measure by
which such a hierarchy can be established. Does this “analysis”
have any source other than your own fertile brain? Is it
recognized and used by cognitive psychologists, for example? I
think not. If your nested-doll framework has no such
accreditation, of course, this doesn't mean it's without any value or
substance. It's nothing more or less than a product of your own
personal viewpoint, which is fine but not authoritative or
substantiated in any way, so I have no compelling reason to accept it
at face value.
From the inside out, the Matryoshka Thinking Nest behaves like this:
* The smallest within is purely computational "thought", the kind
performed by computers and calculators, constrained inescapably by code
based on purely arithmetic logic and nothing else. Call this
"robotics", as it can be automated. For that reason, most people don’t
consider this as "thought"; but since you and I and several mammalian
and avian species can do at least rudimentary math, it is a form of
thought. In fact, any organism with brain matter performs calculations,
whether or not it consciously realizes this. Of course, we humans can
do much more. [I don't mean advanced mathematical logic--numerical
methods, trig, calculus, any math Archimedean and later, though even
Archimedean concepts are easily automated today. I mean direct or
applied arithmetic.]
A lot of this thinking truly is instinctive and unaware, given the
millions of calculations our brain makes without conscious effort. Yet
was [sic] perform rudimentary, conscious computations on a frequent
basis: balancing the checkbook, deciding whether to play ball given a
20% vs. 70% chance of rain, slowing down by 10 mph so that speed trap
ahead doesn’t nail us. We freely perform these thoughts, making them,
quite literally, free thinking!
* Emotion is the most subjective, and next most instinctive, form of
thought–one that can benefit us (love leading to compassionate
behavior, risk-taking that reaps rewards, or fear of an approaching
bear) or hurt us (sheer panic, sustained despair exacerbating clinical
depression, or rage turned violent). It also is the least rational mode
of thought, and often overwhelms all of the others to our detriment.
Addictions, which are chemical, nonetheless thrive on emotions run far
amok. Emotions can be instinctive (fear of that bear) or chosen and
freely thought (procrastination and the motivation to overcome that).
* Outside those are analytic processing and "reasoned" logic, which can
make use of the mathematical results in the inner shell of thought to
shape conceptual models and draw conclusions, and which uses desire and
curiosity (emotional thoughts) as motivators. Call this "science".
Advanced math is the main way to describe, modulate and revise
scientific concepts, and belongs here. While much of this can be
automated, conceptualization and creativity (see below) still are the
biggest forces of scientific advancement today. Artificial
intelligence, I must acknowledge, seems to be a leaking of thought both
ways through the outer shell of the smallest doll. However, “science,
logic and reason” may be wielded by the self-professed "free thinker"
as a panacea, the end-all or peak intellectual manifestation of the
human experience, and as such, the very pinnacle of humanity. In
reality, that’s a manifestly dogmatic, self-limiting, and truly
enslaving approach, as I’ll cover in Part 2.
This, of course, is a grotesque
misrepresentation of freethought, as I will explain in several places
below. I certainly can't speak for
others, but my version of "freethought" is simply that I reject the
illogical and unnecessary constraints religion puts on thought. I
don’t believe that "science, logic and reason" are the only acceptable
ways of thinking, so I can’t understand why you would be justified in
making such an assertion. You must have me confused with Mr.
Spock (another imaginary character) whose wholly "logical" facade is
nothing more than a literal allegory - a counterpoint for other
imaginary characters to refute!
* Imagination, a.k.a. creativity. Most children are masters of this.
This is expressed in countless ways, to the benefit of the “left” brain
(science and engineering) or the “right” (all manner of artistic
endeavors). Endeavors such as architecture, military strategy,
philosophy, and music theory represent exquisite yet highly disparate
blends of both sides. Although most of us favor one or the other, many
of the most renowned thinkers for either side historically are adept at
both (e.g., Socrates, Archimedes, Sun Tzu, Ben Franklin, and any
scientist or engineer with artistic talent). Innovation–including but
not limited to the great technological inventions of any era–would be
impossible without this chosen shell of thought being well-cultivated
and encouraged.
* Spiritual. This is not necessarily the same as religious; though
religion certainly is a major component of this for many people. Plenty
of highly spiritualized thinking can be done either within or outside a
specific doctrinal religion. Perhaps the most primitive form of
spirituality, one common to the great majority of people, is known as
our conscience or better judgment–a guiding rudder that often invoked
involuntarily to stop ourselves from delving into danger. [Most of us
who are religious consider this a gift from God, a manifestation of the
Holy Spirit in Christian thought, and it is an intrinsically spiritual
phenomenon.]
But spirituality obviously can be taken far beyond that, into all
manner of extrapersonal, wondrously out-of-self thought, with seemingly
countless nuances of discovery. In essence, this is the outermost doll
because it is the most naturally unconstrained. Even the doctrinal
religions, within their walls of what’s right and wrong, permit an
avenue to the spiritually timeless, a.k.a. eternity. This shell is
quite vast…its exploration clearly a matter of choice.
One can attempt to subject their spiritual thinking to an external
authority (usually God). Christians believe we freely choose whether to
welcome all three Trinity persons (including the Holy Spirit) into our
lives. Athiests deliberately reject it–sometimes with great conscious
struggle or pull from the spiritual urges still suppressed within–while
agnostics sidestep the matter as an unknown pending further evidence
and/or spiritual influence.
Another sweeping, self-serving generalization
– atheist opinions vary widely regarding the topic of spirituality, and
other topics, as well. To say atheists reject spirituality is
simply not an accurate statement.
Free will inherently means that even believers in God sometimes think
spiritually outside what God authorizes or approves. This is often
referred to as “sin”, taking the specific form of idolatry, malicious
behavior (e.g., murder, theft, lying, abuse) or following false gods
(including self-worship).
I have no interest in debating the reality of
free will, but do you have anyone in particular in mind regarding
self-worship, here?
Even in religion, however, free will exists; otherwise we revert back
inside the inner doll and become robotic slaves to the deity, something
unknown to any modern mono- or poly-theistic faith. Religious dogma or
ritual, when mindlessly followed without consideration for its purpose,
is not spiritual in nature and doesn’t fit in this thought realm; for
one has bound himself to a robotic list of rules more akin to something
made of the binary digits that occupy the inner nest. How telling it is
that Jesus himself cautioned against rigid adherence to lists of rules,
and vitiated the Old Covenant laws.
One can find statements by jesus in the new testament that assert otherwise!
Historical figures who seemed to have attained high levels of the
spiritual realm (along with more inner shells) include Isaac
Newton–yes, he was a deeply spiritual theologian and scientist–as well
as George MacDonald and ex-atheist C. S. Lewis. Monastic monks who live
up to the ideal of their chosen path should have this one
well-accomplished too. I believe Mother Teresa did; her motivations and
seemingly disadvantageous selflessness in the Lord’s name indicate so
to me. The Reverend (we must not forget that title!) Dr. Martin Luther
King seemed intensely driven by Biblically rooted spiritual compulsion
toward both racial justice and personal responsibility.
Nice list. Do I need to provide a list
of atheists who have made comparable contributions to society? I
don’t see that this establishes anything! Many historically great
thinkers were both spiritual and atheists. For an extensive
listing, see here, under the heading of "This Week In Freethought History".
In any event, spirituality even has an outer shell, because of the fact
that human thought is limited. This is because we are not omnipotent.
We are powerful, but not as much so as we often believe. Our “gut
instinct” can be wrong, as can our conceptualizations and calculations.
We err, we exude unearned hubris, we behave contrary to our better
judgment, we can fail to solve problems despite the collective
mathematical, analytic, logical, creative, spiritual thinking of
millions. To see evidence of this,
To what, precisely, does "this" refer
here? That humans err? Does anyone really need your
"analysis" and "evidence" to be convinced that humans err or struggle
to resolve problems? No freethinker I know would assert such, so to whom are you addressing this?
witness the ongoing absence of Middle East peace, the internal discord amongst atheists,
I find this reference somewhat puzzling in
regard to the still-ambiguous "this" because internal discord among
atheists has been the industry standard for all time. It isn't
new, it's of no meaning in establishing that humans make mistakes or
that humans can be challenged to find solutions to conflicts.
Rather, internal discord within atheism is a direct consequence of the
freethinking character of atheism, unfettered by religious dogma. Discord within atheism is normal, not a symptom of error or an innate inability to solve problems.
the sinfulness of the religious faithful, the existence of MRSA
infections, or the absence of American self-sufficiency in energy, for
example. We’re not that good and we’re not so smart as we think; in
fact, it can be argued through tangible evidence and logic that we are
a substantially self-destructive, corrupt and ultimately doomed species
in our present state…just as the Bible tells us we are!
You’re free to draw whatever conclusions you
prefer about the human race. Not all of us subscribe to the
notion that we're all forever stained by the deeds of a primeval couple
seduced by a talking snake to eat an apple. Not all of us believe
we're presently doomed to self-destruction – in fact, many of us regard
such thinking as potentially dangerous and bordering on a kind of
madness. This is precisely the sort of shackles that religious
dogma imposes on human thinking. As freethinkers, our freedom of
thought is a consequence of having rejected such assumptions for the
freedom to imagine, among other things, a better world; one unpoisoned
by the madness associated with religious beliefs. I'd like
creeping theocracy to be stopped and the imposition of religion on all of us to cease, forever.
In Part 1, I covered the levels of thinking as a nested analog to
Matryoshka dolls, arguing that the freest thought is the most
unlimited–in other words, that which doesn’t deny or abrogate the
spiritual realm outside oneself. Thinking in a way that is not
constrained by self-limitation, consideration not just of the
artificial and natural but of the supernatural, truly is the height of
open-mindedness. Refusing it, denying higher authority outside
humanity, restricts thought merely to the tangible and visible, and as
such, is a form of closed-mindedness.
Just what authority exists outside of
humanity? Your hypothetical deity for which no credible evidence
has ever been offered? Yes, my mind is closed to any such
hypothesis for which there is only hearsay evidence! I have no
problem denying the existence of such an evidently imaginary
"authority"! You offer no substantive argument, but rather have
assigned ultimate authority to a deity for which no empirical evidence
can be offered. Yes, my mind is quite closed to attempts to
justify your beliefs on faith alone and I have no problem with
that. Imagine trying to publish a scientific paper that required
accepting its validity on faith!!
Ultimately, those who bind themselves within any of the dolls’ shells
are enslaved, not free. That applies to all of us! We all are enslaved
to our human limits of thought. But the smaller the doll we choose to
inhabit, the less free and the more restrained we become, the smaller
the intellectual prison cell with which we have sentenced ourselves.
And we must accept your ordering of the
shells? You’ve not established any measureable basis for your
ordering or for the legitimacy of the concept of the shells as a way to
understand thought, so why should we accept it? Of course human
thought is inevitably finite and so is constrained by that. So
why limit it still further by imposing religious dogma?
Don’t get me wrong: I love logic and reason! “Science, logic and
reason” (with a dollop of imagination selectively mined out of
necessity) are the ideal modes of thought when applied as tools to
solve scientific and logical problems! Yet only closed-minded fools,
deniers utterly bereft of evidence for their null claims, attempt to
apply natural standards to the supernatural, or illogically demand
tangible evidence for that which transcends the tangible. How shallow,
self-limiting, and truly, contrary to logic and reason!
Another important caveat: it also is possible for those in the outer
realms to lose or ignore the inner ones, thereby becoming
intellectually hollow. We see that capacity exercised commonly in those
who are very spiritual but ignorant of math and science, or in the
scientist or engineer with extremely underdeveloped social (emotional)
skills.
Bereft of evidence? Surely you cannot
claim we are bereft of evidence for our absence of belief when you have
no evidence on behalf of your claims for the existence of such a
deity. I'm not going to be offended by being called a
"closed-minded fool" but it seems to me that it might well be you
who is closed-minded (I decline to call you a fool, however). You
insist that we must accede to your unfounded assertion that your belief
without evidence is in fact "evidence" that you're thinking on some
sort of higher plane than we freethinkers? You're just projecting your
failures onto the ideas of your opposition.
Nonetheless, logic and reason alone are nothing more than chains of
bondage–dark dungeons, really–when considering matters outside that
shell. Ignoring or denying the outer realms, we even may get
comfortable, smugly self-delusional in the idea that we’ve gone as far
as necessary, that this stop alone will suffice.
Logic and reason are bondage? They
demand evidence and rationality, yes. Since you can provide
no substantive evidence, you’re free to assert the existence of "outer
realms" without the need to provide any evidence for them. That's
convenient for your viewpoint, of course. But I can deny the very
existence of these "outer realms" while you can offer nothing in
support of them beyond belief without evidence – i.e., faith. In other words, the postulated existence of these "outer realms" has no substantive basis.
None of us are purely free thinkers because of our human
limitations–distraction, diversion, hubris, finite IQ, irrationality
(a.k.a. emotion), and vulnerability to anti-intellectual influences.
Still, we are freest in thought when we don’t enclose ourselves within
any of the inner dolls–when we use our innate (or God-given, for some
of us) free will to wander the fullest possible realms of learning and
exploration. Learning doesn’t involve merely facts, concepts, logic and
reason, but also, ideas past the here and now, beyond the tangible.
Sorry, but this is simply nonsense.
Your doll analogy is not reality – it’s only an analogy. Free
thought is constrained by reality and reality as we perceive it is
based on empirical evidence. We're allowed to imagine anything we
wish – but we have to base our perception of reality on what we observe.
Consider love. I've posed to rigid adherents of "science, logic and
reason" the following simple challenge. Do you love someone? Who?
[We'll assume the challenge is directed at a man married to "Annie",
for the sake of argument.] Now…prove you love Annie!
Naturally, after considerable hemming, hawing, stammering, hand-waving,
sidestepping, avoidance tactics, diversionary straw men, complaints
about the validity of the challenge, and attempts to escape onto
tangents such as biological benefits of love (which still don’t prove
love), one thing becomes crystal-clear. He can’t meet this challenge.
He loves Annie, but cannot prove it. He is trapped, ensnared in a
"logic" cage of his own construction, imprisoned, enslaved.
Hogwash. Proof of love is tangible and
empirical. Its validity is supported by actions that, taken over
an extended time, make the evidence for love compelling. Of
course, there's no "proof" of love as there can be proof of a
mathematical theorem. Your denial of this evidence is simply your
opinion, and nothing else.
This is because anything that comes up as "evidence' (physical or
verbal affection, performing good deeds and favors, benevolence, sex,
and giving of material objects, service or time) can have many causes
and motivations–including platonic, selfish and/or unloving ones. None
of them are unique to love, nor do they prove love.
According to your bizarre version of logic,
perhaps. Not by mine. You’re working very hard to
rationalize away the evidence that love is real and has a tangible
basis.
With a big-enough combination of financial power and cold lack of
scruples, a man could hire a live-in woman for some amount of time to
perform for him every act of every sort that is associated with love–to
service all carnal desires behind closed doors, and to put on for the
world every outward appearance that she is madly
head-over-polished-toenails in love with him. In fairness, a woman
similarly could get a dude to service her in outwardly “loving” ways.
Either still would be mere pretension–a well-acted and protracted
escort/maid service of sorts–but certainly not love!
I simply can’t begin to fathom what sort of
strange "logic" this hypothetical story represents. You've
created a strawman of no relevance to this discourse and, of course,
refuted this strawman. You seem to be the one doing the hemming
and hawing and hand-waving – projecting your very own flaws onto others
again.
Love isn’t subject to arbitrary logical "rules" regarding fallacies. It
cannot be calculated with arithmetic, nor placed in a beaker and
weighed, nor derived and solved as partial differential equations. Love
sometimes is passed off as a chemical reaction in the brain. This is an
article of faith (not science), for one cannot document on paper the
specific organic-chemistry reaction uniquely yielding love. Show me the
unique solution to the biochemical love equation? Don’t try; you
cannot.
You seem to be under the false impression
that "freethinkers" are incapable of embracing irrational ideas.
This is incorrect. It's another strawman you can refute, but
which is not even remotely pertinent to such a discourse.
"Freethought" doesn’t deny the existence or even the value of
irrationality!
Love transcends the tangible, physical and mathematical, and defies
evidence-based reasoning in unambiguously establishing its existence to
the exclusion of other motivations for behavior. As such, love cannot
be proved, and the challenge cannot be met! “Science, logic and reason”
therefore fail, and fail with miserable and dismal wretchedness, at
explaining tangibly the most advanced and wondrous aspect of the human
experience.
See the previous comment. Love may not
be completely rational, but neither is it some sort of vague notion
floating around, absolutely free of any logic or evidence.
Someone could undertake to spend years with a spouse, only pretending
to love them (for whatever reason), but I believe their actions
eventually would betray their insincerity.
Those who espouse the supremacy of logic, yet profess any sort of love,
face a dilemma they often criticize in the religious–coexistence of the
rational and irrational in the same person. How can a religious
scientist believe in and love and serve a God he can’t prove to you and
me? Well, dear reader…the same way the atheist can be scientific and
logical, yet still have love for anther human that he can’t prove to
you and me. The difference, as I see it, is that the love for God is
directed at the perfect and omniscient–the one ultimately and most
truly deserving of worship (the highest form of love).
Is worship indeed the "highest form of
love"? Perhaps according to you, but I have no reason to accept
that in the absence of any tangible measure. As with your
ordering of modes of thought, you have no means of establishing a hierarchy
of love, short of your own opinion, which isn't particularly
convincing. You're free to "love" and worship some imaginary
deity as you choose, but this doesn't even begin to establish the
existence of that deity or its worthiness for worship! An atheist
seeks credible evidence for the existence of a hypothesized deity that
you can't provide. Why should a freethinker submit to a deity for
which no credible evidence exists? That isn't slavery at all -
it's simply being sensible in rejecting religious doctrine that has no
logical or empirical basis. Your "proof" of the
compartmentalization of love and logic in the same person is both
flawed and is nowhere near so contradictory as it is, for instance, to
demand evidence in one sphere of your life and simultaneously to accept
dogma about something so important as religious spirituality (with all
that entails) in the total absence any compelling evidence.
After all of this, it is readily apparent that the most free thinker
does not enslave himself within science, logic and reason, nor within
emotion or imagination, nor within only spiritual space. Instead, the
freest thinker delves into the abstract, the spiritual, the eternal,
the mental processes that journey beyond tangible evidence, while not
losing sight of any of the inner ones–engaging in a lifelong
exploration of the entire intellectual spectrum.
All you've established is that your version
of "free" thinking is bound to the acceptance of a deity for which no
credible evidence exists. If "free" thought is defined as the
acceptance of ideas for which no evidence exists, then you've defined
almost any sort of nonsense as "free" thought. It seems your definition of freethought is to be willing to believe in nonsense.
Your straw man – that "freethinkers" are constrained by science, logic,
and reason – is totally your misinterpretation of freethinking.
Freethinkers can embrace irrational ideas but recognize and acknowledge
their irrationality. If you believe in nonsense, of course, then you would naturally hold those who don't share your beliefs in contempt.
I don’t hate the spiritually handicapped. I feel pity and empathy
instead; for I once was blissfully ignorant that way, jailed in the
same state of self-inflicted spiritual infanthood and underdevelopment.
Those who tried but gave up prematurely have experienced spiritual
atrophy, with much the same net result. When spiritually handicapped,
much like physical or mental handicaps, one is missing an essential
capacity or capability. The good news is that, unlike a missing limb or
a blind eye, we can grow or regrow the spirit, boost our spiritual
IQ–but not without struggle, and only if we’re open-minded, free
thinkers about it.
Am I supposed to be grateful for your
pity? You can believe that, if it makes you feel superior to me,
but I don't accept your pity. You can accept your illogical
bullshit, if you choose. You can even feel sorry for me because
of my inability to accept your bullshit. I have no need for your
pity - keep it for your own!
This is because the truest level of free thought involves logical
intellect, emotional intellect, and spiritual intellect, none to the
exclusion of the others, each in its distinct place, but also, each to
the others’ enrichment. This is the essence of the most vast thinkers,
the truest manifestation of free thought!
You've created in your mind a completely
imaginary version of freeththought and then attempted to discredit the
straw man you created. We freethinkers reject your constraints on
our worldview – freethinkers can accept the reality that we humans may
not be entirely rational, and we see that belief in a deity of your
kind is irrational and, hence, not very credible.
What we call "freethought" is associated
totally with freedom from the shackles of doctrines of any sort,
especially religious doctrine. No more, and no less. You've
failed utterly to show how this is "slavery". You can believe
whatever you wish, at least here in the USA, but you've not made a
legitimate case for your conclusion that freethinking is slavery.
Instead, you've revealed how religion has limited you.
Being a mostly rational person, you're forced into the trap of trying
to rationalize your irrational belief by the wholly negative tactic of
discrediting the value of rationality. I've discussed this at
some length here.