Are athiests freethinkers?

Question

disclaimer: I am an eclectic!

definition of fundamentalism: "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles" (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

definition of freethinker: "one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority" (same source)

since most athiests view science as the only authority regarding what is true, they fall under the category of fundamentalists.

do you agree/disagree and why?

Please support your responses.

wasn't of course referring to all athiests, but most of the ones I've talked to simply believe in scientism and won't even consider anything else

Answer 1

most of them are as rigid in their beliefs-or lack thereof-as xian fundamentalists are in theirs.both groups are so set in their ways,they talk of nothing else all day long,and are of no use @ parties...both sides,lighten up once in awhile !!!!!!!

Answer 2

As an atheist and a freethinker i do not hold science as an absolute authority. Rather i view it as the best tool to help us interpret the world we live in and use those observations to better human life.

It's clear that science isn't perfect, nothing can be perfect. Despite it's imperfection it has made discoveries that have changed our lives dramatically. It was once thought that prayer and exorcism was a cure for sickness... even worse, sometimes blood was let or holes drilled in the skull... Through scientific method and observation we have discovered the cause and cure for many ailments. It's track record alone gives it sufficient clout as a reliable authority.

Another great thing about science is it is self correcting. Everything is questioned and second guessed, and then another group of people do the same thing all over again... things are tested and debated and in the end if it is found that the conclusions are not correct there is room to fix them.

I don't see science as an absolute authority, just the best tool for the job. The term freethinker usually reffers to the fact that we don't let our judgement and thought process be colored by unsupported dogmatic claims.

Answer 3

Interesting -
I at one point thought that i was atheist - then i discovered string theory.
String theory is the culmination of einstein's "General Relativity" & Quantum Mechanics.
What does this have to do with this question?

String theory is the idea that General relativity & Quantum mechanics combined can produce the "equation for everything".

As of yet - this equation is stiffeled by the fact that Gravity cannot yet be combined with Quantums EM-S-W force particles.

This is where i beleive i made the discovery that it is not always sceince that rules.

The theory of strings suggest that inside every sub-atomic particle (atom) there is a vibrating string of energy - this imparts a force on the sub-atomic level. If indeed we are just living in a dimension of vibrating particles - then it would apear that if you could tune your vibrations to the vibrations of the particles you wish to draw to you then you would be using th EM of the forces which in turn creates gravity which in turn creates an attraction between you & those particles in which you wish to draw. This is the key to combining Relativity with Quantum mechanics. People r trying to include gravity into the equation & they r neglecting to realize that it is already there.

All that above means - in a metaphysical sense - is that you can consiously create circumstances.
Metaphysics is an ideologie that does not perscibe to a sceintific means but can be proven with sceince through the expirimentation of electromagnatisim.

I beleive that i am a freethinker - this is because i have taken a sceintific concept & looked @ it with a religous overtone. Sting theory is also an unproven theory & as of yet - is only philosophy.

I think any person who has a yearn to seek the truth is a free thinker & those who choose to follow blindly are just a flock

Answer 4

I guess if someone was basing their entire reasoning on science and quoted pieces of older research articles repetitiously when asked the same questions.....You might be able to say that.

But there seems to be more freethinking within the atheist's paradigm than in that of the Fundamental religions.

I think that most atheists could live in harmony with those who believe in a benevolent God, but Fundamentalists won't.....

Answer 5

Well, It depends. Was that a decision they made on their own to say they don't believe in any kind of Creator Diety or were they brought up that way to believe it and keep those beliefs to be alligned with the rest of their families.

I agree with your description of Freethinker, which is why I say that if anyone, not just Atheists, came to the decison to change their religion to one of their own making and acknowledging their own beliefs instead of dogma or doctrine. They are the defininition of a freethinker.

I don't think Atheists acknowledge that science answers everything, but that somewhere, there is a scientific answer for all of life's mysteries.

Answer 6

They would be a combination. The first aetheists would be freethinkers and anyone who reasons for themself that there's no God is a freethinker. One that is aetheist because he/she was told so by his/her parents is not a freethinker.

You also must differentiate between unconditional faith in science and trust in science. Some aetheist seem to trust data from experiments like it were the word of God. (I am aware that I worded it badly.) That's fundamentalism. Instead, simply trusting scientists more than priests is not fundamentalism.

Answer 7

First of all it takes free thought to be able to come up with explanations for observed natural occurrences, instead of not bothering to think and sticking it in the "god did it box".

Anyone of a decent intelligence level can be a free thinker but it requires someone that chooses to be a non-thinking sheep to just go along with the heard and unquestioningly follow the writings in an unsubstantiated book written by man in the dark ages tells you about the workings of nature and physics.

Therefore since science is not perfect and people who choose free thought over no thought will continue to think and observe nature for never before seen phenomena and compare the evidence to the existing theories to either reinforce the theory or find flaws in the theory and correct it.

Answer 8

The only thing we all have in common is that we don't believe in deities. That's it. I'll assume you are really referring to philosophical naturalists (aka rationalists) and not atheists in general.

Science is the formalization of the process of reason, it is not an authority. I don't know any rationalists who blindly accept the findings of scientists as some kind of authority.

You almost never hear rationalists seriously saying stupid things like "Darwin said it, I believe it, and that's that".

So bottom line, there's no reason atheists can not be freethinkers, including rationalists.

Answer 9

a freethinker is not an atheist as he may or may not deny the existence of the spiritual world. Some atheists could fall under the category of fundamentalists if they refuse to examine other possibilities than their own. So i partially agree because we cannot generalize all the atheists(some may accept the study of other possibilities that make them more appropriate of freethinkers)

Answer 10

Disagree.
Your own definitions show you the fallacy of your question yet you don't see it.
Science does not rely on attitude, nor is it a movement. It is the study of the natural world based on observation, theory and experimentation.
Fundamentalism can be further defined as the irrational adherance to an outdated and irrelevant dogma.
See the difference?

Answer 11

(Merriam-Webster dictionary)

definition of freethinker: "one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority"

yes of course we are freethinkers if not then christians aren't freethinkers because they rely on the authority of god