Freethinkers: If many of us agree on issues, are heavily influenced by same sources, are we freethinkers?

Question

...freethinkers?

As a progressive and an atheist, I'm often tempted to apply the term "freethinker" to myself. But if so many people agree with so many of my opinions, and our ideas and opinions come from many of the same sources, how can that be called free thought?

People with original if not orignary ideas are indeed free thinkers - Einstein, Darwin, Kant, Jeffery Sachs, Martin Luther, David Bowie, Muhammed Ali, etc...

But what the hell gives us average Joes and Janes the right to call ourselvs free thinkers? Isn't it like the clique in high school that dressed the same, listened to the same music, rebelled against the same "establishment', but yet the called themselves non-conformists?

Answer 1

the question is this: Are you able to reshape your perception of reality when the facts demonstrate that it is wrong or distorted? Or do you instead reinterpret the facts to support your own preconceived perception of reality? Free-thinking has nothing to do with concensus. It's the ability to reject consensus when facts prove the consensus to be wrong.

Answer 2

Every time an actual original concept has been put forward by some thought-pioneer, it has been reviled, precisely because there is no "infrastructure" for it. Its very originality demands an entirely new conception of the universe. All of the greatest scientific discoveries have been of this type - and it's no coincidence that they're always met with violent reactions from the religious establishment.

It's true that most people who consider themselves "free-thinkers" or "non-conformists" are merely conforming to a minority opinion. They're devotees of The New Idea as opposed to the old. "Free thought proper" consists in the ability to "think outside the box," but no sooner is this done then one finds oneself in a new box. Many scientists who have advanced a fundamentally important idea have ended up making a dogma of it. It's left for the next pioneer to destroy and rebuild better. This is really the essence of the progress of science, epitomized in the maxim that "All scientific theories will eventually be disproved."

By the way, when "Seeker" says of Einstein that "my experience is no less valid than his," I beg to differ!

Answer 3

Without bringing religion into this concept, please: You need to consider bringing into your equation human evolution and the possibility of telepathy. Thought waves are electromagnetic energy. Many times you accept ideas as pure energy, pure thought, beyond the physical before you even consider them with your conscious mind.

We are indeed all freethinkers; plus we have free will. Just because we agree on issues does not make us less free. It just makes us agreeable. It gives our causes strength and makes us nonconformists who have a unifying bond. Nothing wrong with that. Strength in numbers does not negate free thinking.

And just because we do not all have the foresight at the level of Einstein or Darwin, etc., does not make us less of a freethinker. It just makes us freethinkers of a different kind, at a different level. Not all of us are geniuses. Not all of us are born leaders. But we still can freely think about and freely choose who we will follow if that is what we do best.

[If we were not freethinkers, we would all be living the Stepford life. Now THAT would be a BIG problem.]

Answer 4

A free-thinker will usually eschew the idea of applying pat titles to themselves, so there is your first clue. That is conformity 101.

What you are addressing is the same phenomenon as 'alternative' becoming mainstream, or 'indie rock' becoming overwhelmingly popular. The Neo-pagan and hippie movements are the same thing. Quentin Tarantino and independent-looking movies, same deal. Thinking green and environmental concerns.

It is the nature of revolutionary ideas that they spread, and leech into mainstream society. This is the mechanism by which fashion works, not just in clothes, but in creeds and ideas. Ideas spread, person to person. The more avant-guarde an idea seems, the more it appeals to people looking to latch onto some level of elitism, for themselves. Before long, it is no longer alternative, but commonplace. Eventually, new sets of ideas, new kinds of elitism come around again (no ideas are ever very 'new'). Everything moves from the center, outward, and back again.

For example, Martin Luther, and his ideas of 'Protestantism' make up one half of the most common religious grouping in the world! Not so 'protestant' anymore, eh? Einstein's building blocks of physics are starting to become unwound by guys like Hawking, whose ideas are, in his turn, being built upon. Double so for Darwin. His evolutionary theories are becoming more like tiny clues, in the bigger picture.

Non-conformists are the building blocks of the next establishment. The revolution comes (ideological, political, whatever) ideas spread into the mainstream, and become the establishment. Eventually, the establishment shows signs of it's dissolution, which heralds the next wave of revolutionary change. Again, I'm not speaking strictly of political upheaval, though it is a sign of systems changing.

It is the condition of humanity that we always seek ways to change. Humans always walk the line between mediocrity and change, crisis and stasis (just another kind of crisis), adventure and safety. Sure, all those greats are famous for spearheading change, but if hundreds (and now every) scientist did not adopt Einstein's theories, how, if at all, would history remember him? Without new ideas gaining popular support, they wash out, to be remembered as errors, if anything, so no matter how much of a maverick one thinks they are, without popular support of like minded people, the free thinker becomes yesterday's crazy hermit.

Answer 5

That is funny. In high school, I remember a conversation in English class about Thoreau. It led to nonconformist individuals, not going with the crowd. Several claimed to be such, but the teacher said no one here was, except me by name. I laughed at those against the establishment, knowing as soon as they owned something, they would become the establishment readily.

I view myself a progressive in that, I am eager for learning the next new technical thing. I decide for myself what I like or not. This puts me in different groups. I am not concerned with that.

I am also a Jehovah's Witness. This means I not only believe in the true God, Jehovah, but also His son, Jesus Christ and the truthfulness and accuracy of the Bible. An atheist worst nightmare!

As a group, we would really be known as a group of freethinkers. We continually examine the scriptures to prove what we believe is so. Never do we take anyones' pronouncements as gospel. Only gospel is gospel. Anything else is just talk till proven.

Answer 6

The two errors of Luther, it can be seen, contain within them two seeds of truth; salvation is indeed the work of God, and not the work of Man, and Scripture is indeed the very Word of God, which should be accorded the highest authority; but Luther goes wrong when he takes these very true principles and elevates them to the point that they exclude the other truths involved. If salvation is God's work, it is also true that part of God's work is drawing Man up to the status of sonship, so that Man now becomes privileged to share in the work of God - a co-worker with God, as St. Paul put it; if Scripture should be given the highest authority, the next highest authority in the hierarchy is not the individual believer, but the "God-breathed" Magisterium of the Church (cf. Jn. 20:21-23). There can be no eliminating this Divinely appointed "middle man," and substituting the authority of the individual for the authority of the Church.

In sum, we can take these two foundational pillars of the Reformation, and demonstrate how they contain necessary truths in their essence; but we must also show how they unnecessarily truncate the truth, and thus become enemies of the very principles they wish to promote. The Protestant truths here are hampered because they are left incomplete; sola scriptura needs to be understood as prima scriptura, so that the truth concerning the Church can be admitted into the discussion; sola fide needs to be understood as sola gratia, so that the truth about Divine sonship can be allowed to flourish.

Answer 7

RunJamesRun, I think that your question is an awesome one!

Yes, I do think that even if you are influenced by the same sources, you still are to be considered a free thinker. After all, you have the right to agree or disagree with what you are reading, right?

As long as you allow yourself to think through what you are reading and consider what you accept and don't accept, you are still the wonderfully intellectual and intelligent and yes, Free Thinking participant we all have grown to know and love (okay, okay, I know I'm spreading it on a little thick here, but I wanted to put a smile on your face).

Answer 8

True. The only way to be a free thinker is to break the old programming first. I noticed with myself it has been in phases. If it isn't a little at a time you would never accept free thinking because it is so foreign to what you know. Baby steps to free thinking.

Answer 9

You make a strong, and in many ways accurate point. It's a matter of degree, most likely. But to the extent we buy into fads, such as religion, science, political correctness bumper stickers, we're certainly not free thinkers.

Answer 10

I think if you're trying to be similar, that is conforming. I agree with many people,but I don't do that to get attention or have friends. I do that because that is how I think, how I feel, and how I am.

I'm atheist myself, but I still don't agree with all atheists. Some try to convert others, which I think should be done only if the person wholeheartedly agrees.