What's your opinion about Freethought and freethinkers?

Question

(philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and not be compromised by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma and especially, no god!)

Answer 1

Free thought and freethinkers are what keeps this country from becoming soul conformists zombies

Answer 2

My opinion? It doesn't exist. Part of the definition of "freethought" or "freethinking" is not only that a freethinker is someone who has formed opinions based on science and logic, but they also do not fall prey to "intellectually-limiting effects of authority, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmatic or otherwise fallacious principles."

So. Opinions based on other peoples' opinions is not freethought. That means having the ability to quote Richard Dawkins does not make one a freethinker. Richard Dawkins himself is a dogmatic secular humanist, not a freethinker. And, based on the actual definition, anyone can be a freethinker, even a religious person, if they formed their opinion based on the evidence and knowledge they were aware of.

But all of our decisions are based off of some sort of emotion, or the limited information we possess.

Oh, and because I haven't said this today, there's no time like the present: Science can make no comment on the supernatural. Therefore, to choose whether or not to believe in God based off of scientific evidence is intellectual dishonesty. Science cannot prove that God exists, or that He does not.

"Logic" cannot prove whether there is a God or not.

Because experience is subjective (while true knowledge, if it exists, is not), technically a person cannot be a freethinker if they're an atheist, or if they have some sort of belief in God, since both of those rely on experience. Neither the atheist nor the agnostic has experienced God (emotional), so they can't believe. The theist has, but since it's an emotional experience, they can't be considered a freethinker either.

Therefore, in my opinion freethinking doesn't exist.

Answer 3

I don't know if your definition is accurate because authority, tradition, and some dogmas can be logical. I like to think of a freethinker in a general sense, as being critical and not taking any person's word without thinking and researching in-depth.

Noam Chomsky is a philosopher, linguist, and professor who to me seems like a the epitome of a free thinker; he questions conventional ideas and opinions and researches meticulously. I've taken from his work a critical outlook of all aspects of life. For example, when the president says we are establishing democracy in Iraq, I looked into history and could only find justification of the opposite.

Freethinking should be encouraged in education but instead it seems like primary and secondary public education instills obedience. And this seems to be advocated by neoconservatives like David Horowitz who want people to not learn to be critical of the officials who run our very own country.

Answer 4

They know it's not worth obsessing over religion.
Especially religion.
For me I don't think that science answers all of our questions. Neither does religion. I don't believe in blind faith but life has worked in many unexplained ways.

Only live once. Might as well live once and then leave it behind.
Nobody asked to be alive to put up with all this crap in the first place.

Answer 5

Free thought sounds like one of those European notions. It'll never fly in America! LOL good question!

Answer 6

There seems to be a lot of "conditions" on your idea of "free' Thought and "free" thinkers. Seems pretty restricted to me. Nothing free about that definition.

Answer 7

Without free thinkers, the U.S. Constitution would never have been written.

Answer 8

I honestly don't see how anybody could think any other way. But it seems that lots and lots of people disagree with me...

Answer 9

What could be wrong with freethought?

Answer 10

I have no thought at all.