Talk:Freethinking

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Freethought
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Freethought

Redirect the article

You're right that freethinking is just skepticism. I think we should use this article as a redirect to the skepticism article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamefortonyd (talk • contribs) 19:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recurrent POV edits

To whoever keeps on editing the page:

Get over your religious bias and accept that freethinkers, from a scientfic standpoint, are factual. It is immature to frequently vandalise a page. -Usernamefortonyd 22:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freethinking as dogma

Removed:

It is likewise important to note that though freethinkers tend to reject religious dogma, their rejection is sometimes equally founded on traditional rejections of religion, which in the extreme, becomes dogmatic in its own right.

That's like saying (in the Buddhism article, or any article on religion) "some people who claim to be (Buddhist, or whatever) also practice other religions and therefore aren't true Buddhists." Yeah, some people may do that, but it doesn't help describe "Buddhism" for an encyclopedia.

In addition, if you want to make a major edit to an article it is preferred practice to use a registered username. Not doing so can be deemed as being avoidant of confrontation. -Usernamefortonyd 19:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "Freethinking" POV presented in this article is dogmatic

Yeah, that's bad meta-reasoning. It's called a performative contradiction. I mean, one error is that the presentation does something like this: you define "logic" by the things you believe, and you believe in things because you think they're "logical." The result is that you too, as a freethinker, are just accepting your beliefs on faith--and even more, actually think that you're more enlightened than those you criticize by repeating the same old mistake, just at a metalevel. This is not formally different than what religions do, at least the implied view of what religions do as presented by "freethinking."

Now, I don't have any beef against freethinking--I'm not some religious type coming to be disagreeable and rain on the freethinking parade or anything. But basically, if you're going to present "freethinking" you're left with two options. You can present what "freethinking" is, which is probably better represented under the title "skepticism," or you can present the ideology/dogma/religion/whatever you want to call it, that people who call themselves "freethinkers" tend to subscribe to, which saves the appearances of skepticism, but does so for reasons of routinized rebellion that isn't substantively different from faith. Not that that's bad or anything, just that it's not different; and to pretend it is a religious POV.

Also, the Buddha thing does not fit. Having Freethinking tip its hat to a person's authority is antithetical to "free" thought.

Sorry I don't have a username yet, I'll do that. Until then I'll sign under AtheOK. I'm putting my changes back. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.153.157 (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that freethinking is just skepticism. I think we should use this article as a redirect to the skepticism article.

But saying that freethinking is dogmatic in the same sense as religion is incorrect. The word was originated and used in a religious sense initially and dictionary definitions clearly illustrate this. And when I say "logic" I mean systematically finding out the truth on something and being scientific about it. There's no other way to define the word "logic". There's nothing dogmatic about that... it's anything but dogmatic when you're doing the best you can not be be incorrect and bigoted in your views or statements. You're treating "freethinking" as some half-hearted, halfway serious outlook on life that teens say that they believe, but really, anyone who goes and says they base their beliefs on facts and systematic and scientific reasoning (logic) doesn't want to be wrong or unjustified and therefore will not be. Really, don't be so frivolous to say such an overgeneralized statement like just because skeptics/freethinkers beleive that facts and logic are true that sketpicism/freethinking is dogmatic. -Usernamefortonyd

POV Perspectives: Pragmatism vs Skepticism

This article reflects an interdisciplinary perspective missing from freethought article suggested for merging.

Note: Free thinking recently got the following awareness boost:

Harvard Business Review (HBR Reprint F0603D)

March 2006 Conversation column by Gardiner Morse: "Connecting Maverick Minds" ... Geoffrey West, president of the Santa Fe Institute, a unique research community

that innovates by mixing disciplines, talks about why free thinking matters.
RJBurkhart 16:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge freethinking, freethought and freedom of thought

They seem like they are different titles for the same thing. My personal preference would be freethinking or free thinking as the title for the merged article, as people are sometimes termed "free thinkers" (i.e. those who can think "outside the box" and are unhindered by systems of control). In this sense the opposite of free thinking would be mind control, which does not recognize free will. nirvana2013 16:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of thought is different. It is the right to engage in the others. One can have a right without practicing it - or support the right without supporting a particular case of practice. To use a personal example, I generally support the right, but I oppose the practice of using freedom of thought to agitate for the elimination of that right. That article reflects this difference, and should be kept separate. As to the other pair, I'd suggest freethinking should be merged to freethought, as that is the better written article. GRBerry 16:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the suggestions to merge this article with ‘freethought’ or ‘freethinking’, these are rather philosophical/political ideas, as opposed to a traditional legal or moral right. Therefore I am opposed to merging these articles. The right to freedom of thought is also the accepted international legal terminology regarding the 'right'; hence it is probably the best language to use to defend it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.117.40.63 (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the two previous comments. Prototime 04:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discord

"Freethinking often begins with a rejection of established principles, but must eventually lead to the desire to build a logical understanding of reality. If it does not lead to this point then an entity's development would stop at a point of complete apathy..."

...or Discordianism. =D. B.Mearns ^*, KSC 16:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]