Jump to content

Talk:Freethought/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Rationalism

I added rationalism this to the "See also" section. I'd like to see described in this article how Freethought differs or has a reciprocal relationship with rationalism. - RoyBoy 800 02:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with "freethinking" article

This might not be a good idea. Freethinking is a way of life, where freethought is simply scatterings of the process, or a way of describing unmitigated philosophical discussion. Amitst 15:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Freethought probably should be edited to remove the references to "freethinking" as freethinking is a label for a type of philosopher that does not prescribe to preset morals and values.

First off, the freethinking article is secular and not affiliated with the North Texas Church of Freethought like this Freethought article.

Second, "Freethought" isn't even a word... it was apparently made up by the migrating Germans and its usage was continued by the Texans as discussed in the history section of the Freethought article.

There are two seperate belief systems in these articles and they should not be combined. -Usernamefortonyd

Merge! The freethinking page and its rationale is both redundant and absurd. Freethought is the philosophy which - if meaningful - also can include religious free thought. Just because there are a couple of churches in Texas that have appropriated the name does not matter. They are free to have that thought. Vsmith 02:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

PS - moved the new talk to bottom of page per wiki convention (or is that anti freethought :-) Vsmith 02:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge. --129.21.223.82 00:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge. --horsedreamer 02:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the articles should be merged, with Freethought being the article and Freethinking being the redirect. No need to belabor this. It's obvious. Freethinking is what is done in Freethought. But you really can't talk meaningfully about one without the other. So why force people to read two articles when the combined version wouldn't even be that long? -- Fredwords 15:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely Merge Freethought into Freethinking. I am only aware of the concept of Freethinking (Freethinker) and that FreeThought is what a Freethinker does. I would also like to see this article cover the founding fathers (signers of the Declaration of Independence) of the USA as the Freethinkers that they were.

Merge them. Though they have different meanings, they're about the same thing. When I read an encyclopedia, I prefer to be given all closely relevant information. Freethought and freethinking are as closely relevant as the action and the action performed. Holla at ya boy. -Juerelle

There are two different phenomenons: Church of Freethouht and Freethinking; word Freethought relates to both of them. Therefore, I think that Freethought should be a disambiguation page leading to the articles Church of Freethought (to be created) and Freethinking. And then and if necessary Freethinking should be complemented with information on freethinking containing in Freethouht now.

grimsky, 28 February 2006

Merge. I agree with Fredwords, Juerelle et al. It would make a great article. Alpheus 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed merge - Also started a discussion about merging freedom of thought, see Talk:Freethinking#Merge_freethinking.2C_freethought_and_freedom_of_thought nirvana2013 17:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed merge - Two pages are redundant. Prototime 16:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Because of the great support for the merge and the amount of time that has passed since the proposal, I have gone ahead and merged the two pages. Prototime 05:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

symbol of free thought

The pansy, symbol of freethought.

The pansy has long been a symbol of freethought, and is used in the literature of the American Secular Union. This is because the flower gets its name from the French word pensée, which means "thought". It was so named because the flower resembles a human face, and in the month of August it nods forward as if deep in thought.

I added a citation to an article in Freedom from Religion Foundation's official publication that discusses this symbol in length; it can be found here. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 01:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism and free thought

I've removed the large quote used to support the idea that the Buddha was an early freethinker. Using quotes to indicate a certain person's view is a mistake, IMO, and it would be better to find a reliable secondary source. We have no way of knowing if the quote is representative of all Buddha's teachings, or if there are different translations or interpretations.--Nydas(Talk) 19:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy?

Removed the following unsourced essay as WP:OR:

==Controversy==
It ought to be said that the term used to describe this particular secularist movement which calls itself "free thinking" is disputed by both atheists, agnostics, and theists as expressing an intrinsic bias against religious ideas. It is admittedly on both sides considered a polemic term which carries connotations indicative of the mindset its followers argue for. It ought to be pointed out, in all consideration of fairness, that a believer would likewise claim freedom of thought as a perogative of their particular point of view as well as an atheist, and that long traditions of philosophy, theology, and attempts to reconcile reason and faith permeate religious discourse.

Maybe, It ought to be said that..., but who did the saying? Vsmith 20:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why was this removed? It is 100% accurate. Wikipedia at its best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.151.231 (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

External link: Sir Isaac Newton: Logical framework that frees

That last youtube link cannot be right? Check it... it's nuts... Does wikipedia have some "annotate" feature? (ala cvs/svn "blame (praise, annotate, ann)"...) --Hugovdm 16:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The scientific roots of freethinking ARE religious, if only in opposition to the Inquisition (and I'll be showing in years to come a series of papers proving it). Newton was at least as much alchemist as scientist, and was faced with the problem of getting his work accepted in Europe. This is why such bodies as the Royal Society were predominantly free-masonic, because it provided them with a way of disseminating their work without official censorship, you must remember that there was a serious possibility that early Reformation England might return to Catholicism under James II. Newton and the others were faced with the pressures from the Inquisition already experienced by Galileo (1616-1640) and van Helmont (1621-25), which may have been intended to control Inquisition assets used in their alchemical works. The Inquisition was challenged originally by the Bretheren of the Free Spirit, working through the Beguines and Beghards, whose own roots lie partly with Peter Abelard's split from the School of Notre Dame in the twelfth century. His opposition in the Victorine Order had links with the Cistercians who were the roots of the Inquisition, through Jan van Ruusbroec and Konrad von Urach's activities in Brussels, which appear to have been protecting an asset which was sufficiently important as to justify Phillip II of Spain spending 10 years of the Spanish GNP at the height of their Imperial strength on the Escorial to house it.Jel 07:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Origin of term ‘freethought’?

Can anyone date the first use of this term. Ted Porter almost suggests that Karl Pearson invented it – see p.109 of ISBN 0691114455) “Despite frequent appeals and invitations, he (KP) was too strong-willed and idiosyncratic to join anyone else’s movement. Instead he definied his own, which he called “freethought.” TPKP109

Johnbibby 14:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

freethought in the present era is an orwellian doublespeak

if you don't fit in the shoes of traditional freethinkers, then you are considered irrelevant and nobody will listen to you; they might even try to censor you, all the while claiming to stand for freedom! hypocrisy knows no bounds. thoughtcrime is inevitable with triumphalist fanatics, off to secularize the world in their own minds of progress. dig in your heels, they'll shove it down your throat and tell you it's good for you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiblastfromthewikipast (talk • contribs) 00:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Circles of Free Inquiry

I think "defend the freedom of critical thought" might more accurately be "enforce the principles of Freethought". After all, critical thought that disagrees with their dogmatic presupposition is not something that they tolerate. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradictio

The contradiction that's just been tagged isn't really in the article, it's unavoidable in treating the subject of the article: Freethinkers have a tradition of not being traditionalist, and make a dogma of not being dogmatic - as well as, in some times and some places, forming a party that claims to be non-partisan, and even groups to enforce Freethought. I won't say anything about their appeals to emotion or to authority -- there's a whole book of that just came out lately. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Freethought vs. "freethinking"/"free thought"

Please try to distinguish this article from the philosophic freethinking article.

- Usernamefortonyd 04:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how the topic of your new article differs from this one? Mdwh 05:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The difference is that this "Freethought" article is representative of the religion of Freethought and the freethinker article is about the philosophy of freethinking. Buddhism is the same way. Buddhism, which is practiced either as a philosophy or religion, has seperate articles as well. -Usernamefortonyd 19:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You are talking about the difference between secular Buddhism and theistic Buddhism, which is like the difference between secular Christianity/Islam/Judaism and theistic Christianity/Islam/Judaism. There's no such thing as theistic freethought. If religion=a system of theistic beliefs and theism=belief that supernatural entities/forces cause natural phenonmena, then freethought is not a religion. I don't understand what you mean by "religion of Freethought." If you mean naturalism or anti-theism, then just say "naturalism" or "anti-theism," instead of changing the definition of religion into worldview and making freethought seem like a worldview, rather than just a method of thinking that can lead to a naturalistic worldview and anti-theism. -nalalina

Sorry, when you call it a Church, it is an organized religion, that's the word we use to define a group of people that gather together regularly for group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. Most forms of freethought are also directly related to the opposition of religion, nowhere in this article, or the related institutions does it say otherwise. Jjmckool (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Symbol of Freethought?

Is the symbol of freethought really a pansy? That seems kind of ridiculous to me. :\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.183.177 (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

wtf.. I thought the same thing.. I looked at the ref and google searched it myself.. While there arn't many references (and a few cite each other) there are some references. May be a hoax started with a couple websites and propagated on to make solid references? I only say this because none of the websites that I google searched could really cite anything, they just quote each other. Cs302b (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The photo is wrong. While a pretty variant it is not a classical pansy, and certainly does not agree with the text that says "it was so named because the flower resembles a human face," I don't have a picture of my own, but here is one that would make sense in this discussion: http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:xrF3_Jk_lwW-dM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehling (talk • contribs) 14:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Deism

Deism is generally considered a freethinking philosophy. They deny dogma and revelation for the same reasons atheists and agnostics do. The favor logic and reasoning as well as scientific inquiry. They believe in an impersonal God, and are far closer to atheists and agnostics in their worldview than they are to theists (who believe a personal God exists that interferes on our lives and can be revealed in dogmatic sources). So I will add it. Read about it at here: [1] [2] Zachorious 22:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Yes they are/were a form of freethinkers, but theism does not mean "belief in a personal God," just "Belief in a God." Most deists refer to atheism and agnosticism as an illogical assumption, and some outright hated it, such as Voltaire. 74.5.105.31 (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Bright Spots?

Ahem:

"...There is a very old tradition and re-invention of individual intellectual freedom and freethought, in most philosophical and religious thought systems, against and despite the literalist interpretations and constraints. That tradition holds that everyone can find one's way, through personal effort, with help from friends and mentors. From prehistoric shamans engaging on a personal journey to the superior world, to the Indo-Asian world, to the Mediterranean gnostic synthesis, to medieval Islam, to bright spots and trails of the Middle Ages, finally to the modern individuation from metaphysics through the scientific method of experimentation and falsification.

Bright spots of the middle ages? So this article is essential saying that freethought is the light, whereas religion is the darkness? Kind of seems like the very definition of a biased statement 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bright spots meaning open-mindedness. No, saying it's good to be open-minded isn't a contradiction.
But actually, there are many traditions which explicitly shun open-mindedness by name. They intentionally say it is not good to be open-minded. Instead, one should close one's mind to false teachings and instead be faithful and pious. That being the case, talking about open-mindedness as a "bright spot" is indeed POV.--Daniel (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

False dichotomy

I believe that this article falsely pits freethought against religion and authority. This is most especially done with a negative connotation being ascribed to the word dogma as being unreasonable or stifling thought, which is false, based on the Dictionary.com definition of dogma. Examples:

This definition as for example is applicable to thought based on rejection of religious dogma.

The rejection of religious dogma(which is simple a doctrine held authoritatively to be absolutely true) doesn't entail freethought because the authority of a dogma is irrelevant to the rationality of that doctrine or belief. For example, the authority that is held by scientists is achieved through academic rigor and reasoned experience. I believe that the definition of freethought should be better qualified and explained.

Another thing I have issue with is the following:

No freethinkers accept religious dogma as providing either an acceptable explanation for the origin of the universe or a realistic basis for how properly to live in it.

This simply appears to be an unsubstantiated and overgeneralized assertion based the aforementioned definitions which I believe I have shown to be misleading. Btboy500 01:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "thing" of which the Freethinker is "free", *is* dogma - that being belief in claims without reason-based evidence. Saying one is a freethinker means they're thinking is 'free' of dogma, superstition, and ideology taught on the sole basis of faith or tradition, without skeptical examination in the light of evidence. While everyone likes to imagine themselves a "free thinker" - that is what Freethought (one word, capital 'F') is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DT Strain (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds to me like "freethought" has lots of rules describing what they and will not believe, which doesn't seem all that free. Is a "Freethinker" allowed to believe that his own mother loves him without empirical testing, or is that considered "faith"? How about the proposition that the 5th symphony is great music? Is that regarded as "tradition," since almost everyone believes it and you can't prove it? Carlo (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Basis for this article?

I have never seen the term "freethought" used as a single word. It's not clear *where* this term originates from, who claims ownership over it, or whether this is some cobbled-together definition by a bored Wikipedia author. The article seems to be trying to clump various ideas together to support a very vaguely defined concept. At the very least, there should be some citations for the first few sentences, where it's claimed that freethought is a "philosophical viewpoint." Is it really? I can't tell from this article.129.2.167.219 (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? There are a bunch of sources already cited in the article, and the names of some of them alone show the term used as a single word even if you didn't bother to look into it more deeply than that. The term exists and has existed for a long time. DreamGuy (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Freemasons

I know this might seem surprising to some, but it is a recorded fact of history that many of the original Freethinkers were also Freemasons. In this case, the word Free is just a by-word that is used as a political cover, to prevent the non-dogmatic philosophers from being identified as Masons. This should probably be added to the article, along with appropriate documentary sources of course. ADM (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt reliable sources support that theory. If you think it should be added, you'll need to provide the cites to back it up. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Krishnadas Kaviraja Goswami described in Chaitanya-charitamrita Adi 6.38:

‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana

seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana

If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee.

So all the great atheists which comprise of 99.99% of the world’s population can become maha-vaishnavas if they get the supreme good fortune of reading this book. Thus in my personal opinion, when this book is published and distributed in mass quantities all over the world, it will break open the gates of the flood of the love of Godhead brought by Lord Chaitanya and His associates and will hasten the advent of the predicted Golden Age in all its glory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.26.30 (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Athiesm v. Freethought

I do not believe that 'freethought' should be lumped into the Atheism portal. My opposition to this can be summarised in a quote by Anthony Collins, writer of Discourse of Free-Thinking (1713). : 'Ignorance is the foundation of athiesm, and freethinking the cure of it.' Thus, to assume that all freethinkers are athiests is, not only an absurdity, but senselessly posited. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That use of the term "freethinking" is not being used in the standard Freethought way. It's like someone using a nonstandard definition of "evolution' and then trying to change Evolution to match it. DreamGuy (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
And yet Collins is seen as THE Freethinker of Freethinkers. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for commenting a year late, but: Ignorance is, if not the foundation of atheism, then a central theme of it. Ignorance of any evidence for an answer to the question "why does anything exist at all?" is reason to not believe in any answer given, god(s) included (some people say). If a "freethinker" believes that rational inquiry is the only way to discover truth, then it might indeed follow that freethought is the antidote to no belief.
Of course, I don't know what Mr. Collins intended his statement to mean, and am far too lazy to look into it. :) --MQDuck (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Supernaturalism

"Freethinkers believe that there is insufficient evidence to support claims of supernaturalism." To me, this seems inconsistent with the later statements that religious believers may consider themselevs freethinkers. I'll do an edit to try to make more sense out of this.--Bcrowell 7 July 2005 04:35 (UTC)

Despite a few comments to the contrary, according to this definition, I see little difference between athiests and freethinkers. There is an implicit assumption conveyed by the article that perhaps believers are not as 'free' or as 'thinking' as athiests.

I do believe that it depends on the context. In many Universities, where a great many 'freethinkers' reside, contrarians who form their own pedagogy may have evangelistic outlooks, or atleast religious leanings. Would these individuals not be the exception to the rule, where the established beliefs or prejudisms are profoundly secular? - me

To make such a claim about freethinkers as a group is in contradiction with the ideas of freethought. While there are probably few theist freethinkers, there are certainly some who hold spiritual beliefs, or at very least are empirical agnostics. --horsedreamer 02:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry I'm not logged, but my password hasn't shown up in my inbox yet; in the mean time, I'm himuraserahpina. Now, to say that "freethinking and atheism are little different" shows a bias towards lumping non-theisms together. Atheism is a skepticism or inablility to believe in god (read: any of the various forms of deities and the theisms that define them) due to the lack of logic or evidence of god. "I'll believe it when I see it, and so far I haven't -- and the 'miracles' don't count, because they can either be explained, or no one can prove they happened" could be the motto of the average joe who considers himself atheist. Yes, it can get far more complicated than this, but regardless of deep philosophy, logic, or science, atheism begins and ends with the lack of belief in god, for what ever reason. This is the starting point of atheism. Freethinking, on the other hand, leads to atheism (read: lack of belief in god, supernatural, religions,etc.) in general, though some freethinkers consider themselves religious, after thought, logic, science, or whatever basis of free thinking one uses places religion, its dogma and authority, and the presence of god, in perspective. When this happens, logically, religion cannot be justified in the sphere of freethinking (except among the few who somehow do manage it), nor can the 'faith' in tradition and the authority of the Church, or various churches. That is not to say that aethism cannot lead to free thinking, but at that point one becomes both. aethism and free thinking are not mutually inclusive as neither free thinkinh nor athism require the others presence. Atheism by no means must include free thinking - some athists and schools of thought are as dogmatic at that which they cannot accept as part of their logic. himuraseraphina 04.06.06

Freethought does not explicitly deny the existance of a God (or gods), so technically one could be an atheist, theist, polytheist or agnostic and still be a true freethinker (as long as such beliefs did not also involve things like supernaturalism and the like). However, if one chooses to apply the philosophy of freethought to every aspect of their lives, it will be incompatible with any organized religion they may be part of. --124.168.92.221 06:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems that free thinkers are not free to believe in whatever they choose, as you seem to say freethinkers are not free to believe in things ranging from philosophically well stablished theories about the supernatural, to pure self-made non-sense and are allowed to freely believe in the subjects some arbitrary group of people defined. Free as a bird in a cage.
Also, a true freethinker should be able to analyze a dogma and agree completelly with it, if the freethinker wants to. 187.65.193.18 (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Anon taunt

why do you guys all think that your thoughts are so important? you act like evrtyhing you think is smart when do you even wonder how you got the brain to actually have the luxuary of thinking? sure, you don't have to conform and be the crazy chritisan who believes every damn thing you hear but you dont have to go to the opposite extreme and depend on your own thoughts to govern everything in this world. dont you guys know that you're just atheists in disquise?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.138.0.11 (talk • contribs) .

??? You make no point in this argument.Dumaka (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing. So, let me get this straight, if I don't have to do all of my own thinking, who should I get to do my thinking for me? Is that, like, a service I can buy in from a call-centre? Cool. To save me from googling around, who do you get to do your thinking for you? I mean, in that last piece you wrote, was that you thinking, or did you contract it out? Thanks in advance for any top tips! --Plumbago 17:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
He seems to be stating that there is no advantage at all to believe in whatever you want if that whatever is not true. Also, if you know the truth then it would be very dumb to be open-minded and exchange what is actually true for another think you prefer to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.65.193.18 (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

^ LOL!

PS: Sorry for the pointless nature of this post... 81.151.146.238 21:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather be an Atheist than a ranting psycho telling everyone not to think. Also, yay first post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

criticism

can we add a criticism section here, or is criticism to the so-called freethought movement too obscure?

critics of freethought don't see the point of the term, as it seems to be synonymous with common sense. it seems to them to be a term invented to allow atheists/scientists etc to label themselves with something of an identity. arguably, this need for an identity or niche has been traditionally served by the very religious schools of thought this movement generally sees itself superior to.

on could say that freethinkers, in fact, belong to the religious school of freethought, which is founded on a single pillar of dogma: that belief unexplainable by scientific evidence is inferior to belief explainable by scientific evidence. it logically follows that freethinkers have selected the rational mind as their definition of the superior, which they essentially worship in the same way that any other religious group worships their god.

Oh I thought freethinkers held belief in things which cannot be scientifically proven like mathematics and logic as being superior to naturalistically explainable beliefs. I'm just saying that because they seem to try to validate naturalistic claims by using math and logic. 187.65.193.18 (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

obviously there is a lot of irony in this movement, from certain points of view. is this not common enough thought to be discussed within the article?

--Harlequence 08:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First, freethought does not see itself "superior" to anything. It is simply a philological approach to life itself through reason and logic. Second, freethought is not a term that allows atheists/scientists to label themselves. Atheistic is a label in itself so why would freethought be a label to atheists. Third, on your statement "freethinkers, in fact, belong to the religious school of freethought" makes no sense. Religion and freethought are contradictory. One cannot believe in an omnipotent being and absolute logic and still call themselves freethinkers. Criticism or the opposite of freethought in simple terms is an illogical point of view trying to justify his or her own beliefs.Dumaka (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So I guess by your own definition, the free-thought movements leaves little to no room for free thought. It instead limits your thinking to that of established scientific no matter how accurate said science is or possible your own conjecture. By your own definition free-thought does not, or can not exist what-so-ever. I think you need to use your freedom of thought instead of simply claiming you do by labelling yourself with such a ridiculous title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.188.248 (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What. 76.95.40.6 (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Commentary

Commentary on quotes from the article itself:

Freethought “is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any dogma.[1] The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.”

  • What if the conclusions drawn from science, logic, and reason reveal that there are inherent truths within authority, tradition, and dogma? I think that to reject authority, tradition, and dogma in such a case would also reject the science, logic, and reason that served as vehicles for arriving at those conclusions.

“Freethought holds that individuals should neither accept nor reject ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or the intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmatic or otherwise fallacious principles. Regarding religion, freethinkers have generally held that there is no evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena.”

Why you believe the convention of things like eating to survive? There's plenty of proof that many people have died by not eating for extended periods of time. What if you were the one who does not need to eat.
The problem here is what makes you sure that induction is correct as induction is not an infallible scientifically nor logically valid method of reasoning. Without induction you cannot have a logical reason to apply knowledge about natural events registered by others to new cases. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/187.65.193.18 (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • What if an individual observes phenomena that science or any scientist cannot adequately explain? And what if such an individual, based upon experience, which is the basis of knowledge, arrives at the rational conclusion that supernatural phenomena are the best possible explanation for such occurrences? I think (and freely so) that to do otherwise would be to defy the very nature and definition of free thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.186.100.251 (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You're basically asking, "what if evidence was discovered for the things which freethinkers don't believe in for lack of evidence?". Your question was already answered in the statements it was questioning.
What if an individual observes phenomena that science or any scientist cannot adequately explain? That's hardly a hypothetical question. It's why we still have scientists: we don't know everything yet. --MQDuck (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Freethought in the early USA

Why no mention of Founding Father freethinkers such as Thomas Paine? 67.101.146.71 (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking in a Modern Sense of U.S.A.

So in theory if they had/have free thought, what does the public think, from the controlled thoughts?? Hopefully understood resistances, to the controlled thoughts, but in free thought form, like, science/life and taxes NOT: death and taxes. Yet branching outwards subconsciously the word "taxes" flag money into the mind, so it just spreads like a wild fire and some people make it and some don't in their strive for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I mean this is an every day struggle. I will think deeper into this comment and state that fear and terror should not overtake the subconscious flag of "money", inside the brain, in the land of capitalism. I mean money motivation and not fear and terror motivation. It's like they try to cut off the first leg of life (where life is money, we're not in the feudal age) and subtracted The American Dream to 2 factors, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in this time of war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.193.101 (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Definition

I'm quite dissatisfied with the quality of the definition in this article. First off, if you are going to say that a word refers to a 'philosophical viewpoint', you can not later claim that 'the article is about the historical Freethought movement. ' (VSmith, on this talk page). Either you define the word as a historical movement, or as a philosophical viewpoint, or both.

Second, the citation provided for the definition that freethought is a 'philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas' comes from some University's social club. How can one construe this as a published, reliable source escapes me. Furthermore, the only approximation I found on that page to a definition of freethought is the following:

The concept of "freethought" must be distinguished from the concept of "free thought." Free thought is critical reflection that does not depend on appeals to tradition, authority, or dogmatically held positions. Many reflective people are free thinkers in this sense, including many religious believers. Freethought, however, is a historical tradition of thought and discourse that traces primarily back to the Enlightenment and combines free thought with doubt or disbelief regarding supernatural views, particularly traditional religions. Individuals for Freethought is made up of many free thinkers, both religious and atheist/agnostic, all interested in furthering Freethought. (Definitions borrowed with permission from CFA.) http://www.k-state.edu/freethought/faq.htm

How in this world are we to extract from that paragraph that freethought is a 'philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas'? I can't even find the words 'science', 'logic' or 'reason' in said paragraph.

Should I post an article to a newspaper's opinion column and then cite it as a reference for a definition of 'epistemological relativism'?

Third, this source on its own cites another source, 'CFA', which is left for one to divine what it stands for. Juangelos (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Good points. I added some better references. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, concerning the viewpoint vs. movement idea, the article discusses both the viewpoint (which is what the definition of Freethought is) and the history of the viewpoint (which is what the movements are). There is no need to conflate the two concepts, or attempt to frame both concepts as "definitions" of the term, when clearly they are not both definitions. And it's fine that non-definitional information concerning Freethought is included in the article; remember, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

One of My Favorite Unintentionally Funny Passages on Wikipedia

The opening. "Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas." Yea, except for the authority, tradition and dogma of scientism, rationalism, and logic. Has there ever been a philosophical school whose name was a greater misnomer? Their thought isn't free at all - it's riddled with prejudice. The following would not have qualified as freethinkers, despite being among the freest thinkers of the past 150 years - William James, Friedrich Nietzsche (the man who hilariously and accurately called science "a prejudice"), and Aldous Huxley. But hey - what's in a name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.77.90 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Uncertain how the above is meant to discuss/improve the article beyond expressing the user's opinion about the subject. We often read things how we want to read them, with what's brought to the table more than what's on it. It seems to me that science has a much greater capacity than say, religion, to shed itself of traditon and dogma when new theories and evidence overcome the burden of proof. Are you suggesting that the opening compare/contrast with religious thought? Because I might support that.. El duderino (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
If the science page's definition of science: "In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself" is correct then fair enough but I'm also a little bit uncomfortable about this usage, as like everything else, science is influenced by social and cultural factors; as such, there are areas (e.g. social Darwinism) where genuine scientific concepts are taken out of context and misapplied. Then there is the issue of scientific discoveries which disprove other, long-held scientific beliefs, which means that science is not as concrete as it may seem. Obviously, this isn't a problem if we do take science as an approach rather than a body of knowledge but if it is the latter, this is deeply problematic as this implies that scientific views are always found to be correct when scientific knowledge is actually more a set of beliefs which are based on the knowledge which has been accumulated so far. This suggests that science can never become an absolute truth.
Additionally, we have to be careful here as there seems to be a new dogma of scientific knowledge in many western societies, with this idea that 'science is the new religion'. Thus, what constitutes 'science' and the related concepts of logic and reason can be culturally inferred to an extent and so we must be careful not to imply that science is completely free from these things and therefore, completely suited to free thought; how would that sit with a great freekthinker like (for example) William Blake? Thank you, PamukSoundystem (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Does freethinking really imply that there is nothing supernatural out there? Also, a poor summarizing quote for the concept of freethinking.

Currently, it states that: "Regarding religion, freethinkers hold that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena.[3]", where the reference is to "Hastings, James. Encyclopedia of Religion" I removed it, because it's obvious that

(1) There are many freethinking individuals out there who come to the opposite conclusion regarding the existence of anything supernatural (examples of these, disregarding the huge pool of laymen freethinkers, would be professional parapsychologists, cardiologists, philosophers, etc).

(2) Being a freethinker has nothing to do with the conclusions that is arrived at. It's _why_ and _how_ anyone arrives at the conclusions that defines the amount of freedom of thought utilized. As I said in my edit of this article, freethinking is a process, and cannot imply a connection with any conclusion on any given topic, as any other freethinker can question said conclusion legitimately, by just thinking freely on the subject.

After I had made my edit, someone else edited it back, and I'm not experienced enough with the rules and habits of Wikipedia to figure out why they did it, as they left no reason for this edit. I'll change it back as many times as it takes until they properly motivate why it should stay there. I get the feeling that there is some angry atheist/"skeptic"/naturalist guarding this site that has an emotional issue with religion and/or spirituality, and hence needs to market their beliefs on a page for an intellectually respected concept like this.

Secondly, the article also states that: "A line from "Clifford's Credo" by the 19th Century British mathematician and philosopher William Kingdon Clifford perhaps best describes the premise of freethought: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."" The irony is, what's the evidence for the eternal truth of this statement? This is self-contradictory, as a freethinker has the ability to question the entire concept of evidence itself. After all, what constitutes evidence is a human concept and contemporary definition; thus authority, tradition, and conventional wisdom all rolled into one.

All in all, this article needs improvement badly. Or have I simply missed something? Is it that freethinking is defined as the ideology of some group or organization, e.g. the worldview of the Internet Infidels? Lynnettian (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to the policies introduced by the welcome message left on your Talk page, WP:VERIFY in particular. AV3000 (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Why? I don't have a problem with the references for the claims, but how they're irrelevant in light of how the rest of the article presents itself. See my reply to Vsmith. Lynnettian (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, please assume good faith and avoid imputing motives to others here. Quite simply, you removed information sourced to a valid reference (see WP:RS) with an edit summary "(Removed that freethinking implies non-supernaturalism, since many freethinking individuals hold the opposite view. Even if they didn't, freethinking is still just a process, and not a conclusion.)" which indicates a misunderstanding. The article is about the historical Freethought movement. If you can find a reliable source regarding modern freethinking individuals who support supernaturalism and can show that it fits the context of the article, then add it. The article is not about freedom to think whatever you wanna, but a specific historical movement. Vsmith (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I shall assume good faith from now on. Thank you for making me aware of this, as I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, as I've stated. Anyway, I did remove information sourced to a valid reference, but that's because the information is completely irrelevant in light of how the article presents itself. You say that this article about freethinking (which, when I wrote those exact letters, led me to this article) refers to a historical philosophical ideology - but the article doesn't state it! I would have no problem with it if it did, but it presents itself as if it discusses the concept of truly thinking freely. In any sense where it does the latter, it can state no conclusions. Insofar as it does the former, no one will have a problem with it dismissing all proposed evidence for the supernatural. So to make it right, the article needs to either remove what it states about the supernatural, or state explicitly in the beginning of the article that it concerns a specific philosophical ideology, and that the word freethought is misleading in this sense. Lynnettian (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a disambiguation note at the top linking to freedom of thought or other concepts more likely to fit with what you were thinking of or expecting. Vsmith (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that what is needed is a WP:HATNOTE, which should remove most people's uncertainties about the scope of the article. For example: "This article is about the philosophical viewpoint known as freethought, which was particularly important in the 19th century and contributed to the growth of secular humanism. For wider questions, see Freedom of thought and Free will." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Implemented. Tweak as needed - seems a bit overwordy... Vsmith (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Arguably something like that could be done, but is there any other Wikipedia article about the actual process of freethinking? And I most certainly did not mean freedom of thought. In the beginning of this article, it says: "Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or dogma." After the table of contents, it says: "Freethought holds that individuals should not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmas." (By the way - is this taken out of the reference "Hastings, James. Encyclopedia of Religion" as well, or does that reference only apply to the supernatural denial?)
At any rate, those three sentences are the article's core attempt at describing how one thinks freely. But it hardly implies that freethinkers hold the same view on any given topic. It would be just as random to say that freethinkers regard that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that 9/11 was an inside job, as it is to start talking about supernaturalism out of the blue. These are particular subjects of their own (and they have their own Wikipedia entries), and the ability to think freely has no exclusive relationship with any given conclusion in those (or any) debates. So you're missing my point. You were explicit about this article representing a certain philosophical position. To the extent that you're correct, it needs to be stated in the very beginning that this article is not about how one would go about thinking freely (on whatever topic) and what thinking freely truly implies. Additionally, it should be very clear that freethought is a misleading name for an arbitrary set of philosophical beliefs. To the extent that you're incorrect, this entire article needs a cleanup. Which is it? Lynnettian (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The idea that "Freethought" is a "misleading name" is not relevant - that is, in reality, what the movement discussed in this article is called. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
If freedom of thought doesn't work - how 'bout Spiritual But Not Religious? ... or is there no existing article? Perhaps you should gather your reliable references and write the article you are wanting to see - Free thought and supernaturalism or whatever, and we can link to it. The historical free thought movement described in this article I see as the basis for secular humanism (see the sidebar). If you desire, you may also add a supernatural bit to this article -- assuming you can find a relevant reliable source. In short it all boils down to reliable references - not what we as WP editors think, which is all I've seen here from you. Another suggestion would be to seek input from the folks over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism per the sidebar at the top of the article. And, no I don't have access to the reference you mentioned above to see if it applies to more than the one sentence. Vsmith (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
You're missing my point. In my original post on this talk page, I had not yet grasped that this article concerned a specific philosophical ideology - I thought that it was about the act of thinking freely on any given subject. These are two completely different things. You pointed out that I was mistaken, and I accepted that. The problem I have in light of this realization, which I'm stating for the third time now, is that the article doesn't clearly state that it doesn't refer to the act of thinking freely! And yet it acts as if it does, right up until the mention of how freethinkers have not found sufficient evidence for the supernatural. That's why I'm not the only one on this talk page that's bringing it up, as it causes a lot of confusion. I don't care at all what irreligious tenets/beliefs/dogmas/ideology the historical movement associates itself with - as long as it's clearly stated that those are not the only possible conclusions of a freely thinking individual. Supernaturalism should discuss the issue of the empirical justification for the existence of the supernatural, or the inappropriateness of the term supernatural itself, well on its own.
I understand that Wikipedia is about reliable references, and not the editors opinions on what constitutes the truth. But if you read my argument carefully, you will realize that I'm not discussing my perspective on the reality of the supernatural at all - I'm pointing out the ambiguity of how this article presents itself. A more appropriate introduction in light of my criticism may be: "Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that the validity of religious claims should be evaluated on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or dogma. It is not, contrary to what may be intuitively assumed, the ability to think freely by an individual on any given subject." This would remove all confusion. Do you see what I mean? Lynnettian (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The first thing you need to realize is that "freethinking" actually means thinking in a certain, presupposed, narrow way. 167.206.229.129 (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Lynnettian said: "I get the feeling that there is some angry atheist/"skeptic"/naturalist guarding this site that has an emotional issue with religion and/or spirituality, and hence needs to market their beliefs on a page for an intellectually respected concept like this."

Yes, I feel it too. All editors are by simple human limitations biased, but the problem is that the editors are biased in conceptual clusters like when free-thinking is overgeneralized to mean anti-religion, like when religion is overgeneralized to mean superstition. The cultural flows force us to make those unsound and unmotivated clusterings, and WP, by its adherence to verifiability is by its constitution contaminated with illegicit concept clusterings originating from the prejudicing culture. That means WP is not free-thinking. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Overview: "Freethought holds" on supernaturalism

I just restored an earlier edit of mine; I'm claiming it's an NPOV edit. (After I made it on Feb 16, it was reverted without comment.) I'm adding this discussion to explain why; if you disagree, or want to revert it, please discuss it here.

The sentence is: "As such, when applied to religion, the philosophy of freethought holds that, given presently-known facts, established scientific theories, and logical principles, there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena."

My change to the beginning of the sentence: "Applied to religion, freethinkers have generally held that ..."

I call this a NPOV edit. Freethought is a philosophy of approach to evidence & belief; it is not the conclusions people reach when they apply it to evidence. (Yes, this is related to the other discussions about supernaturalism, theism, and atheism.)

In other words, it's ironic to dogmatically assert that all freethinkers must come to the same conclusion as the majority. Tirmie (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't empiricism also a type of dogma? Kortoso (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Debate of Antitheism

I would be really happy if someone is kind enough to reconsider my suggestion of changing antitheism with agnosticism in explaining the term "free thinking". I am an agnostic non-believer heathen in my dispute, which is completely secular and I think it is really important, I believe anti-theism just ignores billions of people having the fantastic belief system, individual and private and also full of creativity. Whereas theism and antitheism just loses time discussing the existence of a god or many, which might end up losing so much time. This is why I am a great defender of changing anti-theism with the term "agnostism" which is completely secular with a disinterest in "theos" or god, because science is a good path to generalise our ideas and share in a common ground, whereas a refutation of god should not be a focus at all. If you notice Dawkins prefers to diagnose himself as an agnostic because proving there is no god is just as unscientific as proving god. And the book "Message" by Carl Sagan also diverts the attention of sending someone accepting god to outer space just because it represents the common people better, and believe me, belief is very subjective and therefore if it is kept out of discussion there would yet be much greater amount of people yet careful with avoiding a statement preconditioning the existence of god and this is more a fact of speaking to the public and yet seeking general acceptance and objectivity. Anti-theism as a term yet arrogant and excluding a great mass, who are not necessarily dependent in their acts of thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stilite (talk • contribs) 04:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

An oxymoron or just a confusing statement?

Concerning this sentence in the introduction:

Regarding religion, freethinkers hold that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena.[5]

I'm not sure how to interpret that. For me it seems to contradict an earlier statement where opinions should be built through the scientific method. If the scientific method could produce evidence for supernatural phenomena, then they would by definition not be supernatural anymore. Science only deals with the natural.

Does the referenced source book perhaps elaborate on this? Skoskav (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the book, but I'm not sure I see any contradiction. You're right that if science could produce evidence what we would presently call "supernatural" phenomena, it is no longer supernatural, and freethinkers generally wouldn't have problems believing it. But until and unless such evidence is produced, things like astrology remain in the realm of "supernatural" and thus be beyond the beliefs of freethinkers. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

pov alert

it should be made clear that freethought by definition requires removal of all kinds of biases and prejudices, only relying on fact and truth. the current version of article is lacking in the neutrality department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:3010:BFFB:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

What specific changes to the article would you like to see made? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I have added several definitions by Bertrand Russell which are as neutral as possible. --Gmacar (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Freethought. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freethought. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freethought. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

freethought is not science or logic but an attitude

I want to present this concept that maybe is more general but more closer to the motivation o free thought

"Freethought believe on intellectual work completely separated of dogma, authority, fear, prejudice and tradition"

The intellectual work started with the firsts philosophers on Greece and is a fighting for understand the world

Yes, now the science and logic are the best that we have but maybe in the future the science method will be changed

Apologies for my bad English

"free thought" what a misnomer. "closed thought" is more descriptive.49.207.60.125 (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah — "if you're not deist Christian, you're closed-minded." Great! Thanks for playing! Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freethought/Archive_1&oldid=1092068217"