Debates
17 Jul 04
17 Jul 04
As I am a member of the Freethinkers clan, I recently devoted some (free) thought to this question. It struck me that, well, I want my thought to be free in some ways, but not free in others.
First, I want to be free from the constraint of having to think, or not to think, any particular thing. I want to think about any damn think I want to think about, however odd, problematic, or threatening it is to others. Not controversial, I hope.
Second, I also want my thought to be (largely) free from motivated bias. However, this carries an interesting implication: freedom from bias implies principled servitude to reason. One is obliged, as a rational person, to accept conclusions that follow from premises, even when they are uncongenial or counterintuitive. Being rational can therefore be a state of being less free to believe many things. Hence, Freethinking may be in some sense a misnomer. It denotes the exact opposite of an undisciplined, free-for-all style of cognition.
Indeed, I would liken freethinking to temperance. Consider the following analogy. Some people consume any old food, say on the basis of crude taste, whereas others only consume food that meets a particular standard, say nutritional value. Though the former group immediately satisfy their appetite, they are also liable to grow fat, whereas though the latter group may sometimes stay hungry, they are also liable to remain trim. Similarly, some people arrive at any old conclusion, say on the basis of congeniality, whereas others only embrace conclusions that can be justified, say in terms of deductive logic. Though the former group may find psychological satisfaction in their beliefs, they are liable to develop a narrow-minded ideology, whereas though the latter may encounter psychological discomfort in their doubts, they are liable to develop a coherent worldview.
Thus, irrationality is a kind of gluttony, an over-indulgence in yummy beliefs, a failure to count cognitive calories. It can result from an excess of appetite (=motivated bias) or a dearth of self-restraint (=intelligence). Freethinking, in contrast, is a form of intellectual temperance.
Aiden
27 Oct 04
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeA freethinker is free to think anything capable of being thought. Because he will restrict his beliefs to those which follow from rational premises does not limit his capacity for freethought. It only limits his capacity for unsubstantiated belief. He is still free to think about magical pink unicorns, mischeivous sprites, and any number of other improbable things, but he will not be free to accord them any belief.
As I am a member of the Freethinkers clan, I recently devoted some (free) thought to this question. It struck me that, well, I want my thought to be free in some ways, but not free in others.
First, I want to be free from the constraint of having to think, or not to think, any particular thing. I want to think about any damn think I want to think abo ...[text shortened]... raint (=intelligence). Freethinking, in contrast, is a form of intellectual temperance.
Aiden
27 Oct 04
Originally posted by rwingettSays you! I don't see much 'free thought' from a person who is so strict to believe there is no God.
A freethinker is free to think anything capable of being thought. Because he will restrict his beliefs to those which follow from rational premises does not limit his capacity for freethought. It only limits his capacity for unsubstantiated belief. He is still free to think about magical pink unicorns, mischeivous sprites, and any number of other improbable things, but he will not be free to accord them any belief.
Phhht!
I don't know if there is or is not one... but you sure seem to have made up your mind on the subject.
Go Sox, Go Tigers, Go Pats, Go Lions!
Wooooo!
P-
27 Oct 04
Originally posted by PhlabibitFalse. Completely false.
Says you! I don't see much 'free thought' from a person who is so strict to believe there is no God.
Phhht!
I don't know if there is or is not one... but you sure seem to have made up your mind on the subject.
Go Sox, Go Tigers, Go Pats, Go Lions!
Wooooo!
P-
I see absolutley no evidence to support the hypothesis of a god. Therefore I do not believe in god. But at no time am I claiming to have proof that god does not exist. I fully admit that it is a remote possibility. But in the complete absence of any proof whatsoever for god's existence, I have no choice but to withhold belief.
Lions are 4-2. Not too shabby.
27 Oct 04
Originally posted by rwingettYou need to speculate a bit.... why do you need such hard evidence? What is your hard evidence that a God does not exist?
False. Completely false.
I see absolutley no evidence to support the hypothesis of a god. Therefore I do not believe in god. But at no time am I claiming to have proof that god does not exist. I fully admit that it is a remote possibility. But in the complete absence of any proof whatsoever for god's existence, I have no choice but to withhold belief.
Lions are 4-2. Not too shabby.
Nice about the Lions... I watched them a bit Sunday.
T
27 Oct 04
Originally posted by PhlabibitThere is only one claim in question here. The theist's. The theist is the one making the claim that there is a god rather than nothing. The burden of proof is upon him. If he wants me to believe his claim, then he has to provide some evidence for it. If he fails to provide any evidence (as he has done) then I cannot believe his claim.
You need to speculate a bit.... why do you need such hard evidence? What is your hard evidence that a God does not exist?
Nice about the Lions... I watched them a bit Sunday.
T
I am not making any claim. At no time am I claiming that god does not exist. To do so would be folly. What I am saying is that in the complete absence of any evidence, the claim for god cannot be believed. Withholding belief from something and claiming it to be demonstrably false are two different things.
I'm sorry, but I can't believe that something is factually true without having some sort of evidence to back it up. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution, so I think it is generally true. But if you can't give me one single shred of evidence to indicate that there is a god, then I have no choice but to doubt the claim.
27 Oct 04
Originally posted by rwingettSox beat Yankees in the first ever 7 game sweep.... There must be a God!
There is only one claim in question here. The theist's. The theist is the one making the claim that there is a god rather than nothing. The burden of proof is upon him. If he wants me to believe his claim, then he has to provide some evidence for it. If he fails to provide any evidence (as he has done) then I cannot believe his claim.
I am not making a ...[text shortened]... hred of evidence to indicate that there is a god, then I have no choice but to doubt the claim.
😉
P-
27 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettWell, I was actually intending the verb "think" to have the sense of "believe" (as opposed to "imaginately entertain the idea of"😉.
A freethinker is free to think anything capable of being thought. Because he will restrict his beliefs to those which follow from rational premises does not limit his capacity for freethought. It only limits his capacity for unsubstantiate ...[text shortened]... obable things, but he will not be free to accord them any belief.
Perhaps we should be called the "freebelievers" ... 🙂
Except that, which was my point wasn't it, that we only wish to exercise our freedom to believe what can be rationally justified. I think the word "free" derives from the tenet that we do not accept that any authority, apart from the only true of reason and evidence, provides good grounds for believing something.
27 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettIn the absence of *any* evidence, isn't it rational to suspend disbelief as well as belief?
What I am saying is that in the complete absence of any evidence, the claim for god cannot be believed.
If there really is *no* evidence either way, then isn't agnosticism the only rational creed?
I think, Rob, that you think there really is reason to doubt that God exists, that there is a degree of negative evidence. Otherwise, why would you class yourself as an atheist?
Can absence of evidence for X ever be, on its own, evidence of the absence of X? Not on its own, I think. There has to be some added supposition of how things are more likely to be, or some observation of facts incompatible with X.
27 Oct 04
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeAn atheist is one who does not believe in god. No evidence can be shown to support the claim for god, therefore it cannot be believed. The atheist will therefore act as though god does not exist. Since the claim for god is contrary to everything we know, it will be assumed to be false until some contrary evidence comes to light.
In the absence of *any* evidence, isn't it rational to suspend disbelief as well as belief?
If there really is *no* evidence either way, then isn't agnosticism the only rational creed?
I think, Rob, that you think there really is reason to doubt that God exists, that there is a degree of negative evidence. Otherwise, why would you class yourself ...[text shortened]... n of how things are more likely to be, or some observation of facts incompatible with X.
All claims are not equal. We could claim there is a planet X beyond Pluto. Or that there is a planet Y beyond planet X. These are the types of claims that our experience has shown could be true. They are logically plausible. In that case we could suspend judgement and say it's just as likely to be true as to be false. But for fantastical claims like the one for god, which runs counter to everything we know, the atheist will start off by assuming the claim to be false unless there is some evidence to support it.
27 Oct 04
Originally posted by rwingettBut for fantastical claims like the one for god, which runs counter to everything we know, the atheist will start off by assuming the claim to be false unless there is some evidence to support it.
An atheist is one who does not believe in god. No evidence can be shown to support the claim for god, therefore it cannot be believed. The atheist will therefore act as though god does not exist. Since the claim for god is contrary to everything we know, it will be assumed to be false until some contrary evidence comes to light.
All claims are not equal. ...[text shortened]... t will start off by assuming the claim to be false unless there is some evidence to support it.
What do you know that runs counter to God being real?
Kelly
27 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI know, I already asked 'What is your hard evidence that a God does not exist'? and didn't get a real answer.
[b]But for fantastical claims like the one for god, which runs counter to everything we know, the atheist will start off by assuming the claim to be false unless there is some evidence to support it.
What do you know that runs counter to God being real?
Kelly[/b]
Go figure!?
Why do you have to prove there is one... but you don't need to prove there is not one!?
P?
He did kind of answer it, but I still don't see why you must prove there is one, and why you don't need to prove there is not one.
27 Oct 04
Originally posted by PhlabibitWhat is there not to understand? I spelled it out very plainly. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That would be the person claiming that there is a god. Show me that there is a god and I'll believe it. If you can't then quit wasting my time. The atheist is not trying to prove anything, nor does he need to.
I know, I already asked 'What is your hard evidence that a God does not exist'? and didn't get a real answer.
Go figure!?
Why do you have to prove there is one... but you don't need to prove there is not one!?
P?
He did kind of answer it, but I still don't see why you must prove there is one, and why you don't need to prove there is not one.
27 Oct 04
Originally posted by PhlabibitI agree with those that do not believe in God, you are asking
I know, I already asked 'What is your hard evidence that a God does not exist'? and didn't get a real answer.
Go figure!?
Why do you have to prove there is one... but you don't need to prove there is not one!?
P?
He did kind of answer it, but I still don't see why you must prove there is one, and why you don't need to prove there is not one.
to prove a negative. It cannot be done, and is not a fair question.
Kelly