Biff the unclean

That is the problem I ran into as a young man. I thought I was asking questions to strengthen my faith. But I stepped over the line and started asking questions that were supposed to be already answered by faith. Basic honesty then forced me to abandon Christianity and then Theism itself.

That's a pretty silly (and somewhat insulting) thing to say. It's like saying non-smokers only think they aren't smoking. Or bald people have hair they just think that they don't.

Then it might help you to read up on science because you are mistaken about how it operates

If you are a Christian then you subscribe to the Christian system of thought not unguided thought

Yes, for exactly the same reason that homosexuals call themselves "Gay." The "Bright" was an ego boost and that is why it was so quickly abandoned. "Free thinker" is purely descriptive, meaning an unrestricted thinker. That the word "free" has positive connotations besides it's strict definition shouldn't bother anyone who isn't paranoid. After all you don't think that Homosexuals are calling you morbid and depressed because you are straight, do you?

Buffman

What causes you to believe that? Is it an act of "free will," or merely inadequate knowledge?

http://webster.commnet.edu/libroot/w...k/critical.htm

http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/main.html

(I think I understand that.) We all follow a path through the known into the unknown. Some of us carry a sharp machete, a powerful magnifying glass, a thick notebook and a pencil with an eraser to help us reveal and record everything along the way. We make our own doctrines based on the verified observations. Others seek to follow only the gaps in the vegetation, seldom stopping, if ever, to examine and understand what they have passed. These latter folks believe the promise(doctrine) that there is a pot-if-gold at the end of their journey only for those who have blind faith in the absolute correctness of the treasure map provided to them by the men at the religious bazaar. They were sold a dull machete, a broken magnifying glass, a notebook already filled and a pencil with no eraser. These folks seldom venture far from the gaps for fear that something will eat them if they do.

I consider that to be a fair and healthy outlook at this point in your journey through the natural world jungle. There is much to learn about our genetic heritage and the environment in which we find it. Our mind is the librarian of our brain. You will discover that not all the books in the library are accurate. Determining which are and which aren't is the challenge of the freethinking/skeptical mind.


Upon what verified evidence do you base your current conclusions?

I can speak only for myself. I have posted the following quotes many times as most representative of my "guiding directives."

1. "What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts?
Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!" - Lazarus Long

(Robert Heinlein..."Time Enough for Love")

2. ...On the other hand, shake off all the fears & servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

(Thomas Jefferson...1787 letter to Peter Carr)

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_carr.html

Evoken

Yeah and we also like to tell others that they are in the wrong way without being sure if we are in the right one ourselves.

Sorry if you found it silly and insulting. I think I should have been more clear, what I mean with that is that for example with smokers..you know you don't smoke because there are people who smoke, similar with the bald person that knows that he is bald because there are people with hair. Without this reference be them negative or as an alternative, you would have no basis on which to make a choice.

So what I meant by my original statement is that atheist don't believe in God but still you have the point of reference of people who believe in God.

The same way that there have to be dumb people in order for you to know you are smart, untalented people for you to know you are talented, etc.

Oh I will sure love to read and learn many things not only about science but about many other things, it is sad that one has so much to learn and a single lifetime is not enough for that.

But as far as I can understand I don't think science should be against religion or vice. In my opinion the conflict between the two is nothing but the result of our poor intelligence as a species.

Yep.

Of course not.

Evoken

Well..that may be true to some.

I think you are assuming that I succumb to the cartoonish/media representation of the supernatural. Like I said in another post, I believe because I understand and to me belief in God is a reasonable conclusion. Do you seriously think that just because you can verify, confirm, build theories, test and name the things that happen in the world changes anything? Or maybe that because of that you are going to take credit for "discovering" it? Honestly I think that the perception that God is a grumpy old man running from scientists because they are biting his tail is completely irrational.

You can explain the entire digestive process, how the food is bitten and wetted first for you to be able to swallow it, how it goes thru a series of processes thru your digestive system in order for your body to assimilate the different nutritional things the food you ate has to offer and how the process continues and discards what the body doesn't needs outside itself and how it all relates to the external world and body structure. To you that may just be the result of a really long evolutionary trayectory and mere natural processes, so much that it becomes "obvious" and it couldn't have happened any other way. To me that is God's work.

All in this world carries God's signature. After all For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made and it is there for man, man uses science to understand and use for his benefits (something we forget to do most of the time) what God has created and given to him. Science is not the ultimate weapon against God, it is quite pointless and unproductive to think that way. That said, I am not against science, in fact I support it and think that we should use it to do God's will which is for us to Be fruitful and multiply. But we also need to question the motives and consequences behind our incredibly fast scientific/technological progress, are we focusing on the right things? Are we developing the right things?Are we wasting too much resources developing new things while people starve around the glove?Are we messing up our planet?

While I am aware that those last two paragraphs may cause some stir here, one thing I want to make clear is that I don't agree with the schism between science and religion. But this does not mean that I think science needs to succumb to religion nor that science needs to attack religion. But harmony between the two is what I think should exists.

Like I said in the beginning of the post, I think this is true in most cases but not in all.

Hmm..thats debatable..human emotions and personal taste like love fore example are a matter of personal opinion.

Sure, I appreciate your straightforward answer.

P.S. I will reply to your other post tomorrow..tired..going to bed now.

Freethinking

In principle, one could be a freethinker and simultaneously believe in the existence of a God, provided the basis for that belief was rational argument, rather than arguments from authority, tradition, or scripture. Some atheist freethinkers, however, believing that there are no rational arguments for deism or theism are reluctant to accept the claims of deists or theists to be freethinkers. ...

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Freethought

It seems that the intention of this thread is to assert that the label "freethinker" is not a more accurate label for Christians than it is for atheists and non-believers.

It also seems to me as though this will continue going around and around like a debate with people scoring "ego points" and trying to "one up" each other. How many Christians have you met with an abundance of "intellectual curiosity"? It is almost always impossible for a christian to learn something that he thinks he already knows. Those who look at life in one way always find cause for alarm - they are the religious and political reactionaries.

Scientists normally accept the principle of parsimony. They prefer theories that explain results using the simplest assumptions. Parsimony is a conservative tendancy and tells people to adhere as much as possible to what we already believe. Scientists who have "open-mindedness", then, should have a willingness to consider proper evidence, depending on the strength of the evidence or logic supporting one's current opinion.

In constrast, conservative christian thinkers are like naïve scientists, who will only change their minds and their theology to the extent that they realize how and why things may have been interpreted incorrectly in the past. I am glad that you are willing to do your own work and research what other famous self-proclaimed freethinkers have said about Freedom of Thought. "Freethinking" as a noun means - the doctrine that reason is the right basis for regulating conduct.

Most consider "freethinking" a school of thought, a philosophical system, or a doctrine like rationalism.

Freethinking is also often used as both an adjective and a verb.

Do religious explanations often prevent people from feeling the need to seek other non-religious reasonable explanations?

For example, many Christian strongly believe that certain truth-claims as stated in the Bible are divinely inspired. Some Christians seriously believe that religious people can acquire information without using any of their sense organs and without receiving any form of physical energy. This is known as ESP. Some "true believers" also claim that some very "special" people have super human telepathic powers (and they "know the mind of God".)

Are there real psychological limitations to thinking that Christians are taught to accept freely in order to be "good Christians", thinking and living within the Christian paradigm? Or are there no such limitations to their thinking?

Are there patterns of thinking common in church communities that encourage believers to be like docile children of the Church?

Is "free and liberal thinking" frowned upon in most conservative Christian communities? Are most conservatives as imaginative, innovative, and creative as liberals?

Do conservative thinkers stifle innovation? Do they regard new ideas with suspicion? Do they insist on requiring many levels of approval in their organizations and require that their objections must be overcome before attempting something new? Do they even penalize people who bring in new approaches and ways of thinking and doing things?

Do conservative thinkers constantly challenge and criticize new ideas?

Do conservative thinkers often express criticism, withhold praise, and let people know that they can be fired at any time (or sent to hell?)

Do conservative thinkers tend to treat identification of problems as signs of failure in order to discourage people from citing any process that doesn't work?

Do conservative thinkers often have the tendancy to control the flow of conversations very carefully?

Do conservative thinkers make people who request information justify all requests, but don't give out that information freely?

Do conservative thinkers in organizations tend to make all decisions at the top, while they order people involved at lower levels carry them out and make them do it quickly?

Do many believers adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma without thoroughly examining it to justify the positions they have? Do they then cease to grow and develop intellectually, as they pursue "spiritual growth?"

Do all people develop "schemas" to help them have an organized way of interacting with and understanding the real world?

Do religious people tend to adopt attitudes and answers for many questions before reason, rationality, and scientific exploration have had time to reach and educate people about other plausible solutions?

Are conservative Christian thinkers encouraged to do cross-cultural studies to compare thinking and philosophies from various cultures?

Are religious people "assimilated" into a religion and do they apply old schemas to new objects and new problems until the find one that works? Do they occasionally modify their old schema to fit new objects and experiences in reality? Do problems that are too different from any other problem they have solved cause people to expand their schema and "free their minds" until they can work out a solution to the problem?

Abraham Lincoln explained, "the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew."

Mark Twain pointed out that "loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul."

The two individuals quoted above have expressed some thoughts better than I could have... and that is why I have posted them.

Anitra

I have just discovered this thread and haven't gotten past the second post yet, but I am going to throw in some examples of how differently a freethinker may interpret Biblical verses:

This is one of my freethinkers' Bible favorites. If there is one holy universal living God, foundation of all reality and author of all natural order, then "trust in the Lord" and humility before the Lord is trust in natural order and humility before fact: studying the natural universe and learning from it. Leaning not unto thine own understanding is not mistaking your own conceptual universe for the actual universe, and humbly comparing notes with others who see things differently to check whether your perceptions may be skewed.

Does any parent here really believe that little children accept what you tell them uncritically, never ask questions, never experiment, and never test boundaries?

Most translations I have read read "be reborn," not "be converted." To see the world with the fresh eyes of a child is to be without fixed ideas -- even the fixed ideas of a creed or a belief in God. It is to be open to explore and learn and grow and change; to be a freethinker.

To be reborn as a "child of God" is to be as a child with perfect parents who give unconditional love and encouragement to grow into an independently functioning adult. Good human parents do not discourage a child's explorations, experiments, and questions. My parents encouraged critical thinking as fast as I could develop it and they weren't even, frankly, very good parents. It is impossible that God be a worse parent than mine were.

Jesus is talking to the Pharisees, the folks who thought they were holier than all of thou. What He said was that the only sign this generation would get was the sign of Jonah. "The sign of Jonah" was the sparing of Nineveh -- which really pissed Jonah off, because Jonah wanted God to smite Nineveh for not being as good as his people were. Jesus is telling the self-righteous, "Hey, you hypocrites, God is going to give you a sign alright -- he's going to save the people you despise."

I think atheists could have fun using this passage against Christians who despise them.

Yes, that is used by many to discourage questions. The Bible is a giant Rorschach test -- you pretty much get out of it what you bring to it. But for those NOT looking for a way to discourage doubt -- for those who, in fact, think that Doubt is the greatest and most beloved servant of God -- there is an alternate meaning in this passage, too. Satan is suggesting that Jesus throw Himself of the mountain, since God will send angels to bear Him up so that He doesn't injure Himself. How many Christians expect God to be our personal codependent and rescue us from all bad things including those we get ourselves into? Jesus is saying that is a misuse of God.

One Jewish scholar I talked to told me that a passage translated in the Christian Bible as directing the believer to "study His Word" is translated in the Jewish Bible as "study his Word." It is an acknowledgment that each of us finds a different message in the same text.

In The Battle for God, Karen Armstrong covers several periods of both liberal and conservative thought in all the three historical monotheisms, Judaism and Christianity and Islam. Freethinking wasn't always encouraged, but it wasn't always discouraged either. In his own time, Thomas Aquinas was a freethinker. Unfortunately, he then became the authority for later generations. Let that be a lesson to us all. .

Anitra

It does seem to me that in order to be a freethinker one must accept the premises of naturalism and of liberalism. I do not agree, however, that that means one has to reject theism. In spite of the claims of supernaturalists and authoritarians, a personal relationship with a god does not necessitate belief in the supernatural, in a special revelation, in a special authority, or in a fixed creed.

In order to claim full authority over one's own reasoning and one's own life, one must take full responsibility for it. One must give others equal authority and responsibility over their own reasoning and their own lives. One must foreswear the use of force to win agreement, and base all arguments on evidence and reasoning that others can verify independently -- as well as checking the evidence and reasoning of others for yourself. Naturalism seems to me the only possible foundation for such dialogue. Humanism and liberalism seem to me the natural ethics of such a position.

But of one's god-postulate is of a being who is the ultimate in goodness, that being will not conflict with what one considers good. The god of a freethinker will advocate freethinking; the god of a liberalist will advocate liberalism; the god of a naturalist will advocate the use of natural reason.

Since "god" is an abstract concept, the god who represents the ultimate in good to us may be a psychological projection. Or, since there is a material existence which is whatever it is no matter what our psychological projections are, and there are things in that material universe that really are pro-survival and pro-increasing-variety-and-increasing-organization-in-higher-degrees-of-order and things that really aren't, perhaps there is a real Good That is What It Is independent of our human ideas of it.

Whatever reality-as-it-is is, each of us as an individual has to construct our own conception of it that works for us personally to achieve our own desired objectives. It is useful to compare notes, but we are each responsible for our own map of the territory -- and none of the maps ARE the territory.

Buffman

I live in central Florida. It is decidedly more than "some" down here.

I have no idea what that might be. I am attempting to assume nothing beyond what you have chosen to share.

Sorry! I have little insight into what you "accurately" understand, though it appears that your knowledge of science is limited.

Oh my, YES! Did you watch the Saturn satellite insertion the other night? Wait till the day you need an operation...or Viagra. And what do you think about the missing WMDs? There are a good many dead and maimed folks because of them.

I agree with you because figments of the human mind only run from their own irrationality...or exposure.

I realize that the natural sciences are not your, or many folk's, forte. Do you believe that your supernatural god developed vitamin pills...or any of the other life saving/extending drugs simply because "you" don't know why they do what they do?

Now you are sounding like an Intelligent Design advocate. Perhaps you should spend some time in the forum that deals with that issue.

What has any of that got to do with your original question? Please don't side track your own thread.

What schism? I agree with Biff the unclean. You do not appear to have a very good grasp of the purpose/role of science. It doesn't seek harmony or acrimony. It seeks accurate knowledge. Isn't that what many religions claim they already have? If these religions are correct, why would it cause a schism? (Fact versus fiction?)

http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.html

(Extracts)
Jonathan Swift is reputed to have observed (I cannot find the original reference), "You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place." So, if science is taught as just a collection of (assumed-to-be) facts, it is nothing but dogma. Dogma stoutly resists subsequent displacement by reason.

It seems that anything people have learned prior to puberty takes on the status of an immutable truth (this is something well understood by parents, governments, and religions). Rational explanations of why some previous belief might be incompatible with the behavior of nature, and a careful explanation of the actual behavior of nature are of little avail.

So, if science is taught as dogma to the prepubescent, just imagine the problem created for subsequent teachers. For example, most of the university students I encounter have been taught as children that the reason clouds form when air is cooled is that cold air cannot hold as much water vapor as does warm air. When I subsequently carefully explain what is really happening, and show why the previously learned nostrum is nonsense parading as science, I can usually only convince a small fraction of the students. The rest know in their hearts that their grade-eight teacher, say, or their mummy was actually right and that you are just a contrarian who is attempting to destroy the established order. The damage is done, the mind is frozen and the prepubescent dogma lasts a lifetime.
(End extracts)

This is about as succinctly as I can state it....Science is a way of understanding natural phenomena. Science does not concern itself with supernatural phenomena

Here is a fun read for you.

http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html

Evoken

I agree.

Well..it is true that most Christians are close minded and refuse to learn anything outside their religious spectrum.

Yeah..often but not always and sometimes the religious explanations are confirmed by other non-religious explanation.

Yes the same way other Christians believe that the truths of The Bible are divinely inspired after looking at other non-religious explanations.

Of course there are, the question is..do you accept them without question? I for one don't go to church or belong to a community of Christians..in fact I don't agree with most of what they do.

Yes, it if frowned upon in conservative circles..this is something like I said above I don't agree with.

Yes they do..the conservative circles are those who are always trying to ban or supress new ideas. Take Harry Potter, Dragon Ball Z, Pokemon, etc. This I consider to be childish and counter-productive.

But that doesn't means every new idea must be accepted without question..if we do that we are no different than those who don't accept new ideas at all.

Yep..and again something I don't agree with..I don't belive in hell and think that the Christians who use fear of hell as a means to try and convert people are deceiving themselves.

Yep there are but there are other who adopt a religion after examining it to justify the position they have and then proceed to persue both intellectual and spiritual growth.

Nope..that is frowned upon.something that I think is wrong considering the background of Christianity and the knowledge that other philosophies and religions from other cultures could provide.

Evoken

I speak more of what I perceive in the natural world. Sure I know my knowledge of science is limited..after all I am not a scientist..but I don't think one has to be a scientist in order to believe or not in God. Neither do I think (and I speak for myself) that any increase of scientific knowledge will necessary make me stop believing in God.

Hehe..good one.

You probably misunderstood my statement, I didn't mean that humans can't do anything..far from that. What I mean is that humans use what is already available to them in order to do things.

Ah..did I sound like those? Sorry I am not..

To me Science without religion is hollow and religion without science is blind.

But sure..I admitted that I am not a scientist and my knowledge of science is limited..so what do I know?..what I know is that one does not has to be a scientist to have common sense..something which is often lost in the intellectual vanity war between religious and scientific parties.