freethought, freedom of thought, and why i dont care what you think
deposition with definitions:
Freethought is a philosophical doctrine that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logical principles and not be comprised by authority, tradition or any other dogmatic or other belief system that restricts logical reasoning. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers
Freedom of thought (also called freedom of conscience 'and freedom of ideas') is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, regardless of anyone else's view.
huh. i had no idea freethought was so closely related to restrictedthought. the truth is almost always in the opposites. when i saw the word 'freethought' i had some weird image of coming to one's own conclusions without the need of some arbitrary yardstick.
contrast this to freedom of thought, which is defined as those words would be commonly parsed, and science dont look so important anymore. its there, of course, as an inescapable aspect of all conclusions reached after 'science' was a household name. but only because it exists as an institution. freedom of thought, however, allows the practitioner to make up their own mind about where the importance of experience lies. pretty novel concept...and works independent of the power structure. seems like a useful thing to breed if youd like something that remotely resembled democracy.
from the freethought article:
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.
this is totally fine. you can hold on that. but: i can hold that given what we are keenly aware that we presently do not know, it is reasonable for an individual to decide that god does exist. or that they are going to worship a god. or that whateverthehelltheywant. seriously. you, i, we, they, and him over there do not know the right thing to believe....or if there even is one.
but whatever you believe, be sure to attempt to indoctrinate the world. this is where the good of debate truly lies.
sarcasm aside: base beliefs wherever you want. take the scientific method for what it is worth. it exists, so it is certainly worth something. its probably not worth the whole of the universe... but its got some value.
take logic and reason and employ them where you can (or want to). take illogic and sprinkle it everywhere you like. the facts we know may be completely misinterpreted anyway, and i dont feel it is in my best interest to base my personal philisophical decisions solely on anything any one person or body says. i certainly dont find it good or necessary to align my philisophical bearings with any other individuals. i find it a waste of time.
comparing to, eliciting responses from, conversing on philosophical bearings is enjoyable.
im glad you have a belief to cling to strongly. i have a belief that i believe, and i try not to go forcing it on the rest of the world. its rude, inconsiderate, and i could very well be wrong.
but not about the assertions claiming that no one knows. im spot on there.
i find this site to be as much a threat to the individual as any other fundamentalist movement i have crossed.
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989