Christianity and Freethought

Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of logic, reason and empiricism and not authority, tradition, or other dogmas. The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers".

Now there are quite a number of people who believe that if one is a Christian then one cannot be a freethinker. First let’s get a few things said right at the beginning. If one forms an opinion that God exists on the basis of logic, reason and empiricism without basing it on authority, tradition or dogma then one can be said to have used the process of freethought in order to arrive at the conclusion that there is a god. Freethought does not imply that the opinions you get will be truthful, or even that they will stand all the tests of future evidence. However a freethinker should be able to change their opinions and conclusions when new evidence does appear.

Christianity is usually taken as a dogmatic religion that relies on tradition and authority to come to conclusions and opinions. However this is a narrow definition of Christianity. In my opinion anybody who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ is a Christian. A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christ, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term Messiah. On the other hand Christian atheism is an ideology in which the belief in the God of Christianity is rejected or absent but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed. People who adhere to any of these ideologies are Christian, even though the latter will certainly not be called Christian by many sects of this religion. However one must admit that these self-same sects consider all other similar sects as not Christian either.

Regardless as to which definition of Christianity you use being a freethinker would not necessarily mean that one cannot be a Christian. Traditional Christianity demanded that one relied entirely on dogma and tradition to have an opinion. People who follow this ideology were required to wait for interpretation of every even and portent from authority. Thus everything, including observable fact, had to be interpreted in light of dogma. This kind of Christian can certainly never be a freethinker. However it was this oppressive ideology that gave rise to freethought as we know it. Modern Christianity is not that oppressive and there are variants that do not take logic and reason as an anathema to faith.

For most of us our first glimmer to understanding the world came from persons who had experienced it before us. They gave us their observations and opinions and we grasped them as essentials to life. We get an education in a similar manner and since the world is too large for us to experiment on everything we get most of our “facts” in a similar manner. This is a practical way to gain knowledge. A freethinker, however, is willing to question each and every “fact” of learned experience and using logic reason and empiricism should be able to validate these “facts”. If the premises are faulty, or the methods of perception are inaccurate, the results may not be factual however they would be results that are reached using the process of freethought and the person, regardless as to the accuracy of his opinions, would be a freethinker.

This process of query does not necessarily lead to abandonment, or rejection, of all previously held opinions, neither does it guarantee that previous information will be proven invalid. Thus it is entirely possible that a freethinker will end up with the conclusion that not only does God exist, but that the Christian thought is the way to approach that god. Logic is based on certain “certainties” and empirical observation is limited by perception. There are axioms that are the basis of any logic train and there is perception that underlays any empirical observation. If these axioms are changed or perception changes the same “facts” would lead to different opinions. And these changes are the reasons you have schisms of thought and religion.

As the keen of eye would have noticed, not all Christians are theists. Isn’t that, in itself, a paradigm shift, isn't it?

Free Thinkers

Most people take the position that either God exists or God does not exist. Agnostics do not count because their position is that they are not sure that God exists. Thus agnostics would fall in the whole range from those inclined towards belief in God upto those inclined towards unbelief in God. In both cases (belief and unbelief) there is something/one called God which/who they either believe in or don't believe in.

Skeptics (who sometimes call themselves free thinkers) are akin to agnostics who are probably going to lean towards no in regards to the God question. Skeptics are generally prejudiced. In literature and discussions many skeptics give "logical" answers to prove that there is no God. A study of their arguments and "proofs" however tends to yield a complete different view. In all due regard many things about this earth and it's environment can be known. We can be almost certain that there are no mammoths alive on earth today partly because the earth is limited and we have explored almost all of it. Something that large would be rather hard to find. In the same way there is probably no bigfoot, or the tooth fairy, or even father christmas' toy factory at the north pole.

We have found no evidence for any of these things and in spite of searching their alleged environment we have not seen, or otherwise felt the presence of any of these beings. Thee is no logical reason why some humanoid creature could not leave in the Himalayas yet all searches have turned up nothing. So we can say we have reasonable doubt as to the existence of bigfoot, in the same manner there is no logical reason to think a toy factory at the north pole cannot exist and yet we have found no evidence for that in our explorations of the north pole.

In looking for proofs of God(s) we have not applied the same through search for the existence, and/or non existence. In common parlance a god is something whose powers are far greater than ours, who we cannot comprehend and whose nature we cannot predict. Something which is out of our reality space.

When defining something I must assume that definition and I are in the same co-ordinate space. This is the problem I have when trying to define God. In order understand God hesheit must be in my same co-ordinate space, however by being in my co-ordinate space hesheit cannot thus be outside the rules of my co-ordinate space. Does that make God human, or does that make me God? Most current definitions tend to put God outside our co-ordinate space and claim that the God(s) can quite easily manipulate humans. This would make god undefinable, unsearchable and unperceivable (is there really such a word?)

A distant god would evade our sensors. A very small god would be below our notice while a very large god would be above our notice. Only a god which fits within our reality space and is perceivable by our sensors would be detectable. This god would be almost human, or near enough as to make no difference. If we are manipulated by the gods it would be quite easy for them to evade our senses, unless they do want us to perceive them.

I do agree that the existence of God(s) has not been proven. However close to 100% of the perceivable universe has not been explored and as for the universe beyond our ken, the jury is still out on that one. Until we can come close with certainty that we have explored most of the universe (as we can on earth) then can we begin to make logical assumptions about the non existence of God(s). The fact that we have not proven God(s) to exist does not necessarily mean we have proven God(s) not to exist.

Atheists blow apart the beliefs of religious people using science and logic. They imagine that this in some manner makes their beliefs true. And yet it doesn't. Theists do not know that God exists. They believe that God exists. It is not a failure if they find no evidence of their God because the search for truth is not part of their system. Atheists on the other hand base their system on science and truth so when they are not scientific they are back to zero, just like the theists. But unlike the theists theirs is a fail for the theist applies no measurement to beliefs while the atheist does.

The atheists has taken a position that requires proof. He must say that he knows there is no God. Faith is a belief while knowledge is a certainty. The atheists claims to be certain that God(s) do(es) not exist and must thus give us proof. This cannot be done. There are no proofs that God(s) do not exist.

In the past religion stifled thought outside the "norms", science now does the same. We are indoctrinated from childhood with "scientific" facts and we are told these are unquestionable facts. We couch the facts and proofs in language that is unfathomable to the layman and require that the layman must undergo rigorous study to even be able to read, let alone understand these proofs. Anybody who does not agree, or tries to bring alternate theories is vilified by the establishment. People are shot down with credentials and PHDs. Alternative theories are labeled unscientific and unproven, let alone that most science is still currently theoretic. Doesn't that bring to mind the "golden age" of priests and church control of thought?

In the last several years science has generally stagnated. The theory of evolution is still a theory, Quantum theory is still theory, we have been standing on the shoulders of the "greats" and taking their theories as gospel truth (pun intended). We have fossilized these beliefs and turned them into the new religion. Where are the new messiahs to lead us out of our darkness?

Will the real free thinkers please stand up.