When the French philospher René Descartes said "cogito, ergo sum" or in English "I think therefore I am" , he was engaging in a free thought system. This free thought notion assumes that whatever thinks, must exist. See how this can become erroneous? It does in the way that the agent (thinker) creates assumptions that somehow create truths. What is my point?
I believe there is very little evidence of complete free thought. Think of something right now. I would almost guarantee that your thought did not freely come from nothing. Mankind is not able to create validity. He is not within his power to simply makeup a reality. Something must create a thought. Something must give a thought. If I say I am a complete free thinker who believes that the death penalty is a valid resource based on evidence and statistics, then I have not used complete free thought. I have used someone elses thoughts and opinions to lead towards a conclusion. Such is not absolute free thought.
My issue with many who believe Christianity is an ill towards society because it lacks free thought is their own inconsistencies. The description of freethought is a fallacy in itself: "Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma. " Why? Is this not a limitation of people to use their choice? If absolute free thought is based on evidence by other human beings, is that not an influence of authority? Absolutely.
My conclusion is this: Nothing in this world is not influenced by something else. One cannot concluse that a Christian is less of a freethinker and open to others than an atheist. Every group is exclusive. In other words, each group believes that everyone should beleive what they believe. There is no such thing in this world as inclusive people, or absolutists for 'freeness.' Here is a good example by Timothy Keller in the book "Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism" :
"Imagine that one of board members of the local Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Community Center announces, "I've had a religious experience and now I believe homosexuality is a sin." As weeks go by, he persists in making that assertion. Imagine that a board member of the Alliance Against Same-Sex Marriage announces "I discovered that my son is gay, and I think he has the right to marry his partner." No matter how personally gracious and flexible the members of each group are, the day will come when each group will have to say 'You must step off the board because you don't share a common commitment with us.'"
See, both of these groups may believe they are free in their thought and open. While one may seem more inclusive and free, it is not. Each one of these groups of people are based on ideas and thoughts and beliefs. For such groups that consider themselves more inclusive and valid because they believe they are freethinking absolutists, I caution them. Free thought must come from some past teaching of folks like Decartes. Think of my final illustration:
If free thinking was such a neccessary foundation, then we should rid of laws, education, and social norms. We should allow children to freely choose, not their parents, on whether they want education. We should allow eveyone to decide if laws such as stealing gasoline are wrong, and not a governing body. If a woman wants to walk topless down a street corner in front of young children, it should be okay under the complete free thinking system.
See the error? I am not suggesting that thinking for yourself is a negative thing. But I again caution those who want to exclude Christians for being ignorant because we base our foundation of beliefs on God. We are no more exclusive than them.
Grace and peace be with you.
No comments:
Post a Comment