Are we all ‘Freethinkers’? –- KingLouie vs. PoodleLovinPessimist

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between KingLouie and PoodleLovinPessimist who will debate the following resolution:

Resolved: “We are all Freethinkers.�

KingLouie will affirm and PoodleLovinPessimist will oppose. The debate will have 3 rounds and KingLouie will go first, per the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2773620&postcount=30).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=139478) is set up in the General Religious Discussions forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Good luck to both participants!

- NS, FD Moderator

[KingLouie]

PLP,

I'd like to thank you once again for debating with me here. It's cool of you to offer me your time and thought in all of this.

I've read many of your posts during my short tenure here; I'm wary of your logic and brainpower. But more than either of these, I'm most wary of your ability to disconnect your emotions from your arguments. That's a tough thing for me to work with, being an emotional guy like I am. And I imagine it will put me at a disadvantage.

I've got a question for you PLP: do you like to see those Jesus fish on the backs of people's cars?

It's a very important question, I think.

An even better question would be this: when you're sitting there in traffic, do you study these Jesus fish and think to yourself, "Now there goes a fine, upstanding soccer mom driving around in her S.U.V.?"

I ask you this because, if you should discover any negative thoughts surfacing whenever you study these Jesus fish; and, if you should find yourself comparing the symbolism of the fish to the owners who drive them around, then I think I may know why that is. I believe I have a theory about it.

I think this is how it all probably started. Tell me what you think:

Once upon a time, somewhere, somebody began to study one of these Jesus fish on the bumper of someone else's car; and soon, they found themselves thinking, just as the soccer mom who wore the fish ran a red light and shook her fist into oncoming traffic, "I say. Just because this woman has stuck a fish on the back of her S.U.V., it doesn't necessarily mean that she's a moral person or anything. Because just look at her: all yapping on her cell phone there and probably gossiping about her neighbors right this minute. Probably sinning right now on the phone."

Ultimately, and though there may be an argument to the contrary, I believe the reason lots of people don't like the Jesus fish is because it seems to make a suggestion about its bearer: that she is somehow more elite in her morality, and more deserving and upstanding than all those non-fish drivers who roll without one on the open road.

And so, as they begin to scrutinize these fish-bearer's behaviors, they soon conclude that the two don't always sync up -- that their behavior, more often than not, does not coincide with the story we know about Jesus. That "turn the other cheek" is, often, less a surrender of all arms and ego for the sake of their faith, but more a flashing of the type of cheek that is instead sat down upon.

And "What Jesus Would Do" is, oftentimes, an unbelievably opposite display, when compared to the methods of those fish-bearing traffic titans, all flipping their birds at their "enemies," all honking and snarling and out getting theirs, all cutting people off and sideswiping anyone for a parking place.

Simply stated, and to sum it all up for you, people categorize themselves. That's all it is. And in this world, as one group endeavors to categorize themselves, it seems that other groups sometimes categorize themselves, for the purposes of a rebuttal. For, just as the Darwin fish is seen plastered to one group's bumpers in this crazy and grid locked world, in their unabashed answer to the Jesus Fish -- this fish who's grown legs and seems to scream, "IN YOUR FACE, YOU FUNDIES! HERE! HAVE A TASTE OF EVOLUTION!;" - and all of this, as the original Jesus fish is scrapped and then replaced with an even BIGGER Jesus fish, with the word "TRUTH!" written inside of it, thus offering its own rebuttal, and is then re-plastered in the place of the original Jesus fish, as it now devours the smaller Jesus fish who's grown legs which is no longer a Jesus fish anymore, but is an aberrational thing, a monstrosity with legs standing to slap the face of all believers everywhere -- it, like the Darwin Fish, is reactionary.

So here's the problem, and the reason I've entered this debate: in this world, to me, it seems that many a folk don't truly consider what it is that they're calling themselves. When you press them on this -- when you split hairs like I like to do -- well man, they don't really seem to want to consider it. Not deeply, anyway. For, I think they might believe it to be an indictment of themselves, or that it reveals a weakness of what they may cling to universally.

Let me give you an example here. If a person should say, "I'm an 'honest person,'" then what does this suggest about them?

I bet you've heard somebody say this very phrase at least once or twice in your lifetime.

It suggests that the person who said it had better make sure not to ever tell a lie again -- not ever -- not for the rest of his natural born life. Not one. Because an "honest person," by definition, will be an honest person 100% of the time, if this self-description is to be an accurate one. That's really all there is to it.

If a person is careful to consider all the people who surround them, (which is everybody), then they will be careful about how they describe themselves. Because just like the Jesus fish wars, the people who surround those who self-describe themselves in this way are going to be watching them; they're going to be checking that person's behavior with the title they've given themselves. For, to say that one is an "honest person" is an extremely bold self-description; I'd wager that it is impossible to uphold, for the lot of us, when placed foot-to-fire of its unrelenting definition.

And yet, how are we to categorize ourselves then, if we believe ourselves to be more honest, more often than not? It's very simple: "I try to be an honest person." That would work good.

No matter how you slice it, the latter is infinitely more correct than the former -- 100% more correct, I'd say; unless, of course, in the case of a person who self-describes themselves as being an "honest person," and then goes on to never tell a lie ever again, and not a single lie for the rest of his natural-born life.

And so, in the same vein, here comes the word "Freethinker." And with it, a definition that I will split hairs with, just as those self-described Jesus-fish-bearers who might contradict openly the symbolism that their self-adorned title might seem to suggest; in the same way, I believe that "freethinker" can cause the same sort of fender-bender. I believe that the donning of this phrase can be an indictment on somebody else -- an assertion, however accidental it may be, that any other who opposes this universal outlook of the self-described "freethinker" is, conversely, enslaved of mind. It's simply not an accurate self-description, if ever -- in any moment -- they may find themselves deviating from the strict confines of how the word is ultimately defined.

I've got two options for you in this debate, PLP: first and foremost, I will concede this debate, outright, if only you will present to me any person in history who can survive a close scrutiny of their beliefs, with respect to the word "freethinker." Was Galileo a freethinker? Does he survive the trial by fire with respect to the definition, in each and every sense, and in every hair-splitting consideration of this definition? Was Einstein? Can I take any writings from any of these people, and perhaps find no fault or contradiction with them, with respect to this definition that might ultimately describe them: freethinker?

Just as I may do with any person who would claim to be "honest," as opposed to one who "tries?"

If you can bring to the table a person who can survive this definitional gauntlet, then I will say, "Here is a freethinker, and not all may claim the same."

If not, then I will begin stripping this definition apart; I will investigate the words "religion," "dogma," and "authority," and I will argue that either nobody in this world fully abides by all these requirements -- just as those who claim to be "honest" -- or, that everyone in the world is a freethinker, that everyone must reject at least some (or possibly, much) dogma in this lifetime; and that everyone, in his own time and freedom, makes the choice to conclude whatever they may ultimately conclude.

And so everyone's a freethinker, or nobody is. According to the definition.

And you can trust me on that, because I'm a very honest person.

From the Jungles of All Honesty,

Kang Louie

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

I have to say, Kang, that I found your post in the Proposal forum more interesting. Your argument there, that it is the norm rather than the exception for religious people to consider their theological views rationally, was much more hopeful. I wouldn't mind losing to that view.

Your opening statement here, though, seems more negative: That nobody is a freethinker. But both are valid points; I hope to address them both in the course of the debate.

You ask if I'm disturbed when I see a Jesus fish on a car. I am. But not because of any hypocrisy: I'm a man of the world: Hypocrisy is a fact of life. I'm disturbed, rather, for the same reason I'm disturbed when I see an American flag on a car. I think to myself, "What precisely is this person saying?"

They're not just saying, "I'm an American!" or "I'm a Christian." They're saying, "I've picked a side, and you're not on it." And the Jesus-fishers have picked a side in which a vocal and growing minority has declared its opposition, indeed its sometimes violent opposition, to reason and sensibility. It is not the juxtaposition of the Jesus fish with the SUV that disturbs me, it is the juxtaposition of the Jesus fish with the bumper stickers saying, "Every knee shall bow," and "No Jesus, no peace."

Of course, I don’t think every Christian--not even every Christian who displays a Jesus fish--is a part of this vocal minority. But I know how religions and Christianity--and human nature itself--works: Once you've picked a side, it becomes easy, almost obligatory, to apply far less critical thought to the positions from your compatriots than to the positions of your opponents.

You argue first for an absolutist definition of "freethinker". I assert that an insistence on absolutism is neither necessary nor useful. It might be the case that no one is absolutely honest in every utterance, but the words "honest" and "dishonest" can do yeoman linguistic service to differentiate people who mostly tell the truth and lie only in exceptional circumstance from those who intentionally and regularly seek to defraud and deceive other people. To say that no one is completely honest, and thus that no one deserves the label "honest", is to say that everyone must thought of as no different from the con artists, Don Juan's and pathological liars. Such a definition contravenes common sense and intuition, and destroys a useful and meaningful distinction.

So I reject and deny your assertion that we should consider a freethinker only someone who absolutely and in every possible way, even in the tiniest detail, rejects even the most superficial of dogmas. I call, rather, for an inclusive definition: A freethinker is one who has a marked preference for applying rationality rather than an authoritative voice for his opinions. A freethinker can accept, especially subconsciously a "dogma" (especially benign and superficial social standards) and especially when there is no compelling reason to challenge it.

All that is necessary to make this interpretation meaningful is to find people who do not have a marked preference for applying rationality, who have a marked preference for accepting an authoritative voice for the conclusion of truth. And I submit that such people do exist, although lack of space compels me to address this category later.

But even under the absolutist definition of freethinker, I think I can satisfy your requirement: I nominate myself. I certainly do not hold myself in any intellectual category with Galileo or Einstein, but I can confidently say that I have formed all of my opinions, each and every one, on the basis of the best rational thought I am capable of.

I even include my "metaphysical" beliefs, those beliefs which underlie even the definitions of truth and falsity itself, in that category. First, I don't hold my metaphysical beliefs as "true"; since “truth� is a word like any other, it must have a definition, and asking whether that definition is "true" is an exercise in self-referential paradox. My metaphysical beliefs are opinions, not cognitive statements of truth or fact. Second, I have formed my metaphysical opinions myself; I have not accepted any metaphysical belief on the basis of any authority but my own mind. Third, I hold my own metaphysical opinions because I find them pragmatically useful, which is a distinguishing feature of rationality. In other words, I believe metaphysical naturalism not because someone else said it was true, not even because I had to pick something arbitrary to believe and metaphysical naturalism happened to get there first, but because metaphysical naturalism does the job I want a metaphysical system to do: Make pragmatic sense of my experience.

I also include my beliefs about areas I don't fully understand in the category of absolute freethought. Yes, I believe that black holes emit radiation, and yes, I believe it based on Stephen Hawking's writings. But it is important to make this distinction: I don't believe in black hole radiation because I somehow empower Hawking with the magical ability to declare truth, but because I trust him, and I have good reasons to trust him. I also believe him because I can understand his argument, at least well enough to see that it coheres with the rest of my (limited) understanding of astrophysics and quantum mechanics. I wouldn't believe even Hawking if he said only, "Black holes emit radiation, but I'm not telling you why." Absent an actual explanation, I would remain agnostic in both senses of the word: Uncertain and not in possession of sufficient knowledge. Furthermore, I do not believe absolutely in black-hole radiation; if Kip Thorne were to publish a well-thought-out rebuttal, I would change my mind, at least to the extent of becoming agnostic again. So I apply the principles of freethought even to those statements I lack sufficient knowledge to evaluate directly.

All of my beliefs, each and every one of them but especially those that I believe to be true, come from as much rational thought as I am capable of mustering. My political opinions are my own: I usually vote Democratic, but not because I privilege the Democratic Party to declare even political "truth", much less any form of objective truth. I observe social norms, I've even internalized many of them, but I've rationally examined even those norms I've internalized, and I know why I don't seek to change them. I would abandon even metaphysical naturalism itself if I came to believe--based on the best exercise of my own reason--that metaphysical naturalism did not do the job I expected of a metaphysical system.

The only beliefs I accept "uncritically" are those which are so hard-wired into my brain that they become essential characteristics of human sapience, even of the broadest definition of sentience: Pain feels bad, pleasure feels good, and my will to action is exercised. Everything else is up for rational examination.

Kang, even if you do indeed accept my declaration as an absolute freethinker, I don't want you to simply concede the debate. My goal (at least not my primary goal ;) ) is not to "win", but to explore an important idea in a structured format with an intelligent, sensible guy such as yourself. Most especially, I hope to discuss in more depth the ideas you brought up in the Proposal thread, that it is the norm for even religious people to subject their religious belief to rational, critical scrutiny.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

KingLouie has informed me that he'll be unable to meet the deadline to post his next statement. The rules permit, however, a 3 day grace period, extending his deadline to Oct. 25.

- NS, FD Moderator

[KingLouie]

"When I joined IIDB in March 2003, I was really suprised that no one selected the "Freethinker" username yet... I suspect people are reluctant to label themselves as a "freethinker" since it sound's kind of snobbish, like, "Everyone is a dumb ass and I am the only Thinker here, Mr. FreeThinker.

"To me, though, being a free thinker is not always about being logical... it's about being free to think about anything without shame, fear, taboo, prejudice, or emotions... And of course, I am not that naive to think that I can PERFECTLY think about anything without society's or personal preconceptions..." 1

-- Freethinker to Dr. Goose, October 10 2005 (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2792297&postcount=44)

This portion is dedicated to my wife Fisher, who gave it all to me. So I will include a footnote at the end of this essay, to make it the first footnote I've used since Mr. Courrie's class back in '91.

In which I made a C+.

Here's the definition for "freethinker:"

freethinker: One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation. 2

I would also like to define the word "dogma." It's from the same dictionary that the "freethinker" definition came from. And I'm going to use subset #2:

Dogma: 2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. 3

In my consideration of you, PLP; and, in my personal interpretation of our word as it's thrust outward onto the rest of the world, I do believe you to be a "freethinker;" it's what I've aspired to argue since the beginning of this debate. That everyone is a freethinker, if only they could be considered with an accomodating perspective, with just the right amount of consideration, and with a healthy dose of empathy.

It is empathy that enables me to perceive you in this way, as a "freethinker," and to perceive everyone I come across in this life accordingly: that they have all assuredly arrived at their conclusions from a lifetime full of thinking, as they have lived to consider experiences and choices and meaning, to become the walking artworks they have obviously become.

I told you earlier that I would concede this debate if you could bring to me a "freethinker" -- any person who could withstand a relentless scrutiny of the harshest interpretation of this word. And so, you brought yourself.

I will argue that you are in breach of such requirements, according to the words you have already used, according to a certain perspective I am able to undertake; but after that, I will return to my natural senses once again, in order to deem you -- with the right dose of empathy -- a being absolutely compliant with a true and unavoidable state of glorious and wondrous freethinking.

Just like everybody else who probably breathes air, I would imagine.

When you labeled yourself a "freethinker;" and, as you argued that other people in the world are not freethinkers, then you boldly placed on your shoulders an undeniable, unbearable burden.

Here's what you said about people who wear Jesus fish decals on the backs of their cars:

"They're not just saying, 'I'm an American!' or 'I'm a Christian.' They're saying, 'I've picked a side, and you're not on it.'"

It is here you failed to "reject dogma and authority;" for, in your case, your stated dogma is a dogma of your own creation:



"I have not accepted any metaphysical belief on the basis of any authority but my own mind..."

And so, your "authority" -- and your "dogma" -- is the concotion, and self-validation, of your own mind.

According to a sterile interpretation of the word "freethinker," you have not, in this case, "rejected dogma and authority." For, until you can find a way to reject even your own self-constructed dogma, as well as any self-defined authority of which you have ascribed an utmost validity, then you simply fail to abide by a hard interpretation of the word "freethinker." Not as it stands.

Until the terminology can become more than just a self-applied categorization; until it can become an integral construct of your perpetual philosophy, and your perspective, and your behavior -- until that point, you will fail to abide by the purest interpretation of this word: "freethinker."

Just like everybody else probably does, if you give it a moment or two.

Consider the Jesus fish:

It seems a "freethinker," to me, would be someone who might approach the Jesus Fish with the utmost of rational inquiry and speculation.

A freethinker would be capable of reaching outside of his own dogmas, and utterly free of any biases that could stand to betray an ultimate perfection in rationality, in favor of some sort of sloppier, more general type of interpretation that we regular human beings so often tend to settle for.

No, he would look at the Jesus Fish on the back of someone's car and say, "Now there goes a Jesus Fish. But its real name is 'ichtchys,' (and that's the Greek word for 'fish.') The encyclopedia says that the symbol's been re-adopted by modern Christians as a badge for their bumpers, to indicate that the owner is a Christian. 4

"But you know -- and as I consider it more rationally -- I should probably go further than the encyclopedia was willing to take me. I should consider this lady who's here and now, who's idling there in front of me as I consider her, and I will speculate on her Jesus fish, as rationally as I possibly can do it.

"Because you know, the fish on her bumper might not mean that she is a Christian -- not necessarily; not like the encyclopdia has so boldly proclaimed. It might mean several things. It might mean that she has recently purchased the car from somebody else; and that it was some other person who previously stuck the Fish-like symbol to the bumper of her car. And so, maybe the driver hasn't had the time to take the Jesus Fish off her car.

"Hell man, she might even be a Buddhist.

"You know what? I notice she's driving an Alfa Romeo. And I've heard that the Jesus Fish is the symbol for that particular brand of car. So maybe she's not a Christian after all. Or maybe she is. Who knows.

"And maybe she's taken a side in this life; but maybe, I say maybe, she hasn't.

"Maybe she's not 'using' the symbol in any sort of way, who could tell. But regardless of anything else: what a most excellent ride. I wonder if she'd like to race."

But the sort of freethinker in our definition would not ever be heard to utter, "She's saying she's chosen a side, and that I'm not on it," because that wouldn't be rationally inquisitive, y'knowwudimsayin?

You want the freedom to generalize in this life, PLP, and I do understand the need. I think most everyone utilizes this sort of freedom.

But that's why perspective is so important to me: it's the thing that either claws towards those tossed out with life's bathwater; or, it's the thing that flushes them down beneath the grimiest gutters of all sociality. And all of it, so that the world can become a snappier, more organized system in the eyes of the beholder who endlessly pines to categorize it.

It seems so much wiser to have an accommodating perspective, whenever considering this word, whenever considering this world, and when considering all those cases in which there are so many people who seem to possess such a value in this life, but are so chewed-up by such ill-thought-out terminology that, in the end, the terminology becomes absolutely useless.

It becomes nothing more than a Jesus fish of its very own: a badge of pride in elitism that bolsters the self-perceptions of the boldly self-proclaimed. And when used without empathy, it becomes no longer a term of acceptance and understanding of which it could, as the self-proclaimed freethinker -- amongst a population of obvious non-freethinkers -- becomes an immediate non-freethinker along with them, the moment he points out their dogmas, and the moment he deems them "Enslaved."

When he, after all, utilized dogma in order to assert it.

But that's not how I define this word, and it's the reason why I now argue you back into the realm of the freethinker, utilizing the undeniable power of perspective, as I plea to the empathetic freethinker in you: that everyone is a freethinker, because everyone, at some point in time, has overthrown some sort of authority and dogma, just as you have done, and just as I have done. And everyone's done some inquiring, and everyone's done some speculating. Just like you have, and just like I have.

We're freethinkers, you and I. And so is everyone else.

It's all in how you perceive it that makes all the difference. 5

From the Jungles of Perspective,

Kang Louie

THE FOOTNOTES

1 Freethinker, IIDB.

2 The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

3 The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

4 Wikipedia Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthus.

5 Fisher, 2005.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

KingLouie,

According to my word count, your statement came to about 47 words over the word limit (as agreed to in the FDP thread). Your statement will remain as is, but please try to keep future statements within the limit.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

KingLouie makes an interesting point, but it works against him, I think.

I don't think KingLouie's previous post argues the impossibility of freethought quite correctly. Just because I consider myself very much a freethinker doesn't mean I've become a computer, a Vulcan or a radical agnostic; I'm still going to come to conclusions and form actual beliefs. As a "freethinker", I'm still free to follow the "authority" of my own mind in coming to those conclusions. I should, however, heed KingLouie's point to the extent that I should never take even my own authority absolutely; I should be willing to consider skeptically even the processes of my own mind. And so I do.

But, yes, there's a reading of "freethinker" and "dogma" and "authority" that makes it logically impossible for anyone (other than perhaps a schitzophrenic) to be a freethinker. And yes, there's a reading of "freethinker" that makes anyone with a brain a freethinker.

But let's apply a charitable interpretation to KingLouie's point. I agree that if we impose an extremist definition on a word we will run into trouble. This principle, though, works against him, because only an extremist definition in the loose direction works to support his linguistic point. It is not the case that if a too-narrow interpretation fails then the only alternative is a too-broad interpretation. We should, rather, look for a moderate interpretation, one that preserves some meaning.

Dictionaries are written by design attempt to be exhaustive and descriptive. They do not even attempt to be logically coherent across definitions; some words, such as cleave or temper, actually have contradictory definitions. If we approach a definition to find the least meaning in it, by imposing for a too-narrow or too-broad interpretation, we know we will find no meaning at all. Every word can on one reading apply to everything and on another reading apply to nothing; a dictionary is useless if we approach it in such a manner. If we are going to use a dictionary usefully and sensibly, we must approach each definition with the intent of finding the most meaning in it, a meaning that denotes an actual difference, neither too-narrow nor too-broad.

There's a hidden premise underlying this debate that deserves to be made explicit: KingLouie seems to evaluate "freethinker" as a term of approval and non-freethinker as a term of disapproval. I try to be circumspect in my judgments, but I have to agree to some extent: It is good to be a freethinker, and, if not horribly bad, then perhaps not so good to be a non-freethinker.

But if we're going to attach a moral judgment to "freethinker", then the last thing we want to do is define the word away, either too narrowly or too broadly. If we really think it's good to be a "freethinker", then we have to have a meaningful definition so we can tell people what it is that we're approving of. If we interpret the definition so that no one can possibly be a freethinker, then we disapprove of everyone without even giving them a chance to be good. If we interpret the definition so that everyone is a freethinker just for possessing a brain, then we are letting people be "good" for free. And, like advice, free goodness is worth what you pay for it.

If we want to acknowledge that every person has some sort of intrinsic moral worth, which is a pretty good idea in my opinion, we can just say it directly: Everyone is, in some sense, "good". If we want to just stop there, which is not such a good idea in my opinion, and refuse to make any further moral judgments, one could just stop there; there's no need to redefine every word that everyone else attaches moral judgment to so it includes everyone. One can simply refuse to attach any moral judgment to a distinction. Moral universalists do not need to redefine "murder" so that no one is a murderer, they can just refuse to call murders bad.

If indeed we want to attach a moral value to freethought, an idea which I definitely don't oppose, then the last thing we want to do is define it away. And if we don't want to attach a moral value to freethought, then there is no more purpose to defining it away than there is to define away "tall" or "talented". To simply define away the extension of a term is to define away any moral judgment we might attach to the term; a task we can achieve more simply by simply explicitly detaching the judgment to the extension.

If KingLouie wants to make the case that everyone is a freethinker, because freethought is indeed good, he serves our readership poorly by by choosing a definition that makes everyone a freethinker automatically. It might be true that under a meaningful definition of "freethinker" then everyone today is actually a freethinker, because they are doing something meaningful. But I don't think KingLouie has yet even tried to argue in this direction.

We can, of course, easily construct from the dictionary a moderate, non-extremist interpretation of "freethinker" that has an obvious extension, which is differential at least on all humans who have ever existed (which permits KingLouie, were he to choose to do so, to argue that all current human beings are freethinkers): If you believe any idea is objectively true on no other basis than some other human being declaring it to be true, then you are not a freethinker. You are accepting, instead of rejecting, an authoritative dogma. If you do not do this, if you reject the concept that any idea can be held true on nothing but another human being's authority, then you are a freethinker.

This interpretation is certainly differential, we can really tell the difference: there are people who do fulfill this definition and there are (or at least were) people who do not. If you believe that Jesus was the son of god, lived and died on the cross because the Bible tells you so, then you are not a freethinker. If you have examined the evidence and decided, using the best powers of your own mind that Jesus was indeed the Son of God, then, at least on this point, you are a freethinker.

We know that there at least were some people who were not freethinkers. The Pope is allowed to declare "true" Catholic dogma. Somebody somewhere had to buy this: This is prima facie evidence of non-freethought.

Noted creationist Kurt Wise explicitly declares his rejection of freethought:

It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science... Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.[1] [emphasis added]

Note that Wise mentions "scientific reasons for accepting a young earth" only to dismiss them as the actual reason he is a young-age creationist: He explicitly declares that he holds this belief on the authority of Scripture and would continue to hold it against all evidence.

Now, one might certainly argue that it is Wise's moral right to accept scripture. One could argue that he has a true belief. One could argue even that he has made a rational decision to accept Scripture dogmatically. But I do not believe that one can call Wise a "freethinker" under any interpretation of its definition that makes any sort of distinction.

Even if we do interpret the definition "freethinker" to include Wise, we still need some word to denote the difference between someone like Wise, who would accept scripture contrary to "all the evidence in the universe", and someone like myself who would and does reject scripture in the light of evidence. If we are going to attach a moral value to something, it is to the difference itself, which is real and undeniable, and not the word used to denote the difference.

I agreed in the proposal to not base my rebuttal on only a few outliers. I introduce Papal authority and the evidence of Kurt Wise only to establish my prima facie case that the word "freethought" does have a meaningful extension. It includes some people and excludes others; it applies neither to everyone nor no one at all. KingLouie still has the option of arguing that few people take Papal authority seriously, and that people like Kurt Wise are rare and idiosyncratically exceptional.


[1] In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, John F. Ashton, PhD, editor, New Holland Publishers, Sydney, 1999, p 332

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

KingLouie,

Please note that the deadline to post your next statement has passed. The rules permit a 3 day grace period, extending your deadline to Nov. 10.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[KingLouie]

I wrote a bunch of stuff for this installment over the last seven days or so (and using the grace period, too – my bad), but I'm going to scrap it all now, because I'm tired, and because I don't feel like pursuing this point much anymore.

But had I pursued it, I just wanted you to let you know that I probably would've had footnotes to go along with it, and that highly respected scholars who frequent this forum would’ve probably footnoted me in their scholarly papers. And that, if I had the time to do it, I might’ve personally autographed those papers for them, but I’m busy with pizza work, and so I just can’t handle the fame at this point in time. And people can’t read my signature anyway.

You were fair in your last response, by the way. I just wanted you to know how I appreciated that. I appreciated how you said, "I should, however, heed KingLouie's point to the extent that I should never take even my own authority absolutely… And so I do."

That was very cool.

That's the best we can do with our lives, I think: to be capable of saying something like this to any of our “opponents." It's freethinking on crack rock, if you ask me about it.

I consider this sort of give-and-take a major “W�, whenever I see it manifest itself, for me and those I’m talking to, and even when in the throes of all those debates that are ultimately destined for the "L" column. It’s bittersweet, but that’s life.

In my life, I have been called “Theist� “Christian,� “Agnostic,� “Calvinist,� “Fundamentalist,� “Liberal,� “Humanist� and even “atheist.� Can you believe that crap?

I have been called, “Immoral,� “Sinner,� “Asshole,� “Mean Spirited,� “Spoiled,� “Lazy,� “Coward� “Never tried hard at anything in your life,� and “Incapable.�

I have also been called, “Moral,� “Earnest,� “Heart on your sleeve,� “Gentle,� “Good hearted,� “Intelligent� and “Worthy.�

I’ve even been called “perfect� a few times in my life – can you believe that?

What were they thinking?

I must’ve been having a good day.

And so, here are 25 adjectives that have been used to describe me as a whole person – 25 adjectives summing me up, by as many or more different people in life; and all of these words, each one a differing adjective. All of them mean something entirely different from the other.

In my life, I have made it a mission to discover which of these defines me the most. Which of these I believe myself to best represent, that garners the similar type of feedback from those who perceive it in me.

Or the opposite, you know; and why, in fact, that is.

For, if any of you have ever been summed by any other person – if you have been called any names, or have even been described in the most glowing of terms -- you know that it strikes far more deeply whenever somebody else defines you as such, as opposed to the feeling you get when you choose a word to define yourself.

And so, I say, if any of these adjectives does not fully define me, then which of them can at least come the closest?

Lately, in my life, I’ve concluded that all of them define me. Though I might be wrong about that, I do try to remember that I’m only a box with eyes on the front of it, and so it’s hard for me to see myself from the outside looking in. But I do believe that all these words define me, all 25 of these adjectives (plus a few), because I know that when people have called me these things that they’ve called me, after some span of time has passed and the sting (or exhilaration) of the adjective has dispersed in my gut, I come to realize that those folks had a basis for calling me the adjective that they ultimately called me.

I’m a simmering stew of adjectives, I’d say. And I believe that we are allsimmering stews; but then again, I might be wrong about that, too. I’m not your stew; I’m my own stew. And I’m spicy hot with the habaneros of a limited knowledge.

In my life, I have eclipsed every single one of these adjectives at some point or another. I’ve eclipsed them many times, too, and sometimes, I’ve even combined a few of them for extra flavor. I’ve been an “immoral� “agnostic� while “wearing my heart on my sleeve� and being incredibly “lazy.� Because it was an awesome Saturday afternoon.

Depending on the room I’m in -- which is an extremely important thing whenever considering any adjectives such as these -- I’ve been considered a “Good Hearted� “liberal� “atheist� who’s “worthy� of an “Asshole� “on his sleeve.�

That night was freaky-deaky.

I submit to your point about how a dictionary should be gleaned for the most meaning, and not the least, but I still think this definition of “freethinker� is a useless definition. It’s useless because of the way it is written – it’s useless because of its ambiguity. It’s not airtight. Nor is it impenetrable.

For instance: if someone really wanted to re-write this definition to sketch the utmost integrity of how the word was most likely intended, then they’d probably write something like this:

Freethinker: one who rejects authority and dogma in favor of rational inquiry.

Or:

Freethinker: one who rejects religious authority and dogma in favor of rational inquiry.

These re-writes bust philosophical balls. I should’ve been a Dictionarian. These are tight definitions. And though there might exist a more airtight way for a person to define himself, this one here lassoes the cattle just a little bit closer together. It tightens up the bolts a good deal.

But that “especially� stuff in our actual definition? It takes the word swirling down the proverbial verbal toilet bowl, if you ask me about it. I’d say that the definition for “atheist� would do the job much better: if I don’t believe in a god, then I’m not going to accept dogma and authority in favor of rational inquiry, am I wrong? Because why would I accept it, being as I believe that there are no gods in this universe?

And I doubt there’d be any “especially� about it. Y’knowwudimsayin?

But anyway, I’ve given up on pushing this point. It’s not an important goal for one to overturn it, I don’t believe, because I doubt it would ever be overturned. Because dictionaries will be dictionaries, and people will be people. And one would think that it might take far more than 25 words to define a person accurately. I’m sure of that; but then again, I’ve also been called “unsure� in my life, so there’s that, too.

But that’s not true. Not at all. There is one word that would define a person 100% accurately. And it’s the crux of my entire stance, now that I reconsider it. It’s the reason I leapt joyfully into this, my first debate, to see if I could make but one point throughout all these words -- to see if anyone reading along might find themselves agreeing with me: that there is at least one surefire word in the dictionary that would accurately describe us all. Each an every one of us. And it is a word that describes you, PLP, as well as everyone else reading along.

And again, the word “especially� has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

It might just be the word that, if the people of this world could ever succumb to its simple definition, and to consider themselves accordingly -- no more or less representative of its simple, basic meaning -- then it might just be the word to erase all the hard drawn lines that separate us people. And I’m sure that most people might consider it a silly way to define themselves, and to define other people around them, and that it is imperative to define themselves further, and define the others further, too.

Yet, even still, no matter what they may do, and no matter what they may say, all – all of us --can be soundly defined by this word, and no better or worse than with any other word in all of our worldly languages.

Yes, I look at the world microscopically. And quite possibly, I scrap to strip words of their meanings – I think it’s a safe practice. It forces a person to consider all the exceptions, for the exceptions are often those who are in need of consideration most.

But I couldn’t strip a thing from this word. Because it’s entirely impenetrable.

Because it’s who we are, in a word. And no more, and no less.

From the Jungles of Closing Arguments,

Kang Louie

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

King Louie makes a good point: There is a word, human, to describe everyone. And I agree with his implication: Each person has a definite value by virtue of being human. There are certain moral obligations that everyone deserves for no other reason than that they are human. Everyone is human: Christian and atheist, black and white, tall and short, freethinker and dogmatist.

But I don’t think King Louie has thought the point all the way through; I suspect he has not really realized that everyone is human: Not just ordinary people but murderers, child molesters, rapists, thieves. Everyone is human: not just Gandhi, Einstein, King, and Jefferson, but also Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Torquemada. And yes, even our monsters are human, and by virtue of their humanity they too have moral value and deserve moral obligations.

But we should not, I argue, recognize this universal value by simply erasing every distinction between good and bad, moral and immoral, approval and disapproval. We should not, I argue, recognize this universal value by construing every objective distinction out of existence so we no longer have any differences to hang our moral beliefs on. We should not, I argue, achieve moral universals at the expense of moral particulars. And this moral nihilism, I argue, is at the heart of King Louie’s argument.

He does not argue that there is equal moral value to freethought and dogmatism. He does not argue, as he indicated he would in his proposal, that although dogmatism is blameworthy, it has virtually disappeared. He argues only that the definition of “freethought� is not “airtight� or “impenetrable�.

Well, of course it isn’t. As I argued before, dictionaries are not works of analytical philosophy. They catalog usage, whether or not that usage is broadly consistent; with probably two or three billion people who speak English as a first or second language, we should expect few abstract words to have broad consistency. And even the “ambiguous� definition, while perhaps not as sharp-edged as a definition in analytical philosophy, still establishes a difference on a charitable interpretation of “authority� and “dogma�.

If you believe something to be true for no other reason than that someone else says it is true, i.e. if you believe something on the absolute authority of another, you are not a freethinker. If you believe only that which you yourself have reasoned to be true, and if (as King Louie notes) you do not consider your own reason to establish absolute truth, you are indeed a freethinker.

Freethought asserts the ethical principle that, regardless of the benefits of cooperation, it is morally wrong to compel belief. It is morally wrong to submit one’s belief. It says that we disapprove of establishing cooperation at the expense of regimenting our thought.

King Louie appears to “buy� this moral statement; he seems to accept that it is indeed a moral label, and wishes to apply it to call people good. But he does so not by exhorting others to adhere to its definition, but by trying to make the term meaningless so it can be universal. But why should he do this to “freethought�, a relatively mild moral distinction (nobody goes to jail for accepting religious or any other dogma)? Why not attack a moral discrimination with more force, such as mass-murder or child molestation? If he is really arguing for absolute moral universalism, targeting a fringe definition is not going to do the job?

I don’t know what’s in King Louie’s mind. I cannot answer the questions above. Perhaps he realizes that his argument for absolute moral universalism would fall flat in the face of a forceful distinction. Perhaps his “universalism� is only a form of moral minimalism. Perhaps he has simply not thought through the implications of his position.

King Louie might have argued, as he indicated that he would in his proposal, that freethought is praiseworthy to some extent; dogmatism, the opposite of freethought, is blameworthy to some extent, and that the promulgation of freethought has been successful in that most everyone actually adopts its tenets. He might also have argued that, while there is an objective difference between freethought and dogmatism, we should not attach a moral belief to the difference; that no moral distinction should supervene on the difference between freethought and dogmatism than it should on the difference between African and European, short or tall, left-handed or right-handed.

But this sort of fringe universalism, established by an uncharitable interpretation of a meaningful difference doesn’t get off the ground. If he’s arguing for universalism by erasing objective distinctions to which moral beliefs supervene, then he would be better served by attacking the stronger definitions of tyranny, murder and child molestation. If he is arguing for minimalism (e.g. we should make only the minimal moral distinctions to protect ourselves from violence), then he cannot do so by erasing objective distinctions, because we rely on objective distinctions on which to supervene our minimal moral beliefs. Again, he would be better served by a different line of attack: He should argue against supervening a moral distinction on these weaker objective distinctions.

I would still disagree--we would still have a debate--if he chose these alternative positions. But he did not, and I will not put words in his mouth so I have something to rebut. I can merely argue against the position he actually presents and conclude that it is useless to interpret away an objective distinction to establish universalism. I would also argue against minimalism. I think it is important to have “weaker� moral distinctions, distinctions that do not have the force and power of our moral beliefs about murder, etc.

King Louie worries about how people define him. I must admit that I am not particularly sympathetic to his worries. Personally, I define myself. I consider other people’s evaluations of my character, but I reject anyone else’s authority to define me.

I obviously define myself as “human�. More importantly, though, I define myself as a good human. “Good Human� is not redundant; it is meaningful. And it is a rational position: I have thought logically about what it means to me to be good, and about what subsidiary definitions to apply to myself that are consistent with my self-definition as a good human. Furthermore, I declare my definition of goodness to others, as a promise to behave in particular ways and as an exhortation for others to act as I do.

And because I believe freethought to be good, I thus label myself a freethinker. I promise to evaluate others’ statements according to this standard, and not another, such as compliance with religious dogma. I also exhort others to do the same. I don’t attach nearly as much strength to this particular belief as I do to my labeling myself as a non-murderer, a non-child-molester, a non-thief; I certainly would not advocate putting dogmatists in prison. But still, yes, I consider freethought to be good to some extent and dogmatism to be bad to some extent, and I approve of the former and disapprove of the latter.

The “fuzziness� of the term doesn’t bother me. Some people are definitely freethinkers; I approve of their position wholeheartedly. There are some who are definitely dogmatists; I disapprove of their position. There are also some in the grey area of the fuzzy boundary; I am uncertain as to their status and at least approve of them in that they are at least close to unambiguous freethought.

I am a universalist to some extent: There is some moral value, there are some moral obligations that supervene on everyone, Hitler, Stalin, Torquemada, Jeffery Dahmer, murderers, child molesters, rapists, everyone. They all have a right to a fair trial on the facts. They have a right to be free from torture. They have a right to a name. They all have a right to a basic level of human dignity, so long as they are alive.

But I am not a universalist. I believe we must make some moral distinctions, to call some people good in some sense, and others bad, that we should approve of some things and disapprove of others, and translate this approval and disapproval to some extent to the person. Nor am I a minimalist: I believe it is useful to make more moral distinctions than are necessary to merely protect ourselves from the worst evil. I believe that we should aspire to the best society, not just the not-the-worst society.

I believe that the freethought is both an objective distinction, and that a positive moral value supervenes on that distinction. And I believe that King Louie has demonstrated neither that the distinction is objectively meaningless, nor that no moral evaluation should supervene on the distinction.

Thanks to King Louie for his participation, Nightshade for his moderation, and you all for reading my humble (and sometimes not-so-humble) work.

From the jungles of freethinking moral particularism,

PLP

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This concludes the formal debate. We would like to thank KingLouie and PoodleLovinPessimist for their participation. Discussion can be continued in the peanut gallery.

- NS, FD Moderator