Freethought

Anyone who has spent much time out here on the web can miss this term -- freethinker. It is a popular term among atheists. Depending on who you talk to, the definition varies slightly. According to wikipedia, the term is "a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and not be compromised by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma." More strident folks will argue, "Beliefs create mental barriers and have caused violence, ignorance, and intolerance." So to believe anything, by this definition, would preclude you from being a "freethinker". (I guess you'd have to believe that belief causes mental barriers to believe that a freethinker isn't supposed to believe anything ... but I digress.)

For most, it is assumed that a "freethinker" (I put it in quotes and skip the gap between "free" and "thinker" because it is its own term) is not a religious person. It is assumed that freethought is synonymous with atheism. It is assumed that the only way that a person can believe in a God of any sort is to be convinced by emotion, authority, tradition, or dogma. Any thinking person, they assume, can see that belief in God is "faith", not "reason", and not a matter of "science and logic." To put it most simply and in the way most seem to put it, there is no evidence for the existence of God. Therefore, any belief in God is not free thought, is not rational, and is not logical.

I cannot even begin to fathom where this idea comes from. Even Bertrand Russell, the famous atheist, admitted that "free thought" was not about what you believed, but how you believed it.

What makes a free thinker is not his beliefs, but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after careful thought, he find a balance of evidence in their favor, then his thought is free, however odd his conclusions may seem. [Bertrand Russell, "The Value of Free Thought" Bertrand Russell on God and Religion (ed. Al Seckel, Buffalo: Prometheus, 1986), pp. 239-40.]

Do a search sometime. Just Google "evidence for the existence of God". The listings are long. There are scientific listings and PhD types. There are quick and, unfortunately, silly listings. There are websites devoted to the question. There are books and DVDs and even a video on YouTube. Is there evidence for the existence of God? I can't imagine how one could deny it.

Now, it is possible to argue "There is no proof of the existence of God." "Proof" is defined as "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true or to produce belief in its truth." Is there evidence that the Earth is a sphere? Absolutely! Are there people who believe it is flat? Amazingly, yes. The evidence may be overwhelming, but it is not sufficient to produce belief in its truth. But the fact that there is no proof of the existence of God is merely a comment on the nature of "proof", not on the existence of evidence.

There is evidence that God exists. It cannot be denied. It can be denied that the evidence constitutes proof. It can be denied that the evidence is valid. It can be denied that there is a God. But the fact remains that there is evidence, whether or not it is accepted or sufficient, for the existence of God.

I get tired sometimes of the "superiority" of the "freethinkers". You'll find it on TV. Any real intellectual on the television shows denies the existence of God because, well, it's not rational. Denying that belief in God can be rational is not rational. It is entirely possible for someone to examine the evidence for and against and come to the logical conclusion that there is a God. Why it is that "freethinkers" need to vehemently deny this is beyond me. Me thinks they doth protest too much ...