Free Thought

Have you heard that term? If you have, you know it is not what it sounds like. If you have not, let me fill you in.

The "definition" refers to those who are "inclined to form one's own opinions rather than depend upon authority, especially about social and religious issues." The original notion was that you thought for yourself and weren't required to follow the narrow paths given to you by society, religion, or the like. That all sounds mighty good, but, as it turns out, like so many other words in the English language today, it no longer means that ... at all. While they are certainly happy to call on "authority", they are required to ignore religion as a source of information even to consider. Take, for instance, the Secular Student Alliance at West Virginia University. They say explicitly, "Our purpose is NOT to promote intolerance towards any religion", but their address and email address include "darwinfish", an intentional atheist parody of the Christian fish symbol which the LA Times considered "religious bigotry". They're acronym, "FISH", stands for "Freethinking, Inquiring, Secular Humanists". But, hey, I'm sure it doesn't mean you can't be a secular humanist theist, right?

So here's the kind of thing that passes for "free thinking". "I have no evidence to support my claim that there is no God (because, frankly, it's pretty difficult to prove a negative), but I will state categorically and without question that there is no God simply because I say it is so. Oh, and all that evidence you offer? Not a problem. I just deny its existence and -- poof! -- there is no evidence for the existence of God." This kind of "free thinker" believes that by pointing out that a supernatural being cannot be detected by natural means and, as such, must be the equivalent of a "flying spaghetti monster" (or any other ridicule-worthy imagined term), he/she has accomplished a good line of reasoning.

Interestingly, free thinkers are not allowed to think freely about religion, God, Christianity, or anything that even smacks of religion. "You know," a quiet observer might point out, "if there is a God, then miracles aren't surprising." "No!" they will reply (usually with some venom), "Miracles cannot happen, so there can be no God." Like that is ... free thinking. You might point out how religion has contributed so much to art, democracy, science, medicine, philosophy, education, charities, hospitals -- the list just keeps going -- but the "free thinker" isn't allowed to consider those possibilities and, without regard for the facts, will have to simply shut you down. They are not allowed to think about those things. You can offer lists of great people throughout history who have stood on the shoulders of their Christianity to bring great things to the world. Men like Gutenberg who brought us printing, Leonardo da Vinci who was a Christian scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, botanist, musician, and writer, Nicholas Copernicus who brought back the heliocentric model of the solar system, George Washington ... well, this gets to be a long list. Doesn't matter. Outside of the realm of the "free thinker". Disallowed. Start over. "Don't bother me with facts; I know I'm right."

Or the ever popular "I've heard it, so it must be true" approach. Now, to be fair, this isn't exclusive to the free thinker. In fact, just about every side does this. They hear an argument, feel a kinship with it, and adopt it as their own. So some naive Christians heard the "NASA computers found Joshua's missing day" argument and snatched it up like it was worthwhile, not realizing it was utter nonsense. Well, free thinkers are just as good at it. Is it a good argument? Who knows? Is it a valid argument? Maybe; maybe not. But it ... "feels right". So the "free thinker" will offer so-called "Bible quotes" to prove that God doesn't exist and Christianity is a lie all while never actually having read the texts or examined the arguments for themselves. They'll call up their heroes who offered a particularly stinging rebuke to Christians (even if it was stinking logic) and accept with smugness someone else telling them how to think. Not free thinking. And they will belittle Christians for thinking alike while patting each other on the back for ... thinking alike.

On the other hand, they will wrench beliefs from the hands of theism and call it their own without batting an eye. They will complain about the goodness of this "sky daddy" without realizing that the absence of a universal source for a standard of goodness removes any standard of goodness about which to complain. Religion has a lot to say about how people should treat people, how to deal with suffering, reasons for hope, and so forth. "Free thinking" eliminates all those useful tools and then argues that materialism offers a lot on how to treat fellow chemical bags or how to deal with death. This isn't free thinking; it's theft. Christians are commanded to "love one another"; "free thinkers" like that and take it up without an actual reason on which to base it. It's not free thinking ... unless by "free" you mean "without basis".

Let me illustrate the problem. WikiHow has all sorts of "how-to's", including how to be a free thinker. Here are some of their helpful suggestions. Step One: Avoid joining groups of like-minded others. Do not consider the fact that this puts you in a group of like-minded others who are avoiding groups of like-minded others. Step Four: Become open minded and question everything. Do not question the suggestion to become open-minded and question everything. (Note that in this step they say, "Being a questioning person does not mean that you cannot be religious; it is fine as long as you truly believe in what you claim, and you were not influenced by others to espouse your beliefs." Is this not a belief that is influenced by others?) And I like the final tip: "That is the good part about being a free-thinker; you never have to worry about belonging to a group of individuals that are homogeneous in thinking." As if homogeneous thinking is a bad thing. Like those dreaded mathematicians that try to force the binary thinking on you that 2 + 2 = 4. I'm a free thinker! Why do I have to agree? I don't want to be stuck under some authoritarian, narrow-minded line of reasoning like everyone else! Because, you see, if there is truth, there will need to be homogeneous thinking if you wish to be true in your thinking.

From a religious perspective, thinking isn't a bad thing. Indeed, it is a good thing. Thinking outside of the box isn't necessarily a bad thing. I would even argue that thinking through all sorts of ideas isn't a bad thing. I've often believed that seriously examining opposing viewpoints to my own is beneficial. It will either correct my thinking when it's wrong or solidify my thinking where it's right. Not a bad thing. But when "free thinking" ends up a limitation to thinking and a call for "free thinking" means eliminating evidence, authority, religion, or the influence of others, it's simply no longer even rational to call it "free thinking." Even though it sounds a lot "holier than thou" to say it. (Oh, wait ... that's a bad thing, right?)