Apparently, I need to periodically explain what freethought means, because right now I’m being helpfully informed by many people who don’t have a clue that it means thinking any damn thing you want.
@pzmyers clues in the name "free", ie without limitations. Irrational belief always attempts to limit freedom of thought
— Graham Davis (@AgendaForReform) December 22, 2015
clues in the name “free”, ie without limitations. Irrational belief always attempts to limit freedom of thought
My response: If naive etymology were your guide, then freeways don’t have any traffic rules.
Look, I know a lot of people experience total brain lock when they see the word “free” — just see the usual response to the phrase “free speech” — but you’re wrong. Free speech does not mean there are no limitations on what you can say, it just means the government can’t control the expression of opinions. You still don’t get to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or commit libel with impunity, or be obnoxious without social repercussions.
Likewise with freethought. We don’t need a damned philosophy to allow you to think whatever you want — there is no way anyone can control your mind. Of course you can think freely! But freethought refers to something more specific: having ideas that are not dictated by dogma or authority, but by reason and empirical evidence. It means free of dogma, not free of all constraints. If you are using the phrases “because that’s the way it’s always been”, “because it’s human nature”, “because the Grand Poobah said so”, “because it’s written down that way in this book”, you are certainly free to think that, but you are not being a freethinker.
I know this is going to blow some minds, but reason and empirical evidence are limitations on your thinking. We impose them on our minds because we value consistency, reproducibility, consensus, and independent confirmation of our conclusions, and those restrictions enable us to achieve that. If we didn’t care about those requirements, well then Jesus loves me and I can fly and weeee, let’s go all kittens and fluffy pillows and pass me that cloud, I need to get high.
The same people who insist on the dictionary definition of atheist seem incapable of reading the dictionary definition of freethought, or even the wikipedia entry. But then, those definitions are more complicated and difficult than off-the-cuff knee-jerk not-thinking that they specialize in, so it’s no wonder they shun the actual evidence.
Fixed that for you.
I am destroyed with astonishment to hear it. Okay, not really. I wish more people would at least make some sort of effort to understand not only the definition of freethought, but also the history of freethought, which is very interesting. That understanding is important, because there are still too many places in the world where being a freethinker can get you killed.
Thus the enlightenment age was only about the refinement and burning of whale blubber.
Such is the nature of the shallow thinking, atheist dudebro. Atheism just means not believing in gods, period, but separation of church and state! and youtube debates! and freethought just means i get to say whatever the fuck i like and feel like a master debater with uberrational skillz for it, even if it’s drivel…and if you point this out, i get to yell freeze peach!
And these people are the rationalists, the skeptics and the brighter than thou…
qwints beat me to it.
The “fire in a crowded theater” analogy is a bit ironic in this case, PZ: it comes from the Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, which found that “reasonable limits” on free speech meant the government could throw you in prison for sedition if you were to use that freedom irresponsibly, such as protesting the draft during a time of war. The law that Charles Schenck was imprisoned for violating is still technically on the books (as 18 U.S. Code § 2388) and can result in up to 20 years in federal prison, although it has not been invoked since the early 60s.
PZ:
This is maybe the crux of the matter. Sexist jerks, MRAs, pic-up artists, right-wing fascist, libertarianns and similar idiots think that feminism is dogma. They think that every conclusion they do not like, every goal they do not approve of is dogmatic. And everyone adressing any issue that does not concern them is to them irrational and fanatical.
Another problem that crops up is with the term dogma. Reasonable people take it to mean established and institutionalized thinking. A good chunk of freethinkers see the dogma of bigotry and misogyny expressed by the residual racism and sexism in society and the workplace. Which means that SJW’s are questioning and attempting to change that dogma of residual bigotry, in order to form a more egalitarian society, exactly as expected by freethinking.
It is not freethinking to pretend political correctness or feminism are dogmas, as they aren’t well established, accepted, and institutionalized.
Why “consensus”? (Middle of second to last paragraph.)
@6 Charly
Point nailed.
The magazine is called Free Inquiry rather than Free Thought and perhaps that’s more precise. We end up thinking what our inquiry determines is most likely to be correct.
And commenting on the dogma comments. I think feminism etc _could_ be dogma. In most situations, it isn’t in our societies. But avoiding it being dogma needs free thought.
No comfort for the misogynists in that statement, the same applies to their anti-feminist dogmas, which seem to be lacking in connection with thought – free or otherwise – or reality for that matter.
So freethoughts is a big lie? How can one’s thoughts be free, if limited to evidence and reality?
JK
“free of dogma” is more precise, but not as eloquent as freethought.
No dispute, just felt like role-playing the readers referred to in the phrase, “blow some minds”.
Sorry.
(gee, I seem to be getting in the habit of always apologizing for anything I say. Sorry [to be redundant])
The viewpoint of a child.
Wait, i thought freethought meant thought that didn’t cost me any money. And since time is money, that means thoughts that didn’t take any time to form.
I guess that’s the difference between free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-braveheart.
The right-wing Clownileos have already perfected the mental gymnastic move to counter this – they call their opponents’ belief a “dogma”, and insist that they are Galileos who have uncovered the groundbreaking truth that black people are terrible. They don’t think of themselves as defenders of power – they have immersed themselves in a delusion of rebellion.
MJP @ 16:
Oh yes, the rebellion against the twin horrors of political correctness and social justice –
MJP @ 16
THIS. Back when I was a right-winger, that is exactly how I and my fellow young Republicans saw ourselves. WE were the true revolutionaries, rebelling against an establishment corrupted by socialism and political correctness. If we didn’t stand up for free markets and ‘Merica, we would be slaves to arrogant left-wing tyrants who’d tell us what to say, think, and do. “NOBODY TELLS US WHAT TO DO! YOU AINT THE BOSS OF ME!”
Essentially, our foes are perpetual 12-year-olds.
Mr Davis is obviously correct, and I intend to prove it!
I shall now engage in free thought.
I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I think about it every night and day – spread my wings and fly away. I believe I can soar – I see me running through that open door! I believe I can fly. I believe I can fly. I believe I can fly.
Man, this free thought stuff sure is fun, and super effective!
Caine @ 17
“Oh yes, the rebellion against the twin horrors of political correctness and social justice…”
Of course they horrible! Political correctness stifles our freedom to call blacks “n*ggers” and GLBTs perverted abominations before our Lord! Social Justice? In order to make things just for everyone you need to take from those who have it and give it to those lazy moochers who didn’t earn it! If anything we owe all our freedom to the inequities of the system! The more unfair, the freer you are…well, for some of you.
Cue a zombie army of “dictionary freethinkers” …
@MJP
Would the conceptual opposite of “dogma” be “reasonable assumption”? I find that the best way to start with this sort of problem is to figure out the opposite and see which better fits the evidence.
Another example would be “hive mind” and “strategic group cohesion”.
My old Webster college dictionary defines “free thinker” as:
which implies atheism is an opinion about religion. Thoughts?
Should we ever let them in on the secret of the roots of the *gasp*political freethought movement and its ties with the *shudder* left?
Or should we let them keep believing that words and thoughts were invented at the same time as youtube comments?
@Giliell
I would rather let them choke on their ignorance and fail when it comes to social conflict, but you might be a better person than I am.
Restricting structure : a cage – limits freedom of movement in all directions by blocking paths
Liberating structure : a skeleton – enables freedom of movement by firmin body shape and allowing leverage
Sounds like the kind of person who hires a “freelancer” expecting not to pay: http://clientsfromhell.net/post/16529975959/after-sending-two-invoices-for-payment-i-sent
Also, it’s “Free Thought” not “Free Brainfart.”
Brony@22,
I believe the conjugation goes like this:
I have reached some provisional but highly accurate conclusions that are well-supported by empirical evidence.
You make reasonable assumptions.
She is bound by dogma.
Ah, la libre-pensée.
Freethought is indeed an historic term with a specific meaning. You explained that well. It exists in many languages in almost the same form since sometime in the 1700s.
I especially liked this as a catchphrase: “My response: If naive etymology were your guide, then freeways don’t have any traffic rules.” It would not work in my language but I could perhaps come up with an approximate translation.
I know I am in the minority here but I will forever disagree with your charicature of “dictionary atheism” and your philosophy that atheism should automatically inform other positions.
My humanism, feminism, socialism etc. do not flow from my atheism. I actually consider my atheism to be quite irrelevant to my worldview (and I do consider myself a 6.9 on Dawkins’ scale). It is rather that my humanism, feminism, atheism etc. are all the result of my freethinking.
On this most important difference in exegesis I shall have to initiate a schism and damn you to hell, obviously ;-)
I hold dear the tradition of freethought and I like to read about it. But even though it does not mean that “anything goes”, it also does not mean that all freethinkers always come to the same conclusions as you. It’s still a broad category.
Needless to say I like freethoughtblogs’ version of freethought quite nicely.
Gilliel @#24
Should we ever let them in on the secret of the roots of the *gasp*political freethought movement and its ties with the *shudder* left?
I don’t think it can realistically be said to have roots in the left, though I’d love to hear some of your reasoning because I’m sure the argument can be made.
It’s always seemed to me that freethought is a fairly straightforward evolution from the enlightenment, in particular some of its more ornery freethinkers such as Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, and Hume. Voltaire’s encyclopedia of philosophy includes “Liberte De Penser” (literally, “free thought”) as a topic. I’d go take a look except I’m afraid I’ll never finish this posting… Oh, damn. Now look what you’ve gone and made me do… The entry is written as a dialogue between milord Boldmind, a general officer, and the count of Medroso. There is some banter (it’s Voltaire!) that brings us around to:
Boldmind: I mean that if Tiberius and the first emperors had been Jacobins who had prevented the first Christians from having pen and ink, if it had not been long permitted within the Roman Empire to think freely, it would have been impossible for Christians to establish their dogmas. So if Christianity emerged only in virtue of freedom of thought, by what contradiction, by what injustice would it annihilate today this liberty upon which it is itself founded?
Boldmind: It rests entirely with you to learn to think. You’re born with a mind. You are a bird in the cage of the Inquisition: the Holy Office has clipped your wings, but they can grow back. Whoever doesn’t know geometry can learn it; every man can tutor himself: it’s shameful to put your soul in the hands of those to whom you’d never trust your money. Dare to think for yourself.
“Dare to think for yourself.”
Voltaire would hardly be considered of ‘the left’ – I think aristocrats (especially ones that made vast fortunes by running the bank on the Paris lottery!) probably are automatically disqualified from ‘the left.’ Nor was Voltaire an atheist, though he clearly had his issues with the catholic church and some of its dogma. In many other respects Voltaire was the quintessential role model of the freethinker: he mouthed off to kings and commoners. It was Philippe D’Orleans who supposedly said “Monsieur Voltaire I can show you something you probably have never seen before?” The inside of the Bastille. Stealing a riff from Socrates Voltaire later thanked him for the lodging. I would say, however, that the greatest credential Voltaire had as a freethinker was that he regularly mouthed off to Frederick The Great. You’ve got to be some kind of free thinker to be so focused on your opinion, or witticism, or the truth, that you’re willing to diss an autocrat at his own dining table, in front of other guests.
Diderot was certainly a bit more lefty. Rousseau, urrr, crap, what was he? I’d say a radical righto-leftist on that spectrum. An authoritarian who preached freedom, a paranoid hypocrite, but a free thinker indeed. He made damn sure everyone in earshot knew what he thought. In that sense he was free with his thoughts.
And Hume, who played his cards close to his chest, was one of the greatest freethinkers of all. His devastating reformulation of ancient skepticism was probably what bootstrapped a lot of subsequent freethinking; once you’ve demolished the basis of authority nothing’s left but free thought. Hume was hardly a leftie; another noble, he had to … work for a living, but certainly appreciated the good life once he attained it, and he worked for the government and was generally an establishment stooge. It’s a question whether he was an atheist or not. My take on that topic is that his skepticism was so strong that it would have been hard for him to even squeeze out an agnosticism.
Anyhow, I’ve got to respectfully argue with your view that freethought is associated with ‘the left’. Its earliest lights were aristocrats and lovers of wealth and privilege. They certainly lit the powder-train that resulted in the destruction of the ancien regime, which was more or less entirely “the right” and the establishment of “the left” (republicanism, eventually anarchism and – gasp – communism) I would say that if there’s associations to be made, it’s that the left has drawn its membership from freethinkers, but not so much the other way around.
I’ve rattled on too long. I blame this excellent burgundy!
Marcus:
One can never have enough of a good thing.
“driveways” are not for driving
and
“parkways” are not for parking.
etymology is weird.
I think it’s a mistake to try and align the 18th century political spectrum with that of the 21st.
Marcus Ranum:
It’s not clear to me what PZ’s problem is with comparing (and contrasting) the social and economic conditions from different centuries. In any case, I don’t think the wealth and social status of Enlightenment thinkers is a very reliable indicator of their political alignment. (It isn’t today either, for that matter, even if statistically there’s an obvious pattern.) It was a better time than the middle ages, let’s say, but still very few people (almost entirely those at the “top,” who you seem to assume are right/conservative and “establishment stooges”!) had the education, security, etc., needed to articulate radical and fundamental criticisms about their social and political environment. You’re may be correct, considering what their actual views were, that many would fit in fairly well with today’s right (which isn’t much like their right), although it’s hard to tell whether they would (if they were modern people living through the same things we have) fit in even more comfortably with the left. We have basically no relevant evidence, when considering counterfactuals like that. I would say that they were generally more to the left than most of their contemporaries; and at the same time, the spectrum has sort of shifted since then (in multiple directions), or better yet that today there are more and better criteria for being a leftist. But whether I would agree with a modern Voltaire or a modern Hume is a silly question, if we’re not interested in those specific people brought up to date now (whatever that would mean) but with the historical sources of freethought and liberalism generally.
I have always thought the left/right spectrum is kind of silly (it’s mostly a relic of cold war propaganda, and damn effective propaganda it was…) so I actually agree with PZ that enlightenment ideology doesn’t align well with post WW1 political ideology. If there’s an axis we can align on it’s establishment/counter-establishment, which is where I think I was going. Freethinkers seem to be “against the establishment” a lot because the establishment is by definition regressive and authoritarian simply because everything else is “common sense” after it has a few centuries to sink in.
That is why I knuckle my forehead to salute the freethinkers of the enlightenment; they had to attack both the religious establishment and the ancien regime. They set the stage for other freethinkers. Literally, before La Bastille was stormed, you could be imprisoned for thinking the wrong thing and having the temerity to express it. Of course, then, the was The Terror. 10 steps forward, 9 steps back.
Free, as in free from ideology. Hey, that wasn’t too difficult!
Marcus Ranum
I think there’S a missunderstanding.
I said “roots” of political freethought, and even though many of the Enlightenment philosophers would not be “left” now, many were for their times and of course they were damn political.
The ties to the political left are more recent, of course, but undeniably, Freethinkers in Europe have been traditionally on the left in the 20th century, often being linked with socialist organisations.
Oh no, not that shit again.
I got philosophy, you got ideology.
I got principles, you got dogma.
Ideology is not a bad word. Everybody’s got one. Sure, yours might look worse than a bag of Haribo Color-Rado and it might not qualify as capital I Ideology in the sense of shared set of principles and doctrines, but you sure as hell aren’t floating in a vaccum without ideas
I am a dictionary atheist and I have no problem with the definition of freethought at all, thank you very much.
Rietpluim,
So… #NotAllDictionaryAtheists?
In support of #5 Gregory, I think that Christopher Hitchens has debunked the “yelling fire in a crowed theater” argument. It is in a debate he participated in in Toronto. That should put to rest comments using this false meme, which I see so often but I didn’t expect that here.
What drives me up the wall about free-to-think-anything “freethought” is the associated notion that nothing must ever be agreed upon. To them, agreement is always a sign of irrational, hive-minded, groupthinky circle-jerking, so we must maintain a state of perpetual debate over everything. Like, what’s the point of that? What’s the value in making your means your end?
It’s like how you don’t go to a doctor for tests, you go for a diagnosis and treatment. Tests are valuable because they can lead to that end. But it would be absolutely absurd to decide diagnoses and treatment are anathema and to keep the patient in the testing stage perpetually.
I’m sure FtTA types would agree on the silliness of an actual doctor approaching physical illness that way, but they still think social ills ought to be handled so absurdly. It’s anathema to try to move on to rectifying those ills. So anathema, they will go around and try to create debate anywhere they see people agreeing and moving on toward making social change.
In no way did Hitchens debunk the “yelling fire in a crowed theater” argument; instead, he merely cited it’s evocation as a flourish.
OWHolmes attempted to characterize anti-war protest with the frivolous and malicious prank (or terrorist act), the creating of danger where no danger existed previously, namely, gratuitously causing panic. Neither Holmes nor anyone with a speck of civility would think it right or correct to cause panic and potentially harm people. I doubt even Hitchens would think it especially clever either.
Where Holmes was incorrect (and possibly malicious), as Hitchens identified, was in failing to note the real danger which Schenk warned.
Hitchens never implied nor argued that yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is a form of speech to be protected.
…nor implied or argued (in keeping with the topic) that such expression is could be any sort of legitimate construal of free thought.
@A.Noyd
>”What drives me up the wall about free-to-think-anything “freethought” is the associated notion that nothing must ever be agreed upon. To them, agreement is always a sign of irrational, hive-minded, groupthinky circle-jerking, so we must maintain a state of perpetual debate over everything. Like, what’s the point of that? What’s the value in making your means your end?”
I have seen this too and I believe that it is either:
1) Strategy that they think is a belief, but is really only something that goes into effect when they are faced with people who believe things or come to conclusions they do not like. Since they are used to being the dominant social force they feel they are entitled to access, and that let’s them swarm people in various ways.
2) They do believe it but are not accustomed to being swarmed with people trying to make you and what you believe go away through exhaustion from never ending rediculious challenges, or the way progress gets slowed to a crawl. It works because they are right in an abstract sense, but very wrong when it comes to getting things done and many challenges being simple irrational or illogical.
I find being uncompromising on the burden of proof helps, for example the Harris fans are the ones that need to cite specific context instead of vaguely gesticulating at “look at the rest of it” like lazy wretches. Or they need to demonstrate how the context changes something. The fact that they are not already doing this is why I have no problems assuming this is mere social conflict strategy. They can change my mind very easily by actually acting like advocates instead of spoiled brats.
Brony (#46)
Yeah. Everyone should be open to legitimate challenge. But not all challenges are legitimate, and the FtTA types don’t have a good idea of how legitimate challenges work. And the sad thing is how folks here usually try to spell out for them how they could at least begin to be convincing, but the FtTA types usually ignore this charity.
That’s the thing with them. They are generally shallow thinkers and terrible at arguing, at least on subjects where they’re comfortable with the status quo, so their go-to tactic is to try and shame their opponents for “killing the conversation” or “stifling debate” or “not allowing disagreement” when it’s their own damn fault they’re unconvincing. Basically, they not only want to keep everything in the debate stage for its own sake but also expect their opponents to maintain that state on their behalf.
For mine, freethought is an attitude, not a process or an ideology.
I’m wondering if the “free to think anything” types also support the teaching of creationism in the classroom. After all “just teach the theories and let students decide” is a favourite argument of creationists…
@A.Noyd
The certainly do not have any idea how a legitimate challenge works and they are personally terrible at advocacy. I think that they are literally dependent on group conflict tactics, or at least so used to them working that they are only now getting experience in learning how incapable they are individually. Add to “killing the conversation” or “stifling debate” or “not allowing disagreement” the comparisons to police states and authoritarian governments which are the literal opposite of the identity of the people they are opposing. Instead of a powerful government, it’s a relatively powerless social minority in terms of how those governments operated. They fear the power that exists in effective socialization and advocacy. It’s deceptive hyperbole that reveals just how desperate they are to get people to stop taking you seriously. I like my chops metaphorically when I see that kind of garbage. I know I’m dealing with a frantic fear soaked wretch and I’m only willing to be so understanding when they are talking about people in terms that get them killed by others.
Their behavior suggests they are used to just getting their way when they apply emotional pressure. It’s really quite amazing how utterly incapable they are and dependent on these group pressure tactics. Add to that the ridiculous over-sensitivity to criticism and I can’t help but see people personally dependent on maintaining a system of bigotry and xenophobia in order to maintain social control. I may not be able to tell precisely who is what kind of horrible person that we discuss in abstract around here, but I suspect that they are concentrated in this group and it’s worth figuring out how to tease out who is what.
@rq
That is a good question. I’ve been thinking about challenges like that too and that is a good one.
I meant to say @Giliell instead of rq above. That is what I get for trying to read one thing while composing a comment.
Gillien@#38 –
I agree completely. It was the burgundy that caused my mis-parse.