Wednesday, November 7, 2018

Analyzing The Freethinker Position

           Freethinkers, who are generally naturalistic humanists, claim to derive their points of view through reasoning processes and the scientific method. These people claim to develop opinions, apart from subjective preferences. They present themselves as being objective, free from religious superstition, moral absolutes, and societal traditions. The beliefs of individual freethinkers differ widely, as well as their conduct. However, errors in this philosophy become apparent as one begins pulling its threads.

           The underlying problem with the freethinking position is that it is simply not true. Everybody has biases. Everybody has underlying presuppositions by which data is processed. These so-called freethinkers are no exception to the rule. They are confined to their personal opinions. They preach their ideas as dogma. Moreover, this philosophy involves much speculation and question begging.

           How can one know that the freethinking position is right? Is there any evidence that this philosophy is not a mere assumption? Is it not circular to assume the validity of reason without proving it? Are we to use our reasoning to verify our own reasoning? If freethinkers disagree with each other, then who is correct? If our thoughts are a product of random chemical reactions in the brain as dictated by the fixed laws of chemistry, how can atheists call themselves freethinkers? If these people were as objective as they claim to be, then surely, they would allow the possibility of supernatural creation to be taught in public educational institutions.

No comments:

Post a Comment