Freethought

What constitutes freethought? Is it thought that is free of religious baggage? Or is there more to it? Dean Braithwaite has been thinking freely about the issue.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a freethinker as:

n. someone who rejects dogma or authority

The Freedom from Religion Foundation (a site I have a lot of time for) defines freethinkers as:

n. people who form opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include nontheists, rationalists, deists, and pantheists

Unfreethinking, unfreethought

In general, humanists and secularists are very good at using the ability to engage in freethought when arguing with religionists or attacking religious dogma. Unfortunately, humanists and secularists are often just as good at adhering to their own dogmas, too.

Freethought doesn’t begin and end with science over religion, despite what many people claim. Freethought also relates to the ability to question science and contemplate the thought that perceived wisdom is not always correct.

Freethinkers are people who take the time to listen to opposing beliefs and arguments before launching into a tirade of abuse. Freethinkers are people who can contemplate the possibility that the beliefs they hold dear may be wrong. Freethinkers are people who don’t just take the words of others as fact without investigating any given “fact” for themselves.

Unfortunately, there are many people who believe they carry out freethought when, in truth, they do not.

One case in point was the furore that followed the publication of AIDS: a death cult in G&LH in 2003 (and which is reprinted in this very issue. For the record, at that time, I was not in the “HIV doesn’t cause AIDS” camp and I still find myself questioning this argument.

However, I believed then and still believe today that anyone has the right to question the perceived wisdom on this and anything else. One thing I was forced to do after the original publication of the article was to read around the subject myself and listen to all sides, instead of just relying on what others told me, as I’d done before.

Another case in point is Peter Tatchell’s article on the blanket ban on gay men donating blood, and the anger directed at him from many in the gay, AIDS and humanist communities. I stopped giving blood years ago because I was told that, as a gay man, I was banned from doing so! This despite my being in a stable, long-term, monogamous relationship.

I should have taken a stance but I mildly accepted the judgement. My fellow straight male (and female) work colleagues, many of whom I knew to be actively sleeping around, were free to keep donating, simply because they were straight.

All this makes you think. Unfortunately, many – so-called freethinkers included – do not.

click here to go to top of page