[Type R]

Originally Posted by ernestombayo7

you have to have faith in your own reasoning and the rules of logic.

This I do appreciate. Faith in senses is something learned by babies/children as they mature, in a complex process. However, the mind is always cross-referencing different stimuli received and evaluating credibility depending on consistency. For example, if a person hears a voice and does not see a speaker, they will often report themselves to a psychologist who may diagnose schizophrenia. We have faith in the senses but we are humbly aware that our eyes/ears may fail us.

[mo-uk]

Originally Posted by ndigila

The following post is based on my observation and interactions. As a result it may appear to be an over-generalization.

Time and time again, people have attributed my belief in God to some sort of mental slavery. I've even been told once on this forum that it's impossible to be a Christian without being a mental slave. These people claim that freedom from religion allows someone to fully utilize his critical thinking skills. So the question is, is this critical thinking ability being used?

Drunkenness: Can anybody justify the act of getting drunk, apart from the fact that it feels good? And does this good feeling outweigh the negatives that drunkenness has on your body?

The following are the main arguments I've heard defending homosexuality.
1. Homosexuals are born homosexuals
2. Consenting adults can do whatever they want in their privacy
Can someone tell me why these arguments are valid?

The following are the main arguments for abortion.
1. The baby is not human yet.
2. A woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her body
Are these as a result of critical thinking or are they emotional subjective arguments?

Why is it that majority of free thinkers, despite their diversity, share similar opinions about these issues? Why do many free thinkers don't have a problem with fornication in a country in which AIDS is a national disaster? Are these people really free?

Ndigila---i detect an in-genius mashadite @ work here ,or are u perhaps attempting to get some ppl to do an essay u have due under this guise?

or am i just imagining things as usual

[Type R]

We have diverged so far off the correct path.

In order to be fair to the thread-starter's title question, let us discuss the meaning of the word "freedom." What does it mean to be "free?"

Instinctively, many people understand the word in its most absolute sense -- i.e. without any restrictions of any sort whatsoever. However, even a 10-second reflection will reveal that that interpretation is childish. How can one be free of everything? Free from gravity? Free from hunger and thirst if one does not consume meals? Free from rules governing inter-personal relations?

No, the expression "free" is commonly used with respect to specific constraints that may affect a person. For example, a prisoner will declare himself "free" after serving his sentence, while a hospital patient will declare himself "free of cancer" after chemotherapy treatment. In both cases, the constraining condition is identified. Therefore, I think the title of this thread -- "Are free thinkers really free? -- is defective in so far as it fails to mention the specific constraints that free thinkers are supposedly liberated from.

Back to our above example. A cancerous prisoner may tell his relatives on the phone, "I am free."

The relatives may reply, "Free from what?" They know that he has been treated for cancer, and they know he has had a parole hearing, and they hope the best for him on both issues.

"Are free thinkers really free?"

"Free from what?"

Specifics would lead to a much more sane and productive discussion than meandering around forever.

As I said before, free thinking is specifically concerned with liberation from certain constraints, namely:

* tradition. Is something right simply because your forefathers and all the tribes / races around you believe it is right?

* Religion. The whole world is a melting pot right now, so this point is not as strong as it was 100 years ago, when -- for example, the Pope's word was "infallible." However, we are now free to question whether humanity is 6000 years old (many people expected Jesus to return circa 2000, with a final "day" (=1000 years) of "God's reign on earth" to last from year 2000 to 3000). We are free of such superstitions.

* authority. A free-thinker should not be worried about political-correctness, and should not align his research in such a manner as to please powers-that-be.

* popular culture/fashion. I have personally had this argument with people who come and tell me, "You know, in the academic world, it is no longer fashionable to think a-b-c. We are following new trends." Such a statement drives me wild. Fashion has no place in the intellectual world!!! It is a constraint to logical thought and clear observation.

* prejudice. If you come into an argument "knowing" the conclusion (a common trait among all religious people worldwide), what happens is that you simply look for evidence to fulfill your pre-knowledge (eg people who see Christ's image on pieces of cloth). This pre-determined-conclusion behaviour should be left to deceitful lawyers who want their clients off the hook by hook or by crook. A true free thinker should not care where an argument goes.

A good example is the prejudice that "in every event, there is a subject and an object." This gives rise to a fiction like "it rained." What is this "it" that rained? Where is this "it" hiding? In the skies? In outer space? Can it move forward and identify itself? Next thing we have fictions like "jinis", "soul", "evil spirits", "angels", etc, etc...

A true free-thinker will even accept the possibility of the existence of god(s) and other world(s). All he/she asks is, "Demonstrate it." Of course, at this point, Bibles/Korans are unleashed and the discussion dies a natural death.

* some human constraints to free-thinking are much more difficult to identify, and are not social like the ones listed above. For example, man is a creature of habit. But some of our habits are so ingrained in us that we may never ever examine them with an objective eye. We are not even conscious of them. Yet they interfere with clean logic.

* Language is another barrier. Language is often used to describe, but very often language becomes an imperial force, dictating what we think.

* Notation/alphabets are other barriers to free thought. In the computer world, they don't use base-10 but the famous base-2 (binary). Base-2 also has its limits.

"Are free thinkers free from authority?" -- then we could discuss how certain thinkers do so much to produce ideas that are pleasing to the powers-that-be, while hiding bad-but-true ideas.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by mo-uk

Ndigila---i detect an in-genius mashadite @ work here ,or are u perhaps attempting to get some ppl to do an essay u have due under this guise?

or am i just imagining things as usual

Nope, no paper to write, just initiating healthy discussion.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by Type R

* popular culture/fashion. I have personally had this argument with people who come and tell me, "You know, in the academic world, it is no longer fashionable to think a-b-c. We are following new trends." Such a statement drives me wild. Fashion has no place in the intellectual world!!! It is a constraint to logical thought and clear observation.

Thanks Type R, if you look at my first post, most people defend abortion and homosexuality (and fornication and other similar issues) by what the popular culture tells them, however emotional those arguments may be.

[a.wanjala]

Originally Posted by ndigila

The following post is based on my observation and interactions. As a result it may appear to be an over-generalization.

Time and time again, people have attributed my belief in God to some sort of mental slavery. I've even been told once on this forum that it's impossible to be a Christian without being a mental slave. These people claim that freedom from religion allows someone to fully utilize his critical thinking skills. So the question is, is this critical thinking ability being used?

Drunkenness: Can anybody justify the act of getting drunk, apart from the fact that it feels good? And does this good feeling outweigh the negatives that drunkenness has on your body?

The following are the main arguments I've heard defending homosexuality.
1. Homosexuals are born homosexuals
2. Consenting adults can do whatever they want in their privacy
Can someone tell me why these arguments are valid?

The following are the main arguments for abortion.
1. The baby is not human yet.
2. A woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her body
Are these as a result of critical thinking or are they emotional subjective arguments?

Why is it that majority of free thinkers, despite their diversity, share similar opinions about these issues? Why do many free thinkers don't have a problem with fornication in a country in which AIDS is a national disaster? Are these people really free?

I'm not gay, but who is to say homosexuals are not born that way? Were you born heterosexual, or was that a choice? I don't think anyone has experience in the matter. In other words, I can't prove it valid, but I can't prove it 'not-valid' either.

Consenting adults can do whatever they want as long it doesn't inhibit others ability to do what they want. If, according to you, a homosexual is going to hell, but he chooses to ignore your warnings, does that give you the right to force him/her to do what you want? Or should that be left up to your god? You have shown him 'the light', he chooses not to follow it, it's not your buisiness anymore. Or everyone must do as you say?

Abortion. Tricky subject.

Again, if a woman chooses to abort, that is her buisiness. Personally, I couldn't see myself supporting that, but who is to say I'm right? If you were to tell me you were going to have an abortion, I'd be the first one to try to talk you out of it. But if you do it anyway, I guess I'll have to accept that I can't change you. I'll accept you as you are, will you not accept me as I am?

[ndigila]

I don't know whether you've read most of this discussion, but anyway, you're defenses are not logical but emotional, which is my point that most free thinkers accept what popular culture tells them without question.

Originally Posted by a.wanjala

I'm not gay, but who is to say homosexuals are not born that way? Were you born heterosexual, or was that a choice? I don't think anyone has experience in the matter. In other words, I can't prove it valid, but I can't prove it 'not-valid' either.

That isn't the issue. You first have to show how homosexuality is natural behavior before saying its okay to be born with it. Kids are born with unnatural conditions all the time yet their parents seek medical and psychiatric help.

Originally Posted by a.wanjala

Consenting adults can do whatever they want as long it doesn't inhibit others ability to do what they want. If, according to you, a homosexual is going to hell, but he chooses to ignore your warnings, does that give you the right to force him/her to do what you want? Or should that be left up to your god? You have shown him 'the light', he chooses not to follow it, it's not your buisiness anymore. Or everyone must do as you say?

You have to show why an adult's decision matters more than his health. And what constitutes an adult because there's 21 year olds who act very immature and there's 16 year olds who act very mature enough to make adult decisions.

Originally Posted by a.wanjala

Abortion. Tricky subject.

Again, if a woman chooses to abort, that is her buisiness. Personally, I couldn't see myself supporting that, but who is to say I'm right? If you were to tell me you were going to have an abortion, I'd be the first one to try to talk you out of it. But if you do it anyway, I guess I'll have to accept that I can't change you. I'll accept you as you are, will you not accept me as I am?

Again, you have to logically show why the adult's decision matters more than the baby's life. Besides, you could easily make the argument that a new-born baby is not yet fully human and justify genocide.

[Type R]

Originally Posted by ndigila

I don't know whether you've read most of this discussion, but anyway, you're defenses are not logical but emotional, which is my point that most free thinkers accept what popular culture tells them without question.

The above statement contains numerous assumptions, wishful conclusions, and demonstrate poor discipline of thought and a crude tendency to generalize and categorize at the expense of a detailed examination of what the respondent actually said!

ndigila: "...your defenses are not logical but emotional..."

Wanjala simply discussed whether homosexuality was in-born, and used heterosexuality as a comparison of choice over one's sexual orientation. Nothing emotional there, since drawing analogies is a logical exercise.

Second paragraph discusses informing vs forcing, and even the Bible says, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." This seems to me simple and straighforward: what right does mature person A have to force mature person B to do anything? Answer the question; do not simply retort that it is emotional.

Wanjala's paragraph on abortion raises the issue of consistency of moral standards. The argument that "I'll accept you as you are, will you not accept me as I am?" is actually based on "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" from the Big Man of the Bible, and not all cultures and religions subscribe to that principle. Free thinkers have actually had a big problem with that tenet.

Conclusion: to impute emotionalism and even free thinking to Wanjala was a bit on the rash side.

[ATLian]

I don't know whether you've read most of this discussion, but anyway, you're defenses are not logical but emotional, which is my point that most free thinkers accept what popular culture tells them without question.

I agree with what Type R says above.

Also, it is completely wrong to say that "most free thinkers accept what popular culture tells them without question" since, by definition, a free thinker is one who accepts what popular culture tells him only after doing some research. Compare that to the theist who accepts what popular culture tells him bila any question.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by Type R

Wanjala simply discussed whether homosexuality was in-born, and used heterosexuality as a comparison of choice over one's sexual orientation. Nothing emotional there, since drawing analogies is a logical exercise.

You missed my point. Being born in a certain condition does not automatically exclude the possibility of it being abnormal behavior.

Originally Posted by Type R

Second paragraph discusses informing vs forcing, and even the Bible says, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." This seems to me simple and straighforward: what right does mature person A have to force mature person B to do anything? Answer the question; do not simply retort that it is emotional.

Maybe because mature person A knows that mature person B is making a choice that's detrimental to his health.
Now, why does an adult's decision matters more than his health? (The only answer I've received so far is "because he's an adult")
What constitutes an adult? The age of 18? Shouldn't a mature 15 year old be allowed to make an adult decision? On the contrary should an immature 21 year old be barred from making decision?

Originally Posted by Type R

Wanjala's paragraph on abortion raises the issue of consistency of moral standards. The argument that "I'll accept you as you are, will you not accept me as I am?" is actually based on "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" from the Big Man of the Bible, and not all cultures and religions subscribe to that principle. Free thinkers have actually had a big problem with that tenet.

The argument "I'll accept you as you are, will you not accept me as I am?" has nothing to do with abortion.