This week’s “Highland Views” column (published in selected local newspapers in the USA Today network this weekend) digs a little deeper into this practice, or identity, or outlook we call “Freethinking.” Who is a genuine freethinker? Can a religious person be a freethinker? Was Jesus of Nazareth a freethinker? What does a freethinker say when people make extraordinary claims?
Here’s a brief excerpt:
“A freethinker doesn’t say religious faith has no value and should disappear from human society. Freethought is an educational process continually open to more information and fresh viewpoints. Freethinkers are unafraid of diverse opinions. The central intention is to seek for truthfulness and what leads to ethical living. We need good sense and an inquisitive nature in the pursuit of knowledge. It’s essential to face any and all claims wisely, rationally, with a healthy amount of empathy.”
Read the full column in the e-edition of the Citizen-Times this weekend, or posted here later.
Friendly Freethinker 
“A freethinker doesn’t say religious faith has no value and should disappear from human society.”
why not when it demonstrably does harm?
Theist or atheist, if a belief or activity causes harm, a reasonable person would speak up. Some religious beliefs can be harmful, others can be beneficial.
Which ones are beneficial that can’t be gotten from some other source?
and unsurprisngly, atheists have often spoken up about the harms of religion repeatedly.
I think we’ve gone on this merry go round before. Since you have chose a harmful identity– “pleasure, joy, or self-satisfaction that comes from learning of or witnessing the troubles, failures, pain, or humiliation of another”–I don’t think we have much to discuss. That has nothing to do with freethinking, only free-harming and atheist evangelism.
For what it’s worth, I’ll refer you to the latest PEW Research report on “Nones” (“Some “nones” have a very negative view of religion, but “nones” on the whole express mixed views rather than outright hostility. Most say religion causes a variety of problems in society – like intolerance or superstition. But many “nones” also say that religion helps give people meaning and purpose, and that it can encourage people to treat each other well”–https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2024/01/24/religious-nones-in-america-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/).
If you would actually learn abut me, I qualify schadenfreude with the harm people cause themselves.
You seem unable to give any good that religion does that can’t be gotten from some other source. One can get meaning and purpose from many other places than religions thta depend on inventing an “us” and “them” to declare their superiority.
Hard to learn about someone who cloaks their identity, especially behind a disrespectful, and harmful term. As a humanist, I am less concerned with the “source” of ethical behavior, than with the results. I find fundamentalist atheism as harmful as religious fundamentalism. Both assert arrogant authority and superiority with little interest in freethought.
I know how vicious theists can be, so of course I keep my identity low key. If you really want to know who I am, you can figure it out with what i’ve revealed on my blog.
it is not a harmful term, and it is not disrespectful. Respect is earned.
so, what is “fundamentalist atheism”? and do show how it can cause harm. Just where have I,or anyone else, shown “arrogant autthority and superiority”? I’s notable that you claim I am not interested in freethought when you make false claimsm about me.
You still haven’t shown anything beneficial that one can get from religion that can’t be gotten somewhere else, without the genocidal baggage.
If you haven’t seen anything good in our world, where billions live with a wide diversity of faiths, I find that sad, and I can’t help. As a freethinker, I’ve never found it productive to get drawn into debates with evangelists of any kind.
Thank you as always, Chris!!
I am totally with your stance… while (& if I’ve mentioned this before, just disregard this paragraph!) a few years ago I realized I needed to drop “freethinker” from my moniker — because my thinking isn’t absolutely free — I’m dependent on the culture and language I grew up in, plus those I’ve added over the years. This has become more and more apparent as I’ve been trying lately to understand what Panikkar means by non-dual, or “advaitic.” My brain just doesn’t seem to be wired that way, but I’m trying to “get it” : )
What a pleasure your posts are!!!!!!!!!
Deep gratitude
Elizabeth the Pancompassionist [formerly Pancompassionist Freethinker : ) …. who knows what’s next!!]
Got ya, Elizabeth. And isn’t it great to be free to identify any way we choose!
I tend toward Susan Jacoby’s definition of freethought in her book on Freethinkers:
“Often defined as a total absence of faith in God, freethought can better be understood as a phenomenon running the gamut from the truly anti-religious—those who regarded all religion as a form of superstition and wished to reduce its influence in every aspect of society—to those who adhered to a private, unconventional faith revering some form of God or Providence but at odds with orthodox religious authority.”
A balanced, reasonable description that makes sense to me.
mmmm… this is making me realize that I seem back in my early days of taking words literally! Checking also with Dr. Google, I’m realizing (what seems obvious!) that “freethinker” describes a specific philosophical tradition. Oops! Now, more to mull : )
Yes!!!!! The freedom to explore is one of the greatest treasures! Lead on!!!