Freethought And Naturalism vs Religion

[steve_bank]

Not unexpectedly there is no singular Naturism or Freethought and both can become ideological. I go by the idea that by definition anything that exists is natural and works according to causal relationships even if we can not deduce them.

If a god like being appears to be able to control or influence our reality as an anology it is just advanced technology, a theme in the original Star Trek series.

For me Frethhought simply means looking at issues without looking trough an ideology. Go by objective fact as much as possible. The polar opposite of polarized politics and religion.

For the theists, how do you square relgious supernaturlism with Naturalism, Freethought, and Raionalism or does it even matter to you? Do yiou believe ad is in every aspect of reality?


If a god created the universe, from what did he make it from?

A reverse Watchmker Argument. If I find a watch made of metal and I have never seen a watch or metal before do I assume the wtach was made from something that already exists or did it just come from nothing?

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In philosophy, naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe.[1]

According to philosopher Steven Lockwood, naturalism can be separated into an ontological sense and a methodological sense.[2] "Ontological" refers to ontology, the philosophical study of what exists. On an ontological level, philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism. For example, philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. This stronger formulation of naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism.[3] On the other hand, the more moderate view that naturalism should be assumed in one's working methods as the current paradigm, without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true in the robust metaphysical sense, is called methodological naturalism.[4]

With the exception of pantheists – who believe that Nature is identical with divinity while not recognizing a distinct personal anthropomorphic god – theists challenge the idea that nature contains all of reality. According to some theists, natural laws may be viewed as secondary causes of God(s).

In the 20th century, Willard Van Orman Quine, George Santayana, and other philosophers argued that the success of naturalism in science meant that scientific methods should also be used in philosophy. According to this view, science and philosophy are not always distinct from one another, but instead form a continuum.

"Naturalism is not so much a special system as a point of view or tendency common to a number of philosophical and religious systems; not so much a well-defined set of positive and negative doctrines as an attitude or spirit pervading and influencing many doctrines. As the name implies, this tendency consists essentially in looking upon nature as the one original and fundamental source of all that exists, and in attempting to explain everything in terms of nature. Either the limits of nature are also the limits of existing reality, or at least the first cause, if its existence is found necessary, has nothing to do with the working of natural agencies. All events, therefore, find their adequate explanation within nature itself. But, as the terms nature and natural are themselves used in more than one sense, the term naturalism is also far from having one fixed meaning".
— Dubray 1911

Welcome to Naturalism.Org | Naturalism.org

www.naturalism.org

Had in hnad with Freethought.

Freethought - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Freethought (sometimes spelled free thought)[1][2][3] is an epistemological viewpoint which holds that beliefs should not be formed on the basis of authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma, and that beliefs should instead be reached by other methods such as logic, reason, and empirical observation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a freethinker is "a person who forms their own ideas and opinions rather than accepting those of other people, especially in religious teaching." In some contemporary thought in particular, free thought is strongly tied with rejection of traditional social or religious belief systems.[3][4] The cognitive application of free thought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of free thought are known as "freethinkers".[3] Modern freethinkers consider free thought to be a natural freedom from all negative and illusive thoughts acquired from society.[5]

The term first came into use in the 17th century in order to refer to people who inquired into the basis of traditional beliefs which were often accepted unquestioningly. Today, freethinking is most closely linked with deism, secularism, humanism, anti-clericalism, and religious critique.[citation needed] The Oxford English Dictionary defines freethinking as, "The free exercise of reason in matters of religious belief, unrestrained by deference to authority; the adoption of the principles of a free-thinker." Freethinkers hold that knowledge should be grounded in facts, scientific inquiry, and logic. The skeptical application of science implies freedom from the intellectually limiting effects of confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, urban myth, prejudice, or sectarianism.[6]

Rationalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In philosophy, rationalism is the epistemological view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge"[1] or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification".[2] More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive".[3]

In an old[4] controversy, rationalism was opposed to empiricism, where the rationalists believed that reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this, the rationalists argued that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists asserted that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction. The rationalists had such a high confidence in reason that empirical proof and physical evidence were regarded as unnecessary to ascertain certain truths – in other words, "there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience".[5]

Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge" to the more extreme position that reason is "the unique path to knowledge".[6] Given a pre-modern understanding of reason, rationalism is identical to philosophy, the Socratic life of inquiry, or the zetetic (skeptical) clear interpretation of authority (open to the underlying or essential cause of things as they appear to our sense of certainty). In recent decades, Leo Strauss sought to revive "Classical Political Rationalism" as a discipline that understands the task of reasoning, not as foundational, but as maieutic.

Theism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of at least one deity.[1][2] In common parlance, or when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of God that is found in monotheism (also referred to as classical theism) — or gods found in polytheistic religions — a belief in God or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism.[3][4] Gnosticism is the belief in personal spiritual knowledge.

Atheism is commonly understood as non-acceptance or rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism, i.e. non-acceptance or rejection of belief in God or gods.[5][6] Related, but separate, is the claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable: agnosticism.[7][8] Combined with theism, is agnostic theism.

 

[SIB]

"free thought" scares me. It implies some people will justify making up anything they want.

How about some limits. Like using only what best matches what we see happing around us. Of course that ends fundy think type atheism and theism. And they will not let the rest of us get away with forming a belief that matches what we see when it doesn't match what they want to be real.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Free thought means not being dogmatic. Not obliga5ed to hold a given religious dogma, or a theological dogma, or philosophical dogma. Free to follow evidence to its logical end, or reason to a logical end. To deny the truth of any claim that is unreasonable or not supported by evidence.

 

[Elixir]

"free thought" scares me. It implies some people will justify making up anything they want.

A mind so open, the brain falls out. The endurance of conspiracy theories is testament to how common it is …

 

[steve_bank]

Free thought means not being dogmatic. Not obliga5ed to hold a given religious dogma, or a theological dogma, or philosophical dogma. Free to follow evidence to its logical end, or reason to a logical end. To deny the truth of any claim that is unreasonable or not supported by evidence.

Like anything else it ca be carried to an extreme. For me it is a general way of looking at things.

Objective pros and cons as opposed to the absurd political polarization. The left rages about assault weapons, yet the vast majority of gun violence is with handguns.

It is not possible to be completely free from the influence of a dogma, but it can be minimized. We all nave subjective opinions and bias.

With some atheists on the forum having a pro con benifit vs side effercts dicussion on relgion is impossinle.

 

[bilby]

It is not possible to be completely free from the influence of a dogma,

That's directly contradicting your earlier statement:

Like anything else it ca be carried to an extreme.

Free thought is defined as "Thought free from dogma", so if free thought could be carried to an extreme, that would imply being completely free from the influence of a dogma.

This apparent contradiction suggests to me that you are using an idiosyncratic definition of free thought that is starkly different from the definition typically used by this discussion board, and which was defined clearly by the board back when "Freethought" was a part of its very name.

In other words, your objections to carrying the idea to an extreme, appear to stem from the use of an equivocation fallacy, between "free thought" as we all understand it, and some unspoken and unspecified meaning you are unreasonably imputing to the term.

You are, in fact, attempting to undermine freethinking, by falsely asserting that "extreme free thought" exists, and is just as bad as extremism in other categories of thought - a Tu Quoque argument that you are supporting on behalf of religious opponents of freethinking, whether or mot you understand that this is what you're doing.

 

[Politesse]

Because of the little typo in sentence one, I was already composing a passionate argument for more naturist freethinkers before I caught on to what the thread was actually about. Darn, naked time is more fun than philosophy time!

 

[steve_bank]

The value of a PHD.....

 

[WAB]

Because of the little typo in sentence one, I was already composing a passionate argument for more naturist freethinkers before I caught on to what the thread was actually about. Darn, naked time is more fun than philosophy time!

Let's talk about naturism instead...

 

[bilby]

Because of the little typo in sentence one, I was already composing a passionate argument for more naturist freethinkers before I caught on to what the thread was actually about. Darn, naked time is more fun than philosophy time!

Let's talk about naturism instead...

Yeah, that's more entertaining than naturalism, no matter how much you dress it up...

 

[Bomb#20]

How about just nature vs religion?



Happy Easter!