It is NOT what you believe. It is how one believes. In accepting a hypothesis in science or a paradigm in engineering we believe. But that belief is NOT SACRED. The point of the belief is to test for verifiable reality in science and to actualize according to plan in engineering. There is a "belief" in the inevitable realization of a work of art. In non of these is belief the point. It is part of the method. Belief binds the mind when it becomes an arbitrary faith to live by.
http://niggerwise.com On Nov 3, 9:52 pm, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm still thinking about Jeffery Lowder's essay. I looked at his > logic in the last thread and found it convincing. A freethinker can > (in theory) be a theist as long as he uses the epistemology of > freethought to arrive at his belief. As Bertrand Russell said, "What > makes a free thinker is not his beliefs, but the way in which he holds > them." The criticisms have (so far) been beside the point or > addressed in the assumptions of the argument. > > So much for logic and theory, but surely there are practical limits to > what a freethinker can believe, right? Evangelical Christians are not > freethinkers, as Lowder admits. Mind you, this is *not* because they > believe in God. It's because they have adopted a different > epistemology - one that includes faith and subjugation of the mind. > > Besides, the arguments for a deity are "played." Any legitimate > rationale for God would surely have been discovered by now. The only > appropriate conclusion appears to be non-theism in some form. > Technically, we should remain open to new evidence, but practically > such evidence would be regarded with considerable skepticism. > > But think of it this way. Freethought (in practice) is pragmatic, > interactive, skeptical and tentative in its conclusions. Like > science, it takes human fallibility seriously. It is (practically) a > foregone conclusion that all of us hold some false beliefs which we > think are true. The only hope of weeding out (some of) those false > beliefs is to remain engaged in freethought - admitting we might be > wrong, interacting with other freethinkers, practicing critical > thinking, etc. > > It is this engagement that makes us freethinkers. > > So, yes, as long as the theist is playing the game in good faith, I > have no problem calling him a freethinker. Anything else would be > impractical - even a little hypocritical. For me, at least. > > http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder1.html > > Aaron --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
