This is a continuation from a previous posting
Being a purist freethinker is EXTREMELY difficult, if not impossible. In my opinion you absolutely cannot be a 100% freethinker 100% of the time, and I normally do not speak in absolutes. Some may disagree with me, and I think that is fine. I am not one to get offended so easily by such a determined personality. I am of the opinion that humans are an emotional animal. Emotions sometimes, but not always, lead to conclusions that ignore science, rationality, logic, and reason. Emotions sometimes, but not always, lead to conclusions that support or are supported by tradition, dogma, fallacy, and authoritative arguments.
FACT: Saying the word "fact" does not mean that the information spewed after said word is actually factual.
FACT: Humans are emotional.
The human condition will ALWAYS be a factor when dealing with anything spawned from humanity. Language, definitions, inventions. So try as you may, your brain is not a computer. Who created computers? Humans. No matter how true the logic and science is behind such devices are, they STILL have the human condition built into them, by humans, for humans. If I am wrong, then why do I have to keep upgrading software and hardware? So keep trying to be Mr. Spock all you want. Last I checked Mr. Spock and his "Logic only" brain is merely a fictional invention of humanity. Back in the 1960's no less. Being a freethinker DOES NOT mean being a cool, although fictional human creation. Being a freethinker, in my opinion, means accepting things that may ultimately be uncomfortable to you; The good chance that you (and every other human) is more than likely wrong in most of their conclusions. A good chance that you may possibly waste your entire life away believing and encouraging these wrong conclusions as well, as history shows many well meaning scientists and proponents of then popular yet currently failed religious beliefs fighting hard to defend something they honestly consider to be fact, only to be proven incorrect by another scientist/populist from a later generation. Human moods swing, and that is the warning sign.
Freethought is not a "black or white" deffinition. It is a relative statement. I do not want you to read into my introduction to freethought something that I do not mean for you to misinterpret. Science, logic, and reason are good tools. The reason why I say this is because they TRY to extend beyond the human condition of bias and petty emotionalism. Yes, the tools are a product of humanity, and have been shown to have the typical flaws of such other human creations, yet their concepts INSIST that such flaws be corrected to reflect that which is BEYOND humanity. Why? Because one scientist may propose something that drastically counters with the deeply held beliefs of another scientist. Both wish to be right, so they both try to present evidence to prove the other wrong. The machinery has been designed to encourage a common ground of utilitarianism. Ingrained within its very machinery, although human made, Science is a source that pushes those who understand the tools to question and self correct the machine. This is a huge difference from traditional, authoritative, and dogmatic machinery that insists blind devotion and obedience in the face of little and sometimes zero change. Plainly put, Freethought IS Science, logic, and reason. Freethought is cold, calculating and sometimes depressing when it conflicts with the human condition.
But what does this mean? The idea that science is a human invention, yet beyond humanity? Does the apparent absurity in this mean that we should stop trying? I say "no". As absurd as the human condition may be in the face of dark and cold reality would I ever suggest nihilism to be the "norm" for society. By all means, keep trying. Keep asking good questions of others and most especially yourself. The curse of Sisyphus may be ingrained in the human condition, trapped within an absurd cycle of renewing our world views ad absurdum. Giving up is not an option with such a heavy burden in front of us.
Blogged by JEREMY
What the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't mention is the Rationalist philosophy evident in “Till Eulenspiegels Merry Pranks.”