When some good frens told me they are freethinkers, I jokingly ask "Free from what?"
If I think belief in God(s) is irrational, I'm by necessity shackled to believe that the majority of humankind are essentially wrong-headed... and their religions mere delusions or distortions of man-made ideals. They would do well to keep their private delusions to themselves or risk derision for 'imposing their morality' publicly.
Well, as a Christian, I don't need to condescendingly think they are all rubbish. I'm free to think that all religions contain valuable truths - ie the pantheists' reverence for nature, the buddhists' tolerance, the Muslim's commitent to truth etc. I do believe they got things wrong also just as I critique my own version of Christianity from time to time.
But I invite public discourse of their views in an open forum, without relegating them to the demands of naturalistic scientism. (Only what science can prove is valid)
Notice: It's naturalism as a philosophy I'm putting to task, not science as empirical inquiry per se, since most founders of the scientific movement are theists of Judaeo-Christian tradition. I hope the difference is clear)
Isn't that actually more intellectually and existentially fulfilling... and freer?
If I think belief in God(s) is irrational, I'm by necessity shackled to believe that the majority of humankind are essentially wrong-headed... and their religions mere delusions or distortions of man-made ideals. They would do well to keep their private delusions to themselves or risk derision for 'imposing their morality' publicly.
Well, as a Christian, I don't need to condescendingly think they are all rubbish. I'm free to think that all religions contain valuable truths - ie the pantheists' reverence for nature, the buddhists' tolerance, the Muslim's commitent to truth etc. I do believe they got things wrong also just as I critique my own version of Christianity from time to time.
But I invite public discourse of their views in an open forum, without relegating them to the demands of naturalistic scientism. (Only what science can prove is valid)
Notice: It's naturalism as a philosophy I'm putting to task, not science as empirical inquiry per se, since most founders of the scientific movement are theists of Judaeo-Christian tradition. I hope the difference is clear)
Isn't that actually more intellectually and existentially fulfilling... and freer?
Comments