I recently saw an advertisement for a student group here on campus that said, “Don’t believe in God? Neither do we! Individuals for Freethought.” According to the group’s Web site, Freethought is “thinking without the restraints of religious dogma, revelation, authoritarianism, tradition or prejudice.”
To be a freethinker, one must reject these things. The group claims “freethinkers use reason and science to form their own conclusions about morality and the nature of the universe.” To make the position clear, the site says Freethought is different from free thought in that Freethought is “a historical tradition of thought and discourse that traces primarily back to the Enlightenment and combines free thought with doubt or disbelief regarding supernatural views, particularly traditional religions,” whereas free thought is merely “critical reflection” and “many reflective people are free thinkers in this sense, including many religious believers.”
The main premise of this group is hopelessly illogical. The group that claims to reject dogma, in fact, has a dogma of its own. The members declare that to be a Freethinker, one must subscribe to the idea that dogmas are merely a “restraint” on coming to “conclusions about morality and the nature of the universe.” What good, then, is the group? It depends on a dogma to restrain members, and then decries the restraint of dogmas.
In the FAQ section of its Web site is yet another fallacy. The group claims on the main page that “tradition” is another “restraint” on those who are not members of the group. However, as quoted earlier, the group tell us that Freethought itself is a “historical tradition.” Tradition and dogma are not wrong in and of themselves. If they are true, why should one not give them intellectual assent?
On the issue of using reason to come to conclusions, I think it’s important to note that reason alone can never be sufficient. Using reason to prove that reason can lead someone to truth is a circular argument. A person must have faith that reason can lead him or her to the truth.
I am a strict Catholic. I believe all dogmas held and taught by the Catholic Church. Also, I accept Darwin’s theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory, a theory put forth by a Catholic priest named Monsignor Georges-Henri Lemaitre. I harbor no hatred toward the members of other religious sects or schools of thought. I might disagree with other people, but I defend their right to disagree. However, I am no philosophical relativist. I believe that there is an objective Truth. I believe Catholic dogmas because they are firmly based on both faith and reason. I do not believe them because I have been told to or because I am incapable of understanding other views.
My religious beliefs and my views on science are not in contradiction. I prefer to let science describe science and theology describe theology. Science does not intend to describe morality; therefore to ask science to do so is a moot point. In the same way, theology and philosophy do not intend to describe the physical world; to ask this of theology and philosophy is asking something outside of their scopes.
Be critical of the things you read and hear. Analyze the beliefs of groups you are considering joining and your beliefs. Discuss your views with others, and if another person’s viewpoint holds up to a rigorous logical test, consider adopting it.
No one should be forced to believe anything. Exercise your ability as an individual to think freely.
Levi Russell is a senior in economics. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.
