Freedom of thought

Higher thought processes are intrinsic to what makes us human. The ability to gain knowledge and experiences, and to apply this to our lives. Rightly so, freedom of thought has been formally institutionalised as a universal human right.

Intrinsically related to freedom of thought, is our freedom of expression. The right to convey the myriad of thoughts one may conjure in their lifetime.

However when freedom of thought and expression confront the status quo, and those of authority who wish to maintain it, they may be suppressed.

Although in the modern world, at least in the Western world, the authority of the multiple organised religions over the lives of its peoples is waning, throughout recorded history religion has had a prominent hold on the world and people's lives.

The freedom of thought and expression are essential to freedom of religion, from an external viewpoint. The former freedoms are vital to the allowance of the latter. But within a religion, are they valued? Are they promoted? Within an organised religion how do you think freedom of thought and expression come into play, both in the here-and-now, and the past?

Freedom of thought in organised religion does not exist, nor it is valued.

Freedom of thought in organised religion means its collapse and loss of control over the followers. That is why blind faith is required, as opposed to believing and following based on unrderstanding.

It is undobtedly true, that provided that religion was, a personal matter, as opoosed to communial and global, the religion would not be an issue at all, or a subject for debate.

For example -

Jewish people are very community orientated.
Christians are also - but they also have some global aspects. Due to reformation of Christianity, much of this is not evident anylonger.
Muslims are very global orientated - an ideology affecting anyone who is in a minority (as well as majority).

It is then naive to think that ''one true path'' ''God's chosen people'' and all the rest of the names which religions attribute to themselves are so out of overinflated egos, but out of their own insecurities.

As most of us know - truth is a pathless land. Freedom of thought allows us to recognise and embrace this, and it would not, at any rate, allow that for the followers of any strict organised religion.

I agree with lil b. Freedom only exists outside of organised religion. A free religion is an oxymoron.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The freedom of thought and expression are essential to freedom of religion, from an external viewpoint. The former freedoms are vital to the allowance of the latter. But [b]within a religion, are they valued? Are they promoted? Within an organised religion how do you think freedom of thought and expression come into play, both in the here-and-now, and the past? [/B]

Yes, freedom of thought are valued and promoted within a religion (I don't really understand what you mean about "organized religion"; like, the Catholic church's rule in the past?).

Those who say otherwise are wrong. Those who demonstrate otherwise are fools.

Since I'm assuming this is mostly directed at Christianity, I'll talk about that.

Paul specifically tells us to test everything to see if it is truth. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we should relinquish our freedom of thought. Granted, we are taught that what is written in the Bible is truth, but we are not told not to think. And...I'm not sure what else to say.

The very idea of freedom is deceiving. If we were completely free, we'd be living in anarchy, which isn't the riot-and-fire stuff most people imagine, but simply a lack of organized control.

In an enlightened society, such freedom would be fine, but in reality it would collapse into negative chaos.

So control, whether governmental, societal, media-related, or religious is still control....just in different guises, and we're all affected by it. Not having a religion doesn't imply "freedom" in a total sense.

Many proposed solutions, then, are to realize that the extrinsic world is secondary to one's inner self, and to relinquish desire for extrinsic control...and by doing so, acheive actual freedom.

Of course, freedom also implies choice and/or free will, which is directly opposed to many traditions that believed in conditioned reality or absolute pre-destination. Even the idea of freedom, in such schools of thought, is not removed from the causes which preceded it, thus making the whole discussion rather difficult.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The very idea of freedom is deceiving. If we were completely free, we'd be living in anarchy, which isn't the riot-and-fire stuff most people imagine, but simply a lack of organized control.

In an enlightened society, such freedom would be fine, but in reality it would collapse into negative chaos.

So control, whether governmental, societal, media-related, or religious is still control....just in different guises, and we're all affected by it. Not having a religion doesn't imply "freedom" in a total sense.

Many proposed solutions, then, are to realize that the extrinsic world is secondary to one's inner self, and to relinquish desire for extrinsic control...and by doing so, acheive actual freedom.

Of course, freedom also implies choice and/or free will, which is directly opposed to many traditions that believed in conditioned reality or absolute pre-destination. Even the idea of freedom, in such schools of thought, is not removed from the causes which preceded it, thus making the whole discussion rather difficult.

Great post. One could also make the argument that all ideologies fall under the religious category. But that's a different debate altogether.

I'd direct everyone to humanity's first sin: Eating from the tree of knowledge. With knowledge and self awareness comes expulsion from paradise.

However, if someone wants to look at this like a metaphore, rather than factual retelling of actual events, then you can view it as many of our modern problems are a direct result of no longer being animals in the strict sense of the term. Look at your dogs. They don't wear clothes or harvest grain or invent the wheel or create philosophy and mathematics. In the wild, they are driven by instinct and procreation. They don't concern themselves with thoughts of an afterlife, they exist in a blissful ignorance. So, it is really a metaphore for the burden of self-awareness in my opinion. Self-awareness and self-explaination.

But, for those who take it as a literal retelling of actual events, they have chosen the path of ignorant bliss. So, in that respect, yes, it does remove freedom of thought.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Freedom of thought in organised religion does not exist, nor it is valued.

Freedom of thought in organised religion means its collapse and loss of control over the followers. That is why blind faith is required, as opposed to believing and following based on unrderstanding.

It is undobtedly true, that provided that religion was, a personal matter, as opoosed to communial and global, the religion would not be an issue at all, or a subject for debate.

For example -

Jewish people are very community orientated.
Christians are also - but they also have some global aspects. Due to reformation of Christianity, much of this is not evident anylonger.
Muslims are very global orientated - an ideology affecting anyone who is in a minority (as well as majority).

It is then naive to think that ''one true path'' ''God's chosen people'' and all the rest of the names which religions attribute to themselves are so out of overinflated egos, but out of their own insecurities.

As most of us know - truth is a pathless land. Freedom of thought allows us to recognise and embrace this, and it would not, at any rate, allow that for the followers of any strict organised religion.

Originally posted by FeceMan
It's a decent thread; must be a trap.

Yes, freedom of thought are valued and promoted within a religion (I don't really understand what you mean about "organized religion"; like, the Catholic church's rule in the past?).

Those who say otherwise are wrong. Those who demonstrate otherwise are fools.

Since I'm assuming this is mostly directed at Christianity, I'll talk about that.

Paul specifically tells us to test everything to see if it is truth. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we should relinquish our freedom of thought. Granted, we are taught that what is written in the Bible is truth, but we are not told not to think. And...I'm not sure what else to say.

"Those who say otherwise are wrong. Those who demonstrate otherwise are fools."
If the religious is representative of the religion, this comment somewhat belies the intent of the post.

Therein lies the problem: when telling one to test everything to discern truth - who's truth is one referring to? In a religion the truth is that according to a religious precept - one is deferring to external authority, on some matters entirely.

Darwin and the Origin of Species were attacked (and still are) fervently by religious contemporaries, as their truth was that man was created on the 6th day as is. And of course this would "reduce" humans to the level of just another animal, which was preposterous as man was made in god's image.

In a more modern context, on many social issues many religious people defer to the views of their religious texts and leaders unwaveringly.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Darwin and the Origin of Species were attacked (and still are) fervently by religious contemporaries

to the point where they actually made up the story of him recanting his beliefs at the eleventh hour before his death.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I'd direct everyone to humanity's first sin: Eating from the tree of knowledge. With knowledge and self awareness comes expulsion from paradise.

However, if someone wants to look at this like a metaphore, rather than factual retelling of actual events, then you can view it as many of our modern problems are a direct result of no longer being animals in the strict sense of the term. Look at your dogs. They don't wear clothes or harvest grain or invent the wheel or create philosophy and mathematics. In the wild, they are driven by instinct and procreation. They don't concern themselves with thoughts of an afterlife, they exist in a blissful ignorance. So, it is really a metaphore for the burden of self-awareness in my opinion. Self-awareness and self-explaination.

But, for those who take it as a literal retelling of actual events, they have chosen the path of ignorant bliss. So, in that respect, yes, it does remove freedom of thought.

Well, that's only one possible interpretation of the story of the Fall, and I'd honestly disagree with it. The original meaning of the tree, both in Christian and older traditions, was that of 'knowledge of good and evil', not just of knowledge in general, so the metaphor is one of learning the nature of duality, rather than "being one" with the divine aspect of all existence. It really has little to do with self awareness. Adam and Eve were aware of themselves, they just weren't aware of their differences (thus their shame when they realized they were naked).

Of course, this is simply another opinion, but I think comparing the state before the Fall with that of a dog is a bit simplistic, and it denies the larger meaning of the metaphor.

...sorry to get off track.

It's actually not that far off track, at least imo. The Fall to me has always seemed an allegory against defiance against "the word of god" i.e. those people of religious authority. Similar to Lucifer's story, to defy the word of those in power, to seek to put yourself on equal footing, is sacrilegious and will result in punishment. It can be extended to an allegory telling that thinking ideas that contradict those of the religious elite, and expressing those ideas is wrong.

Yes, but I'm not addressing how it was originally meant to be understood. We have moved past bronze age paranoia and fear. And modern christians should start looking at the biblical stories as fiction meant to guide you through life, not as actual events to be taken literally. They figured out they were naked and got embarassed. That's one of the things I'm addressing. And the knowledge of good and evil are examples of knowledge in general. Good and Evil are concepts. Do you think that lion considers itself evil? No, it's gotta kill that deer to feed itself, its young, the pride. Do you think the deer consideres itself good? The story of Adam and Eve are just another interpretation of a much older archetype. So, my interpretation is not meant to address adam and eve, but teh basic story represented in a variety of creation myths. I look at it through achems razor.

For every step forward, there is one step we loose at the beginning.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It's actually not that far off track, at least imo. The Fall to me has always seemed an allegory against defiance against "the word of god" i.e. those people of religious authority. Similar to Lucifer's story, to defy the word of those in power, to seek to put yourself on equal footing, is sacrilegious and will result in punishment. It can be extended to an allegory telling that thinking ideas that contradict those of the religious elite, and expressing those ideas is wrong.

You know my opinion on religion. It is a personal thing. The moment it becomes a matter of the masses, it has failed those who follow it. So there's little point in me repeating myself again and again. Organized religion is a distraction from human progression. However, if you want to subscribe to it, then perhaps looking at the situation as I stated in my first post is a more reasonable and conducive manner in which progress and faith can both be accommodated.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Yes, but I'm not addressing how it was originally meant to be understood. We have moved past bronze age paranoia and fear. And modern christians should start looking at the biblical stories as fiction meant to guide you through life, not as actual events to be taken literally. They figured out they were naked and got embarassed. That's one of the things I'm addressing. And the knowledge of good and evil are examples of knowledge in general. Good and Evil are concepts. Do you think that lion considers itself evil? No, it's gotta kill that deer to feed itself, its young, the pride. Do you think the deer consideres itself good? The story of Adam and Eve are just another interpretation of a much older archetype. So, my interpretation is not meant to address adam and eve, but teh basic story represented in a variety of creation myths. I look at it through achems razor.

For every step forward, there is one step we loose at the beginning.

Well, at least you and I are in agreement that Christian myth should be taken metaphorically rather than literally.

But good and evil simply represent duality in the story. Duality is the "one" broken into "the many." Light/dark, good/evil, male/female, even things like language and naming things....all contributes to division of the totality of existence. This is the knowledge given.

The point is to realize that the division is false. Good and evil don't exist as we traditionally perceive them. God placed 2 cherubim at the gates of Eden in the story, represent the duality. To re-enter paradise we must walk between the guardians (metaphoric for becoming one with the father, the "atonement" (at-one-ment) with the father that Jesus experiences). Walking between them is seeing God in everything, and seeing all as one.

You are right to look to nature (with the lion and such) to find a more primal aspect of the truth. But it's deeper than that. The lion is one with the animal it kills. Life sustains life universally. God is sacrificed to himself in this manner (like Jesus to the Father).

...

The story is often construed as a parable about obeying God. This is unfortunate, because it uses common Christian fear tactics all while losing the central meaning of the story.

I appreciate that. And once I think of a way to explain it to everyone in a manner they'll understand, because I'm clearly not expressing myself correctly, I'll do so.

I'm not talking about the specific christian myth. I'm talking about where these creation stories come from in regards to how they exist for all religions. Religion is as old as modern man, maybe older. Don't get caught up in my example being judaeo-christian specific.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Those who say otherwise are wrong. Those who demonstrate otherwise are fools."
If the religious is representative of the religion, this comment somewhat belies the intent of the post.

Therein lies the problem: when telling one to test everything to discern truth - who's truth is one referring to? In a religion the truth is that according to a religious precept - one is deferring to external authority, on some matters entirely.

Darwin and the Origin of Species were attacked (and still are) fervently by religious contemporaries, as their truth was that man was created on the 6th day as is. And of course this would "reduce" humans to the level of just another animal, which was preposterous as man was made in god's image.

In a more modern context, on many social issues many religious people defer to the views of their religious texts and leaders unwaveringly.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I'd direct everyone to humanity's first sin: Eating from the tree of knowledge. With knowledge and self awareness comes expulsion from paradise.

Originally posted by FeceMan
It was not the "knowledge" that damned them but the act itself.

Nah.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Nah.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Many people may demonstrate it, but Christianity does not require that we adhere to the beliefs of the religious leaders. However, standing by what is written in the Bible as being truth does not mean we are not allowed to have free thought.

It was not the "knowledge" that damned them but the act itself.

Yes and no... If you listen to any religious roller who takes the Bible literally, they will say that everything you need to know about Christianity has already been written and one not need think outside the box. Every time I have heard a priest or preacher speak, they do not leave room for interpretation or free thought, it boils to "it is written, so this is how it is." period.

So as Xmarksthespot posted the question, I do not see how one could have free thought and follow the Bible within the boundaries of religion if Christianity is the Bible itself. (?) Same goes for Islam as the Qur'an is Islam or any other main stream religion.

Originally posted by FeceMan
It was not the "knowledge" that damned them but the act itself.

I was thinking metaphorically. So, it was really free will that screwed them over. Which I think is kind of X's point.