tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

Humanism vs. Freethought

What is actually in consideration is Epsteinian Humanism vs. Barkerian Freethought.

Greg Epstein, who is “perhaps the most outspoken voice for humanism in the United States” has stated:

No humanist will accept authority for authority’s sake. It’s not in our makeup. If anyone came up and said, “This is the rule, this is the humanist dogma, and I can tell you based on my authority what the creed is,” we’d throw them out with the trash. There’s a difference between building a community and building an atheist regime.1

Dan Barker, of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has set out dogma for his adherents:

No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.

This, the Barkerian, sect of Freethough is thought which is contained within a narrowly defined parameter of assertions, presuppositions and anathemas. You may imagine that the restrictions placed upon the thinking of Freethinkers are valid since they deal with religious issues, but they are restrictions of thought nonetheless. I detailed this further in my essay Freethought Without Forethought?

Moreover, when it comes to morality dogma reigns again,

Individuals are free to choose, within the limits of humanistic morality. [emphasis added]

Thus, Epsteinian Humanism dogmatically rejects dogma and Barkerian Freethought dogmatically restricts thought.


Posted

in

by

Tags: