Is "Freethinker" Synonymous with Nontheist?: "At this point, I can imagine the reaction of most nontheists: 'I agree with you that a theist can be a freethinker, but a theist would have to be liberal in order to be a freethinker. An Evangelical Christian definitely could not be a freethinker.' According to this line of argument, an Evangelical Christian is someone who accepts (among other things) the inspiration of Scripture, including its passages which have implications for the epistemology of the believer. Thus, Evangelical Christians are supposed to 'Lean not on [their] own understanding' (Proverbs 3:5) and 'take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ' (2 Cor. 10:5).[2] This point is well-taken. Anyone who attempts to obey Biblical passages such as these cannot be a freethinker, though a person as a freethinker could become an Evangelical Christian (and, ironically, cease to be a freethinker)."
.../... Freethought is an epistemology, one that is incompatible with an Evangelical worldview.
That Evangelicals cannot be freethinkers is confirmed by leading Evangelical scholars themselves. For example, in addressing the 'problem' of doubt, theologian William Lane Craig writes:
It is unbiblical to think of doubt as a virtue; to the contrary, doubt is always portrayed in the Scriptures as something detrimental to spiritual life. Doubt never builds up; it always destroys.[3]
========================
.../... end/ [7] I am well aware that I have been writing about "freethought" (1 word) whereas Russell was discussing "free thought" (2 words). But I deny that there is (or should be) a distinction between the two terms; it is too awkward. For if we maintain there is such a distinction, imagine having to say the following sentence in conversation:
A theist can be a "free thinker" about the existence of God but not a "freethinker."
I submit that this is precisely the sort of semantical quibbling that has given nontheists a bad name. We should therefore treat "free thought" and "freethought" as synonymous.
[9] However, even if one defines 'freethinker' so as to allow theists, there is a deeper, epistemological issue that needs to be explored: namely, whether reason is the only adequate grounds for belief. As Daniel Howard-Snyder pointed out in private correspondence, a belief may be justified on some other basis than reason and yet not conflict with reason. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) definition of 'freethinker' rules out such justification; in contrast, the CFA definition seems to allow the possibility that experience is a source of warranted, justified belief. This is a significant point because many theists base their religious beliefs on perceptual evidence, not reason.
//////////////////////
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=346
Miracles From the Darkness: Medicine and Prayer
...or Where Have All the Scientists Gone?
by Gil Gaudia
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish ..."
- David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
--------
Good Morning America commentator (among others), who stated, "A new study on the power of prayer over pregnancy reports surprising results ..."[3]
When it was eventually discovered that this study (and its three lead investigators and writers) were frauds, this hoax had already been frequently reported on by the print media, including The New York Times and newspapers worldwide. I am not aware of any retractions or corrections by the aforementioned "scientific reporters," although there may well have been. Columbia University has been accused of "covering up" the hoax, and Dr. Bruce Flamm, a leading critic of the Columbia University study, is--understandably--indignant. He says:
In my opinion, the cover-up continues. The amazing results of the absurd study will remain posted on the JRM Internet site to be cited by others as strong scientific evidence for the supernatural healing power of distant prayer. This is a scientific atrocity.[4]
Here is an example of the ferocious power of fanaticism, akin to that of anti-West Muslim antagonists, and as such it must be thwarted from invading the domain of science.
Even if this study had not been fabricated, its legitimacy would nevertheless be questionable. The researchers would eventually have had to connect their results in theory with other known and accepted biological, chemical and physical laws.[5] Otherwise--even if replicated many times--it would still have to be considered "miraculous" and thereby be subject to David Hume's admonition, "no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish ..."[6] which is why the Columbia study is relegated to the trash bin of science.
.../....
Science and its most important applied profession, medicine, seem to be succumbing to a tsunami of irrational thinking that is threatening to drown the country. The trigger seems to have been the destruction of the World Trade Center towers, and the fear, grief and need for comfort that accompanied it. But whenever it began, supernatural zeal, in all of its manifestations, is reaching tidal-wave proportions in the United States.
.../... ...Prayer is being touted as the great cure-all, now sadly even by some scientists and "medical experts" including psychologists, who in deference to the pressures from the religious right, proclaim that prayer aids in healing or longevity. Since many intelligent and rational people pray, perhaps it is possible for them to explain to a skeptic like me how it all works.
The scientific community should shed its image as timid, professorial thinkers and become militant vocal advocates of sanity who have had enough nonsense from theistic extremists who believe that the systematic universe of Newton-Galileo-Einstein is controlled by the bearded guy-in-the-sky who operates on whimsy. Superstition in all its forms, and that includes religion, has no place in science or scientific studies, especially medical studies.
Theists claim knowledge of and access to a supernatural world outside of the legitimate domain of science, which is the natural world. They claim that the forces and materials of the natural world are subordinate to and cannot affect this "other world"; cannot understand this unnatural or supernatural world; yet they demand that their world's processes be allowed to cross the barrier--in both directions (e.g., prayer)--to influence and change the material phenomena of our natural world. They cannot have it both ways. Either empirical methods apply or they don't, and if they do not then why are empiricists trying to investigate nonempirical matters?
The answer was posited half a millennium ago by Desiderius Erasmus, "They are looking in utter darkness for that which has no existence whatsoever."
Notes:
[1] Lundberg, G.D., "Evidence Based Medicine Or Faith Based Medicine?" Medscape General Medicine, 2004, December 10
[2] Cha, K.Y., Wirth, D.P, Lobo, R.A., "Does Prayer Influence the Success of In Vitro Fertilization-embryo transfer?" Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 2001; 46:781-787
[3] Johnson, T., "Praying For Pregnancy: Study Says Prayer Helps Women Get Pregnant," ABC Television Good Morning America, October 4, 2001
[4] Flamm, B.L., "Faith healing by prayer: Review of Cha, K.Y.; Wirth, D.P.; Lobo, R.A.; 'Does prayer influence the success of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer?'" Sci Review Alt Med, 2002; 6(1):47-50.
[5] Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C., Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Boston, MA Houghton Mifflin Co., 1963
[6] Hume, David, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902, pp. 114-116
[7] The Bible, Matt 12:40
[8] The Bible, Mark 8:31
[9] McKinsey, C.D., The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, Prometheus Books, pp. 89-95 (For discussion of numerous Biblical references of resurrections that occurred before and after Jesus.)
How to cope?
(Score:4, Insightful)(http://www.sglider.net/)