Good morning, Had2.

I had a detailed response and then...my computer just...flubbed. Some days, I really dislike this thing. So, I'll try again.

The author opens with a characterization of those who:

 abandoning the religious truths and moral dictates of the Christian Revelation, and accepting no
dogmatic teaching on the ground of authority, base their beliefs on the unfettered findings of reason
alone.


By what methodology were these religious truths known to be true? To appeal to the authority of God who granted the truths by revelation is circular and does nothing but beg the question. I do not make the distinction that all individuals who are "believers" are unreasonable individuals. They are reasonable people who; for whatever reason, grant a greater degree of latitude to the truth of religious propositions than to other "secular" propositions. All believers seek proof in one manner or another, or they would cease to believe.

The free-thinker holds such principles, whether of truth or of action, as he is persuaded he can
prove; and he gives assent to no others.


Believers are no different, with the obviously key exception of the existence of God. God cannot be proven to exist, nor can God's existence be disproven. Which is why believers place such a high regard on "faith." Believers appeal to subjective proofs such as: answered prayer, religious experiences, contact with deity, etc. Further, believers constantly seek verification of their beliefs in the "world" around them. 

But since the persuasion of having proved (or of being able to prove) even the
doctrines of natural religion by reason alone varies infinitely with the individual, it is
difficult, save on the most general lines, to class free thinkers together. This
difficulty is apparent in the case of the Deists, to whom the appellation was
characteristically applied in the latter end of the seventeenth century. They
all agree however, in refusing to accept the doctrines of an authoritative Christianity; and it is on this negative ground that their
position is most clearly defined.


Of course. To attempt to classify the reasons which people to not believe in God, or supernatural phenomena, etc. would be a waste of time. As I've said several times, they vary by individual. So, too do the reasons of/for belief, which is simply an individual acceptance, tacit or otherwise, of the existence of God in a certain manner. After the existence of God has been granted by an individual, God begins to be defined by whatever religious paradigm to which that individual chooses to subscribe. It is not surprising that God then behaves in the expected manner.

Although the words "Free-thinker" and "Free-thought" first appeared in
connection with the English Deists [Collins, "Discourse of freethinking
occasioned by the Rise and Growth of a Sect called Freethinkers" (1713), gives
the deistical tendency this name], "the phenomenon of free-thought has existed,
in specific form, long before it could express itself in propagandist writings,
or find any generic name save those of Atheism or Infidelity" (Robertson). Taken in
the broad sense in which Robertson here uses it, the term would seem to include
the reactionary movement against any traditional form of doctrine to which men were expected to
assent. In this sense it is possible to speak of free-thinkers of Greece or Rome, or, indeed of any considerable body
that can impress its teaching upon the multitudes. There were undoubtedly, to a
certain extent at any rate, in classical times those who either publicly scoffed
at the authoritative myths of their country's religion or philosophically
explained their meaning away. So — but this in a truer sense — in the Middle Ages there were to be found rationalists, or free-thinkers, among the philosophers of the schools. The Fathers of the Church had met paganism with its own weapons and argued
against the falsehoods with the help of the natural reason. The early heretics were free-thinkers in their
rejection of the regulating authority of the Church upon points connected with their heresies, which they elaborated frequently upon rationalistic lines; and the pantheists and
others of the schools criticized and syllogized revelation away in true free-thought style. Both were in
consequence condemned; but the spirit of excess in criticism and the reliance on
the sufficiency of human reason are as typical of the free thought of
the medieval
times
as that of the twentieth century.


It is only within the confines of religion is the sufficiency of human reason thought to be lacking. Even then, the basis for the religion itself is built upon the back of the humans who will do the work for God. In a very real sense, their bodies were necessary; their minds were not. Which, in anticipation of your response, is not to say that there have not been tremendous minds which were grist to the mill of religion. As has been noted, many early scientific discoveries were the result of Priests and other clergy, or individuals who possessed belief in God. As has also been noted, the discoveries of the mind were subject to the theology of the Church, not the reverse.  

From the Deists onwards, free thought has undoubtedly gained ground
among the masses. Originally the intellectual excess of the learned and the
student, and rarely leaving the study in a form in which it could be expected to
be at all popular, it began with Annet and Chubb (see Deism) to become vulgarized and to penetrate
the lower strata of society. Its open professors have apparently been less
numerous than its adherents. Some stop short in a negative position, claiming no
more than autonomy for the science or philosophy they represent. Others
carry on a bitter and unscrupulous warfare against religion. It is apparent in
the various branches of science and criticism, as well as in philosophy; and though it generally pretends
to a scientific plan it makes use of a priori methods more than posteriori ones.
One of its most dangerous forms, which generally ends in pure religious
skepticism, can be traced to the Kantian distinction between noumenal and the
phenomenal. But its main positive positions are the denial of prophesy, miracle and inspiration, its rejection of all
external revelation (including obviously ecclesiastical authority), and its assertion
of the right of free speculation in all rational matters. On this latter
frequently follows the negation of, or suspension of judgement with regard to,
the existence
of God
(atheism and agnosticism), and the denial of the immortality of the soul or of its truth being susceptible of proof, and the rejection of freedom of the
will. Among the principal free-thinkers may be mentioned Voltaire, Thomas Paine
(the Rights of Man), Renan, Ingersoll, Strauss (Leben Jesu), Haeckel, Clough,
and Holyoake.


I am curious as to why this list is so outdated. Regardless, Kant was not the first to have such a distinction, although he spoke at length about the subject. Although the article attempts to explain free thinking/free thought, it simply provides a negative overview of the position without explaining much of anything. Admittedly, there are some intriguing and fun discussions to be had regarding items contained therein, it only seems to "tickle the ears" of its audience in a non-substantive manner. Also admittedly, I don't know to what degree "regular" believers would like to go to understand the positions of those who do not agree with them, so it is completely understandable that the article is an overview and not a philosophical and/or theological treatise.



"Stupidity is the basic building block of the universe."

Zappa