Many skeptics and atheists today have dubbed themselves “freethinkers.” It’s typically used to imply that one is not bound by dogma, by religious mental chains. Freethinkers are considered those who appeal to their own reasoning faculties to evaluate everything for themselves. They do not simply listen to what the establishment tells them, nor do they blindly conform to a book (unless it’s The God Delusion by Dawkins). However, this title is a misnomer with respect to the origin of our thoughts and meaningless in any other sense.

While not all skeptics are naturalists or materialists, a great portion are. There is a rather glaring contradiction between the ideas of freethought and naturalistic materialism: within the worldview, our thoughts are nothing but the result of physical interactions within our brain. Further, these interactions are predetermined by the interactions that precede them. Some would argue from certain models of quantum physics that these events have potential to be random at a foundational level, but this does not help the case of the skeptic. They must demonstrate, to truly have “free thoughts” that they are in some way in control of their thoughts. That is, that their volition and thus actions precede their thoughts.

However, given this worldview, there is not a meaningful distinction between thoughts and actions, as thoughts are simply physical events within our brain. One cannot even appeal to second-order volition, as this too would be a physical event. So, the process of forming thoughts and acting upon said thoughts is reducible to a causal series of predetermined or randomly determined physical occurrences. Clearly, in this context, it makes no sense to call anyone a “freethinker.” Nobody would be in control of how they reach conclusions in a purely natural and material world. The only way for our thoughts or actions to precede the physical interactions which lead to them would be for us to have thoughts before there were ever any atoms to cause them. One must presuppose an immaterial volition before they can ever assert that they are fundamentally free.

The problem is exacerbated when one considers Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). The thrust of the argument is that given evolution, one cannot account for any truth-forming ability or tendency within our reasoning faculties. Natural selection favors traits which are advantageous to survival and does not provide any mechanism by which truth-forming characteristics are selected for. Not only are we not in control of the processes which form our thoughts, we have no reason to believe within an evolutionary worldview that these processes favor truth.

However, there’s another sense in which many use the title. The common definition (not a philosophical definition) typically includes an aspect of rejection or skepticism toward established religious doctrine. So, one who is a freethinker would be one who thinks apart from religious doctrines. This may seem to be a positive thing, but the same rhetoric can be applied to any Christian who thinks apart from humanist doctrine. Freedom is relative and directional. So many assume that we should be a freethinker and thus we should be a skeptic and reject relation. But why should our thought be apart from or contrary to religious doctrines? What makes that any more preferable to thought based upon Christian doctrine and contrary to humanist presuppositions?

The truth of the matter is that nobody is ultimately neutral. Everyone has basic presuppositions which guide their thought. Is the Christian bound by his worldview? Absolutely! The Christian mind should always be tied to Scripture.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;
Fools despise wisdom and instruction.” (Proverbs 1:7, NASB)

“…Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Colossians 2:3, NASB)

Any Christian who has Scripture as is ultimate standard will not reach a conclusion which is contrary to it. If someone is to do so, then the mechanism by which he reaches that conclusion is his true ultimate standard. When we view culture, we should view it through the lens of Scripture. The same is true for all aspects of society. Christianity is a worldview which has unmistakeable demands for every area of our lives, not simply how we act at church on Sundays. Yes, this is even true for science; science cannot be the lens through which we interpret Scripture, because Scripture is more foundational. The Word of God is our basis for the enterprise of science, as it tells us of the uniformity of nature. Science is based upon induction; if we cannot suppose that the universe will remain as it is today in the future, science is a hopeless operation. All of the essential things which we hold to be constant would go under. This would include the laws of nature and physics. Scripture is our epistemic ground for this idea of uniformity. We can trust that nature will remain uniform because of the normative sustenance that God exercises upon it.

“He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:17, NASB)

“While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” (Genesis 8:22, NASB)

So we see then that the Christian cannot but appeal to Scripture. He must submit his mind in every way to the Word of God because it is his ultimate standard. Is my thinking free? No. It isn’t. In the words of Martin Luther, my conscience is rather “held captive by the Word of God.” I am a slave of Christ in my deeds and thought.

Does the skeptic, the secular humanist, then have room to boast? Is his thought any more free than mine? His thought may be free from explicitly Christian doctrine, but it is not free from presuppositions. The humanist makes himself, rather than the word of God, the ultimate standard. He is his own god. He is not neutral, willing to consider anything, because his worldview is fundamentally opposed to that of the Christian. It isn’t an issue of having freethought or being bound to dogma; it’s an issue of what dogma one is bound to. The secular humanist must still have presuppositions. Typically these are along the lines of naturalism, materialism, uniformity, logic, ethics of some form, and more, whether or not they can account for them. When two men, one presupposing naturalism and the other being a fervent Christian, view the resurrection, one will always reject the supernatural explanation, and the other will always accept it. It isn’t because one is more open to ideas, but because both have worldviews with certain presuppositions which are inescapable unless one is to change their worldview. The question then becomes which worldview is superior in its ability to account for the preconditions of intelligibility in this world.

This is why “freethinkers” are not truly free in their thinking. They aren’t open to considering Christianity, because it’s not simply an additional proposition which they assent to. They cannot just take their house, the first floor of which is reason, and build a second floor which is to be Christianity, centered upon the resurrection of Christ. To become a Christian requires one to demolish their house and recenter their entire worldview upon the revelation of Jesus Christ through His Word the Bible. They must build a new foundation. This is what it means to say that there is no neutrality; either one reasons from God or from their own self. Either they are in Adam or in Christ.

Grace and Peace