Ghazali on “Freethought” and its Fallicies

So I hear the term “Freethinker” and I did so I reflected upon it in a Ghazalian manner, being what I think might be along the lines of how Imam al-Ghazali would think. Ghazali’s method of thinking was unique not only because it used reason but also because it challenged the very foundation of all thought, something that can easily throw an intellectual off their high horse.

Firstly, we should define freethinker and then consider it. The term freethinker, presumably, should mean someone who thinks freely. However, in common usage this is not the case. The term freethinker according to the American Heritage Dictionary refers to “One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.” The problem with this definition is that it does not mention freedom in any way. Rather, it constrains thought to rational inquiry and speculation. This is not to say that either rational inquiry and speculation are necessarily bad things. Rather, they are both beneficial when placed properly. Reason is good for discerning which silverware is best for eating cereal. The fork would clearly fail because the milk would flow through and one would spend all day attempting to eat this bowl of cereal. One would speculate that the spoon would not because it does not have gaps for the milk to flow through so then one would attempt to use the spoon and it works. Rationally, the spoon is superior to the fork in eating cereal. But which cereal do we choose? The most rational choice would be something bland that has all the vitamins and minerals necessary because it is the most healthy. Then why was my last choice of cereal Cinnamon Toast Crunch? It is sugary and has less nutrition. It is not rational but does that necessarily make it worse? Nevertheless, my emotions point me to Cinnamon Toast Crunch. Emotions are a way of knowing good and bad. Amongst other ways of knowledge that are excluded are linguistic, artistic, ethical, and empirical. Therefore to say Freethought is free thought is inaccurate because of the heavy restrictions.

The next epistemological problem with “freethought” is the very nature of the restriction of only using reason and speculation. The use of reason only is fallacious because it assumes that 1) the universe is rational and 2) the universe can be understood through reason. The universe always seems to me to be more subjective than objective. Different people come to different conclusions. For example, right now in Florida, the weather is extraordinarily hot for the season (mid-October and the highs are still reaching 90), relative to the averages. Many people here are complaining about how horrible a thing this is. Despite this, many people to the North are wishing they were here because of the cold temperatures they are experiencing. Both the Floridians and the Northerners are observing the same objective numbers but establishing subjective conclusions. The reason for this is emotion and, therefore, beyond the ability of a true freethinker to understand who would simply assume that both the Northerners and Southerners are irrational because they both live in climate ranges that humans can physically occupy.

Though considering what one believes and exercising the mind can be a positive endeavor, this is not truly achieved by freethought because, as described in the reasons above, it is a flawed epistemology because of its restraints.


2 responses to “Ghazali on “Freethought” and its Fallicies

  1. Hi Ghazali,

    I’ve come to read your article when I did a search on ‘freethinker’ at google images. I know this posting is quite old but still I will respond.

    For you to understand free thought, you would first have to realise what true freedom is. You cannot do everything because of consequence. So in essence, freedom is not ‘being without boundary’ but more ‘being aware of the bounderies of freedom’.

    Freedom is, in human perspective, the search for personal boundery. Our context here in is an atheistic or theistic one.

    You have interpreted Freethinker from an Islamic believers point of view. Now. Let me show you mine.

    Through religion, men and woman are confronted with several examples of how life could be and are then pointed out what one possible way of solving this issue could be. There is sometimes truth in an example and sometimes there is no truth at all, but still people follow it because of the dogma every monotheistic religion naturaly has.

    My personal point of view is that every dogma has no truth. For me personaly a dogma is a statement which is accepted without proof and rational thought.

    This limits the search of personal bounderies. Some are off limits because of the dogmas a religion has, and thus a person cannot explore this part of his humanity, and thus cannot point out where his boundaries are in this, and thus cannot relevate with other boundaries because one is missing this knowledge. It is limiting.

    This is because the true essence is not revealed. It is as Aristotiles would put it: “They have gathered much knowledge without method, and thus have become wise in their own conceit.”

    But before you can recognise conceit as conceit, one first has to rise above the subject in question: Religion. When you are trapped in it, this is not possible. “You cannot percieve the earth is round when you stand on it and see it flat”.

    Freedom is not, filling up gaps and fears and hopes with imagination, it is recognising gaps, fears and hopes for what they are: Our limitations, our vulnerability and our inner strenghts; in essence: all that which makes us human with and next to these examples.

    Freethinkers face fears, hopes and all other things for what they are, they do not muffle them away under the authority of a greater being.

    This is what a freethinker is all about.

    You say positive endeavor cannot be achieved by freethought because you reason it has a flawed epistemology (knowledge theory), but in essence you’ve come to that conclusion because you do not understand the essence of freedom.

    When you do, you realise a freethinker in general can understand positivity better than someone who does not live by the principles of a freethinker.

    This does not mean the person who doesn’t, does not know positivity. Rather it is as this: A freethinker would say Zambia is in Afrika, where a non-freethinker would say: Zambia is somewhere in the world.

    They are both right, but one is a bit more right than the other.

    Peace, love and understanding,


  2. The two assumptions you make is that freethought itself is not a dogma and that freethinkiners do not have a supreme authority.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s