{"id":1266,"date":"2018-03-28T13:34:34","date_gmt":"2018-03-28T13:34:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/?p=1266"},"modified":"2025-02-15T09:51:01","modified_gmt":"2025-02-15T09:51:01","slug":"freedom-of-religion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/open-religion\/freedom-of-religion","title":{"rendered":"Freedom of Religion"},"content":{"rendered":"

It seems a nice endeavor, the \u2018best thing to do\u2019. But is it even possible at an individual level?<\/h3>\n

Is anyone \u2018free to believe\u2019?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Let\u2019s agree that you don\u2019t believe in the existence of unicorns. Are you then \u2018free to believe\u2019 in them? Can you take a conscious decision to believe in such? I cannot and almost certainly you cannot. So, to be \u2018free to believe\u2019 is not immediately evident. It would be so if \u2018believing\u2019 would be the direct result of a conscious decision.<\/p>\n

But it isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

So it is with unicorns and so it is with any \u2018thing\u2019 to believe in, including a bearded God on a mountain etc.<\/p>\n

There is science to take care of bearded unicorns or whatever\u2026<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

or whatever, indeed, \u2018thing\u2019 that can be proven or disproven. Science \u2013 though itself always imperfect \u2013 is just the best we\u2019ve got for the job. Where science is appropriate, it is a bazillion times more appropriate than non-science. \u2018Appropriate\u2019 here is: lying within the borders of conceptualization.<\/p>\n

For example, saying that \u2018God exists\u2019 conceptualizes <God> and <to exist>.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Does it? In any case, inasmuch<\/em> as it does, it\u2019s a subject for science. At the other side, inasmuch<\/em> as it doesn\u2019t, one doesn\u2019t \u2018know\u2019 what one is talking about.<\/p>\n

The end of \u2018knowing\u2019 is the start of \u2018believing\u2019.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

By definition, a belief (in any \u2018thing\u2019) is never a certainty. Science too is never about certainties, but to a very different degree \/ quality. Frequently however, the experiences of believer and scientist are exactly the reverse of this:<\/p>\n