In the past we've had some rather extensive discussion about what freethought is or should be, but when it comes right down to it, freethought is going to be whatever we actually make of it. For example, our choice of books for the Quarterly Freethought Discussion is a four times annual assertion of what it is that we, as a group, mean when we say Freethought.
That concerns me for two reasons. One is that I routinely contribute to this forum, I often invest some significant portion of my daily reading time to the Quarterly discussions, and so what actually engages me as material for Freethought is at least partly bound up in the voting process that goes towards determining what the Quarterly reads will be.
The other reason is that this community makes up some small contribution to the public perception of Freethought. Even if it's a very small contribution (and it's my feeling that Chris would like for it to be increasingly less small), that means how we handle the Quarterly Freethought Discussion goes some way towards determining the public perception of what is and is not Freethought. The simplest illustration of that is to imagine some highschool kid in Nowheresville, Kansas, who has only recently heard the term Freethought, Googles it to find out more, and turns up a link to BookTalk. We might very well serve as that kids first real introduction to the notion of BookTalk, so what he comes away with on his visit to BookTalk will go a long way towards determining how he conceives of Freethinking.
What I mean when I say that Freethought will ultimately be whatever we make of it is, that our practical decisions not only send a message, they set the terms of how we, as a discussion community, engage Freethought as an activity and as a topic for discussion. So if choose books about religion month after month, then the larger part of our Freethought discussion will probably deal with religion. Not only that, but we're implicitly signalling to other people that, so far as we're concerned, religion (and its impact on society) is the subject matter of Freethought.
I imagine that what I'm writing here will probably stir up a little debate. But I'm also hoping that it will draw some responses that consider other possible subjects that could fall under the heading of Freethought, and that ultimately, we'll take those subjects to heart when we vote on Freethought books in the future. Freethought can be about little more than religion if we make it thus, but it can also be about questioning, exploring and examining all sorts of subjects that we take for granted. If we choose to read books that challenge our accepted notions of, say, morality, the role of science and technology in society, politics, or cultural norms, then Freethought will also be about those things. If we don't engage those topics, then to say that Freethought is about those things as well is just so much talk and zero substance.
I want to see us pushing at the edges of what BookTalk has traditionally considered fair game for Freethought. That doesn't mean not talking and reading about religion, and religion will always be an important and noteworthy subject of Freethought discussion. But I think we've put so much emphasis on religious discussion that we've let other areas atrophy. If Freethought is, as I've suggested, whatever we make of it in practice, then BookTalk is in danger of making Freethought a very limited thing. That's something we can change if want to.
That concerns me for two reasons. One is that I routinely contribute to this forum, I often invest some significant portion of my daily reading time to the Quarterly discussions, and so what actually engages me as material for Freethought is at least partly bound up in the voting process that goes towards determining what the Quarterly reads will be.
The other reason is that this community makes up some small contribution to the public perception of Freethought. Even if it's a very small contribution (and it's my feeling that Chris would like for it to be increasingly less small), that means how we handle the Quarterly Freethought Discussion goes some way towards determining the public perception of what is and is not Freethought. The simplest illustration of that is to imagine some highschool kid in Nowheresville, Kansas, who has only recently heard the term Freethought, Googles it to find out more, and turns up a link to BookTalk. We might very well serve as that kids first real introduction to the notion of BookTalk, so what he comes away with on his visit to BookTalk will go a long way towards determining how he conceives of Freethinking.
What I mean when I say that Freethought will ultimately be whatever we make of it is, that our practical decisions not only send a message, they set the terms of how we, as a discussion community, engage Freethought as an activity and as a topic for discussion. So if choose books about religion month after month, then the larger part of our Freethought discussion will probably deal with religion. Not only that, but we're implicitly signalling to other people that, so far as we're concerned, religion (and its impact on society) is the subject matter of Freethought.
I imagine that what I'm writing here will probably stir up a little debate. But I'm also hoping that it will draw some responses that consider other possible subjects that could fall under the heading of Freethought, and that ultimately, we'll take those subjects to heart when we vote on Freethought books in the future. Freethought can be about little more than religion if we make it thus, but it can also be about questioning, exploring and examining all sorts of subjects that we take for granted. If we choose to read books that challenge our accepted notions of, say, morality, the role of science and technology in society, politics, or cultural norms, then Freethought will also be about those things. If we don't engage those topics, then to say that Freethought is about those things as well is just so much talk and zero substance.
I want to see us pushing at the edges of what BookTalk has traditionally considered fair game for Freethought. That doesn't mean not talking and reading about religion, and religion will always be an important and noteworthy subject of Freethought discussion. But I think we've put so much emphasis on religious discussion that we've let other areas atrophy. If Freethought is, as I've suggested, whatever we make of it in practice, then BookTalk is in danger of making Freethought a very limited thing. That's something we can change if want to.
