Ultimate Freedom?

[danielsh]

What is the greatest freedom?  That is, if you could be free from one thing, or have freedom of one thing, what would it be?  Speech?  Worship?  Want?  Fear?  (I think Roosevelt was off on that last one, but that's besides the point.)

I'd be curious to see what some PRPers have to say.

[Wolf]

Worship. What are the others worth without the freedom of belief?

[Edric O]

Freedom of thought.

So long as your mind and spirit are free, you may fight for true liberty and be assured that one day you will be victorious.

(note that the freedom of thought includes the freedom of worship, at least in private)

[emprworm]

Freedom of expression, freedom of worship.

Even as Galileo was threatened with death unless he recanted his views of heliocentricity, his thoughts were free.

[Dude_Doc]

The ultimate freedom is probably satisfaction. That is, if you can cure all your deceases, if you can get everything (within reason), if you can live your life without anybody forcing you, or any laws or regulation forcing you, to do something you don't want to (like work... just kidding).

That is my "personal" utopia, one where everything is done by machines (note: NOT Artificial Intelligence = robots/machines that can think, make decisions, etc etc), to serve humanity and serve our needs. Sounds like Heaven, doesn't it ;) ...

Well, we would all consider this thought to be thousands if not millions years away, if we even can survive for that long.

However, I'm interested in this theory about religion. I actually thought about it in school, that religion serves mankind as "a cure". That is, most people believe in God/gods/spirits because they think that's how they can get luck, keep their body healthy and/or get cured and so on. But what would happen, in say, 100 years? Or 1000 years? Would people believe in God, or in science?

Let's say that science can give us cure to every possible decease in the universe. Science can give us robots and tools to make our everyday much easier. Would people still believe in God? They have no reason to, science have provided them with what they need. The only thing that will most probably never go away, is the question "what happens to us when we die?" I think it is that question that will keep one or another form of religion alive.

But that is only my point...

[emprworm]

science cannot give people purpose, hope, love (agape love, not fully attainble in any relationship), immortality, reason for consciousness & morality

under "science" people are ultimately the product of hapless chance, chaos, without purpose.

[danielsh]

People want to believe that there is a reason for them; that they, as individuals, have an objective purpose greater than merely that of a rock at the bottom of a lake, and that there is hope- a principle which atheism cannot satisfy.

It's off-topic, but I want to believe in Santa Claus.

[Acriku]

science cannot give people purpose, hope, love (agape love, not fully attainble in any relationship), immortality, reason for consciousness & morality

Since when did science set out to give people those? You're confusing sometimes.

under "science"

If science cannot give something, then the logical conclusion is to find it somewhere else. Science is not the only source.

this is why society is entering a post-modernistic phase.  people are tired of "pure science" as the end-all answer to life's questions.  science is unable to answer all the questions that a human asks.

You're simplifying science way too much. Science is about finding the truth, and for you to say that finding the truth is insufficient in finding the truth is an empty group of words.

Back on topic, I find the ultimate freedom is like Edric mentioned the freedom of thought. Science flourishes when there are less constraints.

[Wolf]

That's one of the things I wanted to clear up earlier. Gunwounds has it in his signature, but I think it was along the lines of "science is not necessarily a characteristic of atheism alone, and religion does not necessarily preclude science or its progress." The two terms, science and, I presume, atheism, cannot be used interchangeably.

[Caid Ivik]

What's freedom? On metaphysical sphere it's something else than sphere of world or society...

[otheymzefedaykin]

freedom of speech :

http://www.mathieu.bouville.name/thoughts/freedom_of_speech.html

::)

freedom of religion (and to be an atheist too 8))

freedom to die (to not feel paind)

[emprworm]

It's off-topic, but I want to believe in Santa Claus.

then go right ahead.  you should have the freedom to not only belive in santa, but tell others about santa.

that is the most important freedom to me

[otheymzefedaykin]

St Nicholas...with the big man...the dad...I forget the name !

[Caid Ivik]

Jah?

[otheymzefedaykin]

Jah?

Yeeeeah ! ;D I believe in him ....:D I'm joking !

No it's really cool !

It's bettter to believe in him than in Deubeulioubouch !

[Edric O]

To clarify my post: The "freedom of thought" means the freedom to hold whatever opinions you wish, on any subject (religion, politics, ice cream flavours) and not be punished for them.

I suppose there's no real difference between that and the freedom of speech, so I'll change my vote to the freedom of speech in order to make things clear.

(because, as Emprworm pointed out, you can't take away a man's freedom to think whatever he wishes; the only freedom that can be taken away is the freedom to express his thoughts - so that's the one that needs to be protected)

[Wolf]

Actually, Edric, freedom of thought seems to be a combination of freedom of belief and freedom of speech. If there is no difference between freedom of speech and freedom of thought, then there is also no difference between freedom of belief and freedom of speech.

[Caid Ivik]

You can "think" something and also not believe in its, we can say, truth value. That's on what is whole theoretical philosophy based. Have an example, if I wouldn't try to view communism from Marx' view, if I wouldn't try to think like he did, how could I understand it?

[Dante]

Freedom of action. If everyone were allowed to do what they want the world would be a much more interesting place.

[nemafakei]

No freedom is sacrosanct that can be used to cause distress to others. Freedom of movement can be easily abused by criminals, freedom of speech can be offensive and misleading: do I have the right to lie? Publicly? To the servere detriment of someone's reputation, employment, and life?

Freedom of thought and belief, however, are fine - so long as you don't act on any thoughs or beliefs which cause more harm than good to others.

One issue I'd like to raise which isn't really a 'freedom' per se is the interesting concept of privacy and information. Under the Data Protection Act (a really wonderful document) in the UK, I have the right to ask, say my ISP, what data they have on me, and I have the right to correct them on my address etc. They may not pass on my details without my permission - with the exception of such as the police, GCHQ, etc.

The most important consideration is this: setting a rule in stone allows people to abuse it. 'Constitutional' rights are dangerous things, because the law is powerless to stop people using these rights to hurt others and obtain personal ends. Parliaments too may be bound not to repeal such restrictions...

The freedom to do things which might be harmful to others entails a responsibility not to abuse it - and not all are responsible enough to merit such freedom. Restriction on freedoms is merely a means of protection.

[Anathema]

About the topic's title: if one was to have absolute freedom, then the rest would have no freedom at all. Since freedom is actually a neutral term, giving one person absolute freedom would mean he could enslave everyone else. In this respect, "freedom" and "right" are synonimous.

The most important consideration is this: setting a rule in stone allows people to abuse it. 'Constitutional' rights are dangerous things, because the law is powerless to stop people using these rights to hurt others and obtain personal ends. Parliaments too may be bound not to repeal such restrictions...

Not entirely, before a rule "written in stone" has any meaning it will have to be applied- by a judge. In some countries judges are pretty free in interpreting set rules and sometimes can disregard a rule alltogether if it's obviously against the spirit of the law.

Also, in the Netherlands, nobody can derive rights from the constitution since the judges don't have the right to say "this law is unconstitutional, so it holds no meaning. Rights can only be derived from lower laws, the constitution is only a framework of general principles.