What is freethought, and what should it be?

Freethought is the epistemological position that beliefs should be based on evidence and reasoning, not unfounded claims. It is a principle that values intellectual integrity, requiring that all beliefs be justified through rational inquiry rather than deference to assumed authority, tradition, or other non-evidentiary sources.

Wikipedia's one-sentence definition is more detailed but arguably less distilled:

"Freethought ... is an epistemological viewpoint which holds that beliefs should not be formed on the basis of authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma, and that beliefs should instead be reached by other methods such as logic, reason, and empirical observation."
(Quoted April 25, 2022, 2:00 AM UTC, as Wikipedia content may change.)

This definition is informative but not without issues. It lists examples of invalid belief foundations—authority, tradition, revelation, and dogma—but does so in a way that invites ambiguity.

Let’s examine each:

Authority: If a source is valid and its claims verifiable, it’s not opposed to freethought. The issue arises when beliefs are accepted because a source is presumed authoritative—committing the appeal to authority fallacy.
Tradition: Like appeals to authority, appeals to tradition assert that something is true or right merely because it has been believed or practiced for a long time. This is a widely recognised fallacy and clearly incompatible with freethought.
Revelation: This term needs clarification. A revelatory insight can sometimes simply refer to a sudden realization—even an empirically based one—or to a supernatural experience, such as a vision or divine communication. Freethought is suspicious of the latter, as it lacks empirical support and is more like the cognitive error of magical thinking.
Dogma: Dogma implies beliefs held unquestioningly, often institutionalized and resistant to challenge. Freethought, by contrast, thrives on open inquiry and is hostile to intellectual conformity, even within scientific or secular circles.

These examples in Wikipedia’s definition illustrate, but do not exhaust, the range of irrational bases for belief. Logical fallacies are numerous, and freethought opposes all of them. A more concise definition of freethought—focused on evidence and reasoning—better captures its essence.

The principle of purity

If beliefs should be formed through evidence and reasoning, then this principle must apply universally—with no exception. Freethought presupposes only this method of acquiring belief. All conclusions must emerge from it.

Freethought, as Wikipedia correctly notes, is an epistemology—a theory of how we should come to know things. It does not, by itself, dictate which conclusions must be reached. It prescribes a method, not a worldview.

This distinction has critical implications.

Freethought is not synonymous with atheism

A common misconception is that freethought is inherently atheistic. It’s true that many freethinkers are atheists. But atheism is not a foundational principle of freethought—it is, at most, one possible conclusion derived from it.

Freethought cannot hold any presupposed conclusion—not even atheism—without contradicting its own principle. To assert that freethought requires atheism is to adopt a belief without evaluating evidence for theism, which freethought disallows.

Moreover, atheism can arise from many motivations. Someone may reject belief in God out of emotion, personal experience, or cultural influence—not necessarily through systematic evaluation. Such a person may be an atheist without being a freethinker. Conversely, a person who believes in God might do so because they have attempted to apply reasoning and evidence—albeit fallibly—and therefore could qualify as a freethinker in principle.

In short: atheism is a possible outcome of freethought, but not part of its epistemology.

Common confusion between the terms

Some organisations and individuals blur this distinction.

For instance, the Atheist Foundation of Australia states:

“Our Aims: To encourage and to provide a means of expression for informed free-thought on philosophical and social issues.”

Meanwhile, the Freethought Society (U.S.) explains its name change—dropping “of Greater Philadelphia”—by noting its desire to serve the “non-theist community”, as though freethought and non-theism were interchangeable.

This conflation is understandable, given demographic overlaps, but not philosophically sound. It can marginalize religious or agnostic individuals who sincerely apply freethought in forming their beliefs.

A commenter named Eric Hatfield expressed this concern well:

“I am a friendly theist so I hope I am welcome to make a comment. Reading this page I felt there was a disconnect between your name and your goals. Your name says 'freethought' but your aim seems to be to progress non-theism. Is it not possible that a theist could be a 'freethinker'?... I would have thought that such restrictions or assumptions would be quite the opposite of 'freethought'.”

Indeed. The "friendly theist" exposes problems of reasoning just as a freethinker should—questioning assumptions and appealing to reasoning.

Atheism is a worldview; freethought is a method

Atheism addresses the question "Does God exist?" Freethought addresses the question "How should we determine whether God exists—or anything else?"

Freethought doesn't prescribe what to believe, only how to believe. In this sense, it is not a worldview at all—unless commitment to evidence and reason counts as one.

Historically, not all freethinkers were atheists. As Wikipedia notes:

“In the 18th and 19th century, many thinkers regarded as freethinkers were deists, arguing that the nature of God can only be known from a study of nature rather than from religious revelation.”

The Wikipedia article also mentions that "atheist author Adam Lee ... considers it as a 'broader umbrella' than atheism".

Some Deists today still identify as freethinkers, though they are less common than atheists in the movement.

Philosopher Bertrand Russell captured this nuance in his 1944 essay, "The Value of Free Thought":

“What makes a freethinker is not his beliefs but the way in which he holds them.”

This shifts focus from conclusions to process. It prompts a further question: what defines a freethinker? Is it someone who believes in freethought, or someone who successfully practices it? If the latter, who decides whether their reasoning is sound?

Some argue that the evidence against God is so strong that any theist must be irrational. But this position is problematic. It ignores the complexity of how people process information—differences in background, access to evidence, cognitive ability, and emotional disposition.

While many aspects of mainstream religions can be challenged or disproven in various ways, definitions of God—both within and outside of those religions—are diverse. Some of these definitions may require less evidence to be considered plausible. At the same time, the world contains an overwhelming amount of evidence on countless topics, far more than any one person can observe or process in a lifetime.

Not everyone starts from the same place, and even sincere freethinkers can reach different conclusions.

Freethought is a journey, not a badge

Freethought is a methodological commitment, not a measure of correctness. A freethinker may be mistaken—but as long as they genuinely prioritise evidence and reasoning, they uphold the principle.

Again, Russell provides a fitting summary:

“To be worthy of the name, he must be free of two things: the force of tradition, and the tyranny of his own passions. No one is completely free from either, but in the measure of a man's emancipation he deserves to be called a freethinker.”

This humility is key. Freethought is not about being always right—it’s about trying to be right, using the best available tools.

Conclusion

Freethought should be understood and preserved as an epistemological method, not a synonym for atheism. Its only presupposition is that beliefs should be based on evidence and reasoning. These are the best tools for determining what is true, and this is important, because determining truth has broad impacts on how people and the world around us should be treated. Freethought is an essential tool for well-being.

The "religion" of a freethinker—if we can use the term loosely—is to follow the evidence wherever it leads. That alone should be enough to unite freethinkers under one banner, even if their conclusions are sometimes diverse. And even diverse conclusions are likely to become more united as human discovery brings more information and understanding to light.

-- Monday, April 25, 2022. Revised Sunday, August 31, 2025.