If, in one’s mind, one thinks of ‘faith’ to be synonymous to ‘creed’ (what people often also call ‘religion’) one might be thinking,
what does freedom and faith has to do together? After all, faith often includes constraints that limit your freedom. Often these constraints are
externally bound, deducted from
scriptures and executed and imposed upon one by the
communion of faith. In this case, it is true that
there is not much freedom on it, especially when it is executed and imposed by violence and force. Luckily in our civilizations, this is rarely the
case.
So freedom of faith is freedom nonetheless. A person is free to choose from spectrum of creeds, what suits and speaks to one most. If we are to
sustain freedom, we cannot force anyone to, or not to, believe. For example, if one is atheist and opposes any religion in the extent that one would
be ready to prohibit religions, yet promoting freedom one would be guilty of hypocrisy. Following happens in communist countries (which are luckily
very few) without any hypocrisy, because communist countries are neither free nor religious, except that the communism in itself is creed as are some
forms of atheism as well.
But this is not actually the point why I am making this thread. By freedom and faith I want to imply on something I deem to be very important. After
awaking from deep state of thoughtfulness just moments ago, I realized that all external prohibitions of both freedom and ethics are artificial and
vain. They can be even malicious and harmful. I realized that external moral codes and religious codes are the very things which prevent me of being
free. I can do whatever I want, even harm others if that is what I want. I am only bound by laws of existence (=laws of nature) and those internal
prohibitions imposed upon me myself. Because I know something, like the law of causality, and because I don’t want to suffer, therefore I prohibit
myself from harming others, because it would eventually cause suffering to me also (perhaps in the form of revenge, jealously and so on). But would a
need rise to harm someone (for example as self-defence) I wouldn’t have any moral objections to resort in violence.
Human being can only be peacefully suppressed by giving promises of something that makes suppression worthwhile. Various creeds promises paradise,
other beliefs will promise you superhuman powers – whatever the external constraint is, it promises you something that you think as worthy. But this
is really psychology of children; I get you do something if I give you this lollipop (which eventually is dangerous as it is harmful to teeth, besides
it is an illusion, sweet for awhile and doesn’t last long). With creeds however, you don’t even get the lollipop. The promised land of lollipops
awaits you in the afterlife which of course is another nonsense invented to cover a lie with a lie.
I am not trying to convert anyone – that would be another violation against my internal constraints. Just wanted to share few thoughts and hope,
that someone might find them ‘resonating’. If not, big deal
-v