Religious devotion: Fear of freedom?

[curiosityandthecat]

I was re-reading Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed and it occurred to me that blind adherence to religious dogmatism and literal truths in the face of conflicting empirical evidence could be considered a form of "fear of freedom."

Paulo says the following: “Fear of freedom, of which its possessor is not necessarily aware, makes him see ghosts.  Such an individual is actually taking refuge in an attempt to achieve security, which he or she prefers to the risk of liberty. ... Men and women rarely admit their fear of freedom openly, however, tending rather to camouflage it--sometimes unconsciously--by presenting themselves as defenders of freedom.  They give their doubts and misgivings an air of profound sobriety; as befitting custodians of freedom.  But they confuse freedom with the maintenance of the status quo; so that if conscientizacao threatens to place that stuatus quo in question, it thereby seems to constitute a threat to freedom itself.”

("Conscientizacao" refers to conscientization, or, as the Wiki puts it, "a type of learning which is focused on perceiving and exposing social and political contradictions. Conscientization also includes taking action against oppressive elements in one's life as part of that learning.")

What do we think? Are those who hold to religious conviction simply afraid of being free?

[Asmodean]

Yes, I do think many of them are eleutherophobic.

[Voter]

I was re-reading Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed and it occurred to me that blind adherence to religious dogmatism and literal truths in the face of conflicting empirical evidence could be considered a form of "fear of freedom."

How do you define "empirical evidence" here?

The way I understand the term, very few people reject empirical evidence. It would be more accurate to say they reject, or draw alternative, inferences from the empirical evidence.

For example, rejection of empirical evidence, as I'm using the term, might be: "That fossil skull is a fraud," or "The cranial capacity of that skull is not 620 cc as reported."

Saying, "That fossil skull is authentic, but does not prove that man and that species shared a common ancestor" would be acceptance of the empirical evidence itself, but rejection of an inference drawn from that evidence.

[Asmodean]

Saying, "That fossil skull is authentic, but does not prove that man and that species shared a common ancestor" would be acceptance of the empirical evidence itself, but rejection of an inference drawn from that evidence.

Unlrss of course you have a DNA sample and a host of other characteristics for comparison, in which case it would be rejecting empirical evidence.

[Voter]

Unlrss of course you have a DNA sample and a host of other characteristics for comparison, in which case it would be rejecting empirical evidence.

People can accept such an empirical comparison and yet draw different inferences from it.

[dodgecity]

People can accept such an empirical comparison and yet draw different inferences from it.

Exactly. I infer from the fossil record that the universe was created 5 minutes ago by crabs from the planet Crabnebula. I take comfort in this because the Crabs hand me a divine purpose so I don't have to find my own.

But yes, I see what he means by camouflaging freedom. The deluded tend to say they've been "set free" by losing their freedom because only true freedom is found in God when you let him take control. (How can letting someone take control ever be considered a form of freedom?)

[Asmodean]

(How can letting someone take control ever be considered a form of freedom?)

Happiness in Slavery.

[Jolly Sapper]

I find the "fear of freedom" argument a bit too simplistic as its stated in the quoted text.  

I see it more as fear of the risks of freedom.  Freedom means making decisions with less than perfect information and usually in a less than perfectly timely fashion.  Decision making means the possibility of being wrong.  So when you make a decision you assume the risk that the decision you've made could be the wrong decision (even if it was the best decision that you could have made at the time with the information available).

So it seems to me that its the fear of making the decisions with negative consequences that gives support for ideologies that eliminate, at least psychologically, the responsibility one faces when suffering the negative outcome of a decision.

In the instance of religions, the responsibility for actions usually ends with the supernatural.  Its almost like being in a job with a strict hierarchy.  Orders come down from above and when something goes wrong the responsibility can be passed back up the chain, that ends in this case with God.  So the religionists believe that by denying somebody the choice to do something (safe medical abortions, buying alcohol on the weekend) they are doing it for the "good" of other people.

[edaps7]

Christians have misinterpreted the bible for a long time. I do not interpret anywhere in the bible where it states That i should relinquish my freedom to God. In fact my belief is that God tells us to make decisions for ourselves. I do however agree that most religious people just want something to blame. If they don't get that job, money, new car, etc. "it wasnt Gods will" This is a complete cop out, but i think people are often to fragile to accept their mistakes so they like to pawn it off on something else.