Freedom. What Is It?

In the 15th century, Nicholas of Cusa concluded that '... the path for approaching divine matters is opened to us only through symbols, we can make quite suitable use of mathematical signs because of their incorruptible certainty.' (See Bk. I, Ch. 11 of his book, On Learned Ignorance.) Five centuries later, Stuart Chase spoke of the 'tyranny of words' and many other Western linguists concluded that 'sensual data are primarily symbolic.' (See p. 21 of Susanne Langer's book on Philosophy in a New Key.) These two conclusions told us that all humans might have a free spirit, which is our mind that develops and thus is not determined by any physical laws we know. The freedom of our minds are noticed in the many different national languages that have been developed by humans who live in different nations.

A free mind can be influenced by another free mind. For example, the American mind was influenced by atheism after prayers were removed from the public school system in 1967 by the U.S. Supreme Court. In this questionable ruling, the minds of these judges were changed by physical scientists who say that the human mind is born and is thus not free and behaves physical laws. This ruling must have affected the Republican party because it speaks of managing criminals by 'locking them up and throwing the keys away.' This kind of politics is flawed if the human mind is a free spirit that cannot be predicted. In general, atheists, materialists, and evolutionists say that there is no God and that all things follow laws of nature. Deists say there is a God but agree that all things follow laws of nature. Bur many theists say that God is active and that our spirits have a degree of independence. These spirits can thus develop and are able to develop by using the symbols of national languages.

I conclude that the atheists, materialists, evolutionists, and Stephen Hawking reject these free spirits because they do not distinguish God's freedom from the relative freedom of all Creatures. Hawking says that God is unnecessary. Such a statement does not consider the possibility of God, when God unites all opposites and is absolute Actuality and absolute Possibility. Hawking is a mathematician but not a linguistic. Relative freedom is defined like your freedom of speech --- you cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. Relative freedom is thus a variable that can increase or decrease. But relative freedom can never become absolutely maximum or absolutely minimum because God is the absolute maximum and absolute minimum. Our maximum and minimum freedoms are being defined continually by natural right laws. Our spirits are never free because we have a God.