“Freedom is more important than la ilaha illaAllah because without freedom we are not free to believe whatever we choose.” This is what one Syrian activist told me several years ago regarding the Arab Spring. It seemed like he was setting up a false dichotomy, but he was just trying to emphasize the place of freedom as a value, as compared to everything else.

But freedom is a misunderstood concept. The truly free person, according to liberal philosophy beginning with the European empiricists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, is the person who starts off with a blank slate, i.e., the tabula rasa. This person has no prior beliefs or commitments. His mind is not contaminated with falsely imposed ideas about the world, about God, about the state of nature. This person, with his free mind, is then able to form his own authentic beliefs from scratch. Ideally, those beliefs will be formed on the basis of sound scientific investigation — that’s what the empiricists hoped for at least in their philosophy of mind and epistemology. But, even if a person does not develop beliefs scientifically, at least he does so authentically and, hence, freely. In this way, it is OK for a person to be religious so long as that person started from a blank slate, which for all intents and purposes is a starting point of non-religion.

It is interesting when you put it like that. If I was born into a family with a certain religion and that family taught me that religion from Day 1, and I grow up professing that faith, does that mean I did not freely choose that faith for myself? I might argue that, as an adult, I am making a conscious choice and exercising my free will to commit to my particular faith. But, then, how can I know that it is really “me” making that choice and not the “me” that grew up in a certain household and is a product of a certain kind of “religious indoctrination”? Maybe I’ve been brainwashed, in which case my “choice” is not really a choice at all.