Generally, we hold that science and other empirical methods of discovery are the best, most reliable, ways to understand our existence.

Humankind relied on superstition and mythology as its means of acquiring knowledge for many thousands of years. The outcomes of this type of thinking were not good.

When people relied on religion as a means to diagnose and treat disease, humanity suffered from plagues, high infant mortality, and short life expectancy.

When people relied on religion to inform social and international relations, humanity suffered oppression, slavery, warfare, and genocide.

When people relied on religion as the primary means of understanding our natural world, humanity labored under such theories as the heliocentric universe, homunculi, and demonic possession.

Our discussion of epistemology (the branch of philosophy that deals with the ways in which people develop knowledge) does not necessarily reject non-empiricism. We recognize that some great discoveries have come about through such inexplicable means as dreams, inspiration, art, or guesswork. We appreciate that life is not exclusively rational, and therefore we’re open to emotive experience and a sense of wonder that some might call spiritual. But when science and non-science don’t agree, science has led us to truth far more often than the other methods—and so we choose to rely on science.

Our position papers are meant to express the official opinion of Freethought Dayton for purposes of public relations and education. Individual members may hold different viewpoints.

Freethought Dayton opposes any attempt to mingle religion and politics. Otherwise, we take no official position regarding political issues.

Our non-religious citizens often are perceived to be politically left-wing. This is a misperception; many of our members are politically conservative.

Whether liberal, moderate or conservative, we share our support for the American tradition of separation of church and state as expressed by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

We do not object to individuals expressing personal religious viewpoints in private gatherings, or in public places when free expression is appropriate. We object to any government official, employee, or institution sponsoring any religious expression or assembly.

For example, if citizen Barack Obama, citizen John Boehner, or citizen Gary Leitzell chooses to host a prayer breakfast, we have no objection. But if President Barack Obama, Speaker of the House John Boehner, or Gary Leitzell, Mayor of Dayton are going to sponsor a prayer breakfast in their official capacities as elected officials, we believe they have violated the principle of separation of church and state.

We conclude that it is inevitable that religion will corrupt politics, and that politics will profane religion.

Our position papers are meant to express the official opinion of Freethought Dayton for purposes of public relations and education. Individual members may hold different viewpoints.

Freethought Dayton has been featured in the Dayton Daily News and participated in a panel discussion for DDN on religious trends in society. You can read the full articles by clicking on the images below.