Contrariwise...

It occurred to me, after I finished the criticism in the previous post, that I do need to note one thing, to be fair: the dispute we've been seeing recently has a historical analogue within the history of freethought itself, and it did in part involve my paradigm freethinker, Thomas Huxley. Huxley held that freethought should be the free exercise of a reason that sits as a teachable before facts; that it should be forthright and open about its limits and give its opponents whatever rational credit they could be given. This strategy (and yes, I've presented it from the pro-Huxley perspective) led to some criticism by other freethinkers, who insisted that Huxley was really subverting freethought and helping the enemy. In fact, they put it in exactly those terms; a case in point is found in G. W. Foote's 1898 Flowers of Freethought. Indeed, people like Myers in their better moments often sound very like the wing of freethought critical of Huxley. So, in fairness, I do need to note that my argument about real freethough does in one point depend on a controvertible claim: That T. H. Huxley is a reasonable model for a freethinker to take.