WHAT’S IN A NAME?

When it comes to answering pointed questions about philosophical or religious beliefs, Christians have it relatively easy, knowing that most fellow Americans also identify themselves as Christian. They can just say, “Oh, I’m a Christian,” or “I’m Catholic” or “Methodist” or “Lutheran” or whatever, and most everyone can relate and relax.  

Things are not so simple for nonbelievers.

Answering with “I’m an atheist” can conjure up a number of negative connotations among individuals of faith, and as a result some of my nonbeliever friends have remained in the philosophical closet, fearful of negative repercussions from family and friends.  Having said that, I have been out of that closet for over 50 years and am no longer bothered by negative reactions from Christians that I get from time to time.

Nonbelievers do have a number of options in designating their worldview, each of which carries its own set of meanings and connotations.  And I thought it might be helpful, to believers and nonbelievers alike, to describe the various labels by which nonbelievers commonly identify themselves.  

Atheist.  An atheist is a person who does not believe that a god exists.  Of course, virtually all of us are atheists when it comes to belief in any of the Greek, Roman, or Norse gods.  So we generally limit the term atheist to someone who does not believe in the existence of the Abrahamic god of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.  Moreover, some atheists would draw a distinction as to the nature of the god that they do not believe in.  They might, for example, limit their atheism to nonbelief in a personal, interventionist god.  Thus they might be an atheist as to a theistic god but perhaps not a deistic one.

Agnostic.  I used to think that an agnostic was simply someone who isn’t sure yet if she or he is an atheist, someone who is on the atheism fence.  In many cases that may in fact be true, but it’s not because agnosticism is some sort of “soft” atheism.  Rather, it’s because the terms address different questions.  While atheism refers to belief, agnosticism refers to knowledge.  An agnostic is someone who asserts either that he or she does not know if a god exists or that it is not possible to know if a god exists, as a matter of epistemological theory.  An atheist has concluded that he or she simply does not believe that a god exists.  

Here’s a way to think about the difference.  Ask yourself the question, Is there an actual god Neptune, you know, the Roman god that supposedly lives in the ocean and carries a trident?  One might argue that Neptune could be lurking somewhere in the depths of the ocean, so that you cannot know that he does not exist.  In that sense you would be agnostic as to Neptune’s existence.  On the other hand, no one has seriously claimed Neptune’s existence for centuries, and there has been no credible evidence to support his existence.  So, if you are like me, you would say that, while it may be technically impossible to prove Neptune’s nonexistence, you simply don’t believe that he does exist.  Therefore, you are an atheist when it comes to belief in Neptune.

Freethinker.  Freethought refers to the idea that beliefs should be based on logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than on authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.  The term reflects the notion that one’s thinking is free of reliance on revealed authority or dogma.  Thus freethought concerns the process by which we come to our beliefs, rather than the substance of those beliefs.  Theoretically, an individual could consider herself to be a freethinker and also be a theist.  However, because the evidence for the existence of a theistic god is subjective and essentially based on revealed authority, such as scripture, virtually all freethinkers are nonbelievers.

I like the term freethought because of its focus on process and reliance on empiricism and rational analysis.  My only quibbles with the term are that it is a little clunky and seems to call for additional explanation because its use is not as common as some of the other labels for nonbelief.

Skeptic.  The label of skeptic is also one of my personal favorites.  In fact, for more than 30 years my car’s license plate has read “SKEPTC.”  (When I first got the plate, Wisconsin limited to six the number of characters that could be used.)  I’m happy to say that the plate consistently gets thumbs ups rather than middle finger salutes.  

There is a bit of a problem with the skeptic label.  In common parlance the term can refer to a person who assumes a questioning attitude regarding nearly everything, and this can conjure up the notion of someone who tends to be persistent (perhaps overly persistent) in expressing his or her doubts.  Or perhaps worse is someone who claims to be a skeptic because he doubts that the moon landings actually occurred.

But skepticism isn’t about not believing anything.  We all come to have beliefs.  Rather, the term concerns the process one employs in determining what to believe.  Just as with freethought, skeptics base beliefs on objective evidence and rational analysis rather than on authority, revelation, or dogma.
  
One of my favorite models for skepticism has been the disciple Thomas.  As the story goes, when other disciples told Thomas that they had seen the resurrected Jesus after his crucifixion, Thomas was skeptical.  He only accepted Jesus’s resurrection after seeing and touching the crucifixion scars in his hands.  

I would also point out that skepticism addresses a much broader array of issues than those relating to religious belief.  Skepticism deals with such topics as UFOs, psychic phenomena, ghosts, and alternative medicine.

Humanist.  The focus of humanism, sometimes referred to as secular humanism, is on establishing and promoting a coherent moral philosophy that recognizes the primacy of human well-being without reliance on any rationales based on theistic or other supernatural beliefs.  Fundamental for humanists is the idea that moral and ethical standards should be based not on what a religious authority might prescribe but on the use of critical thinking and empiricism to identify what is best for the long-term well-being of humankind.  

Technically, humanism does not preclude belief in a deity.  Instead, it considers such beliefs to be irrelevant and in some cases detrimental to identifying what is best for the human community.  Most humanists would probably agree that while religion may provide a rationale for aspects of a moral code, religion can also promote rules of conduct that are detrimental rather than beneficial to the human condition.  

I am a big fan of the use of the label humanist because of its emphasis on human-based moral standards and on the fact that the term does not carry the same negative connotations for Christians that such terms as atheist and agnostic can generate.

Bright.  Over the past couple of decades some prominent nonbelievers have been referring to themselves as brights.  For the record, the term is intended to refer to those who hold a naturalistic worldview, who deny the existence of the supernatural.  In practice, bright is simply another term for those who identify under one or more of the other labels listed above.  

In my experience, this label has not caught on.  Arguably, it projects a sense of smug arrogance—those who do not believe in a god are bright, implying that those who do are, well, dim.  Such a term does nothing to reduce the negative aura attached to such labels as atheist and agnostic.  More recently I saw reference to an alternative artificial label, SHARP, an acronym for skeptic/humanist/atheist/agnostic/positivist.  That term, even more so than bright, has gone nowhere.

© 2019 John M. Phillips