Are you an atheist, secular humanist, bright, freethinker ... ?
• Richard Evans Lee
I have what is probably a typical on and off again relationship with labels. In finding a new noun to describe some part of myself I've clarified assorted segments of my inner life. But there's the old say, the map isn't the territory. Whatever particularities you associate with the word you've chosen to denote some personal quality, others often (usually?) see other attributes adhering to the word.
For a long time I called myself an agnostic. Actually too young to have cleaner taste I called myself a nihilo-epistemologist. I rejected the idea of knowledge, but never the pragmatic assumption of knowing. I've never been the kind of guy who wants to engage in debates like how do I know the chair is there. Not that I'd argue with Hume. There's no settling the absolute existence of the chair, no benefit in fretting over it instead of sitting down. If you were to ask me what I mean by chair I'd be tempted to do what Dr. Johnson did to the stone when he wanted to settle Bishop Berkeley's metaphysics. I was just a kid trying to capture my total metaphysical aporia.
I switched to atheist not because I know there's no platitudinous or whimsical First Cause behind everything. But given some biggish set of possibilities, the tiny few that clearly come from helpless mortal need for wish fulfillment isn't worth considering when confronting infinity. If It has some real interest in me It can get in touch. If It made everything that for a prank or as a cosmic Busby Berkeley knowing about it would be interesting but irrelevant to my life.
Some folks like to call themselves secular humanists. A dowdy term I've always recoiled from. I know just enough about history to feel uncomfortable with the stereotypical pop notions of Renaissance humanism. And really I don't care for much of humanity. If I could clear the planet of a huge bulk of them tomorrow they'd be gone.
Initially I laughed at the notion of calling myself a Bright. Dawkins can almost persuade me. That is because he's a gifted polemicist and it isn't an ugly word. But really I can't imagine myself calling myself a Bright instead of merely bright.
There's freethinker. Not sure why I reject it. Maybe it sounds as smug as Bright.
I shouldn't forget infidel. For me that gives too much acknowledgement to the Christians.
Often I've said I'm Village Atheist. But my partner had to point out that it has an element of self-deprecating humor. I've always meant to mean that I'd rather laugh at you than, ahem, discuss your crazed half-baked ideas about the universe.
Sometimes I say I'm an anti-theist. Morality derived from an Angry Daddy is clearly hurtful. If there's a theist conception that amounts to more than a baby's cry in the crib then it is a mighty amazing fluke.
But I'm as anti-pseudoscience, UFO, psychic powers, as I am anti-god.
Really having a label isn't important to me. But I do wonder how some people pick the word they use to sum up their disagreement with the irrational.
Comments
Posted by: Eli Sarver | March 28, 2004 11:00 AM
Posted by: Richard | March 28, 2004 07:19 PM