One question that popped up a few times so far is which labels I would now apply to myself. That is a fair question and a good opportunity to clear up some things that I confused myself over for years.
At first when I lost my BFF, I would call myself a Deist. Although I came to the conclusion that Jesus may not be the Way, the arguments for the existence of a ‘ground of all being’ were still there. The very existence of this marvelously complex and vast universe should leave us in awe and wonder! Deism is then the assertion that there is some creator “god”, but it doesn’t get involved in the universe. However I quickly realized that while Deism may be true, it is a rather pointless point of view because nobody can verify this position.
I would rather describe myself as an Agnost. What a most liberating thing to say: “I don’t know”! Who designed the universe? I don’t know. How will humanity end? I don’t know. Is there life after death? I don’t know (but it seems unlikely though). This is not a cop-out actually. It is in fact easier to have an answer to these basic questions even though the answer may not be found in reason, than to say “I don’t know”. People like answers. I like answers. There have been thousands of religions giving different answers to these questions, even though obviously most or even all of them are incorrect. In line with Socrates I find it much more courageous to say “I don’t know” when – in all honesty – these things are way over our heads.
Then there is the infamous Atheist word. This is the most tricky one, because it is often associated with angry people without morals. Picture Stalin, Mao or some serial rapist killer. Yikes! Even atheists themselves subconsciously consider other atheists to be less morally sound than other groups. But this is because it is such a meaningless term. Atheist just means “without belief in god(s)”. Many interpret it as “actively denying the existence of God” but this is not helpful as it is not in line with the meaning of the world. It just means ‘not a theist’, so somebody who lacks belief in a god, rather than beliefs there are no gods. Atheism is like saying you don’t play volleyball. That is not a sport. That is lack of a sport. It therefore doesn’t mean anything substantial, and it doesn’t provide much either (in terms of morals, bonding, group, etc). So, yes, technically I am an atheist and no, don’t assume stuff based upon that single word.
Those confused by how I could be an atheist AND an agnostic at the same time, watch this video:
A much more positive word that I now like to associate myself with is a secular Humanist. Rather than saying what I am not (a-gnostic and a-theist) this describes what I do believe in: the value of human life, of using reason, evidence and the whole of human experience to live ethical and moral lives. What I really like about it is that it is based upon reason: anything can be questioned, which leaves a core foundation so strong that anyone who is able to feel empathy for other human beings can easily benefit from the wisdom of humanism.
Then lastly I would be proud if somebody called me a Freethinker. I find it arrogant to apply the word to myself, as if I am the one thinking freely and others are not. Freethinking is thinking without dogma, without pre-written rules on what the conclusions of your thoughts ought to be. It is closely linked to the scientific method, using facts, evidence and reasoning to get to solid conclusions and good theories, and the courage to throw away anything that is not in line with any new findings.
There you go. An agnostic, atheistic humanist, with weak deistic tendencies who hopes to be seen as a freethinker. Shoot, that does not fit on a bumper sticker…
October 18, 2015 at 19:08
you are a freethinker 🙂
LikeLike
October 20, 2015 at 13:43
Empathy for other human beings is just a feeling. It cannot be based on reason and leaves humanism and you without the core foundation you are so happy about.
LikeLike
October 20, 2015 at 14:50
We do know from experience that happy people live lives in harmony with others, and perform acts of selfless love. In other words, if you want to be happy, don’t be greedy but be giving and caring for others. Also from an evolutionary point of view this makes good sense (people are social animals, and work together in groups).
Rarely do people not want to be ‘happy’ in life, or find ‘fulfillment’. I want to be happy and live a full and meaningful life, and I want to use the experience of mankind to help me with that. If one wants to be evil, know that others will try and stop you, and put laws in place to hinder you too, which will also limit your own happiness or development. I don’t even need to make any references to moral ‘good’ or ‘wrong’ but this is just based on what ‘works’.
I readily admit I am new to this area, but at the least the ‘faith’ based assumptions of humanism are minimal yet yield quite a pratical and large field of ethics that can work across cultures and even religions.
LikeLike
October 20, 2015 at 20:41
Totally agree, no argument here. It works. The foundation is lacking, but it is livable. That’s called ‘general grace’. 🙂
LikeLike
October 23, 2015 at 02:23
Emphaty is “just a feeling” it can not be based on reason?!!! Why would anybody say that? The answer probably is a general lack of knowledge about evolution and historical development! So often the religious try turning things around, twisting reality. Does this writer even understands the meaning of the word reason? It is religion which is just a feeling and can not be based on reason (or evidence) ! Emphaty has played a mayor role in human evolution, that is why we are group animals, our first small signs of civilisation happen in a family circle growing to more then 1 familes and settlements became bigger. Their is so much reason for emphaty 🙂 this link will give some information but there are many others as well. “general grace” is general nonsence! http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_evolution_of_empathy
LikeLike
October 23, 2015 at 02:52
I appreciate your comment, but don’t attack people on a personal level: “do you even understand the meaning of the word reason”? I will moderate that next time, and will do that for everyone. Assume people are intelligent and mean what they say.
I am trying to have a balanced blog here on a very delicate topic, so I will be very strict on any hyperbole or personal attacks.
LikeLike
October 23, 2015 at 04:35
It was not mend as a personal attack, see the question mark and follow up questions and my conclusion. The conclusion of the writer is obviously wrong. Besides religious people judging ideas on reason is a bit odd to me considering that reason is not on the side of religion and they obviously have a problem using it. Influential religious people even said reason is the biggest enemy of faith .. my apologies anyway 🙂 .. I am Dutch too 😉 and from a part of the country etc. blunt yes sub tile is not always one of my qualities .. working on it. Sorry for that I will do my best in the future 🙂 …. just thinking maybe it is misusing the word reason and it should be replaced by religious reasoning or something like that because it is written from this persons religious perspective.
LikeLike