by Mike Flood
The Freethinker has recently published an interesting article arguing the case for new terminology to substitute for ‘atheist’ when describing the ‘new world view’ that has been evolving since the Enlightenment . The article reinforces the case I made in my last HumanistLife piece about the confusion surrounding the use of the term.
The author, Jeff Haley, argues that we need a term that can be “easily understood and used by everyone” and “complimentary inoffensive terminology to label the older worldviews so that we can talk to people who hold these views and cause a minimum of emotionally distracting insult.”
Haley dismisses the term ‘naturalistic’ — whilst it nicely contrasts with the word ‘supernatural’, it also “connotes the essence of the old worldviews much more than the essence of the new”. He also rejects the term ‘scientific’ because it would mean, amongst other things needing to change the generally understood meaning of ‘scientist’. His proposal is ‘evidist’, and or an ‘evidistic’ or ‘evidal’ worldview, with the labels ‘traditionalists’ or ‘intuitivists’ reserved for those who hold the ‘old worldview’.
The article is already causing waves: Barbara Smoker has applauded Haley’s neologism as better than ‘sceptics’ (which is “too equivocal”), ‘atheists’ (“solely negative”), ‘secular humanists’, (“inexplicit”), or ‘brights’ (“distastefully arrogant”). However she prefers the adjective ‘evidistic’, and the noun ‘evidism’. Another correspondent has suggested ‘innovist’. And no doubt there will be more…
But not everyone is convinced: “Whatever label we atheists use, we’re hell-bound unbelievers, so why mince around the subject?” And whilst recognising the confusion and ignorance over the word ‘atheist’ — and much more so over ‘humanist’ and ‘agnostic’ — another contributor argues that “throwing a word like ‘evidist’ into the mix will exacerbate the confusion”.
Do we need to confine ourselves to one label? When describing my attitude towards gods and the like, I am an atheist. To describe my attitude to life, I say that I aspire towards humanism. I’m a sceptic when faced with extraordinary claims. I’m also a scientists, a free thinker, a secularist. And an old codger.
Religious people do this all the time: theist; christian; catholic, for example. People’s philosophies are too complicated for a simple one-word label.
Right. So what is being suggested?
Peter,
I am with you on a ‘label’.
I am atheist, humanist, secularist and, I trust, rationalist.
It would be difficult, I believe, to find an all-embracing term appropriate and acceptable to all or some of the above categories.
Almost by definition, because any/some/most of the above are, I trust, freethinking, it will be almost impossible to find one word to describe us.
This will be seen as a fundamental difficulty as, without a unified voice, the establishment will disregard us. This is not ideal, but it ought to mean that we, individually, will still state our case whenever possible and at every appropriate opportunity – it is unlikely that a relatively small number of declared atheists et al (several hundred thousand people, perhaps?) will change the course of thinking for the hundreds of millions who are (possibly/most likely/certainly?) uncritical of their beliefs and stance – but that ought not to deter us.
Michael
When I call myself Humanist, I announce to believers and non believers alike that it is people, their insignts, actions and attitudes that inspire me. If I claim to be inclusive I see that I should choose a label that draws into my circle of concern, all people, not just those who see the world the way I do.
-Laura, a Soul-free woman from Sandbridge, Virginia