Theological/belief label

Factual Questions
1

From a pure religious point of view I self-identify as an agnostic, open to some belief as or if it becomes explicable by the scientific method.

I think that our purpose, if we were to choose one (since I don’t think that there is a “given” purpose for humanity) is to do our utmost, as a race, to understand how everything works, whether that be human physiology or the basic foundation of the universe.

I am not a scientist, professionally or otherwise, but I believe in the scientific method as the best means of finding the truth. So I’m not a scientist, but a believer in it. Therefore, is there a title or label for this belief system?

2

Rationalism?

3

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig called this “the church of reason”, referring to the idea that things should, you know, make sense. But Robert was intentionally being a jerk about it in order to make a point about our assumptions about the reality and how Zen Buddhism questions those assumptions. Anyway, I think a good term might be rationalism, or maybe empiricism.

FWIW, I think it would be more accurate to call yourself an atheist, but I understand why lots of people shy away from using that label. Basically, you’re a non-believer who admits they would change their mind if new information came along, right? It seems to me that this is the default position and it astonishes me that we even need a word for it.

4

Scientific Materialism, or Physicalism, might be better.

5

Secular Humanist. Join the club!

6

Do you have any thoughts about how to approach the knowledge or truth that you acquire?

So for example, if in trusting the scientific method and peer review process, you conclude that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and without drastic short-term action there will likely be major negative consequences for human life on earth, you have satisfied your stated “purpose” since you understand something. What then do you do about it? Political activism? Decide you just care about money and start an oil-burning company? Bike a little more often? Something else?

It would be interesting to see how you unpack your thought process for determining how you value knowledge and how you choose to act upon “truth”. Where did the values that lead you to make your decision come from? How do you relate to people who value things differently?

This would be helpful, not just in choosing a label, but also to explain how you chose the labels you have already chosen, like agnostic.

7

Good points, though I only wanted to focus on the belief part of the equation. I also believe that our other purpose should be to make life as good as possible for each other (within reason). I think that “good works” can obviously done whether one believes in the scientific method, Christianity, Buddism, Islam or whatever else.

Having said all that, for my entire working life, with the exception of a four year period in which the commute was way too long (45 km), I have biked, walked, or bused to work. But selfishly, that’s only because I love cycling and walking and don’t want to spend money on a second car.

8

I got you. Since you mention in your OP that you think purposes are chosen, and therefore assumably are not arrived at through the scientific method, how do you feel about the term naturalist?

9

You are a mix of things. Each of your paragraphs paints a different picture.

Agnosticism is a form of atheism, and it is rational in itself but usually applied inconsistently - do you self identify as agnostic about everything unknowable (eg Russell’s teapot) or only about the existence of a deity or deities?

Your second paragraph is rational where you say there is no given purpose, presumably based on lack of evidence, but arbitrary in that you go on to choose one.

Your third paragraph describes a rationalist.

10

Depending on how dogmatic you are about it, you could be describing some form of rationalism/materialism or scientism:

11

This is all really cool and interesting. In terms of theism, I am definitely agnostic since I genuinely don’t know. If, for example, physicists discover that there is a “dark matter AI and data processing aggregate” that controls everything, then so be it and I don’t care what it’s called (eg God). Until then, if a “then” were to occur, I don’t know.

I also believe that atheism, in terms of declaring that one knows for sure that there isn’t any god, full stop, IMHO is taking a leap of faith.

I believe that we should try to do good, not because of a deity that may or may not exist, but because life can and sometimes does stink and we should try to mitigate that as much as possible or reasonable.

12

If you don’t have a belief in a deity you are atheist. If you believe it isn’t possible to know if there is a deity you are agnostic. You are not agnostic, you are atheist.

There are some atheists (sometimes called “hard atheists”) who might say they know for sure there isn’t any god full stop. I can think of *one *on these boards. They are rare.

13

No no no. That’s a common misconception. Atheism just means you don’t believe there is a god, which is a subtle distinction from saying you DO believe there ISN’T a god. Some people distinguish between the two by calling the latter “strong atheism” or Atheism with a capital A. There are thousands of videos on youtube by atheists who insist quite strenuously that being an atheist does NOT require you to are convinced there aren’t any gods, it only means that you aren’t convinced that there are any gods.

You could say “I’m not sure that God exists” and that would make you an atheist.
Or you could say “I’m sure that God doesn’t exist” and that would also make you an atheist.

14

I agree with Kimstu that this would be scientism if you were extreme/absolute enough about it (for example, if you said “only means” rather than “best means”),

15

I think this stance also requires materialism. The scientific method proceeds from empirical observations, so if you think that science is the best or only method of finding the truth, I think the corollary must be that you think only statements about empirically observable things - material objects, in short - can be true. And the usual reason for believing this is that you believe that only material objects can be real. Reality is confined, in short, to that which is material, empirically observable. A philosophical position which is labelled “materialism”. (Although of course the word has other senses too.)

16

I think scientific naturalism is good description of the OP’s third paragraph.

Scientism tends to have pejorative overtones. It goes beyond a belief in the primacy of the scientific method in the pursuit of knowledge, generally implying an excessive belief in the power of science to solve all the world’s problems,

Trying to parse the subtle distinctions between agnosticism & strong/weak atheism seems rather pointless to me unless somebody gives a clear definition of what they mean by the word god. I think, however, that some atheists claim to be agnostic based on the fallacy that “you can’t prove a negative”. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when a prediction of the hypothesis is that we should expect to see evidence.

17

The distinctions aren’t particularly subtle and are not in my view too hard to understand. I do agree about the lack of any clear definition of “god” which is why technically I’m a theological non-cognitivist. But that is a form of atheism in that it involves no belief in a god. I don’t know what a god is exactly, but I’ve heard enough believers attempt definitions to know I don’t have a belief in anything like what they describe.

18

Different people use the word “atheist” to mean different things, so if somebody identifies as an atheist then, yeah, some interrogation may be needed to establish exactly what that person’s self-identification means. Personally, I’m comfortable with the idea that someone who lacks any belief anything that could meaningfully be called a god or gods is an “atheist”. If you want to go further and express a conviction that no god or gods exist, or can exist, or something of the kind, you don’t necessarily express that simply by identifying as an atheist.

In terms of labelling velomont’s position, “atheist” and “agnostic” are not terribly helpful terms, though. All they can do is point to something that velomont doesn’t believe, whereas a label, to be of much use, has to point to what he does believe.

What does he believe?

From his first paragraph, it seems he’s only open to beliefs that are “explicable by the scientific method”. That suggests not only a faith in the validity of the scientific method and the axioms or assumptions that underpin it, but a dismissal of, or lack of faith in, alternative epistemologies. “Scientism” might be a useful label for that except that, as Riemann points out, it has acquired (has always had?) pejorative overtones, and I don’t think velomont is looking for pejorative labels for his position.

From his second paragraph, he doesn’t think “purposes” are given but that they are chosen. This is entirely consistent with his first paragraph. He goes on to suggest, though, the purpose which we ought to choose (“understanding how everything works”) which I think implies (a) choosing a purpose is in some way valuable or worthwhile, and (b) he has either an explicit or an implicit set of criteria against which a particular purpose can be assessed. (Otherwise, how can we say which purposes ought to be chosen and which ought not?) But I don’t think he says enough here about why choosing a purpose is good at all, or about why some purposes are good and others not, to enable us to try and label his position in any meaningful way.

And finally, his third paragraph, which as I have already suggested points to materialism.

19

Bwuh? Why? In a situation in which a significant number of people believe something that affects their actions etc, simply knowing that a certain person does not believe that thing is a useful (potentially very useful) data point.

20

I mean it’s not much use to velomont. He sets out his belief system, mostly in affirmative terms, and invites us to suggest labels for it. “Atheist” points to one thing that isn’t in his belief system, but tells us nothing about what is. Telling us that his belief system isn’t theist is not wrong, but it’s no more useful than telling us that it isn’t, say, socialist.