In the last week, there have been a number of dairies about religion and beliefs. This dairy is not about that. It is about those of us who do not subscribe to any organized religion and are not believers in the supernatural.
Although we are a diverse group, we clearly have fundamental commonalities. However, our philosophical leanings somehow seem to defy a specific categorization. The name most commonly used to describe us is, “nones.” I don’t think that’s an apt term because it attempts to describe us by what we are not, rather than by what we are. Positive descriptors are preferable.
True, we have no religious affiliation, but we certainly subscribe to some principles that bind us together as a coherent group. What are those principles? Can we reduce them to a single tenet we all have in common that encompasses the overall basis of our belief system?
A number of terms widely used to describe us – or some of us – are listed below. Although I do not find any of them offensive, they are somewhat objectionable. And, of course, people should have the right to describe themselves as they prefer.
Non-believers...
By definition, (religious) believers let faith overrule reason. We don’t do that. But the “non-believer” classification is inadequate. Although we do not believe in the supernatural, we do believe in something, don’t we? What is it?
Atheists...
This is a very narrow descriptor. Yes, we do not believe in gods, but what do we believe in? Couldn’t someone be an atheist and believe in superstition? Would a superstitious atheist be part of “our” group?
Agnostics...
This term applies to those who neither affirm nor deny the existence of gods. In other words, they believe the answer to the question of whether gods exist is unknowable. That’s most likely true. But this description implies a somewhat hands-off approach? I find that is not satisfactory. Agnostics may not “know” whether gods exist, however, that position is born out of thought processes, not ignorance.
Humanist...
A wonderful concept, but what does it mean? To me it means human rights supersede all religious (or secular) precepts regarding how we should treat and respect each other. A consideration, however, is that this term does not segregate the religious from the non-religious. People can be religious humanists, like Jimmy Carter. Or non-religious humanists, like so many of us.
Realist...
This term is exceedingly unclear. What does it mean for something to be real? Philosophers have been discussing this question for centuries without ever getting close to consensus. I don’t intend to resolve it here.
I do have a preferred term that I believe many of us could come to embrace as an all-encompassing descriptor. That is, “naturalist.” That’s how I prefer to call myself.
What do I mean by “naturalist”?
I apply the term to those of us who believe we live in a universe that behaves according to some (natural) principles that cause some phenomena that we can observe, and try to understand and predict by means of a methodology we call “science.” We may never fully understand all of these principles. And that is fine. But we should continue to advance our knowledge, allowing the concept of “science” to evolve as well.
We are not anxious or troubled by questions like, “who created the universe?” Or “what’s the purpose of life?” We just accept the fact that the universe exists, and we happen to be here and now. It is up to each of us, individually, to define our own purpose. We don’t believe in the afterlife. We accept responsibility for our deeds during our lifetime. There’s more, of course, but that’s in a nutshell.
Would the term “naturalist” be an all-encompassing descriptor of the “nones”?
Is there another term that, in your view, may be more applicable or preferable?
(Regarding the ethics or lack thereof of religious versus non-religious people, I’ll just say that I subscribe to the view that morality is independent of religious belief. Most modern philosophers agree that belief in god is not a prerequisite for morality. An interesting and important ongoing debate, but not for this dairy.)