Like so many others, I possess a strong desire to arbitrarily bestow a name upon things, though I know this is mere formality and hardly important, because I almost believe that doing so will solidify a muddled concept, ending my confusion with the congealing, coagulating effects of semantics.  For this reason, I have searched for a fitting name for my worldview, my philosophy.  At first I thought the word atheist would work.  This was a word tinged with history, soured by time, and just waiting to be reclaimed for some positive value.  It seemed to imply various important elements of my personal philosophy, like a rejection of supernaturalism, and that appeased me well enough for many years.

Lately, though, atheist just seems too limiting a description.  It is true that I disbelieve in God, but the implications of atheism are not as solid as I would prefer.  Even a left-leaning hippie “buddhist”, believing in nonsense like reincarnation, ghosts, souls, spirits, and the healing power of magnets and prayer, could be described as an atheist even in spite of clinging so desperately to such ridiculous, off-putting beliefs.  And it is also true that as atheism gains popular support, so too will it become more of a politicized rallying point than any mark of intellectual integrity.  I fear it may become just another rest stop for rebellious teens seeking to shock and awe their friends and family.

So I have continued my search for a suitable name, or some sort of nomenclature that would adequately describe my thoughts on epistemology, metaphysics, science, and more.  The description skeptic seemed to fit.  With this name, I expand beyond mere atheism and proudly display an open encouragement of critical thinking and evaluation.  For unlike that special brand of atheism that rejects god on some emotional whim while uncritically accepting the existence of souls, big foot, aliens, alternative medicine, or a number of other claims lacking evidence, a skeptic rightfully doubts baseless assertions.  Of course, though the term skeptic offers a more expansive and fruitful description of my personal ideals, it, too is fraught with problems.  Many skeptics, for instance, insist that religion or questions of God’s existence are off limits.  This seems to me to rob the skeptical movement of its teeth, for religion is one of the biggest perpetrators of uncritical thinking, and in fact it has the market cornered even in giving names to such thinking, as this is precisely what faith means, to believe without evidence.  Imagine, for instance, if a skeptic were to assert that we can argue against anything except, say, big foot or alternative medicine.  We would rightly chastise this as an arbitrary and even unfounded limitation.  If the lights of skepticism show big foot, alternative medicine, or even religious faith to be hollow, then by all means we should allow those lights to shine.  For these reasons, I am reluctant to call myself a skeptic as well, though it is perhaps the most fitting description of my views.  It also doesn’t help that many confuse skepticism with pessimism, and many more confuse skepticism with the unreasonable denial of solidly supported, evidence-based claims, like global warming.

Of course, there are many more terms I could apply to myself.  I could call myself a freethinker, but that just seems too antiquated.  I could call myself a humanist, were it not for my general disdain for moral philosophy and ethics.  Perhaps, were I desperate enough, I could call myself a “bright”, but not even I am pretentious or drunken enough to consider adopting such a ham-fisted, prefabricated, and plastic term.

I suppose I should simply ignore my desires to designate my beliefs and philosophy with some sort of appellation.  It is surely better to simply describe my beliefs at length rather than risk misinterpretation by using some single name.  Or perhaps I could simply call myself what my mother has always called me: asshole.  Yes, that is one description that surely fits.