Labels

On Monday I joined my husband at a pub meeting of South African skeptics.

I went along because

a) I like alcohol and

b) I have encountered a few skeptics online and had started to form an opinion of what the average (I am sure they’ll hate that adjective since they pride themselves on their above average intelligence!) is like and I wanted to see for myself, in person, whether my perceptions were justified or not. Because sadly, although the average skeptic’s heart is in the right place and motivated by a need to educate the deluded masses, he or she mostly comes off as pompous and derogatory. This may be borne out of pure frustration. And of course the anonymity of the internet allows for maximum venting with minimum consequence. Or maybe this is just the way skeptics are towards anyone who is a believer (a swear word in the realm of the skeptic) or who in any way does not espouse their approach to life.

Although I was very curious, I also felt a bit of apprehension and so did not reply to the invite when my husband first extended it. The reason for my apprehension is that my husband and I have had numerous arguments about my “mental instability” because I held certain beliefs and because in my pursuit of self-knowledge I have explored matters that he considers complete quackery I had a fear that I would be voluntarily throwing myself to the lions in a time when my personal life is marred by trauma and uncertainty. Did I really want to subject myself to that at such a vulnerable time? My knee-jerk was to avoid the situation altogether but my curiosity got the better of me.

The evening passed without incident except when early on in the meeting one skeptic turned to me and asked “So, Heidi, are you a skeptic?” Although I had anticipated something of this nature happening, I was still taken aback. So much so that I could not think of a witty response. I could not believe that I was put on the spot like that (because everybody else’s faces turned to me expectantly) when I already felt such vulnerability. I stammered some reply about “being in between things”, which was hardly a satisfactory response and of course led to the one thing I try to avoid at all costs: Being labeled. I could literally see the judgment being passed on the faces around me. The reality is that is exactly what I am at the moment (and perhaps may always be): In between “things”.

2008 was a horrendous year for me. Between my mother being “let go”, my sister being diagnosed with stage III colon cancer at age 26 and my father dying at age 51, in part due to medical negligence, I have been left reeling. For the first time in my life I had this thought, which I shared with my husband through my grieving sobs: “There cannot be a God. There is just too much suffering in the world” .

If you asked me what I would define God as, I would probably not be able to give you a coherent response, and certainly not one that would survive skeptic scrutiny. At best I can describe it as a collective consciousness, a oneness between humans, nature, life, that does not necessarily protect, but strives for the betterment of mankind, of the world. That awards kindness and can bring peace. People aren’t inherently evil, but are shaped in part by their experiences and may turn out “badly” due to a predisposition. Is there a label for this definition of God? I don’t know and I don’t care. This is what I felt. At least until about two months ago. Now, I just don’t know. Hence, I am “in between things”, having found my previous convictions to be fallacious and having nothing to replace that void in my mind with.

But people need labels. That is how they make sense of the world and themselves. So I will now attempt to find a label that “fits” me, at least in part. I am hoping it will bring me some healing and clarity of thought. And perhaps the next time I am asked “are you a skeptic”, a more intelligent response will be forthcoming.

The first label is RELIGIOUS (believing firmly in a religion and paying great attention to its practices (Oxford)). This one is easy. I have never been religious and never will be. My childhood was characterized by church-hopping, no denomination ever sitting quite right with me. Now I only find myself in a church when attending a wedding. I eat what I want (although I am trying very hard to steer clear of bacon - ask me why if you care to know), drink what I want and do what I want within the confines of the law.

The second label is THEIST (person who believes in the existence of gods or a god, especially a God supernaturally revealed to man and maintaining a personal relation to his (Oxford)). No, not any more. 2008 took care of that.

A denial of theism, automatically brings one to ATHEIST (as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism (Wikipedia)). On this point, Sagan’s statement resonates with me the best: "An atheist has to know more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God." I cannot state the nonexistence of God as fact, so atheism is out.

So how did Sagan self-describe and is that then the correct label for me? He described himself as AGNOSTIC (a person who believes that nothing can be known about the existence of God or of anything except material things (Oxford)). I don’t believe that nothing can be known. I just don’t know anything at the moment. That could change. So I am not agnostic.


Am I a SCEPTIC? A sceptic is defined in Oxford as someone who is “inclined to disbelieve things, doubting or questioning the truth of claims and statements”. And “Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement” (http://www.skeptic.com/). The scientific method in turn “refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses” (Wikipedia).

Another phrase thrown around a few times during the pub meeting is “ questioning everything”. This label also does not fit me. Apart from not wanting to be associated with the adjectives described earlier in the post, there is a cynicism inherent to skepticism that borders on snobbishness to me. I also believe that peer review and of course the ever-present evils of fame and fortune, brings with it certain politics that may affect objectivity and authenticity of scientific claims. Mostly, I feel that life is too short to spend your time questioning everything. At some point you have to live your life and attempt to get enjoyment from it, without tearing everything and everyone apart in pursuit of the “truth”.

How about HUMANIST? “Humanism is a comprehensive life stance that upholds human reason, ethics, and justice, and rejects supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition
Humanism has appeal to agnostics, apatheists, atheists, empiricists, freethinkers, objectivists, rationalists, and scientific skeptics.” (Wikipedia) Aah. So humanist is a secondary label. And I have to figure out the primary label first.

FREETHINKER? “Freethought holds that individuals should neither accept nor reject ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their beliefs on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any factual/logical fallacies or intellectually-limiting effects of authority, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmatic or otherwise fallacious principles.” (Wikipedia). Well, sometimes I accept ideas and sometimes I reject ideas and sometimes I am completely ambivalent. I know that I love my husband and that is not based on knowledge or reason. Sometimes things just are. So this label almost fits, but totally disregards my emotive side and brings in that pesky scientific inquiry again.


Let me try RATIONALIST. “In epistemology and in its broadest sense, rationalism is "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification" (Lacey 286). In more technical terms it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive. " (Wikipedia)

One of the earliest known rationalists is Socrates and Wiki has this to say: “Socrates firmly believed that, before anyone can understand the world, they first need to understand themselves; the only way to accomplish that is with rational thought. In order to understand what this means, one needs first to appreciate the Greek understanding of the world. Man is composed of two parts, a body and a soul. The soul itself has two principal parts, an Irrational part, which is the emotions and desires, and a Rational part, which is our true self. In our everyday experience, the irrational soul is drawn down into the physical body by its desires and merged with it, so that our perception of the world is limited to that delivered by the physical senses. The rational soul is beyond our conscious knowledge, but sometimes communicates via images, dreams, and other means. The task of the philosopher is to refine and eventually extract the irrational soul from its bondage, hence the need for moral development, and then to connect with the rational soul, and so become a complete person, manifesting the higher spiritual essence of the person whilst in the physical. True rationalism is therefore not simply an intellectual process, but a shift in perception and a shift in the qualitative nature of the person. The rational soul perceives the world in a spiritual manner - it sees the Platonic Forms - the essence of what things are. To know the world in this way requires that one first know oneself as a soul, hence the requirement to 'know thyself', i.e. to know who you truly are.”

Yes, this is almost perfect! Although I do feel that senses have a role to play. It should not be used to base the whole truth on, but they do play an important role in terms of collecting data. Also, it fits with my view that each person should be free to believe what they want, as long as it does not cause harm to themselves or others. The focus is on an internal locus of control, not to prove things “wrong” or “right”, but to use logic to arrive at the best possible “truth”.

So there we go. The next time a question of that nature is posed, I can with reasonable certainty proclaim that: I steer clear of labels, but have rationalist tendencies. Or I can simply say: I am just me.