Changing "Faith" Label

[muichimotsu]

Buddhism is still a strong influence, but given that my general knowledge of it in contrast to my affirmation of the ideas has a big gap, I've contemplated changing for one of the labels that are in the "non-religious" category, but I'm not sure if any of them are accurate for my position, though one is close


Agnostic-This honestly feels like it's trying to apply the more modern meaning that's essentially advocating Pyrhhonism or something related, rather than what I think is a more nuanced application similar to Aldous Huxley's meaning when he coined the term, where it's regarding whether one can make knowledge claims about the supernatural or not, versus holding those beliefs. Agnostic could apply technically to theists or such in that they believe in supernatural things, but merely don't claim to know it as fact.

Atheist-This is still constantly debated as to whether it entails a positive affirmation that God does not exist or a negative position in terms of not being convinced of God's existence. I'd hold more apatheism or igtheism, distinct in their regard to the God question, less about an affirmation one way or the other about its existence

Freethinker-This one was less familiar, but looking into it a bit suggests that it can apply to those who believe in the supernatural, just it's less common that those who don't hold those beliefs, because the constraint is more about not appealing to authority, dogma, or tradition rather than merely belief in things that are scientifically or rationally verifiable or falsifiable.

Humanist-The distinction can be more about presentation (ritual aspects and ethical humanism for the religious humanism that exists as a term and grouping), but I wouldn't reject secular humanist as a term, even if it's fraught with accusations and conspiracies

Naturalist-I feel like this would need qualification even if we're talking merely about the non-religious positions, since methodological naturalism is distinct from metaphysical naturalism. And even if I affirmed metaphysical naturalism, that's hardly a representative viewpoint as to other things I would affirm morally, etc, which is partly why Buddhism has stuck around for me, because it can allow me to at least roughly offer answers for other questions beyond merely belief in God or lack thereof

Rationalist-This one feels especially in need of limitation, as well as specifics involved, since this is a major theory of epistemology and many theists, even Christians, would hold to this, so it feels like it's not elaborated in the listing. If you mean something more like reason is the sole arbiter of things, then that could be elaborated for more precision in contrast to the idea that rationalism is better at assessing some things in contrast to, say, empiricism.

Skeptic-This was one I admittedly also hadn't looked into in detail and there are several forms, though the major distinction is epistemological and methodological. The former has a number of variations, like moral skepticism among others, but I think what is intended for this term here would be methodological skepticism, rather than a claim of any degree regarding knowledge, which can apply even to Christians, technically.

If anything, Humanist or Skeptic would be the two I feel best fit, though they also would still require qualifications that aren't entailed easily without adding onto that singular label

Perhaps there could be further improvements? I'm willing to aid if perspectives are required, though I imagine it won't be a simple process

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Since I've read your posts the last year or so, and talked to you a few times I really thought you were some kind of Skeptic Agnostic and not really a Buddhist.

 

[muichimotsu]

There is a position that would be Buddhist that fits into those, just disregarding the more supernatural aspects posited (mostly rebirth, the karmic system in a simplified form not a bad kind of virtue ethics or consequentialism, I think). But I also can't really be BOTH a Skeptic and Agnostic by the limits of the CF system, I'd lean to Skeptic. I put up a Ticket to suggest 2 other options which might fit me better: Ignostic/Igtheist and Apatheist

 

[crossnote]

Not knowing who or what one is can be a problem.
We are more than a label and in your case not even an accurate label would suffice as we are more than an aggregate of words acting as descriptors.

 

[muichimotsu]

Not knowing who or what one is can be a problem.
We are more than a label and in your case not even an accurate label would suffice as we are more than an aggregate of words acting as descriptors.

It's more that I'd prefer to avoid the misunderstandings that come up with my present Buddhist label, especially given that, to be precise, my Buddhism is fairly limited in terms of what would be considered in that area, more in line with Theravada, which to my knowledge, is the least about making supernatural claims, unlike Mahayana and Vajrayana, the seemingly much more common manifestations that spread from India

 

[crossnote]

It's more that I'd prefer to avoid the misunderstandings that come up with my present Buddhist label, especially given that, to be precise, my Buddhism is fairly limited in terms of what would be considered in that area, more in line with Theravada, which to my knowledge, is the least about making supernatural claims, unlike Mahayana and Vajrayana, the seemingly much more common manifestations that spread from India

I was once a Taoist until I learned that words were a warp and woof of life itself.

 

[John Helpher]

It's weird that you put "free thinker" in the list and then excluded it from the top two choices you're considering.