Test

What is an Apistic?

The word “apistic” derives from the Greek άπιστος (ápistos) or απιστία (apistía.) The term can be found in many essays and blogs on the internet. However, it does not have an entry in any traditional English dictionary, or encyclopedia. It does not have an entry in dictionary.com, wikipedia.com, or rationalwiki.com. From a simple web search, I can only find entries, both of which are identical, in urbandictionary.com and definething.com.  The conjugation of the word doesn’t seem clear, with some using either “apistia” or “apisticism” as to refer to the subscription of apistics.  
The Greek terms, ápistos and apistía, appear in Septuagint translation of the Bible. When the bible was further translated into English, the word was dissolved into “unbeliever” or “those who don’t believe,” etc. Its propagation into English, entact, seemed to be halted in favor of Germanic derivatives.  English language dictionaries for biblical words, such as Vine’s Expository Dictionary merely translate the Greek word to the English variants of belief and faithful.

The earliest use of the word in English, that I can find, is by Charles W. Rishell, A.M., PhD., who was a Professor of Historical Theology in Boston University's School of Theology.  In his book The Foundations of the Christian Faith (c. 1899 Eaton & Mains), he uses the word “apistic” to refer to one who does not believe, and the word “apisticism” to refer to the subscription. Rishell uses “apistic” and “apisticism” in order to correct agnostics of his day in how they referred to themselves.

“Thus, in the course of our investigation, we have discovered that agnosticism has completely changed its form. It quietly substitutes  ‘I do not believe’ for ‘I do not know,’ and yet calls itself agnosticism to distinguish itself from gnosticism. What rights has agnosticism in the realm of belief? But it draws the practical conclusion from its "I do not believe," and says, ‘I will not act.’ If it had remained agnosticism it might have acted, in spite of its lack of knowledge. But its ‘I do not believe’ is complete annihilation of all impulse to action. The difference between agnosticism in this form and atheism is almost, if not wholly, in name. Let the adherents of this phase of irreligion call them selves, not agnostics, signifying their lack of knowledge, but apistics, signifying their lack of belief and let them call their system, not agnosticism, but apisticism. The mongrel character of the word is no more marked in the one case than in the other, and the name we propose has the merit of describing the fact. Translated into English, for those who do not care to hide the real facts from the English reader by the use of Greek form, we should have for apistics, un believers, and for apisticism, unbelief To designate his inaction the agnostic might call himself an aergist and his system of inaction aergisticism.”

It would seem that Rishell is thinking that he is initiating the use of the word, in English for the first time.  It also seems that Rishell does not look upon atheists, agnostics, apistics, and aergists favorably, which is not much a surprise given that Rishell, along with being an academic, was a 19th century Methodist clergyman. Most of what he wrote about apisticism seems to be more of a means to reconcile what he actually thought of agnostics, versus what they claim to be or the literal translation of “agnostic”, in order make it easier to approach from theological standpoint.

In the eyes of agnostics and atheists, Rishell’s agenda for applying the term “apistic” may appear dubious, at best. It would seem yet another example of theists trying to create an accessible box, on their own terms, rather than take the word of the atheist or agnostic on what and why they are. Considering the source, Rishell’s use of “apistic” and “apisticism” can be considered pejorative. This is not a problem. In their original Greek forms and their initial uses outside of the Greek the language, calling someone an atheist or an agnostic, was considered an insult, after all. We can take the term “apistic”, subscribe to its fundamental meaning, all the while we, being the subscribers, get to expand upon what it means to be an apistic.
Other scholars and authors, mainly of the Christian belief, have utilized the term “apistic.” Most perceive it as noncommittal and preposterous. Like many things, Christians make a system of thought that is different than theirs, more of a denial of Christian theology, rather than independent thought. Apisticism is mentioned in name and referred to in such a way. Then again so is every religion, that is not Christianity.

Using Rishell’s conjugation, apisticism is subscribed to by apistics, those who do not believe or have faith. I doubt he would have been pleased to know that people would embrace those terms, with pride, as adequate descriptions for their absence of belief.  I guess we can thank the good pastor, now that he brought the Greek term to English and conjugated it for us, as to clear up any current uncertainty between “apistia” and “apisticism.” Mind you, “apistian” and “apistianity” do have a certain ring. Maybe they will find themselves in greater use in the future. For now we have the following definition as it would possibly appear in a dictionary.

Apistic: [ay pis tic] noun: One who is without faith and belief.

adjective: the absence of belief and faith.

This is the fundamental definition of apistic, however, as with most things, there is more to it than that. When you delve into what exactly “faith” or “belief” are, the path of the apistic becomes deeper and more complex. It becomes a life long task to eliminate faith and belief from their perspective. This is not easy, nothing worthwhile is.

The Path of the Apistic

This is not meant to be the gospel of apisticism. There isn’t one. There shouldn’t be one. Formulating a set curriculum discounts the individual, thus it does not aid in the gathering of information from many subjectivities in order to gain objective knowledge. Simply put, it would be self defeating if all aptistics followed the same method to achieve their absence of belief. It would cut us all from the same cloth and eliminate diversity of information.  That being said, this is my curriculum. As time goes on, I hope to gather more experiences and perspectives in order to improve upon my road-map. As I have said, this is a work in progress. It always will and should be.

To begin with, we review the definition of apistic, which is one who is absent faith and belief. What is belief? What is faith? Belief is confidence in the truth or existence of something that is not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. It can be taken further that belief is that confidence in the truth despite the existence of overwhelming proof that contradicts that truth. Faith is a belief that is not based on proof. In Greek, faith and belief are both represented by the word, πίστη (písti̱), which is the root of ápistos. Due to this, I will consider them synonymous in my use of them here, but recognise that others perceive them as having different definitions. With this in tow, the definition of apistic can be expanded to “one who does not have confidence in a truth or existence of something without submitting it to the burden of proof.” This personalizes apisticism. Whereas the burden of proof falls on the party that presented the supposition, that evidence succumbs to further scrutiny by the apistic. I do not take evidence for granted, and it is my responsibility to myself to learn the facts for myself, through the conference with a multitude of diverse sources.

With this we can further ascertain that my path as an apistic is in the lifelong pursuit of the truth through the gathering of information, basically research and learning. This, ideally, results in a widening perspective that is constantly evolving due to the persistent acquisition of information. In order to facilitate this process, I must not have emotional attachments toward perspectives (the truth as I know it) I may hold at any given time. This is aided by the the recognition, admission, and dissolution of cognitive biases, in order to avoid cognitive dissonance, both of which I will cover later.

The word “apistic” in a philosophical context, appears in published literature by theist theologians, particularly of the Christian persuasion, as a pejorative toward agnostics and atheists. Theologians, such as Professor Charles W. Rishell and Pastor James W. Miller,  assert that agnostics and atheist are not merely without faith, but refuse to believe, and arrogantly expect God to prove his existence. There are a multitude of reasons these theologians give as to why agnostics and atheists act in this manner, but the preeminent thought is that they refuse to make a decision, and sit unwilling to commit themselves to either believing in the divine or believing that god definitely does not exist. They claim that because of this the agnostic and atheist are actually apistic, and that apisticism, in its non-belief is actually a state of uncommitted neutrality. In the spirit of embracing the term, I’m going to say that this is incorrect on multiple counts.

First, agnostics are not apistic, at least by definition. Fundamentally, agnostics claim that the definitive existence or nonexistence of the non material world (heaven, hell and god) is unable to be known or learned. As an apistic, I make no such claim. The fact that I’m motivated to learn and gather information sets me apart from being an agnostic. If I assert that I’m unable to learn or know something, then why learn, research or investigate? It seems rather self defeating. In one respect, the theologians may be correct in that some agnostics actually defy the fundamental definition, by not believing, and thus should correctly call themselves apistic. This may seem a matter of semantics on my part,  but my dedication to understanding requires accurate nomenclature with precise definitions. I can not speak to the self professed agnostic’s ambiguous use of the term, but maybe they prefer it that way.
Atheism is another matter altogether. Fundamentally atheism is the absence of god, or being without god. There are two distinct flavors of atheism; there is the atheist who believes there is no god, and there is the atheist who does not believe in god.  This would seem like mincing words but the syntax is important. The former has a definitive belief, the latter does not. The former cannot be, by definition, an apistic. The latter, provided he/or she holds no other belief, is an apistic. Basically, I would state that, as an apistic, I am an atheist who doesn’t believe in god by default, but not all atheists, who do not believe in god are apistic. The difference is that if overwhelming evidence concluded that god existed, I’d still be an apistic, but I’d cease to be an atheist. I’d no longer be “without god.”
Finally, and this is how this tangent is related to the chapter, my apisticism is not centered around the existence of a god. I don’t just not believe in the existence of gods, I don’t believe in anything. Where as agnosticism and atheism exist revolve and react to religious belief, apisticism, to me, relates to all beliefs, both religious and secular. This is not meant as a insult to atheists or agnostics, but a clarification to set them apart from apisticism. The theologians, unwittingly put forth this clarification by coining the term in the first place, a fortunate result opposite of their intent. 
The theologians insist that apisticism is a form of aergisticism, which means, according to Rishell, without action. Previously I mentioned that Rishell, along with other theologians, insist that apistics,  refuse to act by choosing to sit in a neutral state unwilling to commit to believing that there is or isn’t a god. They assert that the apistic doesn’t want god to exist and has the audacity to put the burden of proof on god himself, knowing full well that god will provide no such evidence. The stunning conclusion of this, according to the theologians, is that god has the last laugh when we all die and sit in judgement. They are wrong in that as an apistic, I do not sit in a state of inactive neutrality. I research, I learn, I review everything, then scrutinize the entire mess again. If it were up to something to be known rather than for one to know it, we’d know next to nothing. The pontiffs speak of how one cannot expect god to come to them, but they must come to god. I guess through my pursuit of the truth, I’m stepping closer to him. I’ll find him if he is there, but I’ll still be an apistic. Once you have found empirical evidence, it isn’t belief, it is knowledge. 
Neutrality is a default position. With no data, there is no perspective, therefore no credible opinion. As an apistic, credibility is necessary, thus so is the search for data.  An apistic who researches before formulating an opinion is not inactive or an aergist. Maintaining neutrality without attaining knowledge, is to be willfully ignorant, which doesn’t appeal to me. Imagine a trial jury. Ideally, juries are selected through their initial neutrality. Over the course of a trial, the defense and prosecuting attorneys introduce data (evidence) in order to sway the jury one way or the other, resulting in the final judgement. In a manner of speaking we are all members of a jury, the attorneys informing us are the authors of the data. The authors of that data can either attempt to sway us with pure information or appeal to emotion and belief. For me, if there is no data and only the appeal to emotion and belief, then that information is of no use. If there is data mixed with those appeals, then I have to conclude that the data presented may be biased,  thus tainted and definitely requires additional sources in order to confirm or invalidate that data. In the end, I am searching for data to move me from neutrality. The difference is, more data can sway me the other way as well. Without the attachment of belief or emotion this can happen fluidly.

My natural state as an apistic is to be skeptical. Apisticism takes skepticism farther by taking no information for granted, whether it be credible or not. The key difference is that my apisticism requires me to learn for myself. For instance, it is not enough for me to take the word of a physicist as gospel truth in matters dealing with physics, nor can I dispute his/her findings or assertions off the cuff. I must further learn the physics for myself. In essence, I must become a credible source in order to dispute or to even truly understand the findings. I must become a physicist.  If I wish to dispute or understand history, I must become a historian. If I want to understand or dispute climate change, I must become a climatologist. Otherwise I must, acquiesce to their point of view. I may review, correlate, and corroborate sources in order to find what view I may acquiesce to, but in the end, disputing one’s claims requires matching or superseding their own credibility with my own. Otherwise my opinion is not as valid as theirs.