Letterbox (November 2026)

Consider ‘evidist’ as an identifying term

In the June/July issue of Freethought Today, Dr. Robert Pierce persuasively declines to identify with the terms “atheist,” “humanist,” “freethinker” or “agnostic” and then argues for using “reasonist.” I consider the additional terms “naturalist” and “sceptic” and suggest use of the term “evidist.”

In “Why I am a Naturalist,” Alex Rosenberg suggests we should use the term “naturalist.” This meaning of naturalism has decades of momentum, but there hasn’t been much headway outside the academic world. Most people immediately think of a naturalist as someone who studies life forms or explains nature to public audiences. And the use of “supernatural” and “naturalistic” place too much emphasis on the desire to end the influence of belief in a god or spirits and not enough emphasis on ending other beliefs that are inconsistent with scientific consensus. These terms grew out of the conflict between theism and atheism, which will lose importance as theism continues to fade.

While belief in gods may still be the strongest obstacle to a shared scientific way of knowing in human culture, it is not the only obstacle. Adopting a way of knowing that includes no gods but still does not reflect the importance of accepting the scientific consensus on all facts fails to take people across the bright line into the scientific way of knowing. So, the labels “supernatural” and “naturalistic” miss the opportunity to cast helpful light on other failings of the prescientific, intuitive, traditional, natural ways of knowing.

Some people use the word “skeptic.” The popular image of a skeptic is a curmudgeon who doubts for the sake of doubting and refuses to consider any possibility that isn’t vividly clear. This fails to capture the affirmative confidence of the scientific way of knowing that there is no part of reality that cannot be discovered through inquiry consistent with science. And many people who call themselves skeptics still deny scientific consensus. For example, those who deny the evidence of climate change caused by humans.

We need a new, short, single word that can give us a concise, clear way to respond to any assertion by saying, “I am a ____.” If the listener knows what ____ means, the response will be understood. If the listener doesn’t know what the term means, they will ask what it means instead of assuming a meaning that isn’t true.

If we choose a root that is Latin or Greek, the same root is likely to work in many languages. Ideally, the root would require no spelling change for most other languages. It would be best if a connotation helps people distinguish between conclusions based on facts and conclusions based on values. In the scientific way of knowing, beliefs are consistent with evidence and reason validated through the peer-reviewed scientific process. We can use the sound of “evidence” to coin a new root and make the needed new word: “evidist.” In English, this triggers an appropriate association with evidence.

As people adopt evidism as an overriding amendment to the beliefs and values provided by their preferred religion, they can adopt labels like: I am an evidist Muslim; I am a Christian evidist; I am an evidistic Buddhist; I am an evidist Unitarian; I am an evidistic Humanist.

J.T. H.
Washington

Terrorists are often religiously motivated

Myth: Terrorists are primarily politically motivated. This myth is busted by the terrorists’ own words. Their primary motive is religious.

For example, Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker Mohammed Atta wrote in his suicide note: Pray for yourself and all of your brothers that they may be victorious and hit their targets and ask God to grant you martyrdom. Shout, “Allahu Akbar,” because this strikes fear in the hearts of the nonbelievers. Know that the gardens of paradise are waiting for you in all their beauty and the women of paradise are waiting, calling out, “Come hither, friend of God.” They have dressed in their most beautiful clothing.

This religious conviction was reinforced in a 2016 article in the ISIS publication Dabiq, titled “Why We Hate You, Why We Fight You.” The three primary reasons are religious:

1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers. You reject the oneness of Allah, you blaspheme against him, claiming that he has a son. You fabricate lies against his prophets and messengers and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices.

2. We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things he has permitted.

3. In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your lord and creator. 

The bottom line: Religion is the original fake news!

As Butterfly McQueen said: “As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion.”

Dave H.
Ohio

God’s a literary strategy, not a divine being

How to prove that God doesn’t exist.   

1. God intervenes in Eden with the snake and the apple to make a point about obedience. That’s the purpose of the story.

2. God does not intervene in Gibeah in Judges 19 when a concubine is raped, dies, is cut into 12 pieces and sent throughout Israel. The point is that God is absent when there is no king. That’s the purpose of the story.

3. In Job, God is absent until the end to make a point about suffering. That’s the purpose of the story.

4. In Esther, God doesn’t appear at all to make a point about human courage. That’s the purpose of the story.

The narrator places God where the story needs him. That’s not divine consistency, that’s literary strategy. God intervenes when the plot needs him and God is absent when the plot needs drama. 

In Judges 19, God does not intervene, does not protect, does not speak, does not judge, does not comfort. A hidden god is indistinguishable from a god who doesn’t exist.

If anything, God is a narrative tool which only exists when you want him to. Just pick your favorite chapter and ignore the others. Or why not try a magic wand and write your own narrative! Poof!

Also, Romans 3 claims that all people have sinned. Consider this:

Psalm 53 originally condemned corrupt leaders who exploited the poor and “acted as if there were no God,” but Paul later universalized that passage in Romans 3 to claim that all humans are unrighteous and therefore require salvation through Jesus. In doing so, he transformed a specific social justice critique into a sweeping doctrine of universal sin, tied it to Adam’s story, and built a theological system in which Jesus’ death becomes the remedy for a condition the original text never described. The result is a major shift — a local complaint about injustice becomes the foundation for a universal salvation framework.

Bill C.
Indiana

Children shouldn’t be at mercy of parents’ whims

There should not be religious exemptions to keep children from getting vaccinations. By exempting, they are endangering all children, especially those who are exempt for medical reasons and those who are too young to be vaccinated.

Secondly, children cannot pick a religion until they are an adult. When they are young, their parents select their religion.

Children should not be subjected to the whims of their parents when it comes to their well-being — and life!

Janice B.
Pennsylvania