An unbeliever or disbeliever in how we normally think of atheists.
When I use the term non-believer I mean someone who is interested in not believing - one who is interested in discarding belief and disbelief of any and all sorts. It's a clumsy term and easily misinterpreted, but I can't come up with a better one - the idea is, as far as I can tell, relatively new.
As an example take Beahan's statement, "But when it comes to reality—that which exists prior to and independent of ourselves..." This is one of the things I don't believe. However, I also don't believe its solipsistic opposite - that reality exists only within and because of ourselves. I believe neither of those positions. That leaves me free to explore both of them in the context of my own direct experience, whatever it may be at the moment. I spent 57 years as the sort of materialist Beahan alludes to here, but I recently moved away from that position without moving towards any "opposing" position.
The same goes for the notion of "higher realms" of any sort - I don't "believe in" them, but I also don't disbelieve in them. I find that this sort of non-belief allows me greater exploratory freedom.
The reason I use the word "dogmatic" is that it means the close adherence to a belief system, and in this case I see rational materialism (logical positivism) as the belief system Beahan is championing. I think there is much more freedom outside it, so long as one doesn't make the mistake of falling prey to its dualistic opposite.
Similarly for traditionalism. Beahan is proposing a very traditional form of atheism, one that has been well understood for well over a hundred years. I prefer the fluidity of having all forms of belief and disbelief open for exploration - I find there is more potential for personal growth in that stance.
= new reply since forum marked as read
