There is a term being utilized by some in the atheist community. Some have even dropped their previous chosen personal adjective (atheist) in favor of this new term. That term is Apistevist.
Coined by a youtuber running a channel called Bionic Dance back in 2010, the term illustrates a person’s lack (or rejection) of faith. It was coined around the same principal as atheism is based. The “a” prefix negates what follows, so an atheist negates a belief in any form of theism. In the same way that atheism has origins in the Greek word “atheos” (without gods), the word apistevist is also sourced from Greek. The Greek terms “pistis” or “pistevo” both describe faith, so as such “Apistevist” describes a lack of faith.
On the surface, it seems like a good and seemingly well-reasoned term. But one must remember to specify “religious faith”, or the term becomes illogical.
Most uses of the term (as noted in Google search results) seem to take this into consideration, but some do not. Whether this is out of error or ignorance I am unsure, but I will outline why it matters here.
One may negate a belief in god, ghosts or any number of other mythical or supernatural entities without losing logical credibility. This is obvious and is known by anyone who has embraced reason. But at the same time, no one is COMPLETELY devoid of all blind faith.
Every time you turn on the tap for a drink of water. Every time you open a can of food or eat out at a restaurant. Life in the modern era is full of scenarios where we all mindlessly roll the dice. This is not necessarily a bad thing either, its just a part of life. A person that is a TRUE apistevist (took the philosophy to heart in all areas of life) could not exist in today’s modern world. One who has absolutely NO blind faith whatsoever, would either be forced into isolation far from consumer civilization or committed.
I have no issue with the term Apistevist (I can not say the same for Bionic Dance, the youtuber that coined the term, however). But I caution how it is utilized and defined in conversation and debate. The key is religious.
One who claims to lack (or reject) religious faith, is on perfectly reasonable intellectual ground. One who claims to lack or reject ALL faith is not only irrational but also fundamentally mistaken.
I realized that I was not entirely clear in my explanation of my argument, so I wrote a supplementary piece HERE clarifying my stance. Further, I also wrote a piece using my argument in the context of Air Travel (a context that seems to encompass my criticisms of the philosophy perfectly).
Thank you for reading.