Philosophers should not use '-ist' words

I used to be a Christian. Christians have a strong identity (= sense of self; beliefs about oneself). The Christian identity runs deep. Christians attach many lofty ideas to themselves. The Christian identity can be expressed in a number of ways:

1) I am a Christian; a follower of Christ.

2) I am a Child of God. (Galatians 3:29; Ephesians 1:5; John 1:12; Romans 8:16)

3) I am an heir of the covenant. (Galatians 3:29; Romans 8:17)

4) I am dead in Christ and born again as a new creation. (2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 6:3)

5) Jesus died for my sins; God, the creator of the universe, loves me. (John 3:16; Romans 5:8)

5) I am going to the place prepared for me; I am going to heaven when I die. (John 5:24; John 14:2)

6) I am a member of the church—the body of believers—which is the bridegroom of Christ.

7) I am a kingly creature; in God I live and move and have my being (Acts 17:28); I participate in a grand story with God as my king, and I will be lifted up and glorified through Christ at the end of the world. (Revelation 21:3) 

Having a strong identity causes problems when it comes to seeking truth. By being too attached to an idea, your bias will prevent you from being willing to give up your belief even if it's false.

To be a truth seeker, we must weaken our identities. Philosophers should, at all times, keep a comfortable distance from their views. Detachment is an intellectual virtue.

Because of this, I don't think philosophers should use 'ist' terms like "I am an atheist; I am a naturalist; I am a moral realist; I am an error theorist; I am an Aristotelian" and so on.

It's better to say "I am convinced of atheism; My view says that reality is exhausted by natural objects; I believe that moral realism is true; I lean toward error theory." Or, "I adhere to naturalism; I defend moral realism; I'm a proponent of the argument from evil" and so on.

Now, philosophers all the time use '-ist' words. I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. In fact, as long as philosophers acknowledge worries of identity and bias up front, then I think it's perfectly fine to resume '-ist' language because, frankly, it often feels natural and easy. Or, if this understanding becomes common knowledge, then we can use '-ist' words knowing that we are detached from the view and do not stake our deepest sense of self on the view.

As always though, there is the counterargument, which might go like this. As philosophers we do not want to be wishy-washy; we want to make confident claims when we can. We want to take a real stand on real issues and declare our allegiance to a view we feel strongly about. Being too detached faces the charge of spinelessness, or dishonesty. The brave, honest, and noble thing to do is to stick your neck out and plant your flag on a position that you are willing to defend, and to do this you must call yourself a Platonist or a nominalist or a substance dualist or what have you.

I'm open to this view too. After all, while I defend anti-istism, I wouldn't call myself an anti-istist!