Atheism vs Agnosticism
Redefining Atheism
Atheists have for some time wanted to redefine “atheism”. Let’s look at the accepted meanings of the word. A few definitions found via Google’s “Define” command:
The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
The belief that God does not exist.
A belief that there are no gods. Greek “a-theos”: without-god.
This word comes from two Greek words, a the negator, and theos, God. Atheism teaches that there is no God of any kind, anywhere, anytime.
These would be the standard, commonly accepted definitions of atheism. But hold up there a minute, there’s more. I’m a big fan of the OED. Let’s see what she has to say:
atheism: (from Greek atheos, “without God, denying God”) Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).
You see there the seeds of the debate. The debate is “disbelief” versus “deny the existence of”.
Burden of Proof
What it boils down to is the burden of proof. Let’s say you assert that, “Flying Spaghetti Monsters exist”.
That is a statement. You are stating something as fact and you have a burden of proof to prove that Flying Spaghetti Monsters do indeed exist.
Now I say, “I reject your claim”.
Now, I did not offer a statement. No statement of fact was offered. I simply choose not to accept your statement. I have no burden of proof in rejecting your statement.
But now Bob comes along. Bob’s a nasty bugger who loves to eavesdrop. He is infuriated by the suggestion that Flying Spaghetti Monsters exist and states, “Flying Spaghetti Monsters do not exist.”
Whoopsy daisies, Bob just stepped into a huge pile of philosophical ass-kicking.
Why? Because he went beyond rejection of a statement into offering a statement of his own.
By stating that Flying Spaghetti Monsters do not exist, he now assumes burden of proof to prove the nonexistence of Flying Spaghetti Monsters.
This may seem like a minor detail. It isn’t. The repercussions are humongous. If atheism does indeed state that God doesn’t exist, there is a burden of proof on atheists. If they simply reject the theist statement, then there is no burden of proof.
Word and Their Meanings
Some folks would like to define “atheism” according to the definitions found in dictionaries. That would be lovely, but the dictionaries offer contradictory meanings, as is often the case with words in any given language. When that happens, unfortunately, discourse on the topic becomes difficult.
In Japanese, for example, “ao” can mean both “green” and “blue”. (Although most of the time it means “blue”.)
The remedy I would suggest is to drop the word altogether. But that isn’t going to happen.
Atheist Posturing: Weak Atheism & Strong Atheism
Atheists, for reasons which I will explain shortly, want to make “atheism” the banner of all persons without religion. This is a conscious and calculated push towards a much more inclusive definition of the word “atheism” than we are accustomed to in daily conversations.
They propose that everybody without religion is an atheist. This includes newborn babies, insofar as their lack of any belief includes a lack of belief in God.
They propose two subsets of atheism:
Strong Atheism: This is atheism as we know it, atheism that is compatible with the statement “God does not exist”.
Weak Atheism: Anybody who isn’t a theist.
As you can see, these definitions render the unqualified use of the words “atheism” and “atheist” absolutely meaningless.
The Objections
The obvious objection is that they are designating as “atheist” millions of people who, were they aware of the designation, might object.
An anecdote to illustrate the point: While reading Dawkins The God Delusion, I realized I hadn’t had anything to eat all day. (Yes, it is an interesting read.) So I went to the local Indian Restaurant here in Sanganjaya. As I was waiting for my food, I asked the shop owner what if he believed in a god.
“No, I don’t believe in any god.”
“Oh, so you’re an atheist?”
I was suddenly aware that I was Caucasian, the same as many missionaries, and I felt a bit awkward.
“No, not atheist. I just don’t believe in any god.”
We discussed it a bit more, and the fellow seemed have a spiritual side to him, but he simply chose not to subscribe to any given god-belief. When I explained my position - that agnosticism is the most intellectually sound position - he seemed to self identify as an agnostic.
But atheists would force the label of “atheist” on him, on me, and on roughly one-fifth of the world population.
The Motivation
Why does atheism want to annex agnosticism? Three reasons:
1. Credibility
Austin Cline, an atheist propagandist, offers this explanation on his page titled “Why Do Atheists Define Atheism Broadly as the Lack of Belief in Gods?”
“the simple absence of belief in gods — aside from being the default position — is automatically justified and made credible so long as theists are not successful in making a credible case for their god.”
Credibility. Agnosticism is credible. Theists cannot offer a cogent argument against agnosticism, and neither can atheists. Atheists lack credibility, so they make a grab for agnostic credibility, and render the term “atheist” meaningless in the process.
Seriously, to designate somebody as “atheist” when they have never made a conscious decision either way, or may not even be aware of the question, is asinine.
2. Shelter from Burden of Proof
With the weak definition, the strong-position atheist can participate in a lengthy debate with a theistic apologist without ever disclosing his or her wholesale dismissal of the entire god question, and without once ever being called upon to prove anything. (A careless presentation of the strong position could open itself to the Burden of Proof.)
- From PositiveAtheism.org FAQ Page
There you have it, atheists openly stating that they are redefining atheism in order to allow them to masquerade as agnostics and avoid the burden of proof.
Here’s an idea. If you have to masquerade as an agnostic, why not become one? Masquerading as an agnostic because you cannot offer a tenable argument, in itself, is an admission of defeat.
3. Inclusiveness
The inclusionary element, along with the historical and etymological aspects are all compelling reasons to define general-purpose atheism using the weak definition. Logically, the weak position is easier to defend than the strong position. However, the weak definition’s potential usefulness in reducing the stigma that all atheists bear is our most important reason for advocating this understanding and seeking to popularize it.
- From PositiveAtheism.org FAQ Page
There’s safety in numbers. Or at least the atheists seem to think so. By redefining atheism to include anybody who isn’t a professed theist, they bolster their numbers from a few million or so to one-fifth of the world’s population. Of course, most of those people would not self identify as atheists, but that’s of little concern to them, as long as they can make the claim.
A Case Study
All of this nonsense is meaningless posturing by atheists. In debate, an atheist can try to seek shelter in agnosticism, but the minute he does, he is forced to abandon his atheism.
Take, for example, Austin Cline.
Austin Cline is the About.com “Guide” to atheism. You’d think that would mean he would offer journalistic quality information on the topic, but in fact has the journalistic integrity of Jim Bakker.
Austin Cline loves to say that “No claims or denials are made… an atheist is a person who is not a theist.”
However, if you read Cline, you will detect rather easily that he is indeed an atheist hiding behind agnosticism. It’s readily evident when you see him offer proofs for the nonexistence of god.
Austin Cline’s favorite proof appears to be what is known as the Problem from Evil.
(1) A good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can. (Premise)
(2) There is no limit to what an omnipotent thing can do. (Premise)
(3) If there is no limit to what an omnipotent thing can do, then it can eliminate evil completely. (Implicit Premise)
(4) A good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely. (By 1 - 3)
(5) The existence of a good omnipotent thing is inconsistent with the existence of evil. (By 4)
(6) God is wholly good. (Premise)
(7) God is omnipotent. (Premise)
(8) Therefore, the existence of God is inconsistent with the existence of evil. (By 5 - 7). **
The fact that Cline offers that this is an logically valid argument reveals his atheism and puts burden of proof squarely on his shoulders.
The same can be done with any other atheist that tries to hide in agnosticism. His words will sooner or later give him away, and when he cannot meet the burden of proof, he can be summarily dismissed.
**(First premise in the above argument is false.)
November 28th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
there is so much argument about the term, what is a theist- atheist or agnostic. As for myself, I feel safe in saying that there is no supernatural realm no god no Satan, no Demons or whatever. however, my mind is open and ready to accept sound measurable evidence that there is such a thing. Meanwhile, I see the creation, and reason that it somehow got created, and as far as I am concerned, this is all that can be known. So, what am I?
November 28th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
I forgot to mention. Same Ron you saw at Austins place.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
(I feel safe in saying that there is no supernatural realm no god no Satan, no Demons or whatever). Sorry about multiple post’s here, but having difficulty framing my position. You say if I make this statement then the burden of proof is on me. So here is what I’m trying to say. What if this is what I believe but don’t feel obliged to prove it to anyone? Now, again, What am I?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:17 am
John, This is a very well thought out and articulated position. Fundamental is this not the difference between modernism and postmodernism? The modernist view would have been that of the original atheist (faulty logic not with standing). They now seek to enter the postmodern philosophical age by adopting its relativism in their definition of atheist. Where the definition of agnostic is purely postmodern.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:01 am
Ron, thanks for reading and posting. I’m flattered to have people read what I write.
As for how to define you, in non-technical terms, “undecided” sounds good; but in technical terms I’d say “agnostic”.
You qualified your statement with “I feel safe saying”, which indicates to me that you aren’t assert a statement of fact. As such, no burden of proof is no you.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
You make some good points, but also some poor ones, in my humble opinion. Your quote mining for definitions is rather telling - you’ve just ignored all the listed definitions of “atheism” returned by Google that didn’t support your argument. Which is most of them.
In fact, the first quote you list appears to be from the first definiton listed, and there are two there:
* the doctrine or belief that there is no God
* a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Next, “agnostic” is a position with regard to knowledge, not the existence (or otherwise) of deities. It doesn’t mean “undecided”, it means “can’t be sure”. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. (You even get weak and strong agnosticism - weak being people who are simply “unsure” and strong being people who believe it is impossible to prove either way.)
You’re right that the “a” prefix means “without”. It does not mean “denial of”. That would be “anti-theist”, or what people commonly refer to as “strong atheism”. Austin Cline is right - atheism is the lack of theism, simple as that. That includes “anti-theists”, yes (because people who explicitly deny the existence of gods implicitly lack belief in same gods), and it includes “non-theists” (weak theists, those who lack belief).
The vast majority of atheists are people who do not believe in gods. That’s people who identify themselves as atheist, and that’s their position on the existence of gods. Regardless of what other people think the word should mean, or its roots, that’s what the people who use it to describe their position regarding the existence of gods mean.
Redefining the word “atheist” has been a recent undertaking. “Atheist” has been given various negative connotations (some peopleactually think it means “immoral”, for example).
I describe myself more carefully than most, I think - I’m a non-theist, meaning I don’t believe in any gods (I’m not a theist). Or a “teapot atheist”. Why? Precisely because that’s clearer.
One thing is abundantly clear - most people have a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings about “atheism”. Would be nice if we could ditch the word entirely and use terms less ambiguous and open to several interpretations.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Whoops - a typo in there:
“(weak theists, those who lack belief)”
Should read:
“(weak atheists, those who lack belief)”
November 29th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Also (forgot to say) …
“agnosticism is the most intellectually sound position”
I agree absolutely. It’s impossible to disprove gods, which is why most people (in my experience) who classify themselves as atheist say they “do not believe” rather than “believe there is not” - the second is intellectually unsound (though some people do say that - they think that while you can’t prove there is no god of any sort, you can disprove the existence specific individual gods).
November 29th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I used the commonly understood definitions first, and then introduced the definitions that support the “weak atheist” position later. I also gave the weak atheist definition support in the form of the OED, which really needs no help. After all, do you know of a dictionary with more authority than the OED?
Agnostic is a refusal to accept either position as “knowable”. I’ve been an agnostic for nearly twenty years, and it doesn’t stop me from leaning one way or another, and I surely am not “undecided”. I am decidedly agnostic.
Fortunately usage - not Greek - defines meaning. If somebody calls themself an atheist, it indicates to most people a rejection of either God, or a denial of God’s existence.
Austin Cline and others want to define “atheist” as anybody who is not a theist. That includes newborn children (default position atheism), and people who are unaware of the question of god’s existence.
That definition of atheism would render it meaningless, and would render a statement of atheism without specific meaning.
Most strong atheists do not label themselves anti-theists. Anti-theism, according to the OED, is “opposed to belief in the existence of a God”. Not disbelief (nontheism) not denial of god’s existence (strong atheism), but active opposition to belief in God. (Dawkins)
One must ask himself, why do we need the “weak” and “strong” atheist positions? It’s only because the atheists want to annex nontheism and agnosticism into atheism that we need those additions qualifiers.
And atheists are not unaware of what they are doing. As the author of PositiveAtheism.org wrote:
If you look at the history of the word, it almost universally indicated a believe that god did not exist, up until the 1990s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
The new definition would have us go back through hundreds of texts written prior to the 1990s, and annotate them as to which atheism the author was speaking of. It’s counterproductive, IMHO.
It swings both ways. I know of non-theists who admantly refuse the label “atheist” because to them it indicates a statement of god’s nonexistence. They simply do not believe in any god, without affirming or denying god’s existence, so they do not wish to be labeled “atheist”.
Just curious, what distinction do you draw between your position and that of an agnostic?
I think the word “atheist” has come to an end of its useful life. When a child who has no thoughts on the subject either way is put in the same category as Dawkins, all semblance of meaning is gone.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
My main point here is that it is categorically dishonest when atheists preach strong atheism and then run to the shelter of weak atheism (agnosticism) when they are asked to meet the burden of proof of the strong atheist statement.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
I want to voice my support of the default-position view of atheism. Everyone is born an atheist without bizarre concepts of of supernatural being. There is no substantive difference between the default position and the position of the atheist.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Entirely my mistake re anti-theism. Tis a quagmire, this definitions lark.
> If you look at the history of the word, it almost universally indicated a believe that god did not exist, up until the 1990s.
That’s quite a leap from your cited source, John :). “Strong” and “Weak” were introduced for the sake of clarity in the 90s (previously “positive” and “negative”, respectively), but that doesn’t mean that before that it only meant “Strong Atheism”.
Wikipedia may not be a perfect source, but as you’re already happily citing it …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism
“Weak” atheism was what came first … a couple of centuries before “strong” atheism. Historically, it has meant first and foremost the lack of belief in gods. A subset of that, of course, is the minority that explicitly deny the existence of gods.
> Just curious, what distinction do you draw between your position and that of an agnostic?
Technically I’m an agnostic atheist (or an agnostic non-theist, for the sake of clarity). I don’t believe in any gods (hence atheist or nontheist) and don’t believe it’s possible to disprove them (hence technically agnostic).
> I think the word “atheist” has come to an end of its useful life.
There I completely agree. Some people do think, when I have identified myself as “atheist” in the past, that that means that I deny the existence of gods. Which is rubbish. I find “nontheist” makes my position much clearer.
> That definition of atheism would render it meaningless
It is meaningless. Talking about the lack of theism, whatever specific label you want to give it, as though it were a religion, is like talking about not collecting stamps being a hobby.
Knowing how stubborn you are when you argue, I know you’re not going to change your mind, and neither am I (because we both know we’re right, of course). I think perhaps we can both agree that if we’re arguing over meanings of words (when it sounds like our beliefs are very similar, if not identical), then the words are the problem.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Hi Jill and thanks for posting.
I think I may not be communicating as effectively as I had hoped.
There is a huge difference, in my opinion. Sure, effectively neither believe in a god. But how they reached that position is vastly different.
One reached the position by choice. The other is “atheist” by sheer virtue of not knowing of the question of god’s existence.
Let’s draw some analogies.
Bob is against the war in Iraq. He’s a pacifist. His two year old is also not for the war in Iraq, by virtue of he doesn’t know what war is, and doesn’t know what Iraq is.
If we allowed pacifists to redefine “pacifism” to be “anybody who is not pro-war”, then it would include one hell of a lot of people.
It would render the word “pacifism” meaningless, and it makes a mockery of a concept that we hold dear - an individual’s right to make a decision and define oneself.
If somebody wants to self identify as an atheist, fine. I’m all for it. But expanding the meaning to include people who have not made any decision on the matter and have not self-identified with it, is hardly fair.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Indeed, some philosophers deny that “strong” atheists even exist. G. W. Foote, an atheist, challenged a critic to refer him to a strong atheist (i.e., somebody who denied the existence of god).
In philosophy, especially the older stuff, there is a lot of usage which indicates the author was simply not believing in god.
But since the 60’s, from the time I was around, most folks I know used the word to refer to people who denied the existence of god.
See, and who says that nobody can reach an agreement on the Internet?
Precisely, the words here have lost their usefulness due to meaning pollution.
That is the point I set out to make, but feel I may have not done so effectively.
Anyhow, we do seem to be in agreement.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
> But since the 60’s, from the time I was around, most folks I know used the word to refer to people who denied the existence of god.
Of course - I would guess almost exclusively because of the McCarthy-era anti-communist (and by extension anti-atheist) propaganda. And probably why there’s a such a difference either side of the pond.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
That could definitely be a cause for it.
December 6th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
By “rejecting” a truth claim such as: “Flying Spaghetti Monsters exist” not be declaring it as false?
Using Aristotle’s logic:
which is a tried and tested philosophy (I don’t think it’s be disproved), would you not by “rejecting” this truth claim as false be affirming the opposite: “Flying Spaghetti Monsters do not exist”?
Would you not instead have to reject the presupposition that truth claims can even be made?
December 8th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
John,
Did you ever hear the story about about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac?
He stayed up all night when he couldn’t sleep contemplating the existence of DOG!
December 9th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
LOL! Oh I love that!