Atheism, theism and agnosticism

[James R]

We already have a sticky thread from 2009 on the definitions of atheism, theism and agnosticism, [thread=95294]here[/thread], but I thought it would be worth bringing up the subject again. Here's my take on it.

Theism and Atheism are primarily matters of belief, whereas agnosticism is primarily about method.

TH Huxley, who invented the term "agnostic", said that the agnostic position amounts to the following:

that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.​

In other words, an agnostic is somebody who demands evidence before he accepts that a proposition is true. Huxley was talking about religion, and so are we. So, in the religious context, an agnostic is somebody who will not believe that God exists unless and until suitable evidence is produced for the existence of God.

Distinguishing an atheism from a theist ought to be very easy. You simply ask the person "Do you believe there is a God or gods?" If the answer is "Yes", then the person is a theist; if the answer is "No" then the person is an atheist.

It is important to realise that agnosticism is not a half-way house between theism and atheism. Here are some possibilities:

1. You believe that God: you are a theist.
2. You believe that God exists, but you don't know (because your faith is not justified by evidence): you are a theist.
3. You believe that God most likely exists, but you're not sure: you are a theist.
4. You believe that God exists, and you believe there are strong evidentiary grounds for your belief: you are an agnostic theist.
5. You think that it is possible that they may be a God, but you're withholding judgment until appropriate evidence is in: you're an agnostic atheist.*
6. You think it is doubtful that God exists, but you're open to the possibility that evidence of God may come to light: you're an agnostic atheist.
7. You don't believe that God exists, but you're open to the possibility should evidence come to light: you're an agnostic atheist.
8. You believe that God most probably doesn't exist, but you're open to evidence: you're an agnostic atheist.
9. You don't believe that God exists: you are an atheist.
10. You believe that God doesn't exist, and are not particularly concerned about the question of evidence: you are an atheist.

----
* Because you lack the requisite belief to be a theist.

Notice that it is possible to be agnostic and simultaneously a theist or atheist. It is also possible to be just a plain old theist or atheist, unconcerned about needing evidence to support one's beliefs.

One last point: if you're in the rare position of being able to say "I believe the existence of God is a 50-50 proposition; his existence is equally as likely as not", then you're an atheist.

Everybody is either a theist or an atheist. Their position on the importance of evidence is a separate matter from the question of their belief in God.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

I am open to your interpretation of the linguistics and subjective perspective of what is and what isn’t a definition for atheism or theism. However I am interested in your take on the definition of deists and nihilists,
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."
1660s, from Gk. theos "god" (see Thea) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendant god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as allowing the possibility of revelation.

 

[Balerion]

6. You believe that God most probably doesn't exist, but you're open to evidence: you're an agnostic atheist.
7. You don't believe that God exists: you are an atheist.
8. You believe that God doesn't exist, and are not particularly concerned about the question of evidence: you are an atheist.

I'm sorry, I think I'm missing something here. What if you don't believe God exists, but you're open to evidence? You seem to have left that possibility out, when in truth it's exactly how any intelligent atheist would describe themselves. Even Dawkins, who is the bane of theism, says he'd be open to evidence, and he's the guy who calls people stupid for believing in myths.

Perhaps atheism used to be different, but today's atheist is someone who can say with certainty that the gods of men are false, and can say with near-certainty that the very concept itself is man-made, but would of course be open to evidence to the contrary. To qualify atheism with "agnostic" implies that atheism is not inherently a position arrived at by the evidence, when that's exactly what it is.

 

[geeser]

Fifu:

1. You believe that in god: You are a theist.
2. You believe that god exists, but you don't know (because your faith is not justified by evidence): You are a theist.
3. You believe that god most likely exists, but you're not sure: You are a theist.
4. You believe that god exists, and you believe there are strong evidential grounds for your belief: You are an agnostic a gnostic theist.
4. You think that it is possible that there may be a god, but you're withholding judgement until appropriate evidence is in: You're an agnostic atheist.*
5. You think it is doubtful that god exists, but you're open to the possibility that evidence of god may come to light: You're an agnostic atheist.
6. You believe that god most probably doesn't exist, but you're open to evidence: You're an agnostic atheist.
7. You don't believe that god exists: You are an atheist.
8. You believe that god doesn't exist, and are not particularly concerned about the question of evidence: You are an atheist.

 

[Emil]

James R,
The fourth item I think is wrong. Types of agnosticism.

And I think it is important to note that an agnostic is not a religious follower.
He pronounced on the existence of one or more gods.

 

[James R]

What if you don't believe God exists, but you're open to evidence? You seem to have left that possibility out, when in truth it's exactly how any intelligent atheist would describe themselves.

I didn't intend to make an exhaustive list. Like I said, I've listed some combinations/possibilities. [edit to add: Since I had to edit the opening post to fix a problem with numbering, I've taken the liberty of adding in your suggestion to the listed options.]

If you don't believe that God exists then you're an atheist. If you don't think you should believe in God without good evidence, then you're an agnostic. These things are not mutually exclusive, nor does one require the other.

Perhaps atheism used to be different, but today's atheist is someone who can say with certainty that the gods of men are false...

I'm not so certain about that. How can you be sure that all the gods of men are false?

...and can say with near-certainty that the very concept itself is man-made, but would of course be open to evidence to the contrary. To qualify atheism with "agnostic" implies that atheism is not inherently a position arrived at by the evidence, when that's exactly what it is.

It may be for you, but it's not for everybody.

Believe it or not, there are atheists out there who don't give a damn about the evidence for or against God. They just don't believe in God.

 

[James R]

geeser:

Thanks for the correction. I think you're right that example 4 should be "gnostic theist". I'm not sure whether an agnostic theist is possible, given my definition.


Emil:

Thanks for the link. I might need a little time to digest it...

 

[Balerion]

I didn't intend to make an exhaustive list. Like I said, I've listed some combinations/possibilities. [edit to add: Since I had to edit the opening post to fix a problem with numbering, I've taken the liberty of adding in your suggestion to the listed options.]

Fair enough, but you left out probably the most common form of atheism.

If you don't believe that God exists then you're an atheist. If you don't think you should believe in God without good evidence, then you're an agnostic. These things are not mutually exclusive, nor does one require the other.

Nor does a person who would positively identify with both of those claims have to call themselves an agnostic atheist. Atheist suffices.

I'm not so certain about that. How can you be sure that all the gods of men are false?

By studying how they came to be, by watching new ones born in modern society.

It may be for you, but it's not for everybody.

I didn't say it was for everybody. I said it was true for any intelligent atheist.

Believe it or not, there are atheists out there who don't give a damn about the evidence for or against God. They just don't believe in God.

Not giving a damn doesn't mean you're not open to it. But please, I'd love to be introduced to someone who came to atheism irrationally.

 

[Emil]

If you don't believe that God exists then you're an atheist.

This definition is on the boundary between agnostic and atheist .
An atheist believes there is no God.
Therefore discussions are harder between teist and atheist.

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"

 

[Randwolf]

James, where do you see Ignosticism fitting in?

From Wiki:

Ignosticism
The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.[21] A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.

 

[Balerion]

James, where do you see Ignosticism fitting in?

From Wiki:

Somewhere on the trash heap. The concept of God is defined by each religion making the claim. Expecting a detailed, scientific or even coherent definition from texts thousands of years old (or based on those texts) will only leave you disappointed. However, we're in luck, because nobody in their right mind would demand such a thing. Atheism is a reaction to the theism and based on evidence (or lack thereof). It does not need to define a deity in order to lack belief in it, nor does it need to accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition. The reason we even have a word for it is because it's a relevant proposition. No, we don't define ourselves by a lack of belief in alchemy or astrology, but neither of those practices are relevant. Religion is.

 

[Randwolf]

Expecting a detailed, scientific or even coherent definition from texts thousands of years old (or based on those texts) will only leave you disappointed. However, we're in luck, because nobody in their right mind would demand such a thing.

This is the point exactly. I don't expect a coherent definition from any source, including you. The concept of "God" is meaningless or at the very least unknowable. How can one contemplate something that is unknowable by definition? One may as well consider a square circle.

Atheism is a reaction to the theism and based on evidence (or lack thereof). It does not need to define a deity in order to lack belief in it, nor does it need to accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition.

This would seem to incorporate Ignosticism within the Atheistic conceptual framework. I'm fine with that and would even concede the point, broadly speaking. I just happen to feel that one can be more precise with the nuances as opposed to sweeping every flavor into the broad generalization of "Atheism". But I'm not really hung up on labels, so have it your way.

The reason we even have a word for it is because it's a relevant proposition.

Says you.

No, we don't define ourselves by a lack of belief in alchemy or astrology, but neither of those practices are relevant.

Agreed.

Religion is.

Yes, religion is in the sense of the impact it makes on society. This implies nothing about the literal significance of "God". In fact, it could be said that strong Atheism actually affirms the "God" concept because it implies that there is something comprehensible to not believe in. This is the bit I have trouble with.

 

[Emil]

Do you make the difference between:
1) "I believe" (close to "I know" ) there is no God.
2) "I don't believe" (close to "I don't know") there is a God.
These two statements are identical (similar)?

 

[Balerion]

This is the point exactly. I don't expect a coherent definition from any source, including you. The concept of "God" is meaningless or at the very least unknowable. How can one contemplate something that is unknowable by definition? One may as well consider a square circle.

Because they claim it is knowable. Remember, we're not considering some potential thing behind the Big Bang, we're considering this thing that is being put forward as a first cause by a large group of people. That's the other point: if religion was practiced by a couple of hundred people once a year at Renfest, then atheism wouldn't be a word. But since it's practiced by billions of people and is considered when drafting policies, it must be contemplated, or the default position will be "God exists."

This would seem to incorporate Ignosticism within the Atheistic conceptual framework. I'm fine with that and would even concede the point, broadly speaking. I just happen to feel that one can be more precise with the nuances as opposed to sweeping every flavor into the broad generalization of "Atheism". But I'm not really hung up on labels, so have it your way.

I think ignosticism applies well to the contemplation of a potential being "behind" the creation of the universe, but to take that position on a very real debate seems silly.

Says you.

Really? You don't think religion is a relevant issue?

Yes, religion is in the sense of the impact it makes on society. This implies nothing about the literal significance of "God". In fact, it could be said that strong Atheism actually affirms the "God" concept because it implies that there is something comprehensible to not believe in. This is the bit I have trouble with.

"God" is, for all intents and purposes, the religion that purports its existence. And while I appreciate not wanting to give credence to the concept, it's too late for that.

 

[Yazata]

Theism and Atheism are primarily matters of belief, whereas agnosticism is primarily about method.

I agree with your distinction, but I think that I'd prefer to describe it a little differently.

The way I see it, atheism is about ontology, in other words, it's about about what does and doesn't exist. And agnosticism is about epistemology, about what is and isn't known. (The 'gnosis' in 'agnosticism' is Greek for 'knowledge', so 'agnosticism' literally means 'without knowledge'.)

So there seem to be four broad possibilities:

1. Somebody who believes that God's existence or non-existence can be known, and who also believes in God's existence. I guess that the majority of theists fall into this category.

2. Somebody who believes that God's existence or non-existence can't be known, but nevertheless still believes that God exists. Some religious mystics belong in this agnostic-theist category, since they believe that God totally transcends human thought, language and cognition. And pietistic theists will typically place greater emphasis on faith than on knowledge.

3. Somebody who believes that God's existence or non-existence can be known, and believes that God doesn't exist. This seems to be a classic hard-core atheist position.

4. Somebody who believes that God's existence or non-existence can't be known, and who doesn't believe in God's existence. I'd probably include myself in this agnostic-atheist category.

Of course if we really want to get technical, we can probably subdivide each of these categories into several different sub-categories. There's a non-committal 'I don't know whether or not God exists' position in-between theism and atheism. There are weak (I don't currently know) and strong (no human is likely to ever know) varieties of agnosticism. (I lean towards the strong variety there.) There are even people (I'm one of them) who would object that the word 'God' is so vague and has been used so many different ways, that it often isn't clear what it's supposed to mean or refer to.

TH Huxley, who invented the term "agnostic", said that the agnostic position amounts to the following:

that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.​

In other words, an agnostic is somebody who demands evidence before he accepts that a proposition is true.

I think that it goes a little further than that -- the agnostic isn't just demanding evidence, the agnostic is also saying that he/she doesn't possess that evidence. (And may indeed be suggesting that the needed evidence doesn't exist, even in principle.)

It is important to realise that agnosticism is not a half-way house between theism and atheism.

Right. I personally think of myself as being both an atheist and an agnostic.

Notice that it is possible to be agnostic and simultaneously a theist or atheist. It is also possible to be just a plain old theist or atheist, unconcerned about needing evidence to support one's beliefs.

True.

One last point: if you're in the rare position of being able to say "I believe the existence of God is a 50-50 proposition; his existence is equally as likely as not", then you're an atheist.

I think that virtually all of the 50-50 people tilt one way or another in practice. Perhaps they can't be sure in a logical/cognitive sense, but they are still going to have to choose whether or not they are going to behave as if they think that God exists. As you suggest, if they choose to behave as if God doesn't exist, they would seemingly be some variety of agnostic atheist (like me). But some people out there believe like I do that it can't be known whether or not God exists, but still choose to behave as if he does. These people may even exalt doing that as the essence of faith.

Everybody is either a theist or an atheist.

That assumes that everyone agrees on what the word 'God' means and what it's supposedly referring to. I think that different people often mean different things when they use the word. For example, I'm much more inclined to reject the personalized and mythologized Judeo-Christian and (especially) the Islamic versions of 'God', than I am to reject the more philosophical ideas of a first-cause or an ultimate ground-of-being. I'm much closer to the 50-50 non-committal position when it comes to 'the God of the philosophers'.

Their position on the importance of evidence is a separate matter from the question of their belief in God.

Yes, that's very true and important to keep in mind.

 

[universaldistress]

4, is wrong? should be theist? Believing you have evidentiary grounds is like believing itself? Doesn't qualify you to be agnostic?

What do we all make of this?:

 

[James R]

Do you make the difference between:
1) "I believe" (close to "I know" ) there is no God.
2) "I don't believe" (close to "I don't know") there is a God.
These two statements are identical (similar)?

In philosophy, a common definition of knowledge is that it is a justified, true, belief. That is, to know that God exists, you need the following:

(a) You believe God exists. (Obviously, you can't believe that God doesn't exist and also claim to know that he exists.)
(b) You must have grounds for your belief (e.g. evidence of some kind).
(c) God must actually exist, objectively.

All three elements are usually required to establish knowledge.

For example, I might believe that the tooth fairy exists, and produce as evidence the fact that I seem to get money when my teeth fall out and I put them under a glass on my bedside table. But a philosopher would say that I don't have actual knowledge of the tooth fairy's existence, because the tooth fairy doesn't actually exist.

One point I am trying to make is that whether a person believes in God is quite separate from the question of whether they have good evidence for God's existence. People believe all kinds of things that aren't true and that aren't justified by evidence.

 

[Emil]

In philosophy, a common definition of knowledge is that it is a justified, true, belief. That is, to know that God exists, you need the following:

(a) You believe God exists. (Obviously, you can't believe that God doesn't exist and also claim to know that he exists.)
(b) You must have grounds for your belief (e.g. evidence of some kind).
(c) God must actually exist, objectively.

All three elements are usually required to establish knowledge.

For example, I might believe that the tooth fairy exists, and produce as evidence the fact that I seem to get money when my teeth fall out and I put them under a glass on my bedside table. But a philosopher would say that I don't have actual knowledge of the tooth fairy's existence, because the tooth fairy doesn't actually exist.

One point I am trying to make is that whether a person believes in God is quite separate from the question of whether they have good evidence for God's existence. People believe all kinds of things that aren't true and that aren't justified by evidence.

I agree.
But it would be interesting to analyze to know that there is no God.
Or the belief that there is no God is similar to the absence of belief that God exists.

 

[Cris]

I am not sure it has been made clear that -

(1) "I do not believe that God exists"

is not the same as -

(2) "I believe that God does not exist"

Both are often used as if they are interchangeable but that is incorrect. (2) is a statement of certainty, whether the belief is based on evidence or not is another issue, but (1) is simply a statement of skepticism for the proposition that God exists. It is entirely rational to be unconvinced that a proposition is true without having to believe the proposition is false.

The usage of the terms agnostic and gnostic as prefixes for atheism and theism are perhaps technically interesting but are not in common usage and would require printed guidelines for anyone involved in their usage. Or IOW they have no real practical application.

What most will understand is -

(1) Theist - belief that a god exists. Whether based on real or perceived evidence is a separate issue but shouldn't result in subcategories of theism.
(2) Agnostic - unconvinced that a god exists or not.
(3) Atheist - belief that a god does not exist. And again whether the conviction is based on evidence or not is an additional matter.

The atheist argument that their perspective is one of an absence of theistic belief is semantic gibberish when what they really mean is that they are agnostic but want to appear more assertive about their skepticism. The argument really doesn't work well and leads to endless confusion in debates. And similarly for the arguments concerning so-called weak or strong atheism.

The prefixes attempt to place people in separate buckets, a digital concept, but in reality the range of beliefs is a sliding scale of belief strength.

E.g. Theist..........................Agnostic.........................Atheist.
E.g. 100% Theist......................0%....................100% Atheist.

Various degrees of conviction or doubt will place each person somewhere on that line.

The Brights movement have attempted to remove themselves from such a debate by asserting they hold a "naturalistic worldview". In effect it means they are pure agnostics but will not move along the line without significantly convincing empirical evidence.

For myself, I simply do not like to be labelled as each label carries with it significant baggage, i.e. presumptions and assumptions about what the label means, and more often than not those perceptions are not well informed.

In real life situations when religious topics arise I simply state I do not hold any religious beliefs and refuse to be tied to any potential labels.

 

[wynn]

One point I am trying to make is that whether a person believes in God is quite separate from the question of whether they have good evidence for God's existence. People believe all kinds of things that aren't true and that aren't justified by evidence.

One important thing you're missing is that the vital concept is "believe in" - not merely "believe."
Ie. "believe in" as in 'to find valuable, to appreciate, to look up to'.
This shifts the matter of belief in God from mere cognitive matters into the domain of ethics.