Yazata
Valued Senior Member
It's true that there is a big logical difference between
1. Not believing in X
2. Believing in not-X
The difference is that a rock doesn't believe in X, but that doesn't mean that it believes that X is false. Rocks don't have any beliefs at all.
But if somebody is actually more intellectually acute than a rock, if he or she is able to adopt a view about the existence or nonexistence of something, if they are saying "I don't believe in the existence of X', then that does seem to typically imply that they simultaneously believe in the nonexistence of X. This is atheism as I take it to be.
In some cases 'I don't believe in the existence of X' might instead be more consistent with 'I don't know whether or not X exists' or even the much stronger 'It can't be known whether or not X exists'. These would be (weak) and (strong) agnosticism as I interpret that word. Agnosticism is implicitly (and explicitly in Thomas Huxley's original formulation) a view about the knowability of transcendent matters, matters outside the range of empirical observation or science's methodological naturalism.
I interpret 'atheism' as an ontological position a view about the existence of 'God' in this case. As I understand it, 'atheism' is the negative view about God's existence.
And I interpret 'agnosticism' as an epistemological position, about whether something ('God's' existence in this case, but one may be agnostic about any manner of things) is known (or stronger) can be known. The word 'agnostic' is from the Greek 'gnosis' (knowledge) and 'a-' (negation). It was coined by Thomas Huxley in the second half of the 19th century with exactly this meaning in mind. And he was quite explicitly distinguishing himself from atheists as well as theists, idealists, materialists and so on. He had joined the Metaphysical Society in London whose members proudly paraded their philosophical positions like foxes display their tails. They seemed to him to believe that they had the mysteries of the universe all figured out and he was damn sure that he didn't. But he felt that he needed a name for that no-knowledge position so he coined the word 'agnostic' so that he would have a beautiful tail like the other foxes.
My understanding of the meaning of 'atheism' seems to be consistent with how the word is most often used in academic life by philosophers, and it's how I was taught at university.
"Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist."
Oxford Guide to Philosophy p.64
--------------------------
"Atheism. Denial of the existence of god. Broadly conceived, it indicates the denial of any principle or being as worthy of divinity. Specific meanings vary widely in accordance with the conception of god that is denied."
The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions p.76
___________________________
"According to the most usual definition, an "atheist" is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence "God exists" expresses a false proposition. In contrast, an agnostic maintains that it is not known or cannot be known whether there is a God, that is, whether the sentence "God exists" expresses a true proposition. On our definition, an "atheist" is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that "God exists" expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious..."
Encyclopedia of Philosophy Paul Edwards ed., 1st ed. vol.I , p. 175
1. Not believing in X
2. Believing in not-X
The difference is that a rock doesn't believe in X, but that doesn't mean that it believes that X is false. Rocks don't have any beliefs at all.
But if somebody is actually more intellectually acute than a rock, if he or she is able to adopt a view about the existence or nonexistence of something, if they are saying "I don't believe in the existence of X', then that does seem to typically imply that they simultaneously believe in the nonexistence of X. This is atheism as I take it to be.
In some cases 'I don't believe in the existence of X' might instead be more consistent with 'I don't know whether or not X exists' or even the much stronger 'It can't be known whether or not X exists'. These would be (weak) and (strong) agnosticism as I interpret that word. Agnosticism is implicitly (and explicitly in Thomas Huxley's original formulation) a view about the knowability of transcendent matters, matters outside the range of empirical observation or science's methodological naturalism.
I interpret 'atheism' as an ontological position a view about the existence of 'God' in this case. As I understand it, 'atheism' is the negative view about God's existence.
And I interpret 'agnosticism' as an epistemological position, about whether something ('God's' existence in this case, but one may be agnostic about any manner of things) is known (or stronger) can be known. The word 'agnostic' is from the Greek 'gnosis' (knowledge) and 'a-' (negation). It was coined by Thomas Huxley in the second half of the 19th century with exactly this meaning in mind. And he was quite explicitly distinguishing himself from atheists as well as theists, idealists, materialists and so on. He had joined the Metaphysical Society in London whose members proudly paraded their philosophical positions like foxes display their tails. They seemed to him to believe that they had the mysteries of the universe all figured out and he was damn sure that he didn't. But he felt that he needed a name for that no-knowledge position so he coined the word 'agnostic' so that he would have a beautiful tail like the other foxes.
My understanding of the meaning of 'atheism' seems to be consistent with how the word is most often used in academic life by philosophers, and it's how I was taught at university.
"Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist."
Oxford Guide to Philosophy p.64
--------------------------
"Atheism. Denial of the existence of god. Broadly conceived, it indicates the denial of any principle or being as worthy of divinity. Specific meanings vary widely in accordance with the conception of god that is denied."
The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions p.76
___________________________
"According to the most usual definition, an "atheist" is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence "God exists" expresses a false proposition. In contrast, an agnostic maintains that it is not known or cannot be known whether there is a God, that is, whether the sentence "God exists" expresses a true proposition. On our definition, an "atheist" is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that "God exists" expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious..."
Encyclopedia of Philosophy Paul Edwards ed., 1st ed. vol.I , p. 175
Last edited: