Does atheism differ from agnosticism?

[Yoink]

Is there any meaningful difference between the terms "atheist" and "agnostic"?

This argument has cropped up in a number of recent threads, so I thought it might be useful to start a thread specifically on this topic.

My own position is that there there is no way of defining "agnostic" and "atheist" so that they describe two different, internally consistent, and logically tenable positions. One can, that is, define them as different, but only if you make one of the other position into an absurd position to hold.

In popular parlance, an "agnostic" is someone who says "I don't know if a god exists" and an atheist is someone who says "I know that god doesn't exist." But this seems to me to be a distinction based simply upon loose usage of the word "know."

Strictly speaking, you can only make the strong claim "X does not exist" if there are necessary consequences of X's existence which can be demonstrated not to obtain. The claim that "a god exists" (which, supposedly, an atheist claims to be disproven) entails no necessary observable consequences and therefore cannot be disproven. You might hold that the hypothesis of a loving God is disproven by human misery, for example, but you cannot hold that a silent god (the god of the Deists, for example), or a capricious god, or a god who is able to mess with our perceptions is disproven. Such a god would, ex hypothesi, not be vulnerable to counter-instances.

Thus the popular definition of "atheist" describes a position which is logically untenable. In my view then (speaking as someone who self-describes as an atheist), "atheism" is either a term that needs to be abandoned as inherently absurd, or which is indistinguishable from the popular definition of agnosticism. I would argue that I am an atheist precisely because I am yet to see evidence that could persuade me of the existence of any god. That, surely, is "agnosticism," no?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Is there any meaningful difference between the terms "atheist" and "agnostic"?

Yes. The agnostic admits to lack of knowledge, or sufficient knowledge, while the atheist asserts at least some knowledge on the topic. (Depends on if weak or strong, as previously discussed with some frequency on the board.)

It really isn't that complicated.

DR

 

[Cello Man]

Sometimes metaphor communicates more clearly than a literal definition.

http://cectic.com/039.html

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

An atheist is anyone who does not hold a belief in any gods. A theist is anyone who does hold a belief in at least one god. All of humanity falls into one of those two categories.

An agnostic is someone who doesn't believe one can know whether or not a god or gods exist. So agnostics are still either going to be atheists or theists.

 

[Btodd]

Agnosticism is about knowledge. Atheism (or theism) is about belief.

True agnosticism says that one cannot know for certain whether or not God exists. In that sense, everyone is agnostic, although some will say they actually 'know' God does or doesn't exist.

Atheism (in its simplest form) is the lack of belief in a God. That can also be known as 'weak' atheism, which is what the vast majority of atheists claim. The other brand, more rare, is 'strong' atheism, or the belief that 'there is no God'.

Agnosticism is almost a meaningless term, in my opinion. I called myself an agnostic for years, as if it were some sort of 'I withhold judgment' type of position somewhere between theism and atheism. Once it was pointed out to me what the definitions mean, I started calling myself an atheist.

The litmus test is this: If you cannot say 'I believe there is a God', then you are an atheist.

 

[slingblade]

My atheism doesn't rely on my knowing if a god or gods exist. I simply don't believe any do exist. This resembles agnosticism, in that I'm aware I probably cannot know, either way. But I don't feel I need to know, in order to disbelieve.

And if something resembling proof or evidence comes along, I'll duly consider it.

 

[Yoink]

Yes. The agnostic admits to lack of knowledge, or sufficient knowledge, while the atheist asserts at least some knowledge on the topic. (Depends on if weak or strong, as previously discussed with some frequency on the board.)

It really isn't that complicated.

DR

What knowledge does the atheist who says "I have seen no evidence of the existence of a god, therefore I am an atheist" assert?

Again, I would argue that you are defining "atheist" as a position that no one could logically hold (i.e., by your definition an atheist would be someone who thinks you can prove the nonexistence of a being who gives no evidence of existence). Sure, we can define atheist in this way, but if we define it this way almost nobody who self-identifies as "atheist" would fit the definition. That seems a bit pointless, doesn't it?

 

[Yoink]

An atheist is anyone who does not hold a belief in any gods. A theist is anyone who does hold a belief in at least one god. All of humanity falls into one of those two categories.

An agnostic is someone who doesn't believe one can know whether or not a god or gods exist. So agnostics are still either going to be atheists or theists.

Well, that gives me a definition of "agnostic" that is different from the definition of "atheist"--but again it's a definition of an absurd position. How can the agnostic know that evidence will always remain unavailable? If that isn't what you meant--if, i.e., agnostics are simply those people who believe that no evidence has yet appeared, how do they differ from the atheists in your example?

 

[Yoink]

Agnosticism is about knowledge. Atheism (or theism) is about belief.

True agnosticism says that one cannot know for certain whether or not God exists. In that sense, everyone is agnostic, although some will say they actually 'know' God does or doesn't exist.

Atheism (in its simplest form) is the lack of belief in a God. That can also be known as 'weak' atheism, which is what the vast majority of atheists claim. The other brand, more rare, is 'strong' atheism, or the belief that 'there is no God'.

Agnosticism is almost a meaningless term, in my opinion. I called myself an agnostic for years, as if it were some sort of 'I withhold judgment' type of position somewhere between theism and atheism. Once it was pointed out to me what the definitions mean, I started calling myself an atheist.

The litmus test is this: If you cannot say 'I believe there is a God', then you are an atheist.

So...you agree with me?

 

[Yoink]

My atheism doesn't rely on my knowing if a god or gods exist. I simply don't believe any do exist. This resembles agnosticism, in that I'm aware I probably cannot know, either way. But I don't feel I need to know, in order to disbelieve.

And if something resembling proof or evidence comes along, I'll duly consider it.

Does it "resemble agnosticism" or is it, in fact, exactly the same as agnosticism? If it merely "resembles" agnosticism, could you tell me how it actually differs from agnosticism?

 

[Darth Rotor]

What knowledge does the atheist who says "I have seen no evidence of the existence of a god, therefore I am an atheist" assert?

Again, I would argue that you are defining "atheist" as a position that no one could logically hold (i.e., by your definition an atheist would be someone who thinks you can prove the nonexistence of a being who gives no evidence of existence).

He asserts knowledge of a body of evidence, and knowledge of a lack of other evidence contra his position.

As to the rest of your comments, there have been sufficient threads on the topic of atheism, strong and weak, and agnostisicm, on this forum in the past three months that I invite you to talk with yourself about it.

You got a short and sweet answer from me. That is all I have for you.

Cheers.

DR

 

[Yoink]

He asserts knowledge of a body of evidence, and knowledge of a lack of other evidence contra his position.

And that differs from the agnostic, how?

As to the rest of your comments, there have been sufficient threads on the topic of atheism, strong and weak, and agnostisicm, on this forum in the past three months that I invite you to talk with yourself about it.

You got a short and sweet answer from me. That is all I have for you.

Short, sweet, and wrong. But nobody's forcing you to join in. If everybody else feels the matter is decided then the thread will wither and die. If others feel like having a discussion, you don't have to join in, do you?

ETA: if this matter has been settled satisfactorily in previous discussion, it should be easy for somebody to give a quick definition of two distinct, logically tenable and internally consistent positions that would fairly describe a large number of self-labeled "atheists" and "agnostics." Anyone?

 

[Yoink]

Sometimes metaphor communicates more clearly than a literal definition.

http://cectic.com/039.html

Funny--but basically it seems to support my point. "Agnostic" is a term used because people find it more socially acceptable than "atheist." It doesn't describe a logically distinct position from atheism, however.

 

[slyjoe]

Yoink: Have you read The God Delusion by Dawkins? He outlines 7 levels of belief. This seems to cover most bases. You may want to give it a look.

 

[Btodd]

So...you agree with me?

I don't agree that agnosticism is meaningless because it shares too much with atheism. They don't share the same meanings technically, and in real-life situations, they are even more distant. In most people's eyes, atheism is the 'belief that there is no God', and agnosticism is 'I can't decide, it's sort of a toss-up'.

I think agnosticism is meaningless as a descriptor of beliefs. It's superfluous at the least, and contradictory at most. You either know, or you believe. If it's a given that one cannot know, then what's the point of using it as a disclaimer about a belief anyway? This works inversely as well. Why talk about your belief in something, if you know it to be true? I don't tell people that I believe 2+2 = 4, because I know it.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that you can't also believe in something you know. It just seems unnecessary to say so.

 

[Btodd]

Funny--but basically it seems to support my point. "Agnostic" is a term used because people find it more socially acceptable than "atheist." It doesn't describe a logically distinct position from atheism, however.

I agree with you there. I think that's part of the reason I used agnosticism for so long.

 

[Beth]

I think the existance of theistic agnostics implies that atheist and agnostic are not the same position, regardless of how similar the atheistic position is to the agnostic position when pressed. I suspect there are few theists of any religion that would not also subcumb to the agnostic position when pressed equally hard.

In general usage, I think athiests are those people who rate the probabily of the existance of any god so low that they do not consider it to be significantly different from zero and agnostics rate the probability of the existance of some god as greater than zero.

 

[Yoink]

I think the existance of theistic agnostics implies that atheist and agnostic are not the same position, regardless of how similar the atheistic position is to the agnostic position when pressed. I suspect there are few theists of any religion that would not also subcumb to the agnostic position when pressed equally hard.

If I had a vote, I'd vote to get rid of the term "agnostic," because I think it serves no purpose. I think atheists are people who say "there's no evidence, therefore I don't believe" and theists are people who say "I don't care about the evidence, I believe anyway." That seems to me clear, logical, and distinct. If there can be "theist agnostics" and "atheist agnostics" that just seems to suggest that "agnostic" is a useless word.

In general usage, I think athiests are those people who rate the probabily of the existance of any god so low that they do not consider it to be significantly different from zero and agnostics rate the probability of the existance of some god as greater than zero.

Hmmm. Probabilities only make sense of we know the frame within which the probability is projected. I think you might be giving a reasonable description of actual beliefs in the real world, but it's not a useful description of logically tenable positions (or distinctions). You can't assess a probability on the basis of zero evidence.

 

[Yoink]

Yoink: Have you read The God Delusion by Dawkins? He outlines 7 levels of belief. This seems to cover most bases. You may want to give it a look.

I haven't read it. Does he give a logically defensible and coherent account of "agnosticism" that would distinguish it from a logically defensible and coherent account of "atheism." If so, would you care to summarize?

 

[Yoink]

I don't agree that agnosticism is meaningless because it shares too much with atheism.

That isn't quite what I said, is it? After all, I don't think atheism is meaningless.

They don't share the same meanings technically, and in real-life situations, they are even more distant. In most people's eyes, atheism is the 'belief that there is no God', and agnosticism is 'I can't decide, it's sort of a toss-up'.

Yes, I described those as the typical usage--my point was that they don't describe defensible positions. I'm not asking if these two terms are used to distinguish real groups of people, I'm asking if they can be meaningfully defined so that they describe genuinely different philosophical positions which are also logically coherent. I'm asking if philosophers should get rid of one term or other (preferably "agnosticism").

I think agnosticism is meaningless as a descriptor of beliefs. It's superfluous at the least, and contradictory at most.

Well, we seem to be in entire agreement, then.