ag.nos.tic - n. - One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.-- agnostic, atheist. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.classic.reference.com/browse/atheist, agnostic (accessed: May 28, 2009).
a.the.ist - n. - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
I've never liked the way people separate the terms "atheist" and "agnostic." Most of the time, people seem to do it as a way to denigrate atheism as somehow more closed-minded than agnosticism. As we can see by the above definitions, however, agnosticism is merely a form of atheism, and in my experience, the most common form. Consider these people:
A: "There is no god."
B: "It is impossible to know if there is a god."
C: "There is a god."
To the question "do you believe there is a god?" only C would answer "yes." A & B would both answer "no," which makes them both atheists. To see it another way:
The most common (and most rational) type of atheist is the one who admits that it is impossible to make any factual claims about the existence of god. While there are those who will positively insist that god does not exist, most atheists will simply say that they have never encountered evidence of god's existence. This could properly be called agnosticism or atheism. In that context, there is really no difference.
I disagree.
ReplyDeleteColloquially, Agnostic tends to identify someone who allows the possibility for a higher power though they do not worship it and cannot affirm its existence. I prefer this definition:
- One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
I tend to linguistically play by your diagram and lump myself as an Atheist, but Agnostic a much more accurate description of my belief.
The ven diagram displayed should have part of the agnostic circle lie outside the atheism circle. An agnostic can have the same argument with an atheist as he would with a theist. If you disbelieve in any and all deities you are an atheist. If you believe that there is now way of knowing, you are an agnostic. Look at the roots of the word. The prefix "a-" means without. Atheist would therefore mean without a god and agnostic would mean without knowledge (in religious terms knowledge of a god). Not the same thing.
ReplyDeletekrisis - I agree, Agnostic is much more accurate. It's like saying "square" instead of "quadrilateral." While both are true, one tells you a lot more than the other. I don't like your definition because I think it misrepresents what it means to be an atheist.
ReplyDeleteBrian - I think you're equating disbelief and denial. Disbelief is just an absence of belief. Agnostics lack belief in god. So do atheists. SOME atheists make a positive claim that there is no god, but such a claim is irrational and is not representative of all atheists. The point here is that a person who lacks knowledge of god must, necessarily, lack belief in god, which makes that person an atheist, whether they like the label or not. The secondary point is that most people who call themselves atheists (myself included) fit the definition of agnostics.
Wes - I do not view "belief" as binary, so I disagree that Disbelief equals Absence of Belief.
ReplyDeleteThis gets back to the faith v. belief argument. 100% belief in something unprovable is faith. 0% belief is disbelief. The skepticism that lies between is harder to define.
Do I have "faith" if I believe that it would take some higher form of organized power to have a hand in chain of chemical and biological circumstances that lead to the origin of life as we know it?
Per that, the definition "disbelieves or denies the existence of" does not contain "allows for, but does not worship."
American Heritage Dictionary:
ReplyDeleteAgnostic - one who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
It would seem that your Venn diagram doesn't hold true for everyone. Stop trying to eliminate the option of being on the fence.
Krisis - your point is well taken about belief not being a binary. But I think you indirectly prove my point. Atheism is not a binary. It's not a 100% belief in the non-existence of god. It's just the absence of enough belief to make you reasonably confident in god's existence. I think that description applies equally to agnostics.
ReplyDeleteBrian - Krisis quoted that definition before, also. I think it misrepresents what atheism is. What is "true atheism"?
As a broader point, I don't think any of us disagree about what it means to be an agnostic. The disagreement seems to be what it means to be an atheist. Where I favor a broad definition that includes anyone who is not confident in the existence of god, both of you seem to favor a narrower definition including only people who have a high level of certainty that god does not exist. I'm uncomfortable with a narrow definition because I don't really think it applies to me, or most of the other "atheists" I know.
I suppose the labels aren't really important, but I think it's worth discussing. Why do you favor a narrower definition?
I can also think of some theists who would acknowledge B and also answer yes. In the absence of the ability to prove or disprove the existence of a god, they choose to believe there is a god. Whether their reasoning/choice is sound is another issue, but those individuals don't seem to fit into your categorization.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the majority of self-proclaimed "agnostics" would consider themselves atheists, and if not, what factor they would say distinguishes them.
I am fairly confident that most self-proclaimed agnostics would NOT call themselves atheists. I suspect it's because the term "atheist" carries a negative connotation. I connotes a person who is sure that there is no god, who pushes his beliefs on others, and condescends to anyone with beliefs. Think Christopher Hitchens. I think this completely misunderstands what it means to be an atheist. But people get really attached to labels, so I doubt this will change anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteAs for theists who admit that they can't actually know of god's existence, I think these people are just confused. Anyone can believe whatever they want, but I think once you have a positive belief in god's existence, you cease to be an agnostic. They can call themselves whatever they want, but I really don't think they fit the definition.