Agnostics are Atheists
When I wrote about agnostics last week, I received some feedback disagreeing with the idea that agnostics are atheists by default. Agnostics are atheists, and I tried to explain it as clearly as I could. However, as is often the case, someone else put it much more simply than I could. I heard this simple description on “The Non-Prophets” show, episode 6.21.
Here it is: You are assuming that I am claiming something is either A or B. If you’re not A, then you must be B. That’s not the case. I’m claiming that something is either A or not A. If ‘A’ stands for someone who believes in a god, then you’re A or not A. The definition of “not A” is atheist.
Being an atheist by definition does not make any other claims about you. You can love religion, you can be spiritual, and you can love animals and babies and pretty flowers. Remember — atheism isn’t really anything specific. It’s not even a claim. It’s just not believing in an invisible friend.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:05 am
The problem with your explanation is that “agnostic” and “believes in god” are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is not knowing for sure if any “god” can or does exist. This is compatible with both not bothering to believe and believing anyway. Agnostic theism may not appear to be common, but that may simply be due to theists not admitting it — or simply not realizing it. Perhaps the most famous agnostic theist was the medieval Jewish theologian and philosopher Maimonedes.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:11 am
Austin,
So are you saying that it’s rational to say “I don’t know if God exists, but I believe in him anyway”?
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Shawn, I wouldn’t say it’s rational, but at least it’s sincere.
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
It certainly seems to be irrational. If I say I believe in something, then belief in its existence is implicit in that statement. If someone is calling themselves agnostic but say they believe in a god, then they don’t know what “agnostic” means. If someone is truly an agnostic but doesn’t think they’re an atheist, then they don’t know what “atheist” means.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:11 am
So are you saying that it’s rational to say “I don’t know if God exists, but I believe in him anyway”?
No, but whether it’s “rational” or not is completely irrelevant here. The only thing that’s relevant is whether the position is possible. Is it possible for a person to say “I can’t claim to know for sure that god X exists, but I believe anyway (I have faith, I think that the preponderance of evidence is in favor, etc.)? Yes - not only is it possible, but it may be common.
It would not be legitimate to argue “this position isn’t rational, therefore it doesn’t exist and all people who don’t know if any gods exist are really atheists - even if they claim to believe.”
If someone is calling themselves agnostic but say they believe in a god, then they don’t know what “agnostic” means.
You seem to be equating belief with knowledge, and that is incorrect. Belief and knowledge are related, of course, but knowledge goes beyond mere belief. It is commonly defined as a “justified, true belief.” All of us have beliefs which don’t qualify as knowledge - and perhaps will never qualify as knowledge.
On the other hand, most people probably don’t acknowledge how much of what they believe isn’t really knowledge - they are convinced that their beliefs are both justified and true when they simply can’t confirm this. People aren’t able to take a step back and say “you know, I believe this and it seems really plausible, but to be honest I can’t claim to have sufficient justification to be convinced that it’s true. I ought to be more provisional in my acceptance of it.”
That’s why there is probably more agnostic theism than most people realize - including among agnostic theists.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:47 am
Austin,
I think that most of what you’re saying is just pandering to the “to each his own” concept. You say that whether the stance is rational or not is irrelevant, as long as the stance exists. This is just silly. If some people think they’re Napoleon Bonaparte, while acknowledging that Napoleon died before they were born, that does not make the concept of them being Napoleon legitimate.
Your tangent about the difference between belief and knowledge is irrelevant. Obviously they are two different things, but I never suggested that a person should be required to “know” something to “believe” it. If someone says they believe in a god, I don’t claim they can’t do that without knowing for sure that god exists.
The only point I’m making is that if you are an agnostic, then by definition you don’t believe in a god, because by believing in a god you stop being an agnostic and become a theist. I think the main reason you (and others) are opposing my statement that agnostics are atheists by default is because you have a certain distaste for the word “atheist,” even if you claim to be one. The word has a negative connotation which is completely unjustified, and that’s a bigger issue that we should be working to change.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:53 am
I think that most of what you’re saying is just pandering to the “to each his own” concept. You say that whether the stance is rational or not is irrelevant, as long as the stance exists.
In the context of determining if some position exists, then yes all that matters is whether or not it exists. It is possible to not know for sure if any gods exist while still believing anyway - which is hardly a revolutionary position since we can substitute “gods” for many other ideas without a problem. It is possible to believe the truth of a proposition without claiming to know for sure that it is true.
When the topic is the existence of a god, that’s agnostic theism.
Your tangent about the difference between belief and knowledge is irrelevant.
When it comes to determining whether believing without knowing for sure is possible, then establishing the difference between belief and knowledge is critical.
The only point I’m making is that if you are an agnostic, then by definition you don’t believe in a god, because by believing in a god you stop being an agnostic and become a theist.
Atheism and theism are categories that depend upon belief. Agnosticism is a category that depends upon knowledge. An agnostic is someone who doesn’t claim to know for sure if any gods exist. Your assertion that agnostic “by definition” don’t believe in gods is flatly incorrect — the only thing that is true of agnostics “by definition” is that they don’t claim to know for sure if any gods exist. This tells us nothing about what they believe or don’t believe, which is a separate category.
A person who doesn’t know for sure if any gods exist may not believe or they may believe. You don’t seem to recognize this because you are operating from a definition of agnosticism that is wrong.
I think the main reason you (and others) are opposing my statement that agnostics are atheists by default is because you have a certain distaste for the word “atheist,” even if you claim to be one.
That’s a pretty serious ad hominem charge, and no one who reads my site would think for a moment that it has the least credibilty. I’d ask you to support this, but we both know that there’s no way you’d be able to do so. You can’t rebut my comments by trying to make false accusations about my motives. You need to directly address the ideas I’m raising — specifically, the definition of agnosticism and the logical coherence of whether belief without knowledge is possible.
If you try, though, you’ll find that you can’t deny what the definition of agnosticism is and you can’t deny the general principle that a person can believe something without knowing for sure. This necessarily supports the conclusion that being an agnostic is not incompatible with being a theist, and therefore that being an agnostic doesn’t automatically make one an atheist. In practice, agnosticism may occur more often with atheism than theism, but the claim that agnostics are also always atheists is just false.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 am
Okay, by the way you are defining ‘agnostic,’ you can argue for any of the points you claim. However, that renders the definition of ‘agnostic’ to be meaningless. Nobody (theist or atheist) can claim absolute knowledge or proof of the existence or non-existence of any supernatural entity. Therefore, everyone is an agnostic by that definition.
The definition of agnostic is someone who is skeptical of claims of absolute knowledge of fact without evidence. An agnostic claims that either they don’t know whether a deity exists or that it’s impossible to know for certain whether one exists. A person with that position can not honestly claim to believe in that deity, because that would be a contradiction. The definition of belief is to accept as true. It has no qualifiers for whether the thing accepted as true has been proven, or is actually true.
Again, I say that “theist” and “agnostic” are logically incompatible. I’m not dogmatic in this — you can convince me otherwise if you have the facts, but I’m just not seeing it. I’m not trying to be thick here and ignore your arguments. I just don’t think there is anything to the arguments you have made that there can be a theist agnostic.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:42 am
Okay, by the way you are defining ‘agnostic,’ you can argue for any of the points you claim.
I’m using it the way it appears in standard dictionaries and by the people who originally coined the term. So what you are basically saying here is that so long as we accept the standard definition of agnosticism, I’m right that agnosticism is compatible with theism.
This leaves you in a bit of a bind, because it means that the only way for you to deny my conclusion is to argue that my key premie - the standard definition of agnosticism - is not the definition we should be using.
However, that renders the definition of ‘agnostic’ to be meaningless. Nobody (theist or atheist) can claim absolute knowledge or proof of the existence or non-existence of any supernatural entity.
People do claim it. Even some atheists claim to know for sure that no gods can or do exist. Whether a person should claim it or not is separate question from whether they do or not. Agnostics, naturally, are convinced that they shouldn’t, but the definition isn’t dependent on whether a person should claim knowledge, but whether they do.
To understand this, just consider the parallel with theists. They claim that a god exists. If there is no god, that doesn’t make them atheists - they are only atheists if they stop believing. Someone who believes in a nonexistent god is still a theist. An irrational or unjustified belief is still a belief, and an irrational or unjustified claim to knowledge is still a claim to knowledge.
An agnostic claims that either they don’t know whether a deity exists or that it’s impossible to know for certain whether one exists.
That’s the standard definition of agnosticism which I have been using and which by your own words allows me to argue for my conclusions. If you use this definition of agnosticism, my conclusion follows necessarily and your position fails necessarily.
A person with that position can not honestly claim to believe in that deity, because that would be a contradiction.
That’s only the case if it’s impossible to believe without knowing for sure. Since this is not impossible, your claim here is false.
The definition of belief is to accept as true.
Yes, it is. Remember how you acknowledged, though, that belief and knowledge are different? Here, I’ll quote you: “Obviously they are two different things, but I never suggested that a person should be required to “know” something to “believe” it.”
So, if it’s not required that a person “know” something in order to “believe” it, then it’s possible for a person to believe something without knowing it. Ergo, a person who is an agnostic and does not claim to know whether a deity exists or not can - by your own words - still believe anyway.
Again, I say that “theist” and “agnostic” are logically incompatible.
I know you say it, but you have also effectively said the opposite when you acknowledge that a person can believing without knowing. It doesn’t matter how often you say the above, it contradicts both the standard definition of agnosticism and basic logic, so it’s false.
I’m not dogmatic in this — you can convince me otherwise if you have the facts, but I’m just not seeing it.
The facts are: 1) the standard definition of agnosticism; 2) the fact that a person can believe something without also claiming to know for sure. If either of these are wrong, my conclusion does not follow. Thus far, you have accepted the truth of both: you repeat on your own the standard definition of agnosticism and you expressed, in your own words, the idea that a person can believe without knowing. Since you accept these premises, you cannot deny the conclusion.
Here, I’ll lay out the argument in more formal terms:
P1: Agnosticism is not claiming to know for sure if any gods exist, or denying that such knowledge is possible.
P2: A person can not for sure if something is true, but believe it is true anyway (faith, preponderance of evidence, hope, wishful thinking, etc.)
C1: A person can be an agnostic who doesn’t claim to have certain knowledge that any gods exist, but still believe in the existence of some god based on reasons other than certain knowledge.
Feel free to explain how you can accept both of the premises without also accepting the conclusion.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 am
Austin,
Okay, here is my reply to your last post. The reason I say theism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive is that a belief in a god is not simply a belief, but an entire worldview which informs the believer’s perception of the rest of reality. I agree that you can believe something without knowing whether it’s true, as some people (wrongly) believe that vaccines cause autism, even when they have seen well-conducted studies which refute their belief.
However, to believe in a god which created the universe requires a host of other beliefs and points of view beyond the simple existence or non-existence of an entity.
Obviously I have thrown in “which created the universe” for the first time in this conversation, and I can see you crying foul. However, if we’re not using that as a definition for the god in question, then the definition of “god” can mean pretty much anything and is therefore pretty useless.
In your formal argument, I agree with P1 and P2 in general, but they do not logically lead to your conclusion, C1.