There are a million definitions out there for what the words “atheist” and “agnostic” mean. Let’s start with what they do not (and cannot) mean. They do not mean degrees of openness to evidence. I only say this because I’ve encountered the claim that atheists are closed off to the possibility of god, and agnostics aren’t. But just like agnostics likely do not believe in the tangible existence of smurfs, if they ever met one they would immediately change their mind, as they should; atheists are the exact same way. If shown smurfs (or a god), or evidence of them, we will change our minds.
Others say that to be agnostic means to say that we cannot know. There is much to say about this. First, and most obviously, why can’t we? Is it really too early to say that people cannot rise from the dead, and that to accept such a proposition without evidence is indicative of lazy thinking at best (and insanity, at worst)? I don’t think so. Even for the ambiguous god of deism, the best I’ve ever heard as a defense for “we cannot know” is that people cannot imagine any other way existence could have happened (forget, for a moment, that god would have had to exist to create all of this). But that’s not an argument, it’s simply a lack of information (either on their part or on humanity’s part) or a lack of imagination. You can honestly say that we do not currently know, and that is fine – but you lack the knowledge of the future (amongst other things) to say that we cannot know. Additionally, to say that we cannot know about god is to treat the idea of knowledge in an absolutist fashion, which I’ll argue in the following section is not the way we utilize that idea. Anyway, my arguments for how we can know about god’s non-existence with reasonable certainty (which I’ll tackle in the following section) can be found throughout this blog and over at my regular blog.
I’ve heard others say that to be agnostic means to believe there is a god, but to admit that we know none of his properties (although, I’d more associate this with deism). These people suffer from the same philosophical failings as other believers.
However you view the term agnostic, I will argue that doing so entails misconceptions about the nature of knowledge or a poor analysis of the evidence on hand that, once resolved, will reveal that you are no different from an atheist.
The nature of knowledge.
For even our most certain claims, we must allow for the possibility we are somehow wrong. Even something as simple as 1=1 might not be true (you may be dreaming this life, and in the real world this is not the case). So what we do is we attach probabilities to truth claims based on the evidence on hand. While I’m pretty sure that there are no purple, nine-legged insects with heart shaped candy eyes and a radio dial on their forehead on this planet, we may one day turn over a rock and find a colony of such insects. While this is highly unlikely, it would be wrong to deny it as a (very distant) possibility, and thus my claim that there are no such insects is not absolutely certain.
While it’s not relevant to the discussion on atheism versus agnosticism, it should be noted that even god would be subject to these constraints. What if he was wrong about being omniscient? What if a demon is feeding god his every thought? Such a demon could even make god feel omniscient and god would never be the wiser. God would have to allow for this possibility, and so even he cannot have 100% certain knowledge. The point is that what we’re after is not absolute certainty, we’re after reasonable certainty. Ideas that are so likely to be true that they are as close as we can get. Atheists accept this. We are not saying we are absolutely positive that a god does not exist. What we are saying is that there is no good reason to believe that there is one and plenty of good reasons to believe there isn’t one. We say the same thing about unicorns, leprechauns, and purple nine-legged insects. Agnostics also accept this on propositions that allow for it, which gets me to my next point – often, it is how these things are presented that determine our approach to them.
The nature of propositions.
Another claim I’ve heard of agnostics before is that they say “we cannot know”. To me, this seems euphemistic for “we cannot falsify”, and they’re right. However, claiming belief in an unfalsifiable proposition which bears no supporting evidence because nobody has managed the impossible is to fall victim to the trap of a self-fulfilling prophesy. For instance, if you believe in smurfs with no corroborating evidence because we’ve yet to comb our universe to its very edges (a feat that would be tedious and impossible) to prove there is no centimeter of space-time (how’s that for a conflicting idea? 
) where a smurf exists, you will never be able to escape your absurd belief. Instead, we need to realize that if a proposition of existence, such as that of smurfs, gods, and celestial teapots, has no evidence, then that IS evidence for that object’s non-existence. Should we ever come across any evidence for these objects, we’ll happily change our minds.
Furthermore, as I said at the end of the previous section, whether we are agnostic (in the sense of saying we can’t disprove a proposition or we can’t know about a proposition) or atheistic (saying that it is so highly improbable as to be considered reasonably certain) about a proposition often has more to do with how those propositions are presented than anything.
Consider two gods, we’ll call them god Pork and god Beans. They are identical in that they both have power as unlimited as the universe allows and are, in each example, the author of the universe. Here is the difference.
God Pork uses his limitless power remove all evidence of his existence. In this case, the absence of any evidence for the existence of Pork IS the evidence of his existence, and every discovery ever made will conform to the idea of this god. It is impossible to be anything but an “agnostic” about Pork.
But god Beans, he uses his limitless power to provide you with irrefutable proof of his existence. We lack irrefutable proof of his existence, so it is impossible to be anything except an atheist about Beans. You cannot be open-minded to the existence of Beans because he is a contradiction of logic. It would be like saying there is a married bachelor – you cannot have both.
Richard Carrier originated this argument and articulates it better than I ever could.
Recap
So, to you people that call yourselves agnostics, how do you really differ from atheists?
- Are you open to the idea of a god? So are we.
- Are you unsure about the existence of god? Why? Are you also unsure about the existence of smurfs? Of nine-legged purple insects with candy eyes and radio dials? Why one and not the other?
- Obviously, we can know some things: how to open a door, that scratching our crotch will not open a door, that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow, that “National Treasure” is amongst my DVDs (I just looked up at random). Why can’t we know (by any sane definition of the word) if there is a god, by use of all the available evidence?
This should help to explain why I called agnostics lazy thinkers in a recent post. I do not mean to imply that they are dumb (I do not even believe that Christians are unviersally dumb), but that agnosticism requires some lazy thinking to maintain.
I will be looking to modify and add to this, so please post objections.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by JT Eberhard
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
I’ve always said that agnosticism is an unnecessary position, and at times an intellectually lazy one as well. Atheism is lack of belief. Not absolute certainty that there is no God. Just lack of belief. Everyone can then do whatever they please with that. Some people are less sure, some are very sure about this lack of belief, some are dogmatic and claim to know there is no God etc etc.
I especially object to the term “agnostic atheist” as well, which some people like to use. I do not think the term atheis needs to be clarified by another term, especially the term agnostic. Atheism is lack of belief. Everything else would be atheism plus something else. But, at the end of the day these definition “wars” will never go away.
My problem with agnostics is this: So you don’t know for sure if there is a God or not. Great, neither do I. But what do you really believe? How do you actually live? Do you live as if there is a God? Do you pray? Do you shape your actions as if they are judged by an omniscient being, with the power of eternal reward or punishment? If so, you are a theist. If not, you’re an atheist. Simple as that.
Skepdude wrote:
I mostly just think it’s redundant – most atheists would not claim knowledge of the non-existence of God, they just figure God’s existence is very unlikely, given what we know of the universe and human nature. Essentially, “agnostic atheists” are the norm, and “gnostic atheists” the very rare exception.
The distinction between gnostic theists or agnostic theists is a bit more useful, I think.
Well I consider myself agnostic and find the examples in this post to be a bit scattered.
You claim that the nature of knowledge is that we attach probabilities to claims and that 1=1 might not be true. You then give several examples of experiential based knowledge and say that God has the same standard.
I’d argue that it doesn’t, and that is the nature of agnosticism.
I’ll preface this by saying I really like Kant and what I’m going to write is his approach (as modified by the logical positivists).
1+1 = 2, “all bachelors are unmarried” and statements of those nature are analytic statements. There is no “probability” of truth, and it’s arguable whether they could even be considered facts, they are true based on definition.
The lack of unicorns, the sun will rise tomorrow, how to do various things, etc. is a synthetic a posteriori statement, a statement that relies on experience.
Most of your statements are axiomatic and don’t require any logical reasoning (”how to open a door” could be a set of axioms and that scratching your crotch won’t open it could be a deductive conclusion).
Keeping that all in mind, I will now explain why I think agnosticism towards certain things is the most accurate position (or at least contrast it with all your examples).
As you pointed out, the statement “There are no gods” could be considered different things based on your biases and beliefs about the nature of gods themselves.
If you believe that gods are corporeal entities that can be seen and directly affect the world physically, then that statement is in the same category about unicorns, etc. This is because the statement can be readily disproved through observation and it’s an axiomatic statement.
This is mostly the level your post talks about. I think it’s fair to say that the Greek Gods aren’t real because you can go to the mountain where they are supposed to be and they’re not there, or that there aren’t such a thing as ghosts because there hasn’t been scientific evidence of them.
However if you are talking about the idea of gods as spirits and omniscience that can’t be directly detected, then the statement is not axiomatic, but an inductive argument. “There are no gods” then means that you don’t believe there is enough supporting evidence to decide there is a god, but there is enough lack of evidence to probabilistically believe that there is no god. The key is that the statement is built on axiomatic argument to reach the conclusion.
So why do I consider myself agnostic? Because I believe that the nature of gods that are commonly discussed is closer to the latter, and furthermore I believe that it is literally impossible to develop axioms that are relevant enough to have inductive reasoning. If the question is “this there a loving god” or “is there a god that responds to prayer” well then, I think the answer is clearly not…at least based on our concepts of those things. But I can’t think of anything to test whether there is a god at all.
I’m also agnostic about what happened before the Big Bang and after death. Neither of those are analytic statements and based on our current beliefs, those are both impossible to observe and so no experiential knowledge can be gained to make any sort of valid reasoning.
Although I came to this position independently, it’s nearly exactly the same as Bertrand Russell’s:
In 1939, Russell gave a lecture on The existence and nature of God, in which he characterized himself as an atheist. He said:
“The existence and nature of God is a subject of which I can discuss only half. If one arrives at a negative conclusion concerning the first part of the question, the second part of the question does not arise; and my position, as you may have gathered, is a negative one on this matter.”
However, later in the same lecture, discussing modern non-anthropomorphic concepts of God, Russell states:
“That sort of God is, I think, not one that can actually be disproved, as I think the omnipotent and benevolent creator can.”
Also
“As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.”
I don’t really change my explanations to the ordinary man on the street, so I’d still say I was agnostic.
Furthermore, I believe that there is a very strong distinction between “lack of belief” characterizing atheism and a positive statement about the nature of knowledge that underpins agnosticism. However, those points aren’t focused on very much in western philosophy or culture and are more at home talking about Taoism and such.
I don’t normally wade into this sort of discussion, but one distinction I’ve encountered through the years is:
“Could you be convinced in the existence of a God? What would convince you?”
I’m an atheist, and I can’t really imagine anything that would convince me of the existence of a *creature* that was omniscient and omnipotent. Is it a failure of my imagination, or an expression of my logical position?
I recall a prior discussion where this concept was raised, and someone suggested the sudden miraculous simultaneous appearance of a Bible on the doorstep of every home in the world. Would that convince atheists that a God-creature existed? Personally it wouldn’t convince me. I mean I wouldn’t know how it had happened, but I wouldn’t see it as incontrovertible evidence of God. Who knows, perhaps some wacky aliens with teleporters?
(BTW terminology issue: I wish philosophers would stop using the word “falsify” as the opposite of “verify” – use “disprove” instead. To the rest of the world, media etc, the word “falsify” only ever means “to fake something”. I’ve asked lots of people and weirdly each group claims to have never heard of the other’s meaning. )
I’ve joked before that the difference between atheists and agnostics is that agnostics believe there is a difference, while atheists do not.
I’ve come to believe that “agnostic” is a rather useless label. It’s meant to convey one’s own uncertainty. But lots of people say they are uncertain in their beliefs, even religious people. So what “agnostic” really ends up conveying is the belief that everyone else in the world is dogmatic, while you alone live on the island of doubt. It’s bragging about one’s own humility. I think that when it comes to humility, you should show, not tell.
Mikkel posted a thoughtful defense of agnosticism. However, I still think that “agnostic” is a label that is practically all but meaningless. A point I commonly run across that I agree with, which I haven’t yet seen articulated here, is the following:
Agnosticism refers to knowledge, atheism refers to belief.
In other words, agnosticism says I/we can’t know if god exists, but atheism says that I don’t believe god exists, based on the evidence or lack thereof. There’s no contradiction there. Nobody (except those who think they’ve had a personal encounter with god) would ever claim that we can know absolutely that god does or does not exist. So why even describe oneself that way? How is that a unique position? The only explanations I can come up with are that one might wish to convey that one wants to remain “above the fray” in the belief arena, or that one is obfuscating one’s disbelief so as not to offend believers.
Mikkel correctly distinguishes fictional beings with a physical nature (Greek gods, unicorns, etc.) from “the idea of gods as spirits and omniscience that can’t be directly detected.” But this second category demands agnosticism by definition, because such beings cannot be detected. That leads Mikkel to call himself an agnostic, but my point is that EVERYONE is therefore technically agnostic towards such beings, whether they think so or not — otherwise there is a logical contradiction. So the only relevant thing left at issue here is what one BELIEVES. If you don’t believe in an undetectable omniscience, you’re an atheist.
Mikkel I really enjoyed your description and defense of Agnosticism, it was a great read! I still have a problem with the position of Agnosticism and that is namely: Why would you call the said entity(s)in question a god at all? I feel like it is dubious to arbitrarily call something god because the god(s) atheists and religious people refer to has specific implications and attributes. In other words, you can’t talk about God without referring to some religious tradition or previously established conception. Otherwise using God is meaningless. You can use whatever you want, but in choosing to use the word God it would have to assume the validity of some sort of religious tradition along with it. Where would you be getting these god qualities from otherwise? Why call it God? Using God in that sense has no meaning outside of a religious context. Mikkel you said “This is mostly the level your post talks about. I think it’s fair to say that the Greek Gods aren’t real because you can go to the mountain where they are supposed to be and they’re not there, or that there aren’t such a thing as ghosts because there hasn’t been scientific evidence of them.
However if you are talking about the idea of gods as spirits and omniscience that can’t be directly detected, then the statement is not axiomatic, but an inductive argument. “There are no gods” then means that you don’t believe there is enough supporting evidence to decide there is a god, but there is enough lack of evidence to probabilistically believe that there is no god. The key is that the statement is built on axiomatic argument to reach the conclusion.” First how is the ghost different from the spirit and omniscience that cannot be detected? I could easily rephrase and say the ghost cannot be directly detected. Second, why are you choosing to use the word gods? Why not just say spirits and omniscience, gods implies something else entirely. You are now just making attributes up to fit in with a certain view. Anyone could make up anything and say that there is a possibility it exists, the question is would you be agnostic about it? All they have to do is make sure it is not susceptible to scientific observation right? You cannot make up attributes of something, call it God and then say it is reasonable to be agnostic about its existence. If that was a reasonable position to take you would have to be agnostic about anything that has never been shown not to exist. Since you cannot prove the non-existence of something definitively it would be quite troubling not to be able to reasonably rule it out based on a lack of evidence. When an Atheist is referring to a god or gods, we are not talking about some arbitrary thing you chose to give qualities to and call god, we are talking about very specific qualities that come from religious traditions and already established conceptions. I don’t believe in spirits or omniscience either but it seems like your trying to redefine god. Those two things alone don’t constitute any God an atheist is referring to anyway so why call them god. They fall under the supernatural (at-least spirits do, I’m not sure if anyone is in a position to define omniscience coherently) which most atheists, and I assume you don’t believe in anyway.I don’t want to put words in your mouth or anything but it seems like your already an atheist given what you have said about the Greek gods and the Judaeo-Christian God. If I did not accurately represent anything you said Mikkel I apologize.
Mikkel I really enjoyed your description and defense of Agnosticism, it was a great read! I still have a problem with the position of Agnosticism and that is namely: Why would you call the said entity(s) in question a god at all? I feel like it is dubious to arbitrarily call something god because the god(s) atheists and religious people refer to has specific implications and attributes. In other words, you can’t talk about God without referring to some religious tradition or previously established conception. Otherwise using God is meaningless. You can use whatever you want, but in choosing to use the word God it would have to assume the validity of some sort of religious tradition along with it. Where would you be getting these god qualities from otherwise? Why call it God? Using God in that sense has no meaning outside of a religious context. Mikkel you said “This is mostly the level your post talks about. I think it’s fair to say that the Greek Gods aren’t real because you can go to the mountain where they are supposed to be and they’re not there, or that there aren’t such a thing as ghosts because there hasn’t been scientific evidence of them.
However if you are talking about the idea of gods as spirits and omniscience that can’t be directly detected, then the statement is not axiomatic, but an inductive argument. “There are no gods” then means that you don’t believe there is enough supporting evidence to decide there is a god, but there is enough lack of evidence to probabilistically believe that there is no god. The key is that the statement is built on axiomatic argument to reach the conclusion.” First how is the ghost different from the spirit and omniscience that cannot be detected? I could easily rephrase and say the ghost cannot be directly detected. Second, why are you choosing to use the word gods? Why not just say spirits and omniscience, gods implies something else entirely. You are now just making attributes up to fit in with a certain view. Anyone could make up anything and say that there is a possibility it exists, the question is would you be agnostic about it? All they have to do is make sure it is not susceptible to scientific observation right? You cannot make up attributes of something, call it God and then say it is reasonable to be agnostic about its existence. If that was a reasonable position to take you would have to be agnostic about anything that has never been shown not to exist. Since you cannot prove the non-existence of something definitively it would be quite troubling not to be able to reasonably rule it out based on a lack of evidence. When an Atheist is referring to a god or gods, we are not talking about some arbitrary thing you chose to give qualities to and call god, we are talking about very specific qualities that come from religious traditions and already established conceptions. I don’t believe in spirits or omniscience either but it seems like your trying to redefine god. Those two things alone don’t constitute any God an atheist is referring to anyway so why call them god. They fall under the supernatural (at-least spirits do, I’m not sure if anyone is in a position to define omniscience coherently) which most atheists, and I assume you don’t believe in anyway.I don’t want to put words in your mouth or anything but it seems like your already an atheist given what you have said about the Greek gods and the Judaeo-Christian God. If I did not accurately represent anything you said Mikkel I apologize.