40

Every time l look up the meanings of the two words agnostic and atheist in the dictionary l become more confused. For me, both refer to someone who doesn’t believe in God. Is there a simple, straightforward definition for these two words?

  • 8
    Anyone got evidence for the following theory? I'm pretty sure the meaning of the words changed while they became more widespread, i.e. philosophers used to mean something very specific by them, then laypersons started using them without understanding all the subtleties of their meaning and because laypersons vastly outnumber philosophers now the real life meaning (i.e. what a random user of the words most likely means to express) changed so that you can no longer rely on the original concise definitions. – Nobody Dec 29 '17 at 13:53

12 Answers 12

65

In the interests of simplicity which you specifically asked for, I should first like to preserve here a member's excellent comment which clearly brings out the difference in meaning:

To simplify: when asked if there is a God, a theist says "yes", an atheist says "no", and an agnostic says "I don't know". – Mark


My own answer:

This is a solid question well worth asking here and useful for many present and future readers. In addition to the excellent earlier answer by Cookie Monster, may I add this very specific note given by Merriam-Webster Dictionary online regarding the difference between the two terms:

[extract] atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable.

Source page: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnosticism (scroll down towards the middle of that page to read.)

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines atheism as

a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Source: https://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Whereas agnostic is defined by the same, highly respected dictionary as

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnosticism

This note on that same page goes on to describe the different origins of the words, which in turn explains their different meanings:

[full note] How agnostic differs from atheist:

Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist. The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable. This distinction can be troublesome to remember, but examining the origins of the two words can help.

Agnostic first appeared in 1869, (possibly coined by the English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley), and was formed from the Greek agnōstos (meaning "unknown, unknowable"). Atheist came to English from the French athéisme. Although both words share a prefix (which is probably the source of much of the confusion) the main body of each word is quite different. Agnostic shares part of its history with words such as prognosticate and prognosis, words which have something to do with knowledge or knowing something. Atheist shares roots with words such as theology and theism, which generally have something to do with God.

I would further explain the difference in meaning based on two major factors:

(1) Approach to belief:

Unlike atheists, who do not believe in the existence of any deities, an agnostic person only takes the (more moderate) position that the reality of the existence of a Supreme Being is not known to them or essentially unknowable, which in theory is a neutral position, though non-religious in practice. In addition, atheism can itself be classified as 'hard' and 'soft' atheism depending on how strongly the disbelief in the existence of gods is asserted:

Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

In fact some users had noted in comments here that agnosticism is simply a form of 'soft' atheism. In any case agnostic people are still very different from the religious community of 'believers' in that it is not really possible for them to believe in a divine power if they don't know whether or not it actually exists! In short, as you have rightly understood, both atheists and agnostics are functionally non-believers compared to the religious community.

(2) Attitude to religion:

Agnostics generally do not criticize religion or oppose other people's religious belief/ practices. Moreover, many agnostics are actually open to the possibility of the existence of some form of divinity, as already pointed out by @Cookie Monster, and they are often willing to be convinced by a truly compelling personal experience, although such a spiritual experience of divinity may or may not occur. Whereas many an atheist person actively believes that gods do not exist, and many (if not all) atheists consider that religion is not good for society, which in practice can become anti-religion or anti-theist. The biggest and most influential atheist political movement openly hostile to religion has been Marxist–Leninist atheism.

However, as noted in a very pertinent comment by user 1006a,

Atheists aren't a homogeneous group, and being actively anti-religion is not a universal trait. Also, (...) some agnostics are rather more decided (...) believing that things like what happens to human consciousness after death and whether there is any Divinity is definitely unknowable, rather than just being undecided so far and open to persuasion.

In short, there is definite internal variation within the groups 'atheist' and 'agnostic' and the ideas or actions of individuals do not necessarily represent the most typical meanings of the terms as used in modern English.

  • 4
    That's more scientific @Raj 33. A great scientist or philosopher said that atheism is as impossible to prove as divinity: "Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology" __ So the scientific person will prefer to be agnostic! (See wikipedia page on agnosticism at en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism) – English Student Dec 29 '17 at 10:18
  • 10
    Whereas an atheist person actively believes that gods do not exist I don't think thats, in its generality, accurate. Atheism is the rejection of a believe in the existence of a deity not the believe that no such deity exists. Logically, those are very different statements. – Muschkopp Dec 29 '17 at 11:01
  • 3
    "Atheism is the rejection of a believe in the existence of a deity not the believe that no such deity exists. Logically, those are very different statements." __ The difference is too fine for me to make out. Maybe you could explain in more detail how they are different statements, @Muschkopp? Merriam-Webster puts it bluntly: "atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods)" – English Student Dec 29 '17 at 11:04
  • 2
    Comments are not for extended conversation; this debate may continue in chat. – J.R. Dec 30 '17 at 20:17
  • 2
    While this answer is generally correct from a philosophical perspective, this is the English Language Learners SE. I would say that in most contexts, when people claim to be "atheist" they are expressly stating that they are confident there is/are no god(s)... However, in many parts of the world (especially in the US), people who believe god(s) don't exist claim to be "agnostic" in many situations in order to avoid negative attention from others by implying the "uncertainty" part of agnosticism, which is not conveyed by the term "atheist"; It's basically "atheism lite". – errantlinguist Dec 31 '17 at 20:29
30
  • The word 'Atheist' is based on the Greek theos which means god in English.

  • Likewise, the word 'Agnostic' is based on the Greek gnosis which
    translates as knowledge.

In both cases the prefix 'a' means 'not', or 'without', as in the words 'amoral' (without morals) or 'apolitical' (not interested or involved in politics).

So an atheist is someone who is 'without god' - they do not believe in a god.

Meanwhile an agnostic is 'without knowledge' of god. Someone who identifies as agnostic generally believes either that we cannot know for certain if a god exists, or that such information is irrelevant.

  • 4
    I'm glad someone addressed the actual structure of the words themselves. The other two answers (as of now) excellently state the differences between the concepts, but this is the other half of the explanation. – thanby Dec 29 '17 at 15:21
  • 11
    While in this case apparently correct, I find it dangerous to rely solely on etymology to explain a word’s meaning. Meanings change over time (and that of “atheist” has!) and as a consequence etymology is often misleading. – Konrad Rudolph Dec 29 '17 at 17:55
  • 2
    @KonradRudolph Actually, the description of atheist as "they do not believe in a god" (an atheist does not believe there is a god) feels a lot more comfortable to me than the singular adherence to "hard atheism" (an atheist believes there is no god) in the other answers. I agree a full answer should include both. – oerkelens Dec 30 '17 at 11:16
  • 2
    @konradrudolph I felt a linguistic approach was most appropriate here on the English learners site. Most learners of English have their own language and are looking to relate English to their own language. Also, knowing the roots of these two words goes to helping one understand and remember the difference between the two, which was a fundamental part of the question. Also, despite dictionary definitions, many who identify as atheist or agnostic have differing views anyway. – Astralbee Dec 30 '17 at 16:14
27

People often link a sentence like “I don’t know whether there is a God or not.” to agnosticism and “I don’t believe there is a God.” to atheism. But this is wrong.

Many people think that there is a spectrum which goes from theism (belief in a God) to agnosticism (does not know whether there is a God) to atheism (lack of belief in a God). This, however, is incorrect. Better take a look at this picture:

enter image description here

Actually, the coordinate system below is correct. Let me explain you why that is with the help of another figure.

enter image description here

  • Gnosticism means that I think that I am certain about knowing something.
  • Agnosticism means that I think that I am uncertain about knowing something.

The vertical line, thus, represents how certain we feel when looking at a question. The bottom (gnosticism) represents 100% certainty, the top (agnosticism) represents 0% certainty. I do not have to pick one or the other. I can pick any point along the vertical axis.

The other terms are theism/deism and atheism.

  • Theism means that I believe that there is a God – and that God is, for example, the God from the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita etc.
  • Deism means that I believe that there is a God – but I don’t know what God. I just say that there is a divine being, but I don’t claim that the Torah, Bible, etc. is correct and an exact description of that divine being.
  • Atheism means that I do not believe that there is a God.

How strong is your belief? It does not have to be 100% (theism/deism) or 0% (atheism). You can also pick any point you like along the vertical axis!

If you are, for example, in the first quadrant (agnostic atheism), you say that you do not know whether there is a God or not, but you believe that there is no God.

These quadrants and the names for them are rough classifications and none of them may fit for you. If you say that you are 50% certain that there is a God and your belief is 50% strong, you are in the middle of the coordinate system and not in any of the quadrants.

Remember: You can also go along the lines!

  • 6
    Personally I prefer the two-dimensional division into quadrants but to label the one-dimensional distinction as “incorrect” is clearly wrong: this is how many native speakers understand these terxms. It’s therefore not incorrect. At most it’s imprecise and/or unhelpful. – Konrad Rudolph Dec 29 '17 at 23:35
  • 2
    It is widely used that way, I know. But by taking a closer look at the meaning of the words, one should clearly realise that the usage of these words is actually nonsense. Another example for this would be the word “anti-Semitism”. Arabs are also Semites – but it does not refer to them. “Anti-Judaism” would actually describe what the word “anti-Semitism” often describes. – Nemgathos Dec 30 '17 at 0:56
  • 1
    Ah. But now you're confusing semantics and etymology. They're not the same. Meanings change. – Konrad Rudolph Dec 30 '17 at 9:11
  • 1
    @Nemgathos: You answer is great and possibly the most useful one for all levels of readers, except by the abbreviation you've employed here which is based on beliefs instead of evidences: "Atheism means that I do not believe that there is a God.". I suggest you replace by: "Atheism means that I do not have any evidence which could corroborate the claim that there is a God." – Richard Gomes Dec 30 '17 at 15:59
  • 3
    @RichardGomes No, atheism refers to belief, not evidence. – Acccumulation Dec 30 '17 at 23:59
25

An agnostic, loosely speaking, is someone whose answer to the question whether there is God is "I don't know." Atheism, on the other hand, is a much stronger position in that respect. Atheists deny the very existence of God, gods or any other supernatural entity for that matter. And to that end, they use logical arguments to substantiate their position. So, in very simple words:

Agnostics, practically speaking, are people who are, at the very least, open to the possibility that there might be a god (some people might disagree with me here), but it's just that to them it's a moot question because according to their principles the existence of God is unknowable.

Atheists in general are closed to the possibility that there might be a god.

In reality, of course, the situation is a lot blurrier when it comes to agnosticism and atheism. Some people call themselves "soft atheists" which means that they will believe in God if presented with strong enough evidence. Hard atheists say that there can be no evidence for God as described in holy books because the concept of God, in their opinion, is just a product of human culture. Some agnostics maintain the position that it's even not possible to find out whether or not God exists because these things simply cannot be known.

To sum things up, I'm going to quote the prominent American atheist Matt Dillahunty's short and sweet description of atheism: "Atheism is a single position on a single question: the answer to the question whether God exists so far is a resounding no because of a lack of sufficient evidence for his existence."

  • 2
    "Atheists deny the very existence of God, gods or any other supernatural deity for that matter. And to that end, they use logical arguments to substantiate their claims." __ yes indeed that is the mark of an atheist! – English Student Dec 29 '17 at 8:45
  • Regarding soft atheists, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism – English Student Dec 29 '17 at 8:46
  • 12
    It’s worth nothing that in some cultures people are atheist by default. That is to say, they don’t argue strongly (or indeed at all) that there is no god. They simply never gave serious consideration to the possibility. I’m mentioning this case because it’s explicitly not covered by your definition. As an example, in North Germany (especially the former East Germany) this is a somewhat common occurrence. This position is likened to not believing in fairies: most people are a-fairy-ists, yet don’t feel the need to positively deny/argue against their existence. – Konrad Rudolph Dec 29 '17 at 12:03
  • 2
    @KonradRudolph People who by default don't believe in fairies may not choose to use the term a-fairy-ist, but they wouldn't object to that classification. Likewise for atheists. The grouping into atheist/agnostic/theist is useful when discussing one's theology. – Lawrence Dec 29 '17 at 17:32
  • Comments are not for extended conversation; the (a)theological discussion may continue in chat. – J.R. Dec 30 '17 at 20:15
12

Is there a simple, straightforward definition for these two words?

No. Both words have become muddled through recent use, and what it means to one person varies heavily from the next. For evidence, see the huge number of disagreeing answers above, as well as the comment discussions on some of them.

There seems to be a strong divide, especially between people who describe themselves as either agnostic, atheist, or both and people who don't. I have seen all of the answers above used as the "correct" answer in discussions without ever seeing agreement between two parties at the end.

To throw out a wild guess, the upvotes on this question are likely to relate to the split between religious and non-religious persons on this site. As a non-religious person, I'd more likely upvote Nemgathos, while the religious people I've talked to would likely upvote English Student, as most I've talked with use the words that way.

However, to strengthen the point further, Scott mentioned in the comments that in his experience, non-religious are also more likely to use English Student's definition.

I've found that the only reasonable conclusion is that you can't know what the word "atheist" or "agnostic" means to someone without asking them the question directly.

This is especially important because many of the people who actually use these words to describe themselves don't use English Student´s definition, which means that you'll be getting the wrong ideas if you don't ask people what they mean with these words.

  • But within these detailed answers, there were simple meanings to differentiate between the two words. Anyway l respect your point of view. – Mido Mido Dec 30 '17 at 11:54
  • 1
    @MidoMido keep in mind that these simple meanings to differentiate in those other answers are all in disagreement with one another, leaving you without any simple meaning that actually works – Erik Dec 30 '17 at 12:20
  • I vote for this answer. One should remember that there are many competing, and sometimes fuzzy, overlapping and conflicting, meanings when it comes to complicated philosophical terms such as "atheism", "truth" and "is". – Thomas Padron-McCarthy Dec 30 '17 at 23:48
11

Average people often conflate the terms atheist and agnostic, implying that they are mutually exclusive, when they are actually not. Like your question implies, the meaning of the terms have become muddied recently.

Agnosticism speaks to someone's claim of knowledge to a particular subject...

Agnosticism, (from Greek agnōstos, “unknowable”), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/agnosticism

...while atheism speaks to someone's degree of belief in a particular subject.

Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/theism

An atheist is simply someone who does not accept the proposition: a (specific) god exists.

In the case of belief in a god, agnosticism and atheism are binary positions. You either accept the existence of a specific god or you don't. You either claim to know that god exists/doesn't exist or you don't. So this leads to four basic permutations of these stances:

1) Agnostic Theist - A person accepts the existence of a specific god but doesn't claim to have knowledge of their existence.

2) Agnostic Atheist - A person does not accept the existence of a specific god and doesn't claim to know that god does not exist.

3) Gnostic Theist - A person accepts the existence of a specific god and claims to have knowledge that god exists.

4) Gnostic Atheist - A person does not accept the existence of a specific god and also claims to know that god does not exist.

When someone calls him/herself an agnostic, they can often be implying that are an agnostic atheist, and when someone calls him/herself an atheist, they usually mean they are a gnostic atheist. In reality, they are both atheists because they do not accept the proposition that a god exists. The key difference is their degree of knowledge.

  • 4
    @NathanTuggy I have heard many public atheists use the words as described here. To your other point, I would expect many, if not most, theists to classify themself as agnostic theist (as described by @Frehmin) because faith would be meaningless if you already know. – Muschkopp Dec 29 '17 at 17:27
  • 2
    Gnosticism actually is a religion, check Wikipedia. I don't think there is a word for the opposite of agnostic, you need to spell it out. – Nobody Dec 29 '17 at 17:34
  • 3
    I think you made up your four permutations. You should follow up with references pointing to actual use of these combinations. – pipe Dec 29 '17 at 17:55
  • 3
    @pipe Well, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism has two references, one is a book titled "The Christian Agnostic". Looks ok to me as far as references go. I think that's the most uncommonly used, do you need citations for the others too? – Nobody Dec 29 '17 at 18:04
  • 2
    @NathanTuggy The whole question really isn't about learning English - "Agnostic" and "Atheist" exist with slightly different spelling and pronunciation but exactly the same meaning in lots of languages and if the OP understood the philosophical concepts in their native language, they wouldn't have problems in English either. And they clearly already understand the meaning of "something about not being religious" which both words have when used by the illiterate rabble. But I give up about this answer, they should just read plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism or something. – Nobody Dec 30 '17 at 12:13
8

While the other answers sufficiently cover Atheist vs. Agnostic in regards to religion, which seems to be the core focus of the question, I would like to add that "Agnostic" has another common meaning, definition 7 on Dictionary.com, relating most often to "platform agnostic software". This is an example of the fact that Agnostic also shows up in non-religious contexts; "platform agnostic software" does not mean "Software only for platforms that are unsure about the existence of god(s)".

On the other hand, I have never known "Atheist" to have uses that don't relate to religion.

  • 2
    In the sense used for software, agnostic is very wrong. The accurate term would be system apathetic - it isn't that they don't know what system is running them (they may or may not have that capability) but that they don't care (because it makes no effective difference). – Nij Dec 30 '17 at 7:40
  • 2
    @Nij: If I write a software which "believes" it is running on Windows, it may require a drive letter followed by a colon in every file name. A platform agnostic software would be software produced with such concern in mind, explicitly, which is possibly tested very well on different platforms. – Richard Gomes Dec 30 '17 at 16:08
  • 6
    @Nij: "platform-agnostic" may be "wrong" in an etymological sense, but it's the actual usage, and there's no point denying that. – Nathan Tuggy Dec 30 '17 at 16:10
  • @NIj Computer programs are not capable of emotions such as "caring". A platform agnostic program acts as if it does not know what platform it is being run on. Which fits the meaning of "agnostic" when applied to humans: if you walk up to a human who claims to be agnostic and say "God exists", they're not going to say "Oh, now I'm a theist". Similarly, even if a PAP can find out what platform it's being run on, it treats that as not being reliable knowledge. If you don't like "agnostic", "independent" or "indifferent" would be better than "apathetic". – Acccumulation Dec 31 '17 at 0:17
  • 1
    Anthropomorphism is a well-known concept. In this case to care is an obvious shorthand for to attach relevance or importance (of, about, to), but I didn't think it would be necessary to explain everything in the minutest detail. As I have already said, the key point is not whether it knows the platform, but whether that information is relevant at all. @Acccumulation – Nij Dec 31 '17 at 0:22
4

Both Cookie Monster's and English Student's answers are very well put forward, but they seem to have forgotten the OP's initial request for simplicity. In a nutshell, this is how I would explain it to someone who has only a minute to spare.

  1. An atheist will say there is no proof that any god exists.
  2. An agnostic will say they don't know if God exists because they are waiting for that proof.
  • 1
    With my respect to all detailed and informative answers, l was really seeking simple definition to uncover the ambiguity of the two words as yours. – Mido Mido Dec 30 '17 at 11:45
  • @MidoMido as you can tell, some things are more complicated and subtle than at first glance. I have tried to summarise compact complex concepts in two simple sentences, but perhaps they are too flippant for users' tastes. However, I should have clearly added that an agnostic will also say "I don't know", which every one seems to agree on. – Mari-Lou A Dec 30 '17 at 12:55
  • 1
    +1 from me. I like your straight-forward definitions. Theists believe. Atheists will believe if you show them evidence. Agnostics admit that our understanding is limited and so reserve judgement. I heard an analogy that compared us with fleas in a carpet trying to figure out the nature of cheese. We might figure out the "milk" part using science, but there would be nothing in our experience to inform us about the cow (or other animal) that made the milk and the cheesemaker who used that milk. – ColleenV Dec 30 '17 at 13:36
  • 1
    I think this would actually sum it up pretty well if you remove the "because" and mention that people can be both, because they are different questions. That definitely makes it simple but correct enough. – Erik Dec 31 '17 at 9:17
4

No, there is not a simple and straightforward definition of those two words.

As can be seen by the many contradictory answers, there are several different interpretations of what the two words "really" mean. For example, there are those who say "atheists lack belief in a god", and that agnostic means something completely separate from this. In contrast, there are others who say "atheists believe there are no gods", and that agnosticism is the only rational position.

However, despite any amount of effort to give precise meanings to these terms, people will still use them as they understand the words. In fact, it is a controversial topic in general about whether English should be defined prescriptively or descriptively. Many people will say that, regardless of what the dictionary says, a word should mean what those who use it actually mean. For example, consider the phrase

"I literally died laughing!"

If I were using the word 'literally' as it is 'properly' defined, you would have to assume I am dead. However, as you can probably tell, I'm not. In this case, the word 'literally' can be interpreted descriptively to mean I'm 'stressing or emphasising the point'.

Applying this to the difference between 'atheism' and 'agnosticism', we see that the only way to know what someone really means when they use these words is to ask them. Dictionaries, stack exchange, chat forums, etc. are, by the nature of the English language unable to provide a definitive response.

Personally, I used to call myself an atheist. One day though, I saw the definition of agnosticism and decided that I was actually an agnostic. Fast forward a year later, and I started getting interested in religious topics. On more research, I learnt the differences in the two terms, and once again decided I was actually an atheist.

The key point here, is that I went through calling myself both without changing my actual beliefs. Another important point is that I called myself these without knowing (or at least understanding) their definitions. It would be unreasonable to expect anyone who doesn't enjoy debating religion to know either.

My rule of thumb is that, if a person introduces themselves as an 'agnostic' (and doesn't elaborate further), I assume they are what some might call a 'soft atheist'. To me, both 'agnostic' and 'soft atheist' mean 'atheist', because I prefer the prescriptive definition of the terms. However, I cannot be sure of what they really mean until they explain it better.

  • Thanks @Benjamin Gray for writing this really insightful answer after I requested you to expand your comment. Thus you have summed up this unexpectedly complicated debate which reminds us that in practice our comprehension is limited by the fact that words mean what the user intends: I appreciate and upvote! – English Student Jan 1 '18 at 8:23
3

The flip answer I always use is:

An atheist is convinced there are no gods.

An agnostic doesn't know, and likely doesn't care.

While its a subtle difference, it can be really important in practice. Many Atheists are just as into proselytizing their unbelief as a stereotypical Evangelical Christian is their belief. It isn't hard at all to find Atheists who insist that not only are they logically right, but any other position is morally wrong.

Agnostics on the other hand quite often aren't even interested in discussing the topic, because they really don't care. Its very rare to find one that aggressively wants to convert you to their position of uncertainty. The best link I know for this kind of thought is the Church of the Apathetic Agnostic

There are those that see agnosticism as only a way-station, an intermediate step for those still trying to decide whether to believe in God (or a god or gods) or to absolutely believe in no gods exist at all. Agnosticism is seen as a refuge for those who cannot make up their minds.

What this site seeks to illustrate is that agnosticism in itself is a legitimate end position with respect to religious belief. We do not know because we cannot know. The ultimate truth about the existence of a Supreme Being is unknowable. Recognizing this, we can free ourselves from a fruitless search and indeed, no longer care about answering the question.

  • 2
    This answer directly contradicts the definition given by American Atheists. I think this is what @k0pernikus was getting at. – Konrad Rudolph Dec 29 '17 at 23:37
  • 1
    @KonradRudolph - That one at least I understand! I kinda have to disagree with that page's assertion that there's a meaningful difference between "disbelief" and "lack of belief", but I'll at least pay them the respect of editing the monotheism out. – T.E.D. Dec 30 '17 at 0:35
  • It's the same as the difference between zero and negative numbers. The latter is an opposition to the positive, the former merely the absence. @T.E.D. – Nij Dec 30 '17 at 7:42
  • The agnostic doesn't know, and doesn't believe that you know, either :-) – jamesqf Dec 31 '17 at 19:21
  • @jamesqf - That "agnostic" would be right, but that doesn't make me agnostic. That's why we call it "faith". As a Liberal Christian I tend get along way better with agnostics than with fundamentalists or atheists for just this reason. – T.E.D. Jan 1 '18 at 0:57
2

If you make no distinction between the words "believe" and "know," if you have never understood why "faith" and "grace" are such important words in Christianity, then you will miss the distinction between "agnostic" and "atheist." Neither believes in the divine, but for different reasons. The atheist does not believe in the divine because he is convinced that the divine is a lie. The agnostic does not believe in the divine because he is not convinced that the divine is a truth. It is the difference between certainty and lack of certainty.

The devout Christian says that Christianity is certainly right and Judaism is certainly wrong.

The devout Jew says that Christianity is certainly wrong and Judaism is certainly right.

The atheist says Christianity and Judaism are both certainly wrong.

The agnostic says that Christianity may be right or Judaism may be right or both may be wrong.

  • 3
    I somewhat disagree. I can say that (for instance) Judaism and Christianity are both wrong (e.g. because their Scriptures make certain claims that are provably false), without being at all certain about what is right. – jamesqf Dec 29 '17 at 18:47
  • @james That depends on whether you insist on a literalist interpretation of scripture, which is not something that all Christians and Jews do. Given that there are many sects of Christians and many sects of Jews, we are going far astray from the difference between doubt, the essence of agnosticism, and certainty, the essence of of atheism. – Jeff Morrow Dec 29 '17 at 18:59
  • 1
    The devout Christian can and many often do claim that it is not possible to be sure of God, and faith regardless of that surety is the entire point – Nij Dec 30 '17 at 0:37
  • @Nij I did not intend to controvert that position. In fact, I was trying to distinguish between "know" and "believe." Where I said "says," it would have been clearer had I said "believes." People mock Tertullian without any understanding of what he was saying. The essence of my distinction is that lack of belief can have different causes. I was not really trying to get at the causes or modalities of belief. – Jeff Morrow Dec 30 '17 at 0:54
  • 1
    @Jeff Morrow &c: But from my point of view, those non-literalist Judeo-Christians are simply engaging in denial :-) I'm just trying to point out that the distinctions are finer than your examples. E.g. I can be "atheistic" in regards to the Judeo-Christian "God", but agnostic as to say paganism, Hinduism, Shinto, &c. – jamesqf Dec 30 '17 at 4:39
2

There are almost as many definitions of the word "atheism" as there are atheists, and speaking as someone who considers himself an atheist, almost all dictionary definitions miss the mark somewhat. The most inclusive definition of atheism is simply "lacks belief in God or gods." Definitions such as "actively denies the existence of God" excludes people like myself who don't believe, but at the same time don't feel we can say with certainty that God doesn't exist.

The way I learned the term, agnosticism is not merely a weaker form of atheism - it is the position that the nature of God, including the question of His existence, is unknowable. This is a statement of knowledge (or lack thereof), whereas atheism is a statement of belief (or lack thereof).

It is possible to be both atheist and agnostic at the same time: I cannot know anything about the nature of God, therefore I choose not to believe in God.

It is also possible to be both theist and agnostic: I cannot know anything about the nature of God, and I choose to believe in God anyway (because that's what faith is all about).

And the other combinations are possible as well - you can claim you know that God doesn't exist and that's why you don't believe, or you can claim that you know God does exist and that's why you believe.

Atheists fall into three broad categories:

  • I don't believe in God because I am not convinced that God exists;
  • I don't believe in God because I am convinced that God does not exist;
  • I don't believe in God because organized religion has done awful and evil things in the past.

The one thing that we have in common is that we don't believe - why we don't believe, and how our lack of belief is manifested, falls all over the map.

  • Please find a reference that supports your following claim: I cannot know anything about the nature of God, and I choose to believe in God anyway First time I've ever heard of an agnostic being defined also a believer or vice versa. – Mari-Lou A Jan 2 '18 at 19:20
  • @Mari-LouA: Had a Seventh-Day Adventist preacher tell me effectively that - we take guidance from the Bible, but in the end we really don't know, and we really can't know. While he certainly wouldn't call himself agnostic, that was effectively the position he was taking. – John Bode Jan 3 '18 at 14:59

protected by Community Dec 30 '17 at 7:34

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.