Atheist or Agnostic
I recall my first meeting with a gaggle of atheists. I was in my early twenties when, out of curiosity, I attended several meetings of American Atheists, the organization founded by Madalyn Murray O’Hair. About fifteen atheists were in attendance. They seemed like regular people who simply didn’t believe in God and who bitterly resented efforts by government officials to peddle religion.
I later encountered one of the atheists at a special event in a municipal park, where many organizations, such as the National Organization for Women, the Sierra Club, and American Atheists, had erected booths to distribute flyers, books, and lapel pins. After a brief conversation, the atheist lady asked me to cover for her while she ran to the restroom.
“But I don’t consider myself an atheist,” I objected. “I consider myself an agnostic.”
She dismissively brushed the air with her hand as though she were erasing my words as fast as I could pronounce them. She obviously did not want to get into a discussion of the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. She just wanted to pee.
“And I’m not even a member,” I added.
“That’s fine. All you have to do is let passers-by pick up some literature and maybe answer a few of their questions. Don’t pretend to be anything you’re not. Just be honest—if your beliefs even come up. I would really, really appreciate it.”
“I dunno,” I mumbled, scratching my head. As I spoke, she scurried away and I found myself sole proprietor of the booth. I found something else as well. I found that Christians don’t have any use for atheist booths or the fools who occupy them.
One of the passers-by, a preternaturally robust God-fearing pea-brained redneck thug, sporting a faded T-shirt emblazoned with the South Carolina state flag, tried to rectify my lack of religion by bludgeoning my ego with a few blunt remarks. To punctuate his insults, he swung his big, hairy fist at my face. I narrowly escaped the arc of his calloused knuckles and, much to his dismay, my mandible, maxilla, and maxims all remained intact. I was relieved when the atheist lady returned, though I did point out to her that the job was not as simple as she let on.
She may not have been interested in the distinction between atheist and agnostic, but the man who assaulted me was even less interested in the distinction. I must admit that, from a practical standpoint, the distinction seemed less pressing to me than it previously had.
Nonetheless, squabbles over the definitions of atheism and agnosticism abound, not only between believers and nonbelievers, but also among nonbelievers. The remainder of this blog post is devoted to exploring those competing definitions.
Competing definitions
Most words in the English language have multiple definitions. The word run, for instance, has over six hundred meanings in the Oxford English Dictionary. Such lushness of meanings may be of service to poets, but it can be a hindrance to philosophers seeking to avoid ambiguity.
Definitions can get especially tricky in discussions of controversial topics like social theory or metaphysics. As Nobel laureate Murray Gell‐Mann noted, disputants would rather use the other fellow’s toothbrush than use his definitions. That’s because people are notorious for twisting definitions to favor their own perspective. One need look no further than indigenous North American tribal names: Illiniwek (“the best people”), Aniyunwiya (“the foremost people”), Dene Tha (“true people”), Dunne-Za (“real people”).
Another loaded term is orthodox, meaning “right belief.” Some Christians hold that any self-proclaimed Christian who does not adhere to this or that particular tenet is not a true Christian. Pentecostals berate Catholics as left-footed Papists, while Catholics castigate Mormons as Salt Lake squeakies or LDS anthropomorphites. A pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses solemnly assured me that theirs is the only form of Christianity worthy of the appellation.
I can’t settle these definitional disputes. However, my hope is to avoid sectarian wrangling over definitions by labeling individuals and religious groups by their self-designated labels. If someone self-identifies as a Christian, I will call that person a Christian unless I have extraordinarily compelling reasons to do otherwise.
The same goes for atheists. If someone calls herself an atheist, so will I. Any believer who insists that an atheist is “someone who believes there is no god” might be surprised to learn that virtually all self-identified atheists concede the possibility that there is a god.
Richard Dawkins devised a 7-point scale in which the value 1 effectually means, “I know God exists.” The value 4 means the odds are split fifty-fifty between theism and atheism. The value 7 means, “I know there is no god.” Even the staunch atheist Dawkins pegged himself at 6.9, leaving a little wiggle room for uncertainty.
A popular viewpoint within the atheist community is that there are two categories of atheism: strong and weak. Strong atheism holds that God doesn’t (or probably doesn’t) exist. Weak atheism holds that there is insufficient evidence to warrant belief in God.
If the difference isn’t clear to you, consider this analogy. Suppose a “believer” claims that on planet X there exists a rock formation that looks remarkably like the Washington Monument. Someone who is a weak atheist with respect to this alleged rock formation might reply, “Maybe so, but our instruments aren’t sensitive enough to detect such a rock formation, so we have no reason to believe it exists.” A strong atheist with respect to the rock formation might add, “We have reliable indications that the surface temperature on planet X exceeds 1,200 degrees Celsius, which melts protruding rock formations, so we have enough evidence to conclude that the ‘Washington Monument’ rock formation does not exist.”
There remains, even today, resistance to including weak atheism under the umbrella of atheism. Members of this resistance sometimes argue that theism and atheism should be mutually exclusive and jointly all-encompassing, as is the case with “God exists” versus “God does not exist.” Yet these two criteria are also met by these definitions: “There is enough evidence for God” versus “There is not enough evidence for God.” Or by these: “God’s existence is credible” versus “No, it’s not.”
For centuries, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian scholars restricted the term atheist to strong atheists. They excluded weak atheists. Philosophers weighing in on the topic of religion adopted the narrow (strong) definition of atheism that was in vogue. These philosophers were overwhelmingly devout. It is therefore unsurprising that they, along with the politically subordinate minority of nonbelievers, conceded to the established definitions originally chosen by the socially dominant religious authorities.
But there have long been protests from atheists. In the mid-1800s, Charles Bradlaugh wrote, “Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God.” As atheism has grown more popular in Western culture, especially since the late twentieth century, philosophers have increasingly adopted the broader definition of atheism. This shift can be seen in the Journal of Contemporary Religion, American Philosophical Quarterly, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other peer-reviewed academic sources. Francis Collins, author of The Language of God, observed that most atheists are weak atheists: “The real staunch, down-to-the-wire ‘there is no god’ strong atheists are a rather small minority.”
The narrow definition of atheism is convenient to those who strive to depict atheists as a tiny, radical faction. Christian evangelical Ravi Zacharias, spitting each word in indignant staccato, denounced atheism as “the deliberate, definite, dogmatic denial of the existence of God, the absolute denial of the Absolute.” I have known lots of outspoken atheists, but I have never known such a pugnacious, opinionated individual. Nor have I met an atheist who fits his definition.
William Lane Craig, though more measured in tone, insists that an atheist is someone who says, “there is no god.” Interestingly, a survey revealed that 44 percent of Christians don’t believe in “God as described in the Bible.” If I were to define a Christian as someone who doesn’t believe in God as described in the Bible, Craig would be incensed, yet such a definition is statistically more reflective of practicing Christians than Craig’s definition of atheism is of practicing atheists.
Craig no doubt finds his definition of atheism to be advantageous as a rhetorical device. It allows him to battle against a position so extreme that most self-proclaimed atheists dismiss it as untenable. He has been publicly corrected on this point so often that atheists might surmise that Craig is deeply fearful of a head-on confrontation with authentic atheism.
A more charitable interpretation would be that Craig honestly thinks his definition of atheism is better. Even the agnostic Carl Sagan agreed with Craig: “An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence.”
Moreover, as Craig points out, we already have a name for people who aren’t sure about God’s existence. We call them agnostics. Similar references to agnosticism are made by philosophers Graham Oppy, Timothy McGrew, Joe Schmid, and others.
I must issue a dissent against this summary judgment. Agnosticism is an epistemic position, concerned with what we know, whereas atheism (weak or strong) is an ontological position, concerned with what exists. Treating weak atheism as synonymous with agnosticism is a category error.
I am not a stickler on this issue. When I chat with someone who adheres to the narrow definition of atheism, I’m happy to accommodate them. I am also happy to call the insects commonly known as lightning bugs or fireflies by the more descriptive (and entomologically accurate) name blink beetles, a name I made up. I don’t insist that my label for these insects is the only or best choice for clear communication. Likewise, let’s not mistake either definition of atheism for the indisputably best or sole definition. Like Francis Collins, however, we should at least acknowledge the fact that an expanding majority of the atheist community has adopted the broad definition.
So what? Who cares what the majority thinks? Why should traditional academics and apologists drift with the cultural tides?
As it turns out, that’s an easy question to answer. Word usage is by its very essence a cultural tide. Definitions that appear in dictionaries reflect common usage, which evolves over time. If you doubt this, look up the words gay and computer in a dictionary published in 1920.
A simple historical analogy will illustrate why we should respect the judgment of the atheist community. Before the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s, Southern whites used a variety of defamatory terms to identify black people. The “n-word” was so conventional that I didn’t realize until I was in elementary school that it was insulting. Society has since become less bigoted and has begun adopting labels for racial groups based on the preferences of the groups identified by the labels, rather than applying labels chosen by outsiders.
Consider labels used in the abortion debate: “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” The editor Susan Rabiner, advocating for fair and unbiased writing, observes, “There is a long tradition of allowing movements as well as people to choose the names by which they will be known.”
The derogatory terms applied to atheists, racial minorities, homosexuals, and the cognitively impaired have a history of being used to denigrate and marginalize those on whom they were imposed. Some of the intended victims have defiantly embraced the terms, snatching control of the language of oppression and wearing the labels with pride. That’s clearly the case with the terms atheist and queer. I will therefore abide by the principle stated earlier: parties should be identified by the labels they choose, except in cases where there is compelling reason to do otherwise, such as intentional misrepresentation.
Although the term atheist is often applied too restrictively, sometimes it is applied too broadly. Early Christians, because they did not worship the Roman gods, were maligned as atheists. The deist Thomas Jefferson was accused by his political opponents of atheism. More recently, David Mills and other secular authors have applied the term atheist to anyone without a belief in God, even someone who never considered the question. Anthropologist David Eller, as though issuing an imperial decree, proclaims, “All humans are born Atheists.”
In my view, no child should be classified with any label—pagan, Lutheran, Shiite, or what have you—until that child has reached an age when he or she can think the matter through. Admittedly, some children self-identify using these labels, but they are parroting adults rather than genuinely self-identifying. Indoctrinating a child through false labels is disrespectful of the child’s freedom to make an informed choice at the appropriate level of maturity. It also harms society at large, stifling the free market of ideas by intellectually crippling potential participants. If ideas are to stand or fall by their merit, we need a population encouraged to think, not a population mindlessly polarized by labels.
Some believers grossly misunderstand the term atheist. It should be unnecessary to point this out, but an atheist is not a Satan worshipper. That’s a slander I have heard more than once from the pulpit. To become a Satan worshipper requires following a two-step process. First, you must believe Satan exists. Second, you must believe that Satan is worthy of worship. Atheists don’t do either. In contrast, 37 percent of Christians believe Satan exists. From a strictly arithmetic perspective, these Christians are halfway to Satan worship. I mean no offense to Christians by pointing this out. I am not suggesting that they are actually en route to Satan worship or that they have any inclination in that direction. My point is that neither do atheists.
The label agnostic, coined around 1869 by Thomas Huxley, denotes those who do not know whether any god exists or those who think we can never know. Thus, agnostics come in two varieties: the “nobody can know” variety and the “I haven’t decided” variety. As you see, agnosticism is distinct from atheism. The term agnostic applies to a degree of knowledge or knowability, in contrast to atheism, which refers to a specific conclusion about the case for God.
Among the “nobody can know” variety of agnostics are people who argue that, owing to limitations of the human mind or incoherency in the definition of God, we can never acquire evidence to warrant belief. These agnostics sometimes identify as ignostics or theological noncognitivists.
Some people self-identify as “agnostic atheists” to signal their tentative or uncertain embrace of atheism. Prepending the “agnostic” modifier falsely implies that atheists without the modifier hold their beliefs with dogmatic certainty. The term agnostic atheist is an artifact of the legacy of religious propaganda against atheism. Nonetheless, as Bart Ehrman observes, being an agnostic and atheist at the same time is possible. One can say, for instance, “There is not enough evidence for God. I haven’t decided whether God exists.”
Agnostics of the “I haven’t decided” variety are describing their state of mind. In professing that they are undecided, they neither deny nor affirm the existence of God. Nor are they commenting on the state of the evidence. Thus, they shoulder no burden of proof. In contrast, agnostics of the “nobody can know” variety assert an epistemic proposition. They thereby assume a burden of proof.
To the extent that believers define God in intelligible terms, we can appraise their arguments. In my judgment, the pro-God arguments fail. I therefore qualify as a weak atheist. Speaking specifically of the Abrahamic gods, the arguments against these gods are, I think, so compelling that we can confidently conclude that they do not exist. I therefore qualify as a strong atheist toward the Abrahamic gods.
People often identify themselves using a single term: theist, atheist, or agnostic. Using a single identifier is appropriate when a single definition of God is under consideration, as often happens in a society dominated by a particular conception of God. But a single identifier is inadequate for the full swath of conceivable gods.