It is commonplace to hear these terms Agnostic/Gnostic as a modifier to atheism these days rather than Agnostic being that withholding judgment position.
Please note, atheism and agnosticism are polysemous, and language is defined through common use. What I hope to do is draw your attention to the difference between the colloquial definitions and the normative ones.
If we move past the normative definitions and use these colloquial terms that are often used by fellow atheists, who probably fit the category of ‘New Atheists’, they mean (broadly speaking):
- Agnostic Atheist: Doesn’t Claim Knowledge of gods existence, lacks belief in god’s existence. (Also, to note, does not have a positive belief god(s) do not exist)
- Gnostic Atheist: Knows God does not exist.
Now knowledge infers belief and epistemic certainty. I know I am human, I also believe I am human, it would be silly to say ‘I know I am human but I don’t believe I am human’.
So, a Gnostic Atheist also believes God does not exist.
What then for an atheist like me?
What then for someone like me? I believe gods do not exist. Whilst I am fairly psychologically certain of this, I have no epistemic certainty of this matter. That is to say, I do not know that no gods exist. I do not know if my belief is true, even if I can justify why I hold this belief.
I have nowhere to rest on this ‘new atheist’ scale, especially when many conflate disbelief with lack belief, rather than disbelief = positive belief in not (e.g. Disbelief in gods existence ought to mean belief gods do not exist)
What we are left with is an ‘agnostic atheist’ who lacks belief in gods existing, but also lack belief in god not existing – which is the same as the philosophical use of Agnostic, and the ‘Gnostic Atheist’ who Knows (and by extension believes) gods do not exist.
So, what is my position?
Well, simply put, I am an atheist. I hold the belief gods do not exist. I do not claim to know this. I use the philosophical definition. The one that provides an epistemological answer to the proposition ‘God Exists’. I don’t fit the new atheist’s definitions, because ‘agnostic atheist’ is basically the same position as the classic ‘agnostic’, and a ‘gnostic atheist’ is saying they know no gods exist.
I’ve been called a ‘gnostic atheist’ and an ‘anti-theist’ and all sorts for my stance, but none of them match my definition. The closest modifier you could get for me is a global atheist.
This is another reason we have normative definitions. If we use the normative definitions that provide an epistemological answer, we can make accurate inferences about what people do and don’t believe.
- Theist: Believes God Exists, Lacks Belief in God not existing (Bp ^ ¬B¬p)
- Atheist: Believes God Does not exist, Lacks Belief in God Existing (B¬p ^ ¬Bp)
- Agnostic: Lacks belief in God Existing, Lacks Belief in God not Existing (¬Bp ^ ¬B¬p)
Please note, It is actually superfluous to denote the second half of theist an atheist with the portions they lack belief in, as from belief in one of the propositions (theism or atheism) we infer they lack belief in the other. Otherwise, we would have contradictory beliefs aka cognitive dissonance.
With the colloquial definitions, not only are they muddy in themselves, but everyone uses them differently. Some folks conflate holding a belief with making a truth claim of epistemic certainty, some conflate holding a positive belief with a knowledge claim, and as I said, I have been called an ‘antitheist’ simply for holding the belief gods do not exist, which is not the case. An anti-theist is someone who believes no one should hold the belief gods exist. (Or in some extreme cases, that theists should not exist… if you can infer what I mean.)
So, whilst I can communicate with these people, and generally know what they mean, I do find myself having to ask exactly how they are defining the terms each time. Again, if everyone used the normative definitions of these terms, this would not be a problem.
‘But it’s only a lack of belief…’
Often you find folks focusing on the ¬Bp portion to define atheism. They focus purely on the lack of belief and not the positive belief part.
One key issue here is folks use ‘lack of belief’ to mean ¬Bp (I don’t believe). The difference is, lack of belief ought to be understood as total absence of belief, which is impossible once you’re aware of the proposition. As such, I tend to assume most who say they ‘lack believe in gods’ do not mean they are ‘absent if belief in gods’ but indeed mean they ‘dont’t believe in gods’.
However, whilst an Agnostic shares the ¬Bp with the atheist, the agnostic also shares the ¬B¬p with the theist.
- Theist: (Bp ^ ¬B¬p)
- Atheist: (B¬p ^ ¬Bp)
- Agnostic: (¬Bp ^ ¬B¬p)
If we are defining our positions purely around what we lack belief in like some of my fellow atheists do, then theism would be described as ¬B¬p.
Therefore, Agnostics are also theists. But you can’t have a theistic atheist or an atheistic theist. They are a contradiction in terms.
This is a problem with only considering part of the belief spectrum when discussing a proposition.
Equally, if you allow atheism to be described on ¬Bp but refuse to let theism be described in terms of ¬B¬p then you are guilty of special pleading.
This is why I say there is an issue with the logic in defining atheism simply as a ‘lack of belief’. You either have to allow both theism and atheism be defined by what they lack belief in, causing an issue for someone that lacks belief both ways, or you have to commit a special pleading fallacy to say that theism is a positive belief whilst atheism is only defined as a lack belief.
The ‘Agnostic’ in ‘Agnostic Atheist’ is superfluous
Regardless of the normative definitions, agnostic atheist usually is meant as ‘Don’t know and don’t believe’ or a similar variation.
When you BELIEVE something, you don’t necessarily know it, there is no claim of knowledge being made or an assertion it is true, just a positive attitude towards the proposition, something you accept as true etc.
“I believe the bridge will hold my weight” – this isn’t knowledge or epistemic certainty, even if it indicates a level of psychological certainty.
When you KNOW something, by extension you also believe it.
If you were to claim otherwise, e.g. “I know I am human but I don’t believe I am human” it would sound quite weird, right?
Therefore if you define atheism purely in terms of “lack belief” you’re already saying you don’t know because you’re saying you “don’t believe” or “lack belief” and you cannot have knowledge without belief.
Even if you, like me, define atheism as “The belief gods do not exist” I am still not making a knowledge claim, I am just stating what I believe to be the case.
So under both definitions of atheism, no one is claiming knowledge, therefore it [the agnostic modifier] is superfluous, especially with the lack belief/don’t believe definition.
And if someone does claim knowledge, they would say “I know God does not exist” would they not? So until someone claims they “know” something it is safe to assume they don’t have knowledge.
Are there more answers or positions to be held?
Of course, the 3 answers I have given above, theist, atheist, and agnostic, are ones that fully answer the proposition however there are other positions.
There is the IGNOSTIC position. An ignostic is someone that thinks the agent in the proposition (aka god/gods/deities) has no coherent, consistent and unambiguous definition. With the agent so unclear in definition there is no point in even taking the time to consider the Proposition.
You could argue that the ignostic position is an extension of agnosticism, but instead of being applied to the P ‘God Exists’ it is applied to ‘What is God’.
They cannot be regarded as an atheist in the sense I provided above because if they find the topic, god, meaningless and incoherent, they can’t have a belief it does not exist, and are essentially withholding judgment until such a time they are provided a meaningful definition.
There is also an Apatheist… someone who just doesn’t care enough to consider the proposition. Again, this could be argued as a subset of agnosticism but they are not withholding judgement because they are uncertain, they just don’t care.
Neither of these positions are a direct answer to the proposition, but they are still valid positions that need to be considered.
There are also innocents, which are broken up into those who have not heard the proposition, and those that do not even have the cognitive faculties to consider the proposition and hold beliefs (like babies). They are completely absent of belief.
I mentioned this one earlier. Someone that believes no one should believe in gods. We could argue that this is extreme atheism, you would imagine that someone who believes as the antitheist does that the would hold a very strong belief gods do not exist, if they described themselves as an ‘agnostic atheist atntitheist’ you’d be a bit puzzled… someone who does not believe either way trying to get others not to believe? huh?
However, the term can sometimes be used to describe the influence theism can have on society. A liberal theist might be considered anti-thiest by a fundamentalist right wing theist, for example.
So yes, I would usually expect an antitheist to be a strong atheist (psychological certainty, not epistemic certainty) but that is not always the case. The only thing we can definitely should be able to infer from the position is that they believe no one should believe in gods/is against theism.
Types of Non-Theist
- Agnostic: Withholding judgement, in a state of unbelief
- Atheist: Disbelief in God’s existence
- Antitheist: Believes no one should believe in gods.
- Ignostic: Believes the term God it too incongruent to even consider
- Apatheist: Doesn’t care either way about God’s existence
- Innocent 1: Has never heard of deities
- Innocent 2: Does not have the cognitive abilities to consider the proposition
As you can see, there are a number of different types of non-theist, with clear distinctions around what they believe about the proposition, or indeed if they are completely absent of belief
Think about this for a moment, non-theist is an umbrella term for everything that is not a theist. So, whilst all atheists are non-theists, not all non-theists are atheists.
Vehicle is an umbrella term for a thing used for transporting people or goods. So, whilst all cars are vehicles, not all vehicles are cars.
Cars is an umbrella term for a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people. A Ferrari F40 is a type of car, not all cars are Ferrari F40’s.
Great Ape is an umbrella term for taxonomic family of primates. Whilst all humans are great apes, not all great apes are humans.
Humans is an umbrella term for our species. Whilst all Brits or Americans are human, not all humans are Brits or Americans.
To that end, not all Non-Americans are Brits either… so we can’t define things simply because they lack something… if something lacks being American, that doesn’t automatically make it British, they have to also be positively British.. otherwise, you’re going to regard all other nationals to being British. That isn’t how it works, and that isn’t how beliefs ought to work.
Should we really define ourselves purely by what we ‘Lack’?
Is defining ourselves by what we lack really enough?
A female child lacks boobs, are they still female? A male lacks facial hair, is he not male? A robin reliant lacks a 4th wheel… is it a tricycle? Someone lacks a degree, are they stupid?
Someone who lacks hair, are they bald or did they shave it off? Again we see 2 types of non-haired person, we can’t instantly assume they are bald. Baldness in men is related to the male hormone dihydrotestosterone, which causes old hairs on the scalp to be replaced by progressively shorter and thinner hairs in a predictable pattern, beginning at the temples and crown of the head. Again, it is also because of the things they have, not just what they lack.
When we apply this to other things it seems ridiculous doesn’t it? Focusing on one thing that something might lack, but not taking everything in to account they DO have can lead to these errors I have been speaking of.
Edit: For more information about defining things on what they lack, please check Ontology and the things we lack.
As you can see, the conflation of non-theist to = atheist has issues with contradiction/special pleading, as well as opening the category of atheist incredibly wide enough to not be able to make any specific inferences of what people DO believe.
I am no way saying that you have to use the definitions the way I have described them above, I am just explaining why they are the most logical uses of the terms.
If you want to reject the rules of logic, and use a colloquial definition, that is fine, I will respect what ever identity you want to be called. I do not want you to prescribe your definitions on to me or anyone else.
It is also important to remember that lack of belief is synonymous with absent of belief and is impossible to maintain once you are aware of a proposition. I accept many use it as ‘I don’t believe’ but there are some out there that claim absent of belief.
The last point I will leave you with is a quote from Trolley Dave I turned in to a meme for my article ‘Why should we use the rules of logic?’
If you’re interested in seeing the special pleading in action, Dave wrote a post the other day about just that. You can find it here.
Equally there are a number of posts that might interest you if you are interested in learning more about this topic
- Agnosticism, and how it relates to Knowledge and Beliefs
- Bad Atheist Arguments (Series)
- Conflated and Misunderstood Terms (series)
- I don’t believe (inclusive of gumball analogy)
Further Reading & References
Below are a number of articles that have either influenced my work, thought processes, or provide a different dimension to what I know, as well as other articles related to the topic outside of AiR. These are all good resources that are worth checking out!
- SEP Belief
- SEP Epistemology
- SEP Atheism and Agnosticism
- GDC: Gumballs and God Better Explained
- GDC: If ~Bp is held as atheism, then ~B~p can be held as theism else you are guilty of special pleading.
I’m Joe. I write under the name Davidian, not only because it is a Machine Head song I enjoy but because it was a game character I used to role-play that was always looking to better himself.
This is one of many things I hope to do with Answers In Reason.
I run our Twitter and IG accounts, as well as share responsibility for our FB group and page, and maintain the site, whilst writing articles, DJing, Podcasting (and producing), keeping fit and more.
Feel free to read a more detailed bio here: https://www.answers-in-reason.com/about/authors/4/
You can find my main social links here:
TikTok (AiR): https://www.tiktok.com/@answersinreason
TikTok (ADHD): https://www.tiktok.com/@adultadhdjourney
Ask me a question on Wisdom: https://app.wisdom.audio/ask/0be23c32-0fac-4d8f-bf68-671d9c8a3b95
Comments on “Definitional Problems with Lacking Belief”
I enjoy discussions with folks about these sorts of things. When a decent respectful conversation can be held I enjoy the flow. Sometimes they change my mind, sometimes I change my mind, sometimes neither of us do but we hopefully learn something or at least enjoy the conversation.
At times, conversations do get heated and folks talk past each other. When you use a platform like twitter you have to try and cram a complex topic into 280 chars, or do multiple posts.. but with multiple tweets you end up with so many different trees breaking off etc.
I posted this article to twitter: https://twitter.com/answersinreason/status/1256178169956175874
And got a few responses. One of them is with Rik, who I often enjoy talking to, but we do sometimes talk past each other as well. I must admit, from his first response I thought he had not read the article (a common theme with many who respond on twitter) but I was wrong about this.
Rik is an atheist in the colloquial sense he ‘lacks belief in god’ and whilst he states the bulk of the article is true he does not feel the term ‘agnostic atheist’ is superfluous. https://twitter.com/RikDhuyvetters/status/1256668673474994182
He also feels that you cannot have epistemic certainty. https://twitter.com/RikDhuyvetters/status/1256677894279122947
Rik Please feel free to correct me on any of the above, as I do not want to misrepresent your position.
The conversation ended when he posted this video from Matt Dillahunty who is discussing belief and knowledge and seems to get it mostly right.
I needed time to watch and collect my thoughts about how to respond and took notes as I was going through. Before I knew it, I had written over 30 tweets worth of characters which was just way too long for twitter.
As such, I considered either writing an article about it or using the comments section on the site (something I wish more people would take advantage of).
It made sense to do it under the article as this is what it pertained to.
To summarise my point is; if atheism is only a lack of belief in gods as many atheists define it today, and you do yourself, then you’re already admitting you don’t know.
This can be seen in the article and in tweets like this: https://twitter.com/answersinreason/status/1256677180697911296
I also made a point that the reason the normative definitions of atheism and agnosticism are more useful is because you can accurately infer what people do and don’t believe in regard to the proposition “God Exists”. Belief makes no knowledge claim, so even if you “believe gods do not exist” you are not making a knowledge claim, if you were, you would say “I know gods do not exist”.
Another issue with colloquial definitions is everyone defines them differently, like I pointed out in my article that sparked this conversation.
A demonstration of this is https://defineatheism.com/logic/ where they define “the belief gods do not exist” as antitheism when antitheism is more accurately described as the belief no one should believe in gods – however, as I do often say that we shouldn’t prescribe our definitions on to others, but they make a number of errors with their “logic” on that site, and I think one of our authors, Dave, is going to write an article in response. (I’ve written far too many about logic of late).
So, now on to this video you would like me to watch about belief and Knowledge by Matt.
Short summary of the Video: he mostly gets things right but does seem to blur the lines a little bit with certain things – I am also not exactly sure how you feel this makes you think “agnostic atheist” is not superfluous or that you cannot have epistemic certainty.
Mins 0-4 (ish)
yeah, ok, so he gets the JTB right (that is one of many types of knowledge, the most basic and needs to be combined with things like coherence theory but yup)
Interesting point about when people use “know” they are not referring to knowledge but simply stating awareness
However, that sort of goes against the agnostic atheist point too doesn’t it?
For example, whilst I hold atheism is normatively “The belief gods do not exist”
I accept it is colloquially used to mean “lack of belief in gods”
I originally said that “agnostic atheist” is superfluous, especially if atheism is only a “lack of belief”.
If you lack belief, you cannot know (JTB) something.
If you believe, again you are not claiming knowledge (JTB)
If you say you know, you are claiming knowledge (JTB)
However, if we use this “know” to mean awareness instead of knowledge
Agnostic (I don’t know if gods exist) Atheist (lack belief in god) suddenly means
“I am not aware if gods exist, and I lack belief in gods”
Again, this is a strange wording.
Normatively agnosticism is that suspending judgement to a proposition.
It’s purely a psychological state where you’re not sure if either p or ¬p are true or false
This is why it is easy to infer what people DO and DON’T believe from the normative uses of the words Theist, Agnostic, Atheist.
Yes, agree, a belief is something you accept as true or a positive attitude towards a proposition. This is basic stuff but yes.
His version of truth is basically along the lines of fallibilism, which is fine, but there are still things that are true as we have discussed previously, as well as having things like epistemic certainty, 1+1 = 2 (base 10), we won’t find water that is not H20, Life needs nutrients to survive etc.
He does seem to conflate types of certainty here… I could be 100% confident in something I have no epistemic certainty in, and I can 10% confident in something I have epistemic certainty in.
So, he has changed his definition of knowledge from JTB to something that sort of resembles fallibilism.
Don’t get me wrong, I think JTB, Coherence theory, and Fallibilism work together.
And he switches back… if it is true you don’t need justification? He needs to look into what counts as justification a bit more, for example, if it is something really complex you need to understand it to say you have knowledge of it, along with a number of other things. A true belief needs to be justified so that we can call it knowledge, and this could be things like; logical thought process, understanding, verification, evidence etc
It is true that square root of 196 is 14. I believe it to be true. But if I don’t understand what a square root is, can I really say I have knowledge?
I know the answer, but is that knowledge?
Knowing the answer is being aware of the answer, understanding how square roots are worked out, what it means, being able to apply that to different situations is knowledge.
He now seems to be saying the JFB was knowledge… no, it was a justified belief, but it wasn’t really knowledge, and once you find it is false it is then irrational to maintain the belief.
Yes, he is right, you do not have to know something before you believe it. You believe something first. So again if you lack belief in something you are already saying you don’t know.
He missed justification out from his imaginary venn diagram
Just because something is considered knowledge doesn’t make it knowledge, even if it is rational at the time.
Just because others have knowledge doesn’t mean you do, again this comes back to the justification of your own.
Claiming to know things, doesn’t mean you do. Again, this comes back to justification and truth.
Yup, many people get knowledge and belief wrong all the time.
There is a difference between someone believing and knowing he is wrong. To know you would have epistemic certainty. If he said all oranges are green and smell like flamingos, I would know he was wrong. If he said atheism is ONLY a lack of a belief in gods, I would KNOW he was wrong because the term is polysemous. If he said it was going to rain tomorrow in England, I would believe he was wrong based on the weather forecast, yet with how the weather is here, I equally wouldn’t be surprised if it did. I would lack epistemic certainty.
When you know you can basically justify and hold epistemic certainty.
When you believe you can justify as rational, but you lack that epistemic certainty. The psychological certainty (confidence) he speaks of in this video, is sort of irrelevant.
Claiming to know still doesn’t make it knowledge.
No one truly knows if a god does not exist or not, there is no evidence either way. Which is why I don’t think anyone can say they know either way.
When it comes to specific claims, you can know that that claim is incoherent or built on some form of fallacy and therefore discount it, but you don’t know if this faulty claim is based on a real deity.
No atheist or theist can hold the knowledge that gods do or don’t exist regardless of what they claim. They can believe it, and they can justify their belief or not, and be rational or irrational… but they have no epistemic certainty.
So again, the whole colloquial agnostic modifier is superfluous, because no one truly knows.
This is why the normative agnostic position makes more sense, because you are suspending judgment in the propositions of theism and atheism.
Theism = God exists, Atheism = god does not exist
Theism = Belief theism is true, Atheist = Belief Atheism is True
(if you believe one you lack belief in the other)
Agnostic = Suspending judgement in regard to theism and atheism. (and therefore, lacking belief in both)
You don’t have to accept these definitions, but I think throughout this I have demonstrated why “Agnostic Atheism” IS superfluous, especially if you define atheism as a lack of belief in gods.
I love how he suddenly starts talking about subsets here…
Like I have said you have vehicles, and a subset is cars or lorries, and not all non-lorries are cars
This is the whole non-theist thing. There are many types of non-theist, and atheist is a subset of that.
People equivocate non-theist = atheist, and then talk about types of atheist.. but loads of non-theists give different answers to the proposition. Many non-theists are also non-atheists, like an agnostic or ignostic.
Imagine if every vehicle was suddenly referred to as a car. “What type of car do you drive?” “A lorry.” – It just sounds wrong, right?
When someone says they believe or lack belief I ask them to justify their position so that it is rational.
When someone says they know, I ask them to prove it, because if something is TRUE and JUSTIFIABLE then they should be able to justify their knowledge in a way rigorous enough to convince me. They might not always be able to of course, but back to the mathematical example above. One can be aware of the answer, but if they have knowledge, they ought the be able to explain/justify it well enough.
Obviously, with some knowledge, it is harder to pass on because the person has less than a base understanding of the topic, I couldn’t necessarily teach folks how to use a cursor statement in SQL and how it is working if they can barely do basic math. The topic is far more complex than what I am explaining above, but I am not trying to explain epistemology to you.
If you want some more information on that, here are some great resources:
I think that covers basically why I hold the “agnostic” modifier to atheism as superfluous, and have given some resources on epistemology and certainty, and explained the difference in our tweets and here between psychological and epistemic certainty. Anything I or the links failed to do, please let me know.
It’s unfortunate that when someone takes the time to watch a video someone has provided and you take the time to respond to it in detail that the only response they can give is along the lines of, “Thanks for not misrepresenting my position, I agree with some of that, but not other parts but it would take me too long to respond”
Of course, we cannot expect people to offer the same respect we give them, and it is not uncommon for someone with a straw house to not like when it is blown away.
The video was provided because it apparently backed up why you couldn’t have epistemic certainty and why agnostic was not a superfluous modifier.
The video failed to do this, but it was at least a more accurate representation of knowledge than some I have seen.
You must log in to post a comment.