Often in debate folks identify their position as one of the 3; Theist, Atheist, Agnostic. Some folks will sometimes use a combination e.g. Agnostic Atheist/Weak Atheist. It might surprise you, as it did me, that some of the definitions of terms we use are not strictly accurate.
Language does indeed evolve, there is a difference between how these terms are used colloquially, and how one might use it at an academic level.
The important thing is communicating in a way others understand. So let’s examine these words, and how they are used colloquially vs academically. That said Atheism is polysemous, even within philosophy, but I will be using the clearest definition in terms of logical propositions.
Below i describe the -ist. Typically an ist is one who subscribes to an -ism. An -ism is essentially believing a proposition to be true. e.g. the proposition “God’s exist” – belief this is true is Theism, and a Theist is one who ascribes to this, however to save writing space I explain it from the perspective of the -ist.
Someone who holds belief in God/gods/deities
This doesn’t seem to differ in academic circles.
Someone who disbelieves/lacks belief in God/gods/deities
In academic circles, especially philosophy, this is inaccurate. Atheism is actually a negation of theism, the A is not “without” it is a “not”. It means “Belief God(s) do not exist”. The whole lack position is relatively new and I cover this further down the article.
Consider the question: “Is there a God?”
As stated by Paul Draper in his SEP entry on atheism and agnosticism:
‘There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not direct answers to this question.’(Draper, 2017).
We internet atheists do not like this, as it is incredibly exclusive. There is a fairly even split between Strong and Weak Atheists, aka Gnostic and Agnostic Atheists. However these terms are not generally accepted in philosophy, and I will explain why later.
Someone who doesn’t know or claims you can’t know if a god exists or not.
This would be someone who doesn’t believe but doesn’t disbelieve either. They are on the fence right in the middle.
In the strictest sense agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. As such, you are not believing in a god, but you are not denying the possibility.
In fact the earlier definitions of Agnostic were much broader than the theological sense. That is to say ignorance in any number of topics, e.g. you could be Agnostic about metaphysics.
It should be noted that agnosticism is thought more to do with “knowledge” than “belief” but can be used in an epistemological way.
Consider, for example, this passage written by the agnostic, Anthony Kenny (1983: 84–85):(Draper, 2017).
I do not myself know of any argument for the existence of God which I find convincing; in all of them I think I can find flaws. Equally, I do not know of any argument against the existence of God which is totally convincing; in the arguments I know against the existence of God I can equally find flaws. So that my own position on the existence of God is agnostic.
Many folks would argue Agnostic deals purely with knowledge, but consider if you don’t know, you also don’t know what to believe.
Consider this question, “Where did you leave your car keys?” – I don’t know!
“Well where do you believe you left them?” – I don’t know!
In this sense you are agnostic to where you left your keys.
Now if we use the academic definition of atheism and theism, both being a belief claim, you are agnostic to both. e.g.
Do you believe there is a god? – I don’t know!
Do you believe there are no gods? – I don’t know!
This is essentially the position Huxley originally coined agnosticism for.
Agnostic Atheist / Weak Atheist
When someone is an “agnostic atheist” they tend to mean something along the lines of:
“I have genuinely listened to and looked into to many/all claims of God/gods/deities and found no evidence to support them. I reject all current claims, but I do not claim to have ultimate knowledge of if a god exists.”
The knowledge and belief part are separated. I don’t believe. I don’t know.
In academic terms, that is actually agnostic. Yes you don’t believe, but you don’t know. An Agnostic also doesn’t believe. This is also why the term Agnostic Theist is not accepted. That is not to say it’s colloquial use is completely wrong, just not accepted in academia.
More recently, some atheists proudly call themselves “agnostic atheists”, although with further reflection the symmetry between this position and fideism might give them pause. More likely, though, what is being claimed by these self-identified agnostic atheists is that, while their belief that God does not exist has positive epistemic status of some sort (minimally, it is not irrational), it does not have the sort of positive epistemic status that can turn true belief into knowledge.(Draper, 2017).
Another reason you could argue this position is wrong is because you are applying it to one side of the belief. If you are agnostic about atheism, then you’re saying you don’t know if you hold the belief no god(s) exist. We obviously know that isn’t what people mean by the position but it is good to be aware that it could be taken that way.
Agnostic Theist / Weak Theist
Not many theists identify as such. Most of the theists I interact with claim to know their god exists.
Interestingly in academic terms, the “I don’t know if god exists, but I do believe in god” still counts as a Theist. A “weak theist” works in this area, but as explained above, agnostic is a position where you lack belief in gods but you don’t know if they exist.
It is also worth mentioning that, even in Huxley’s time, some apophatic theists embraced the term “agnostic”, claiming that all good Christians worshipped an “unknown God”(Draper, 2017).
Various internet scales used for Atheism and Theism
The Dawkins scale is one many folks complain about, and others rejoice in. It is varying levels of strong to weak theist and atheist. It is graded from 1 (Strong Theist) to 7 (Strong Atheist)
One of the key issues we have with the Dawkins scale is it includes agnostic as a middle position. Typically agnosticism is thought to deal with knowledge (don’t know/can’t know) rather than belief, so to have it in the middle of a belief scale does seem silly. However when applied along the lines of “I don’t know/can’t know if either position is true, therefore I lack belief in both” you can understand why it is there.
You might find an Atheist (like me or Kriss for example) say that using this scale we are 7 about the Abrahamic God as described in the Bible/by theists but are 6-6.9 in regards to other claims.
As explained above, the fact that we are not flat out 7 could mean in academic terms we might be considered Agnostic, especially the closer you get to that middle position.
Similarly as soon as you go below the 4 (true agnostic position) you are actually just a theist, because you are saying you believe in a god, no matter how weak your position is.
The strength of your belief might be altered by your knowledge, but is not dependent on it.
The Gnostic/Agnostic Theist/Atheist
This was one of my favourites. It was much simpler.. essentially you are either claim to have ultimate knowledge of your position.
You are separating the belief (atheist/theist) and knowledge (gnostic/agnostic) part.
Again from the academic philosophical point of view.. this is redundant. You either have belief in god(s) (from weak to strong) and are a Theist, don’t know, lack belief and are Agnostic, or a believe there is no God and are an Atheist.
However Draper does go on to explain how folks tend to use these terms.
If agnosticism (in one sense of the word) is the position that neither theism nor atheism is known, then it might be useful to use the term “gnosticism” to refer to the contradictory of that position, that is, to the position that either theism or atheism is known. That view would, of course, come in two flavors: theistic gnosticism—the view that theism is known (and hence atheism is not)—and atheistic gnosticism—the view that atheism is known (and hence theism is not).(Draper, 2017).
So what is the right scale?
I’m not going to tell you what the right scale is. I still think the modifications are fine, but if you were at university doing a philosophy degree and started using Agnostic Atheist you’d probably get your arse handed to you.
The academic order of this would be:
- Theist (Belief in god(s) (existence) regardless of strength of said belief)
- Agnostic (Don’t know/can’t know, lacks/suspends belief; someone who has entertained the proposition of god and believes it to neither [Atheism or Theism] be true or false)
- Atheist (Belief there are no gods/gods do not exist)
Note: Agnostic typically deals with knowledge rather than belief, but can be used to describe position on belief. (Remember the keys example above?)
The Evolution Of Atheism
By now I am sure you understand that from a purely philosophical point of view that Atheism/Theism is a binary position and technically any degree of uncertainty (with a lack of belief) becomes Agnostic.
Atheism today is slightly different. It is still a binary negative answer to “Do you believe in any god(s)?” but allows for more room than the “Belief god(s) do not exist”. (It separates belief and knowledge)
This is perfectly acceptable, whilst the “lack belief” term does seem a bit wet to many Atheists, we still do not believe in any of the god claims, but we are open enough to accept there may be some form of “higher-power” or that someone may one day provide us some evidence of a deity that would be strong enough to make us believe.
This is sometimes referred to as “New Atheism” – it is rooted in science rather than philosophy. It is not necessarily a “Belief god(s) do not exist” it is a conclusion based on the overwhelming lack of evidence for any deity, the rejection of claims as evidence, but an openness to evidence if provided.
There is also a more “humanistic” approach to atheism that focuses on the oppression/alienation (Our tribe mentality)/evils etc of religion whilst taking the scientific side for granted.
How does this relate to “internet atheists”?
Firstly, I am an atheist on the internet, so yes I am an internet atheist, I am referring to the varying personality types and definitions of atheist/atheism in comparison to the SEP definition of atheist.
I find in discussions with atheists online the two branches, discussed in more detail in LeDrew’s “The Evolution of Atheism” are brought back together (LeDrew, 2012). Folks argue based both on a scientific evidence scale and from a humanistic approach; the suffering in the world, the misogyny and other forms of bigotry in the Bible (and other holy books).
Even within Answers In Reason we have a variety of articles, some looking from a scientific point of view e.g. Evolution and why folks may reject it. Whilst others being more focused on Immoral acts of God or His Psychopathic nature.
There are still many Atheists who are the more classical “Belief God(s) Do not Exist” kind -in fact in a recent poll on twitter I found about 40% of Atheists that responded were the “Strong Atheist” variety.
This was of course a small sample, with only a few hundred folks responding, but hopefully we can get larger sample sets in the future.
So what’s the issue with “lack of belief”?
It’s not big issue, I have said I lack belief myself but I actually find that too weak, at least once you consider the implications and what you actually do/don’t believe. You can probably search for me on twitter and find me saying I lack belief, as I have only recently decided that “lack” is too ambiguous. Where I was using it to say I don’t have any or am without belief, it can and does mean not having enough belief. The short of it is “lacking belief” doesn’t really tell you what someone DOES believe.
I don’t believe in any of the current god claims. I have examined texts, looked for evidence, read apologetics etc and found that I just don’t believe any of it.
From what I have researched, I don’t believe god(s) are necessary for the world/universe to exist/work.
The “lack belief” seems a bit weak, even for my brand of weak atheism, (which interestingly in doing the research, podcasts, and writing this articles I have change my mind on. I would regard myself as an atheist as describe in philosophy). It [lack belief] is a way to get out of the burden of proof. Rather than a response to the question “is there a god?” its a response to a claim “There is a god” – “I don’t believe you.” whilst similarly not holding a positive belief the other way.
Consider this: “I lack the jam for one slice of toast.” Does that mean I have enough Jam for half a slice of toast though? When you apply that to belief, it is a bit like you’re saying you’re not quite sure what you believe rather than a specific non-belief. You’re on the fence. You’re Agnostic.
Now obviously you cannot prove non-existence, but I can examine the claims of your deity and give you reasons why it cannot exist. For example I examined the Abrahamic God’s omniscience. I am willing to do that, where as the lack belief is an even weaker form of disbelief .
Atheism is a conclusion based on the overwhelming lack of evidence for any gods existence. It has rational logical steps to achieving this conclusion. As an Atheist, you don’t simply lack belief, you positively disbelieve, you can justify your position, you can explain why you think gods are false.
The “burden of proof” for atheists is not to prove god does not exist, though I think many atheists are afraid of the term for this reason and hide behind the “lack of belief”. Our burden is to simply support our position. Lack of evidence, errors in texts, contrary statements etc.
The history of “Lack Belief”
Atheism comes from the greek Atheos (ἄθεος)
In fact originally the Atheos position referred to people who did not believe in the Greek symposium of gods. To give you an indication, Christians were referred to as atheists originally in Greek society. As time went on this became more expansive to include any gods.
The definition used in Philosophy of Atheism: The Belief God(s) do not Exist has been the same for hundreds of years.
This quote is from Anthony Flew’s 1972 paper ‘The Presumption of Atheism’:
The word ‘atheism’, however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of ‘atheist’ in English is ‘someone who asserts that there is no such being as God’, I want the word to be understood here much less positively. I want the originally Greek prefix ‘a’ to be read in the same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as ‘amoral’, ‘atypical’, and ‘asymmetrical’. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels ‘positive atheism’ for the former doctrine and ‘negative atheism’ for the latter.Anthony Flew’s 1972
‘The Presumption of Atheism’
As you can see, Flew states that the common definition of atheism at that time was ‘someone who asserts there is no such being as God’, which could also be said as ‘a person who believes there is no God’. Flew argues that the ‘a’ should be used in the same way as ‘amoral’, ‘atypical’, and ‘asymmetrical’.
By this he is admitting the current use is not ‘a’ as in without, but ‘a’ as in not. So atheism is ‘not theism’ and atheist is ‘not theist’. He just wanted it to be ‘without theism’.
Afterwards he states:
The introduction of this new sense of the word ‘atheism’ may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage.Anthony Flew’s 1972
‘The Presumption of Atheism’
So in 72 Flew proposed his “without” instead of “not”. This in turn over the last 10-15 years of internet discussions, internet dictionaries and the like seemed to evolve in to “lack”.
So we can see that the “lack belief” is a new position on the historical definition of atheism. Those that are saying the “a” is “without” and not “not” because other Greco-English words are missing the origin of the word, but are correct in the modern definition sense. Many of us are not aware of this, so assume anyone, even philosophers, are “changing the definition” when in reality we are using a much newer definition ourselves.
American Atheists has a section on their site that says this about the definition of atheism:
‘Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”’American Atheists
Here they acknowledge the older definition prior to lack of belief in gods. I believe the biggest issue atheists have is the negative connotations we ascribe to words such as ‘belief’ and ‘faith’ and as such we misconstruct these words.
How often have you head one of us say, ‘I don’t believe in evolution I accept the facts’ – yes, and if we accept the facts we believe them to be true. It isn’t making it a belief system, nor is it making it a religion. I believe the evidence that points to the fact that I am a human. Is that a belief system? I believe I write under the name Davidian. Is that a belief system?
Similarly this is done with faith. Realistically faith is just trust, but when people hear the word faith they think of spiritual faith. In that essence we redefine faith to be trust minus credible evidence plus hope/wishful thinking. The problem here is when we return to reality and say “I (have faith/believe) the bridge won’t collapse as we go over it” we make the mistake of thinking folks are talking in a spiritual sense and get pedantic over a distinction between the terms.
A Note on Greek
Greek is one of those languages where modern language has a problem translating the texts, and is why we end up with very different translations and readings of things like Aristotle, Plato, and other classical Greek texts. Socrates was regarded as an atheist by the state yet he believed in a ‘Prime Mover’
So what’s the difference between the big 3 Atheistic positions?
I am sure there are many more, but these are the main 3 I see being said around the internet.
- I Believe God(s) do not exist/I believe no gods exist – Philosophical Atheism / Strong Atheism
A positive negative proposition – it does carry a burden of proof which is often mistaken for “proving a negative”. The burden is simply to demonstrate your reasoning as to why you think no gods exist.
- I Don’t Believe God(s) exist – Modern Atheism / Varying levels of strength, often based on the lack of scientific evidence. It allows more wiggle room. This is because “I don’t believe” is actually unclear.
There is a difference between logical propositions, where not believing something becomes and inverse positive, and the psychological state of not believing which is closer to withholding the belief.
This is where some of the confusion occurs, but this statement could fulfil anywhere from a strong/philosophical atheist position, through weak atheism, even touching the outskirts of agnosticism.
You can support your reasoning for this position.
On the stronger side, it is close to the Philosophical atheism in the sense you could rephrase it to the positive disbelief proposition, although usually it only addresses gods that have been claimed to exist. It is a responsive position rather than a positive proposition.
It can still be said to have a burden of proof, but it is a response to each god claim. You can use your logical skills to examine various texts and refute them.
- I lack belief in God(s) – Incredibly weak atheism, a modern alteration to the [without] definition from 1972. It carries no burden of proof as it is simply saying to theists “well if you can’t support your position, I don’t believe you” – which is fair enough in a way, but is such a long way from the Philosophical definition of Atheism it should really be Agnosticism. This is due to the aforementioned psychological state of disbelief whilst not having a positive belief in a proposition.
The issue here is, the definitions on the internet use lack belief as part of Atheism. Where I used to use it, I have considered my language, and I hope I have broken the habit of saying lack belief.
I imagine I am going to piss off many of my fellow Atheists by saying we shouldn’t use “lack belief” any more, just as I probably did by pointing out that from a philosophical stand point some of us are actually Agnostic.
Summary – Does it matter?
I find myself wondering if it matters that we are all using “inaccurate” (from an academic sense) terms. The important bit about communication is that we understand each other.
The thing to remember is, The Burden of Proof on a belief (whether you believe god(s) do or don’t exist) is just to explain why you believe. You are not making a knowledge claim, you are not saying something does or doesn’t exist, just that you believe they do. The same goes for believers, if they say “God does exist” they have a much bigger burden than “I believe God exists”.
This is part of why I think we should stop using “lack belief”. Lack is too ambiguous, it is not definitive enough. Lack belief is fine for Agnosticism but not Atheism.
Language also evolves and changes. Awful used to be a positive term – full of awe. People use “wicked” as both a positive and negative term. Gay used to mean happy/colourful/bright. Fag now means an extremely annoying, inconsiderate person most commonly associated with Harley riders ;).
Using a term like “Agnostic Atheist” (today) is a very short way of saying, I have examined all the evidence (or lack of) and reject it. I don’t believe in any god(s), nor do I know for a fact a god doesn’t exist and don’t reject the possibility. I have no issue with folks using the modifier, but understand why some might take issue with it.
I will continue to use Atheist, as I believe gods do not exist. Maybe even the “redundant” Agnostic Atheist to describe my position because the most important thing in these debates is communication. Folks understand what these terms mean, they are the modern colloquial use that provide new/modified definitions, and there really is no point in splitting hairs over an academic definition. However I will question people on their use of logic in these situations and try and get them to understand the different definitions.
Honestly though, I don’t really care what someone wants to label me. Atheism/Agnosticism are not part of my identity. They just describe my thoughts on one topic. I don’t know for a fact if gods exist, I don’t believe in any gods. I fully reject the claims presented to me. In fact through research of this article, the podcasts we have been doing, and everything else I have considered my position at length and I have gone from the simple “I don’t believe in Gods” to “I believe Gods do not exist”. I am not claiming to know, just to believe the proposition.
Academically, at least philosophically, most people who identify as Atheist (as a lack belief atheist) are actually Agnostic. Perhaps it is the fear of the burden of proof and the conflation between belief, certainty and knowledge that makes Atheists drawn to “lack” rather than the more philosophical definition.
Does the academic language need to catch up with the colloquial use, or do we need to correct our use? Hopefully this article has helped clear things up for you with how things are used in different ways, and how the language has evolved.
- Draper, P. (2017) ‘Atheism and Agnosticism’ in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [Online]. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ (Accessed 7 June 2019.)
- LeDrew, S. (2012) ‘The evolution of atheism: Scientific and humanistic approaches’, History of the Human Sciences, Vol. 0, No. 0, pp. 1-18. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1027.689&rep=rep1&type=pdf
(Accessed 10 June 2019)
- ἄθεος (Atheos) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%84%CE%B8%CE%B5%CE%BF%CF%82?fbclid=IwAR1N0sLeE3cyN7SHZSe91o2wjK3vS2pJkXEvfdP-9OC1wKWMLclqBQmt-fc
- Antony Flew (1972) ‘The Presupposition of Atheism’
Available at: http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~ekremer/resources/Flew%20The%20Presumption%20of%20Atheism.pdf
- American Atheists ‘About Atheism’
- Conversations on twitter, come follow us and join in!