'Agnostic Atheist'?
I had an interesting discussion with theists and non-theists last night about what it means, exactly, to be an agnostic. A theist said that agnosticism is the ultimate 'fence sitting position' when it comes to the question of the existence of a god or gods. I countered that agnosticism is a reasonable alternative when one finds both theism and atheism to be equally indefensible. There were several people, both atheist and theist, who made a distinction between 'belief' and 'knowledge' and that while one can be 'without knowledge' about the existence of a god or gods, one could nevertheless still 'believe' or 'disbelieve' in the existence of a god or gods. This led to a curious discussion of 'agnostic theists', 'agnostic atheists', 'gnostic theists', and 'gnostic atheists'.

I read the book Atheism: The Case Against God, a few months ago, and Smith made the point that theism is defined as a 'belief in a god' whereas atheism is defined as 'without belief in a god' or a (without) theism (belief in a god). Furthermore, he also made the point that an agnostic could either be a theist or an atheist; however, he insisted that agnosticism is not really an 'alternative' to theism and atheism, because one either has a belief or lacks a belief in a god. Therefore, according to Smith, one is either an atheist or a theist, and that there is no middle ground. Technically, one could also be a polytheist or a deist, but if I recall correctly, Smith considered these to be just another form of theism, since both require a belief in a supernatural entity. The polytheist just believes in more than one god, while the deist believes in one god, but that he/she/it doesn't actively intervene in the affairs of the universe.

Smith opined that many agnostics who lack a belief in god prefer not to call themselves 'atheists' out of discomfort with the perceived stigma that the word entails. He went on to argue that since babies are born without a belief in a god, that they are, in fact atheists. I'm not sure what to make of this argument except to say it sounds like a desperate argument to me; given that atheism is quite a minority position among adults in the West, it strikes me as a particularly futile attempt to increase the de facto number of atheists by enlisting infants in the cause.

I am familiar with T.H. Huxley's definition of agnosticism and the roots of the word itself: a (without) gnosticism (knowledge). As I understand it, agnosticism is essentially a position that one does not know whether or not there is a god, and furthermore that one does not believe it is even possible to know whether or not there is a god. The former I suppose would be called 'weak agnosticism' while the latter would be called 'strong agnosticism.' Given these definitions, I would consider myself to be a strong agnostic. I also believe that theism and atheism are equally indefensible positions--and by 'equally indefensible' I mean 'equally unprovable', 'equally uncertain', and 'equally unknowable.' For every theistic argument there seems to be an atheistic counter argument, and vice versa.

While 'without knowledge' essentially defines what agnosticism is, the word has come to mean a variety of different things to different people. Many do consider agnosticism to be a halfway point between theism and atheism. Many also consider it to be a 'neutral' position on the existence-of-god question. There is also the common perception that agnosticism is a suspension of either belief or disbelief in a god, that there simply is insufficient information to make a decision on the question. Many atheists and theists alike scorn this attitude, declaring that 'one must either believe or disbelieve' in the existence of a god. But I argued that in some cases a suspension of belief or disbelief is warranted in the absence of data to make a valid decision.

For example, if asked whether one believes in the existence of extraterrestrial life forms, one could reasonably assert that there is simply insufficient evidence to make a decision either way, and it is quite likely that most theists or atheists wouldn't insist that 'one must either believe or disbelieve.' It's peculiar that both atheists and theists often insist that 'one must choose' when it comes to the existence-of-god question, but think it's quite okay to suspend judgment on non god-related questions.

What, then, is the point of all of this? The point is that I'm still trying to come to grips with the definition of atheism as a 'lack of belief' in a god. I first thought that this definition was relatively recent, because dictionaries had typically defined atheism as either a 'belief in the non-existence of God' or a 'rejection of God', which put atheists in the unenviable position of having to prove a Universal Negative in debates. And as most of you probably know, proving a Universal Negative is virtually impossible--except in cases where the argument is inherently self-contradictory. If one asserts that you cannot prove there are no such things as "married bachelors" you can safely retort that the very concept of "married bachelors" is self-contradictory, therefore they cannot logically exist. But if one asserts that you cannot prove that "God does not exist", or that "extraterrestrial life forms do not exist", they are quite right. But getting back the definition of atheism as a 'lack of belief in a god or gods', I have been informed that this has ALWAYS been the correct definition of atheism, it's just that dictionaries have given biased definitions of the word (such as 'a rejection of God' for instance.)

If this definition is correct (that atheism is a 'lack of belief in a god or gods') then I would have to say that makes me an atheist, because I do in fact lack a belief in a god. Nevertheless I am reluctant to call myself an atheist, not because I don't want to deal with the stigma the word 'atheist' carries, and not because I think atheists are inherently immoral, but because as I have stated above, I find both theism and atheism equally unprovable, equally uncertain, and equally unknowable. I can't help but wonder, however, whether this rationalization is a cop out. After all, the statement "You either believe in a god or you do not" is true, isn't it? And if ti is, then one is either theistic or atheistic, right?

I have been mulling these things over all night, and I decided I would pose the following questions to all of you:

1) Do you consider yourself to be an agnostic?
2) Do you consider yourself to be a theist?
3) Do you consider yourself to be an atheist?
4) Do you agree that atheism is defined as 'a lack of belief in a god'?
5) Do you think someone can be an 'agnostic theist'?
6) Do you think someone can be an 'agnostic atheist'?
7) Do you think someone can be a 'gnostic theist'?
8) Do you think someone can be a 'gnostic atheist'?
9) Do you think agnosticism is "fence sitting" or a "cop out"?
10) Do you think agnosticism is an 'alternative' to theism and atheism?

I think these are all 'yes/no' questions, but invariably there always seems to be people who answer 'yes/no' questions with 'maybe' or 'I don't know.' If you like, feel free to explain your answers in depth. I also welcome comments on the other parts of this post. However, I would prefer not to get flooded with links to URLs explaining what atheism/theism/agnosticism really is. I've got quite enough of those links already, thanks!


[Edit: I just wanted to point out that when I refer to 'gnostic' in questions 7 and 8, I am not referring specifically to the Christian heresy of Gnosticism, but rather to the literal meaning of the word as 'with knowledge' or 'possessing knowledge.']