Reproduction of this essay in whole or in part for noncommercial purposes, with attribution and with notice of
copyright, is permitted; reproduction of this essay in whole or in part for commercial purposes, or without attribution,
or without notice of copyright, without the author's express permission, is not permitted.
"Atheism," "Agnosticism," and "Nontheism"
There are at least two widespread conventions as to the meanings of "atheism" and "agnosticism."
The first, which I grew up using and which is much like what you'll probably find in your dictionary, is that an atheist
believes there is no God, while an agnostic merely fails to believe that there is one (while not believing that there isn't
one, either). The atheist says, "No," to God's existence, while the agnostic says, "Maybe."
The second convention is that atheism has to do with belief, while agnosticism has to do with knowledge,
and that "strong atheism" (or "positive atheism") is the denial of God's existence--what we were previously thinking of
simply as atheism--while "weak atheism" (or "negative atheism") is the mere nonacceptance of God's existence--what
we were previously thinking of as agnosticism; and that "strong agnosticism" is the view that God's existence (or
nonexistence) cannot be known, while "weak agnosticism" is the view that God's existence (or nonexistence)
simply is not known.
Partly because of the confusion between those two conventions, I've taken to using the word "nontheist" for myself. A
theist is a believer in some deity; a nontheist is a nonbeliever in any deity. (I'll note that "nontheism" is an inclusive term
that covers both strong and weak atheists, and that it also covers the position some people hold that statements like
"God exists" are meaningless because the word "God" is not clearly defined or because "God exists" is not
observationally verifiable. It also covers secular humanism. There are a wealth of positions different nonbelievers take;
but the word "nontheism" covers all of them. It does have the drawback of also covering believers in nontheistic deities,
but they can be dealt with separately, since I also label myself a
"skeptic.")
Another reason for my using "nontheist" rather than "atheist" or "agnostic" has to do with a pair of bad arguments that
are frequently used against atheists and agnostics. One is the argument used by religious believers that since a
negative can't be proven and one therefore can't prove that God doesn't exist, the (strong) atheist who believes that
there is no God has faith just as much as the believer in God has--"See! You have faith, too!" says the theist
delightedly. The other is the argument used by atheists against agnostics (or by strong atheists against weak
atheists, depending on which terminological convention you're using) that the agnostic (or weak atheist) lacks the
strength of his convictions--that the agnostic (or weak atheist) is being wishy-washy when he refuses to come right out
and say, "I believe there is no God."
Neither claim holds up, but they're frequently encountered.
The reason the claim that the strong atheist has faith, too, is misguided, is that when most atheists say, "I believe there is
no God," they don't mean, "It is inconceivable that there is a God; it could not be; I am one hundred percent positive,
beyond any shadow of a doubt, that there is no God." They do not mean, "God's existence is a logical impossibility,"
(although there might be versions of God that are logically impossible). What they mean is something more
like, "It is unreasonable to believe in God." What they mean is something more like, "I see no more reason to believe
in God than I see to believe in Santa Claus, so I don't believe in either one." Most atheists, when pressed, will admit
that it's conceivable that God exists--that it's logically possible that God exists.
In everyday life, we might say, "There is no Santa Claus." Why is that OK? Is it inconceivable that there is a Santa
Claus? Is it logically impossible that there is a Santa Claus? Does a person demonstrate that he has a kind of faith
when he says, "There is no Santa Claus"? No, it's not inconceivable that there is a Santa Claus; no, it's not logically
impossible that there is a Santa Claus. One can imagine that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole, protected by an
invisibility shield, so that we do not detect his home; and one can imagine that Santa Claus's sleigh and reindeer are
equipped with anti-gravity devices, so that they can fly; and one can imagine that Santa Claus's toy bag reaches into a
fourth spatial dimension, rendering it effectively bottomless, so that it can contain all the toys of all the children in all the
world; and one can imagine that Santa Claus has a matter transporter, like the one in Star Trek, so that he can
get in and out of everyone's home; and one can imagine that Santa Claus has a time dilator, so that he can get to all of
the children's homes in one night; and one can imagine that Santa Claus has a mind-altering device, so that he can make
parents think that they have bought their children's toys; and so on. One can tell a such a story, and it is not logically
impossible. It's conceivable. But conceivability is not good reason for belief; we do not go around believing in
Santa Claus--not even a little tiny bit.
Why, then, is it OK to say, "There is no Santa Claus," but not OK to say, "There is no God"? The answer is that when
one says, "There is no Santa Claus," no one is going to argue the point; no one is going to jump on you and demand an
explanation of how you can possibly know, beyond a shadow of any doubt whatsoever, that there is no Santa
Claus; no one is going to disagree with you, and no one is going to claim that you're having faith when you make your
statement. Everybody understands what you mean: There is absolutely no reason to think that there really is a
Santa Claus; it would be unreasonable to believe that there is. Nobody quibbles over conceivability and inconceivability.
But when one says, "There is no God," many people will disagree. Many people will jump on you and demand an
explanation of how you can possibly know, beyond a shadow of any doubt whatsoever, that there is no God.
(Never mind that you didn't mean that. Never mind that you only meant what you mean when you say, "There is no
Santa Claus.") And they will take it as a great and important victory when you concede that you don't know beyond
a shadow of any doubt whatsoever that there is no God--they will take it as confirmation of their own belief when you
agree that it is logically possible that there is a God. They shouldn't--conceivability isn't positive evidence, and in the
case of Santa Claus they'd understand that--but they most assuredly will. Calling myself a "nontheist" helps avoid
that.
As for agnostics (or weak atheists, depending on your terminology) being wishy-washy, there are a couple of answers.
One is that not all agnostics think there isn't a God; some are in the position that many people find themselves in with
respect to the Loch Ness monster--they've heard of reasons to think that there is a giant, possibly prehistoric, creature
in Loch Ness, but they also have strong doubts about it. Maybe they've also heard that the Loch Ness photos are
fraudulent and don't know what to believe. Such people aren't really cowardly atheists; they really do feel substantially
unsure about whether or not there is a God; they really don't know whether there's good reason for belief or not. When
one grows up with belief in God, the very word has force in one's psyche; one does not usually abandon a belief
thoroughly instilled in him in childhood overnight. I suspect the degree of inclination toward belief varies among
agnostics (weak atheists), largely because early inculcation with belief in God is often overcome by degrees rather than
all at once, and not all nontheists have completed the process.
Another answer to the charge of being wishy-washy is that the person who says, "Maybe there's a God; maybe
there isn't," isn't necessarily saying that he thinks the two possibilities are equiprobable. He isn't saying "maybe" in the
same way in which he would say, "Maybe the coin will come up heads; maybe it will come up tails." In my own case,
when I've said I was agnostic, what I've meant is, "I can't say there absolutely isn't a God, so I have to say that maybe
there is and maybe there isn't; but in the absence of good reason for belief, one shouldn't believe that God exists, not
even a little tiny bit--not any more than one should believe in Santa Claus." What I've meant is, "I don't
think there is a God, but it's conceivable that there is." What I've meant is, "I'd say there is no God, just as I normally
say there is no Santa Claus, leaving implicit the conceivability or logical possibility of God's or of Santa Claus's existence;
but since I know that I'll get jumped all over by believers if I do leave that possibility implicit, I'm going to make it
explicit and label myself 'agnostic.'"
At any rate, to avoid the sorts of terminological difficulties elucidated above, I now label myself "nontheist."
(© 2007 by Keith Brian Johnson)
Clarifying Terms Home
Site Home