It is an all too common point of contention and one that, unfortunately, seems often to distract us from the real issues involved. That, of course, is the meaning of various words like atheism, agnosticism, theism, etc. Christians in particular, it seems, often attempt to argue against atheism by arguing against the definition of the word itself. Randal Rauser, whom I mentioned in a previous post, trots out the tired old trope of arguing that atheism is an indefensible position by claiming an especially narrow definition of the word in his “what is atheism” post.

He writes:

In this post I’ll begin to address confusion on the nature (and evidential burden) of atheism. The problem here, in short, is that atheists often are not clear either on what atheism is or on what its rational defense requires.

I have posted my own explaination of what atheism and agnosticism are in this essay, for those who are curious.

Problems begin when atheists confuse atheism with agnosticism (a confusion which in my experience happens quite often). Atheism is the affirmation of the proposition (1) “there is no God”. Agnosticism is the stance where one affirms neither (1) “there is no God” or its negation, (2) “there is a God”. Agnosticism is a respectable position. One may very well believe there is inadequate evidence either way to settle the question. But I have encountered a number of people who took the agnostic position, and yet persisted in calling themselves atheists. And this is confused, if not disingenous.

It is neither confusing nor disingenous. Rather, Randal’s attempt at distinguishing them actually adds to the confusion rather than lessening it. That fact that someone neither affirms that there is or is not a God (agnosticism) doesn’t tell us what that person actually believes. Such a person could either choose to believe or not believe in God. In other words, the following positions are entirely possible (and quite common):

1. I don’t know whether or not God exists so I choose not to believe in God.
2. I don’t know whether or not God exists but I choose to believe in God.

According to Randal, both of these positions are agnosticism, which they are. That is because agnosticism refers to a lack of knowledge of something. However, the two positions are divided in terms of belief. If we agree that theism is a belief that God exists and atheism a lack of a belief (or disbelief) that God exists, then the confusion is solved. Position #1 is agnostic atheism (don’t know, don’t believe) and position #2 is agnostic theism (don’t know, believe). Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive of either atheism or theism because the former pertains to what one claims to know while the latter pertain to what one claims to believe.

Now imagine the following two, also entirely possible, positions:

1. I know that God does not exist so I do not believe in God.
2. I know that God exists so I believe in God.

Randal wants to call each of these positions exclusively atheism and theism. However, what distinguishes these two positions from the first two I listed above is clearly this issue of what one claims to know not what they claim to believe. The second set of positions are the opposite of agnosticism or, gnosticism – possessing knowledge of something. Position #1 is gnostic atheism (know, don’t believe) and position #2 is gnostic theism (know, believe).

So the main issue with Randal’s choice of definitions is that it plainly leaves out the very common position of the agnostic theist – the believer who believes in God without affirming to know that God exists. After all, isn’t that what faith is?

But my main point here is that atheists (as well as theists) can logically both be either agnostic or gnostic. Making agnosticism exsluvie from atheism or theism ignores this plain distinction and therefore creates more confusion.

Briefly, let us look at another recent example – Ray Comfort. In a recent post Ray writes the following:

So, what do you believe: creator or no creator? You could say that there is no such thing as “creation,” which many atheists say, which is absurd. You could say “I don’t know.” But if you do, you are not an atheist. You are agnostic.

Of course, Ray makes a similar error as Randal. But then he goes even further….

Here’s another atheist’s attempt to distance himself from the essence of atheism: “Let’s say I believe that something caused the universe to form. SOMETHING not NOTHING. However I think that something was natural and not God. See, I am still an atheist because I don’t believe in God, and yet at the same time I believe that something caused the universe.” So he believes in a creator as the cause of the universe. He’s not an atheist.

For some odd reason (probably because it is easier for Ray to argue against a straw man characterization of atheism than what atheists actually claim atheism to be), Ray wants to include in the definition of atheism one who does not believe in a creator of any kind – even a natural creator. This, of course, is quite silly. If somebody didn’t believe in God but believed that an advanced alien life form created this bubble universe only to let it be Ray would not be willing to call such a person an atheist. But this only confuses the matter even further beyond the confusions perpetuated by Christians like Randal.