What Is Agnosticism?
It seems that there are more people confused about what agnosticism means than what atheism means, and I’d like to take the chance to explain what it is, as well as dispel some common misconceptions.
Just like atheism and theism are different sides of the same coin (the belief in God coin), agnosticism and gnosticism are different sides of the same coin (the “knowability” of belief). If you have a belief in anything, you are either gnostic or agnostic about that belief.
Misconception: Agnosticism relates directly to belief in God
Whilst the modern use of the word “agnostic” is usually attributed to people who say they are “unsure” of the existence of God, it is neither a good usage of the word, nor a “direct” usage. If you are truly agnostic, you have to claim that everything is unknowable, right down to simple proofs like “1 + 1 = 2″, or “Humans need oxygen to breathe”. Such a view is rather silly, and I challenge any true agnostics to give up oxygen for a day or two and see how they feel about it afterwards.
I’d wager that everyone in the world is a gnostic “oxygenicist”. We don’t need to question the validity of the claim that oxygen is needed. It’s a known fact.
Personally speaking, I would further classify myself as a gnostic “gravitationalist” since the theory of Gravity is probably not going to be disproven. It’s a sound theory, and much better than anything flat earth theorists can come up with.
Misconception: Agnostics neither believe or disbelieve in God
Firstly, it is impossible for the above to occur; belief in God is a yes or no matter. When I was young (and we are talking pre double figures) there was a funny saying we had: “Yes means yes, no means no, and maybe means no”. It was related to the answer your mother would give you if you asked for something. If she said “yes”, the chances are you would get it, and likewise a “no” would get you nothing. A “maybe” was interpretted as a “no” wrapped in false hope. If your mum said maybe, she meant no.
The same rough principle can be applied to belief in God. If you ask person whether or not they believe in God, a “yes” means they are theist, a “no” means they are atheist, and a “maybe” (more commonly a “I’m not sure”) can be interpretted as a no. I may not be correct 100% of the time, but I have met more than enough professed “agnostics” to know that they no more believe in God than I do.
What we really have to understand is the concept of agnosticism in relation to belief in God.
There are 4 main positions on belief in God:
| Agnostic | Gnostic | |
| Atheist | Agnostic Atheist - Does not believe in God, but recognises that God is an unknowable being. | Gnostic Atheist - Does not believe in God, and thinks that this belief is the ultimate truth (knowledge). |
| Theist | Agnostic Theist - Believes in God, but recognises that God is an unknowable being. | Gnostic Theist - Believes in God, and thinks that this belief is the ultimate truth (knowledge). |
Both agnostic positions are rational, whilst the gnostic are irrational. Claiming absolute knowledge of a God is ridiculous, since neither way can be irrefutably proved. The only rational positions are those of agnosticism.
On Dawkins’ scale of belief in God, 1 being “knowledge of God” (Gnostic Theist) and 7 being “knowledge of no God” (Gnostic Atheist), Agnostic Theism comes in at 2.5, and Agnostic Atheism comes in at 5.5, which is where I place myself on the scale. I think Dawkins is rather silly to claim that he is rational and yet rate himself a “6.9″.
In reality, a rating of 4 (halfway) can never be achieved, unless we attribute it to deism which can be viewed as a true halfway point between theism and atheism. Deists believe that there is a God who initially created the universe, but has no further control over it, and does not meddle with humans or the natural laws. They reject religious literature, and argue that our ability to reason is our greatest attribute.
Possibly Related Posts:
Subscribe to my RSS Feed if you like what you read!
Follow me on Twitter!
Loading ...
You have an excellent post here. The only that I would add is a table with the “4 main positions” so we can see the positions visually. (I might make that table myself.) Agnosticism is too often defined as the median between belief and non-belief, and I think this adequately addresses the problem.
Oliver
23 Apr 08 at 5:16 pm (GMT)
Thanks for the suggestion Oliver. I’ve created a rudimentary table with them in now, and it does look better. I also found a much better image over at 1 2 3 Religious Comics:
http://religiouscomics.net/?p=60
Adrian Hayter
23 Apr 08 at 6:13 pm (GMT)
When you say that gnostic atheism is irrational, you are implicitly assuming that the concept of a “god” makes sense to start with. Obviously, the rationality of the gnostic atheist position is going to depend on at least the definition of “god”. If the concept comes out of that test ok, then we next consider the empirical matter. Here, perhaps, is where gnostic atheism could be said to be unjustified.
Mark C.
23 Apr 08 at 11:02 pm (GMT)
Mark C,
Gnostic Theism is irrational because nobody can say for sure that God exists. Gnostic Atheism is irrational because nobody can say for sure that God doesn’t exist. I think everyone understands the basic concept of God, and even if you sugar coat it with an infinite number of unbelievable extra attributes, it doesn’t make either position any more rational.
Adrian Hayter
23 Apr 08 at 11:42 pm (GMT)
What I meant by the definition bit is that something with contradictory attributes can’t exist, and that if that is what’s being referred to by the term “god”, then gnostic atheism is indisputably the correct position. If, however, the concept is not logically impossible, then gnostic atheism is always or is in most cases untenable.
I just noticed you are using “God” instead of “god” or “god(s)”. Atheism applies to more than just capital-G-gods.
As to everyone understanding the basic concept of God, I don’t think that’s the case. Within monotheism there are various controversies regarding the definition of “God”, and within theism, broadly, it is extremely difficult to pin down exactly what is meant by “god”.
Mark C.
24 Apr 08 at 12:12 am (GMT)
Mark,
I get your point now. However as you say atheism is disbelief in any / all gods, so there must be a scenario (and I believe the deist God is one of them) where a rational logical God might exist. So to be gnostic atheist you would have to deny the possibility of this perfectly rational logical God. If we look at the deist God, we see a God who simply put the Big Bang (or whatever creation method) into motion, and then walked away. To deny this simple God is as irrational as believing in it (since there is no proof anything existed before the universe).
Also, sorry for the whole “God” / “god” thing, it’s an old habit!
Adrian Hayter
24 Apr 08 at 1:22 am (GMT)
great post. i can’t tell you how many people i’ve heard say “wouldn’t it be smarter to be an agnostic?” so many people don’t understand the words, including myself up until recently.
amiable
24 Apr 08 at 5:26 am (GMT)
Nice one. Thank God someone has finally explained it properly. I’ve been trying to tell theists I’m both atheist and agnostic but am met with only the usual laughing mania.
Simon
24 Apr 08 at 11:09 am (GMT)
Misconception: Atheism relates directly to belief in God
Whilst the modern use of the word “atheist”. is usually attributed to people who say they are “denying” of the existence of God, it is neither a good usage of the word, nor a “direct” usage. If you are truly atheist, you have to claim that everything is deniable, right down to simple proofs like “1 + 1 = 2″, or “Humans need oxygen to breathe”. Such a view is rather silly, and I challenge any true atheists to give up oxygen for a day or two and see how they feel about it afterwards.
This parody is intended to show that your criticism of agnosticism is rather ridiculous.
Your “positions on belief in God” are rather interesting though. I’m a Agnostic Atheist but when I was religious I was a Agnostic Theist. I’ve always recognized that god is unknowable and that I could always be wrong.
Everyone I know who is religious points to “proof of god” which is always something not fully explained by science yet. Of course, it points to proof of their god and not any of the other god(s). Once the mystery is solved, they will deny that science is correct and eventually move on to the next yet unexplained idea to justify their belief.
Here are some cooking directions:
Add Water, Bread, and Mithras.
Mix.
Let Simmer.
Cool for 5 minutes.
Set in a cool, dark place and let everyone forget about your mistakes.
Repeat for 1900 years.
Cappy
24 Apr 08 at 3:58 pm (GMT)
“This parody is intended to show that your criticism of agnosticism is rather ridiculous.”
Your parody makes no sense. Atheism is directly linked to belief in God / gods. Every dictionary on the planet says it is “the belief that there are no gods”.
Every dictionary on the planet describes agnosticism as “an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge”. Put simply, the “knowability” of facts”. To be completely agnostic, you have to question everything, which is why people are only agnostic about some things, and gnostic about others.
I’m sorry but everyone I have spoken to so far has agreed with the definition of agnosticism and my argument. It’s not like my argument is original either…people have been saying it for years, and it doesn’t take a genius to work it out…
Adrian Hayter
24 Apr 08 at 4:32 pm (GMT)
The parody was meant to illustrate that using the definition of agnostic is rather misleading because of the philosphical implications you stated.
Agnostic no longer refers to what it used to. I see your point but I would not say someone is a “hacker” if they were not “cracking” either (we’re both CS majors btw).
Cappy
24 Apr 08 at 9:27 pm (GMT)
I wrote about this here.
See the chart I drew to illustrate this here.
Brent Rasmussen
24 Apr 08 at 9:35 pm (GMT)
“The parody was meant to illustrate that using the definition of agnostic is rather misleading because of the philosphical implications you stated.”
Right…and that makes more sense how? My statement was that the modern usage of the word “agnostic” is often misinterpreted / misused. I’d find it hard to start redefining the word “agnostic” in it’s proper form without actually mentioning “agnostic” or “agnosticism” in the first place.
Your logic is either screwed or you didn’t read the article very well. The whole point of the article was to explain agnosticism (it’s actual meaning). If people don’t read the article with that knowledge in mind (and I thought the subtitle “Misconception” might hint towards that…) then they might be confused, hence why I made sure I set out my goals at the beginning.
Unrelated to this discussion, I don’t agree with your final statement either. Hacking (breaking into a computer system using security vulnerabilities) is very different from Cracking (breaking the software copy protection and/or gaining encrypted passwords). You don’t have to be a hacker to crack things, and vice versa.
I firmly believe that “agnostic” does refer to what it used to. You only need to read a dictionary to find that out! The problem occurs when people mistakenly claim to be “agnostic” when they are actually either agnostic atheists or agnostic theists. Just because there are a large number of people who have the concept wrong, doesn’t mean they are right. I think most people assume “agnostic” means being unsure of God, which is fine as long as they realise they are agnostic about the concept of God specifically.
Adrian Hayter
24 Apr 08 at 9:42 pm (GMT)
“I think Dawkins is rather silly to claim that he is rational and yet rate himself a ‘6.9′.”
To understand this, or at least to understand why Dawkins doesn’t think he’s silly, you have to understand the concept of limits as taught in Calculus. If gnostic Theism is the infinite belief in god (100% to an infinite number of decimal places) and gnostic a-theism is infinite belief in no-god, then agnostic belief/disbelief can approach this limit so closely that the difference seems non-existent. In a rational world, one can only approach the limit, not achieve it, however. Infinity is a limit, not a quantity.
Were a being to appear, and satisfactorily prove once and for all that it is God, the scientific method would demand that atheists admit that they are wrong. Guess what my opinion of the odds are of this happening?
To put this another way, there is a limit to my suspension of disbelief, and the godstruck minions and clerics alike have exceeded that limit, proving to my satisfaction that they are irrational.
breakerslion
25 Apr 08 at 2:24 am (GMT)
This was generally very good, and I find these four categorizations to be extremely helpful. I’ve been using them myself for some time now. However, I do believe that it can be rational to be a gnostic atheist at least with respect to *some* gods (rather than all). The problem with most definitions of god that I have solicited or heard over the years is that they tend to either be logically contradictory or incoherent, or the very definition itself seems to negate the possibility of its existence. For example, if God is said to be not material, not within space, and not within time, then that is for all practical purposes equivalent to non-existent.
James
2 May 08 at 4:43 pm (GMT)
James,
I think it would be rational to say your were a gnostic atheist about all gods in general (as in they can’t all exist together), but in respect to each individual God, there is no way of knowing for sure.
Adrian Hayter
2 May 08 at 5:18 pm (GMT)
Adrian,
Thanks for commenting on my blog post regarding my friend’s claim to agnosticism. Your explanation here of agnosticism helps me a lot.
I don’t think that I would call Dawkins’ claim to gnostic atheism irrational. If one looks at different cultures all over the world, the god(s) that they invent are very different from one another unless two cultures have interacted. It is evident, then, that belief in a god is simply an element of culture and is not grounded in any factual basis. Since all the gods can’t be the right one, it is likely that none of them are. We know that there are lots of proposed gods and we know that they are invented by the cultures that worship them. Thus, I think one can logically claim to know that no gods really exist. I think the worry we experience when saying that we know God with a capital G doesn’t exist is because he is the god of our culture.
OJ
14 May 08 at 7:24 pm (GMT)
[...] am not an agnostic. In recent times the term has been misused. As Adrian Hayter was quick to point out, agnostic does not mean undecided about god, it does not mean you could swing either way on the [...]
Kieran Bennett » Why Atheist and NOT Agnostic?
28 May 08 at 7:15 am (GMT)
[...] not agnostic?” and replies in essay format. He argues that whilst I am correct in saying that agnosticism has nothing to do with gods, I am wrong in thinking that “gnostic atheism” is irrational, and it is in fact the [...]
Kieran Bennett: Why Atheist and NOT Agnostic? | The Atheist Blogger
28 May 08 at 10:46 am (GMT)
[...] “sitting on the fence” was a worthy term for agnostics, and when I had researched the original meaning of the term I realized that I’d been an agnostic atheist all along. A few weeks later, through some [...]
Labels are annoying… | The Atheist Blogger
5 Jun 08 at 5:28 am (GMT)
What could it possibly mean that one has absolute knowledge of something believed? By most standards a pronouncement of “belief” belies a certain lack of knowledge. Hence “I don’t know, but I (don’t) believe that…” is a common and perfectly sensible phrase, while its agnostic counter-part yields sentences that are next to gibberish and don’t describe anything real, “I do know, and I (don’t) believe that…”
In the first case, it only really makes sense to conjoin the two clauses with “but,” because they are epistemologically distinct–belief is dependent on a certain lack of knowledge, while knowledge simply is knowledge. In the case of gnosticism, the epistemological distinction obviously still prevails, but neither a contrastive or comparative preposition really works to conjoin the two clauses. What does it mean to both know something AND or IN DESPITE OF THAT believe that same something? Gnosticism has nothing to do with theism or atheism, which as matters of belief are inescapably agnostic because as beliefs they admit a certain lack of knowledge.
Joe
8 Jun 08 at 10:15 am (GMT)
[...] Ergo, if you believe in God, you can be agnostic about it if you don’t claim absolute knowledge of God. These types of people are referred to as agnostic theists or agnostic deists. I’ve covered them before in my article about agnosticism. [...]
Socrazy Gadfly - The Atheist Blogger
9 Jul 08 at 1:42 pm (GMT)
[...] and I have no problem with him claiming that. I don’t exactly agree with his definition of that either, but I don’t think it’s going to change anytime [...]
What To Do About Bill Maher - The Atheist Blogger
3 Oct 08 at 11:47 pm (GMT)
Your theory of knowledge is entirely ignorant. If one were to require certainty to call anything knowledge then you’d end up not knowing anything at all. It is clear then, that what you call knowledge is something else entirely.
bob Jobe
4 Oct 08 at 12:00 am (GMT)
What “theory of knowledge” exactly? Agnosticism about issues like God relies on philosophical knowledge, something which is still debated about. Most people agree that it can be seen as “justified belief” based on reason / rationality, others disagree. What is clear though, is that agnosticism is not an answer to the “Do you believe in God” question.
Adrian Hayter
4 Oct 08 at 12:07 am (GMT)
Like the post, and the chart is a nice touch. However, I - like others who have commented - take issue with the idea that to be a “gnostic atheist” is to be irrational, largely because I do not consider lack of proof for a negative to be problematic in the same way as lack of proof for a positive.
As an atheist, I am asserting that there is no rational reason to believe in God/gods because there has yet to be any viable proof positive. It is less that I am 100% certain that there is no God or gods, and more that I am 100% certain that there has yet to be compelling evidence to the contrary.
I would argue that this is significantly different from agnosticism, in which lack of proof positive and lack of proof negative are given equal credence.
annavhutchinson
6 Oct 08 at 3:54 am (GMT)
@annavhutchinson
I wouldn’t refer to this as gnostic atheism. Certainty has nothing to do with knowledge. Indeed, I would say I am certain that gods don’t exist, but I would never claim I know gods don’t exist.
Gnostic atheism puts forward the suggestion that concepts like gods can be disproven, or that they have been disproved already. Since the whole God concept has been placed out of reach (and given higher-than-thy attributes), it is illogical to claim that such a being definitely does not exist.
Put simply, the gnostic atheist claims that they know about things about this universe that have been bickered over for countless years.
Adrian Hayter
6 Oct 08 at 4:06 am (GMT)
Ah, OK. The terms make more sense now. I just haven’t run into many people who use “gnostic” and “agnostic” to modify atheist and theist. That said, I’m not entirely sure I see the difference between being certain that gods don’t exist and claiming not to know gods don’t exist. :)
annavhutchinson
6 Oct 08 at 3:56 pm (GMT)
The key difference between certainty and knowledge is that certainty can be wrong. Let me give you an example:
You are in a dark room and you hear what sounds like the pitter patter of raindrops falling somewhere in the distance. From this evidence you can be certain that it is raining outside, however you cannot know for sure without observing it for yourself. There is a remote possibility that the sound is coming from a stereo or somewhere else. Nomatter how certain you are about the sound being real rain, you will only ever know once you have gone to the source and either seen the rain or the stereo.
Likewise, I am certain that there are no gods. I’m convinced that the evidence shows them to be mere thinkings of the human mind. I’ll never know though.
Adrian Hayter
6 Oct 08 at 4:18 pm (GMT)