I have a problem with how lots of people (maybe most people) define these terms. I am not completely sure why it matters to me, though it does seem to. I am certainly not sure why so many people accept, what seems to me, illogical definitions of these terms.
What Keith Thinks
Theism is believing in a god or gods. This can be Mother Nature personified. Essentially it is faith in some metaphysical force that is or was important to our existence. Atheism, is the opposite. It is not believing in any sort of god or gods; it is not wishy washy. It is certainty in the lack of gods. Agnosticism, is in between. It is uncertainty in the existence of god.
So far, I am still in agreement with most people. However, to be certain without evidence implies faith. Many people seem to have a problem with tying atheism to faith. Further, to have certainty there are no gods, you must be certain there are no metaphysical forces. This certainty implies a faith in physics to be capable of explaining everything - essentially faith that there is no metaphysics. At some level, it is faith in physics as your god.
Continuing to complicate things I have my own idea of the term metaphysical. I am not implying any specific or famous philosophy. I just mean what the roots imply, beyond physics. Supernatural, beyond nature, also works. Each term comes with baggage I do not mean to imply, however. I don’t mean esoteric philosophies (baggage associated with metaphysical) and I don’t mean ghosts and vampires (baggage associated with supernatural). I do mean phenomena that physics can’t describe.
So far, I am still in agreement with most people. However, to be certain without evidence implies faith. Many people seem to have a problem with tying atheism to faith. Further, to have certainty there are no gods, you must be certain there are no metaphysical forces. This certainty implies a faith in physics to be capable of explaining everything - essentially faith that there is no metaphysics. At some level, it is faith in physics as your god.
Continuing to complicate things I have my own idea of the term metaphysical. I am not implying any specific or famous philosophy. I just mean what the roots imply, beyond physics. Supernatural, beyond nature, also works. Each term comes with baggage I do not mean to imply, however. I don’t mean esoteric philosophies (baggage associated with metaphysical) and I don’t mean ghosts and vampires (baggage associated with supernatural). I do mean phenomena that physics can’t describe.
Faith is another word where my definition may be at odds with others’. I use faith to mean strong belief without evidence. This comes specifically from the association with religion. Belief in the metaphysical stands out to me as belief in that which can have no evidence (otherwise it’d be part of physics). So, here my use of evidence is limited to that which is useful for proving physical theories. For example, there is a preacher character in the TV show Ozark who survived being shot in the chest at point blank range. He uses his experience as evidence to solidify his faith. This conception of faith fits into my definition of belief without evidence. To be clear, I am not judging the preacher. I view faith as a strong contributor to conviction, both traits I often respect – like in the case of the preacher, where he uses his faith as motivation to help people.
What Atheists ThinkThere is an atheist organization called the American Atheists. The top of their “What is Atheism?” web page has the following definition of atheism: |
They clearly conflate my concepts of atheism and agnosticism. Why do they do this?
Not all atheists do it so cleanly though. I got into a Tweet thread with @combatcavscout about atheism which eventually led to him blocking my account. So, I can no longer link to his specific positions (I only see my Tweets, not his). If my memory serves correctly, he was adamant that he did not believe in a god and that he did not have faith in his non-belief. Another set of related Tweet threads seems to align more along the AA definition, conflating the two. @ionaitalia does seem to show interest in splitting hairs though. It seems important to her that sure beyond a reasonable doubt is different from having belief. @nivirce seems to be the most closely aligned with AA, with agnostics being a subset of atheists. I couldn’t get any answer as to why that set of definitions is useful, though. |
I don’t have solid evidence of atheists being certain there is no god, but I do feel that many align with @combatcavscout and @ionaitalia in that they are certain, not wishy washy, but don’t want to accept the word faith. It may also be true that many do not want to ascribe theists as being wrong - their beliefs are personal, and only about them. I have also run into a lot of sentiment that religion is stupid or for stupid people. Sentiment that religion is the, or a true source of evil, without any need to separate out divine influence from sinful abuse of organized power. Bill Maher, on his show, certainly gets a lot of applause for positions like these. Watch some Bill Maher and you don’t get the sense that he is wishy washy about God’s existence. He seems pretty certain, and pretty popular. |
The Logical Solution
Well, there is an answer to this. A cartoonist (Pablo Stanley) created the image below that puts atheism - theism on one axis and gnosticism - agnosticism on the other. The theistic axis is about god or no god and the gnostic axis is about knowledge vs uncertainty. This seems to satisfy most people open to discussing the issue. It appears in the top answer for the Quora question for “What is the difference between atheism and agnostic atheism.”
However, it doesn’t satisfy me. It doesn’t wash with my experience talking with atheists, and it doesn’t wash with my sense of logic. In fact, the cartoon is not really showing two axes. The theistic axis is binary. There is no spectrum between god and no god. You might counter, but aren’t we discussing here a spectrum of faith? Yes, yes we are. But that is what the gnostic axis is about: how sure are you in your belief. Review the cartoon again. The top two do believe and the bottom two do not believe. It’s not a spectrum. Now a proper logical rendering would make a distinction between faith, the atheist-theist axis, and knowledge, the gnostic-agnostic axis. In this case knowledge would be evidence based. A gnostic believing there is solid evidence of god, and an agnostic believing there is not. The cartoonist did not use it this way because these quadrants would be confusing. The agnostic theist would have faith in a god he cannot prove exists and the gnostic theist would have faith in a god he can prove exists. Although this difference is real, it is not useful, since all gnostic theists are simply wrong to believe they can prove god exists. In reality, we have a single axis spectrum that is interesting. Does god exist, and how much faith do you have that your assertion is true. |
So, perhaps why I care so much is that my solution seems more elegant: theists believe, with varying amounts of faith; atheists disbelieve, with varying amounts of faith; and agnostics divide the two, without faith nor assertion.
That's what I like: three words to describe where you fall on the axis of interest, faith pro or con. I suspect all the logical maneuvering is because strong atheists want to claim low faith atheists for their side, and low faith atheists don’t want to be seen as wishy washy, and no one on the atheist side wants to be connected to the word faith.
Let me know in the comments what you think.
That's what I like: three words to describe where you fall on the axis of interest, faith pro or con. I suspect all the logical maneuvering is because strong atheists want to claim low faith atheists for their side, and low faith atheists don’t want to be seen as wishy washy, and no one on the atheist side wants to be connected to the word faith.
Let me know in the comments what you think.