Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
An Open Letter To The Editor
Steven J. Woodhouse, Editor of the Knoxville Journal-Express has written a little column lamenting the fact that those nasty, mean scientists have the audacity to discover facts about our natural world that make god-believers uncomfortable in their god-belief.
Hmnn. So much to comment on in this op-ed piece, but I thought I'd pull one grossly inaccurate statement out and set him straight.
More below the fold...
[link] My best friend is an atheist. According to him, atheists believe there is a higher power, but they do not follow any religion. That's the difference between atheists and agnostics. Agnostics do not even believe in that.
Hi Steven,
Your friend is incorrect. Your friend is a *theist* if he believes in a god or gods. The two words "theist" and "atheist" are descriptions, not religions or anything like that.
The word "atheist" simply means someone in whom there is an *absence* of god-belief. Conversely, "theist" means someone in whom there is the *presence* of god-belief. It is a black and white, either-or thing. Those people in which there is an absence of god-belief are called atheists. Those in which there is the presence of god-belief are called theists. These two labels tell us *nothing else* about a person except whether or not there is the presence or absence of god-belief in that one individuals skull.
You are also incorrect about the word "agnostic". An agnostic is someone who makes the claim that it is *impossible to know* whether or not a god exists.
These words, gnostic/agnostic, and atheist/theist deal with completely separate areas. Gnostic/agnostic describe a claim about *knowledge*. Atheist/theist describes the presence or absence of *belief* in a god or gods.
Most folks imagine a single line with points along it. To the right there is a point labeled "theist", in the middle, one labeled "agnostic", and on the left one labeled "atheist". However, this is not the case. They exist on a completely separate lines altogether at right-angles to one another. Therefore it is possible to be an "agnostic atheist", an "agnostic theist", a "gnostic atheist", or a"gnostic theist". This is because one can *believe* in a god or gods, but also think that it is impossible to *know* that a god exists. Or not believe, and not know. Or Believe and know, or not believe and know.
You see? Very simple.
Listen, Steven, many folks get this wrong, so don't feel so bad. It's because our society has attached incorrect meaning to these words about god-belief and made them scary and taboo. They're not - they're just words. But if you use them incorrectly you perpetuate the ignorance.
And you wouldn't want to do that, would you?
Brent Rasmussen
http://www.brentrasmussen.com
Bookmark/Search this post with:
How about this classification?
Atheist: I think that considering all the evidence we have, the rational position is not to believe in God. (Strong atheist: it is rational to belive God does not exist; weak atheist: it is rational simply to not believe.)
Agnostic: I think that no evidence can warrant a rational belief in metaphysical matters, either for or against. The rational thing to do is to completely withhold judgement. (This position merges with the weak atheist in a continuous spectrum; I think the difference is practical, the self-proclaimed agnostic will typically have more respect for believers).
Fideist: I think we have no evidence warranting rational belief in God (or perhaps even evidence warranting rational disbelief) but I believe anyway. Credo quia absurdum.
Gnostic theist: I believe there is evidence warranting rational belief in God. (This is not a good label because gnosticism has a different meaning also. Any other ideas?)
Thanks
As other commenters have pointed out, "agnostic" has acquired some heavy baggage. I have generally self-identified as atheist for this reason. The fact is, most people I've encountered who self-identify as agnostic definitely believe in the spiritual.
So now I've got my label. Agnostic atheist: a person who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't think think it possible to know that God doesn't exist.
But I'm leaning toward gnostic atheist, because it's hard for me to see any good reason FOR belief.
"Agnostic" has been co-opted, anyway
The term agnostic has come into very common use, and so I don't believe still carries the same narrow meaning it used to, one of "I need proof to believe in your god, but I don't have proof there is no god, so I'm witholding judgement or commitment". In the high-technology industries, we have been using it regularly for years. "Processor Agnostic". "Operating System Agnostic". "Programming Language Agnostic". "Hardware Agnostic".
So much as the terms "Geek" and "Gay" have evolved to take on different meanings, I'm begining to think that the term Agnostic has mutated, and is in the process of speciation....
mikey
Agnostic theists?
As I understand common usage, "agnostic" not only implies belief that we cannot know whether there is a God, but also lack of faith in the absence of knowledge. A theist who said "I can't know if God exists but I have faith in him anyway" (what you call an "agnostic theist") would be classified as a fideist, not an agnostic.
Your classification may be more logical, but I'm pretty sure the common use of the terms (even by the self-called agonstics) does put agnostics in the middle between self-proclaimed theists and self-proclaimed atheists, as being "less sure" than any of them
Of course, it's still true as you say that Woodhouse's quoute does get everything wrong.
Thomas Huxley