Is there any difference between agnosticism and weak atheism?

[More Than A Feeling]

Weak atheism is generally defined as "lack of belief in a god". Agnosticism can be defined as "lack of knowledge concerning the existence or non-existence of a god" (if you have another definition, would you mind posting it so I can see other possibilities? Thanks!)

But if you lack knowledge of the existence of a god, then wouldn't it follow that you don't believe in it, which would make the definition of weak atheism apply? If that does not follow, why not? Likewise, if you don't believe, and the reason is because there is no evidence, doesn't it follow that if such evidence (and here I'm using "evidence" and "knowledge" interchangeably) because available, you might change your mind? Doesn't that make you "atheist by reason of agnosticism", so to speak?

[WritingIsMyReligion]

1. Weak atheism holds no position on god, but suspects that it does not exist.

Compared to "strong atheists," who believe, definitively, that there is no god.

Agnostics believe that there is no way to know if there is a god or not, and that it doesn't really matter either way.

I think. :)

[Vexatious Ape]

2. I might be wrong here but, an agnostic believes the existence

of god is unknowable--so they don't take a stand. Kind of wishy washy. I'm in the atheist camp.

[varkam]

21. As I've related here

I'm both an agnostic and an atheist. The two are seperate claims. The way I see it, being an agnostic is just intellectually honest - being an atheist is just reasonable.

[robinlynne]

3. I am an atheist and I dated an agnostic, who defined it as: An atheist does not believe in god.

An agnostic is someone who once believed in god or had religion,and changed their beliefs. i.e. an agnostic is a christian, or other, who becomes an atheist.

[proReality]

4. Agnostic

In my opinion a true agnostic is one who questions and searches for answers.

[cosmik debris]

5. Not knowing vs. not believing

Going back to the etymology, agnostic does not know, atheist does not believe. I think it all hinges on the degree of certainty.

Some people look at it as a matter of knowledge and facts, others see it as a matter of faith. If you expect to find knowledge and don't find it, you're probably an agnostic. If you expect to find faith and don't find it, you're probably an atheist.

[DURHAM D]

6. My personal view as an agnostic -

I just don't ponder the question - it does not hold my interest.

[On the Road]

7. It Plays on Different Meanings of "Belief"

Belief can simply refer to someone's construction of the world used as a guide for living and decisionmaking. It may not involve any deeply-held convictions or any convictions that go beyond the evidence.

I do believe it's possible for an atheist to believe in a stronger, quasi-religious sense that goes beyond the available evidence. It then takes on many of the characteristics of faith. I think this is the heart of the arguments here over "atheist fundamentalists" and similar phrases.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

8. I consider myself a gnostic atheist

If there is a god, I think that we would be able to understand and have knowledge of this god. I consider (perhaps wrongly) agnostics to be people who have no knowledge of god and believe that knowledge of god is not possible.

I don't see any evidence for god, thus the atheism.

[ulysses]

9. no...whatever "weak atheism" is,

I haven't heard that it partakes of the idea that questions of the existence of God are unknowable, which is the agnostic point of view.

My question is this: why are atheists so intent on making agnostics atheists via semantics?

[cosmik debris]

10. The whole thing is a semantic game

invented by the theists to describe people that they disagree with. We should all deny the theist the power by refusing to deal in their stereotypes.

[ulysses]

11. I guess I don't feel stereotyped.

I self-identify as agnostic because it comes the closest to where my mind is.

[cosmik debris]

12. You label yourself

with respect to them rather than independently. But that's ok if that is what you feel good with.

[ulysses]

13. I understand your point.

The label is just in relation to the original question. Independent of the question, there's no need for labels at all. :)

[skepticscott]

15. Agreed

The difference is primarily semantic and all the hoo-ha arises mainly from unbelievers trying to shoehorn themselves into a few narrow categories that believers have created for them. There is a whole range of thought on the side of unbelief and everyone's convictions are personal....we don't have to jump through their hoops or adopt their definitions.

[cosmik debris]

17. We have been through this many times in this forum

Many theists, especially some Christians, want all the people with whom they disagree to fit into discrete categories. But they are not too crazy about being categorized themselves.

[bananas]

23. Conspiracy theories belong in the 911 forum. nt

[varkam]

20. We're all agnostics.

If the notion of god or the existence of god is inherently unknowable, then it follows that we are all agnostics. Which is a claim I happen to agree with. As I related in this thread, however, I think that being an agnostic doesn't really address whether or not one actually believes in god or not.

[pop goes the weasel]

14. agnostics are atheists

who don't have the courage of their lack of conviction. Agnosticism is just a type of atheism, but people make a great deal out of being an agnostic rather than an atheist because atheism is consider a societal kiss of death.

[varkam]

19. I'm an agnostic *and* a strong atheist.

Did I just blow your mind or what?

In my opinion we're all agnostics. Whether or not we want to admit that is a different story and I think that can be for various reasons. Some people might just not understand what knowledge actually means, and other people might just think that admitting that weakens their faith - in which case I contend that that don't really understand what belief means, either.

[Eileen]

16. No need for the semantics!

It is precisely because of these semantic games that I do not refer to myself as atheist of any type.

A belief in a theos of any kind requires the suspension of rational thought which induces cognitive dissonance because we are basically rational beings. For this reason I prefer to retain my rational faculties and totally ignore the theos myths.

Just as the existence of fairies; or hydras; or Her Horny Holiness The - IPU (pbuH) -
or even the lowly Flying Spagetti Monster are totally irrelevant to the way I live my life - so the existence of a theos is equally irrelevant.

To paraphrase - Nizkor: -

That some people believe that without a theos of some kind they evolved from nothing and therefore they are nothing is also irrelevant. Both of these are examples of the Consequences of a Belief fallacy. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. For example, if someone were to say "If sixteen-headed purple unicorns don't exist, then I would be miserable, so they must exist" it would be clear that this would not be a good line of reasoning. It is important to note that the consequences in question are the consequences that stem from the belief.

For these reasons therefore I refer to myself if asked as a non-theist meaning that in my life the existence or non existence of a theos or theoses is irrelevant - and I conduct my life just as though the existence of a theos is equal to the existence of Santa Claus and similar fables.

Eileen

Formatting fixed?

[varkam]

18. I've been trying to make this distinction for years now.

Weak atheism is generally defined as "lack of belief in a god".

I take weak atheism to mean something slightly different. At first it might seem that I'm just parsing semantics, but I think there's a legitimate difference. Weak atheism, to means, is simple disbelief. I think that's a more useful way of putting it because it implies why one is a weak atheist: namely, that theists have failed in their task of overcoming the burden of proof.

Agnosticism can be defined as "lack of knowledge concerning the existence or non-existence of a god" (if you have another definition, would you mind posting it so I can see other possibilities? Thanks!)

That's a good definition of agnosticism. It isn't speicfic to theology or metaphysics, though. We're all agnostics on a great number of things - I do contend that god is one of them regardless of whether we admit that or not. Going back to the greeks, a (without) and gnosis (knowledge) means that one is simply without knowledge. Now what knowledge entails, I think, prevents us from actually knowing very much. We operate largely on belief with differing degrees of certainty.

But if you lack knowledge of the existence of a god, then wouldn't it follow that you don't believe in it, which would make the definition of weak atheism apply?

Belief and knowledge are two seperate lines of cognition. You can know something and not believe it, and visa versa. It's my contention that weak (or even strong atheism) and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, and are seperate philosophical positions.

If that does not follow, why not? Likewise, if you don't believe, and the reason is because there is no evidence, doesn't it follow that if such evidence (and here I'm using "evidence" and "knowledge" interchangeably) because available, you might change your mind? Doesn't that make you "atheist by reason of agnosticism", so to speak?

It doesn't follow because they are two seperate lines of cognition, so - like I mentioned - it's completely possible to believe in something and not know it, and to know something and not believe in it. People do it all the time.

If evidence were to come available, then the theists would overcome the age-old problem of the burden of proof. Then it would be incumbent on atheists to falsify such claims. If that could not be done, then I think the reasonable thing to do would be to change my mind insofar as belief is concerned.

But evidence and knowledge are two very, very different things. Evidence points to truth, which is entailed by knowledge, but is neither in and of itself.

I think the idea of "atheist by reason of agnosticism" is an interesting idea, but I contend that agnosticism has nothing whatsoever to do with belief. You can be an agnostic weak atheist. You can be an agnostic strong atheist. You can be an agnostic theist. If it's granted that claims of knowledge aren't really related to claims of belief, then it becomes pretty clear that agnosticism is not a coherent position to take when it comes to what one believes.

[skepticscott]

22. Personally

I try to avoid the word "belief" with regard to my own thinking whenever possible. I don't "believe" when it comes to matters of fact or even many matters of opinion...I'm either convinced by evidence and logical argument, or I'm not. Or, if you want to parse things more finely than black and white, the skeptical position that the strength of your convictions should be directly related to the evidence supporting them does just fine. I'm not convinced that any of the things that humans have ever worshipped as creator gods actually exist, except in people's imaginations, and I am convinced the reasons that many people do believe in them are bogus. As with all things, I'm prepared (at least in theory) to change my mind if convincing evidence came along, but in the case of certain issues, like the non-existence of the god of the Bible or the truth of evolution, the chances of that contradictory evidence coming along are so small (given that people have been looking very hard for a very long time in all the likely places without finding it) that I don't ever expect my position to change. I guess that's about as close as I get to strong atheism, though I imagine some would say this falls a little short.

[varkam]

25. I'm not a big fan of the word myself.

But I think it applies, consider the following:

I do not know one way or the other whether or not my cereal will kill me when I eat it tomorrow. There is the possibility that it could, therefore I can not know if it will or not. I have a very strong belief, however, that it will not. That belief comes from evidence. Namely, I have eaten it many times before and lived to tell the tale, there are regulatory bodies that make sure cyanide is not in my cereal, cereal companies would go under if they put razor blades into boxes of cereal, etc. So when I say belief, that is in the sense that I mean it. I do not mean to say faith, which is a type of belief. I'm referring to belief in strict epistemological terms.

I don't "believe" when it comes to matters of fact or even many matters of opinion

What would constitute a matter of fact? I'm with you on the second one.

I guess that's about as close as I get to strong atheism, though I imagine some would say this falls a little short.

To me, it sounds as though you are a fairly confident weak atheist. The weak/strong distinction, at least as I understand it, really just depends on which side of the burden of proof fence you feel more comfortable on. Personally, I comfortable and positively (not positively in the sense of certainty) assert that there is/are no god(s). Therefore the burden of proof is upon me, and I think I have some pretty good evidence to support that, but that's a whole 'nother story.

[skepticscott]

26. I agree that it applies, but

I prefer not to use the word because it has, to me, unwanted associations with faith that in many cases are not valid. In the case you cite, what you call "belief" is not based on faith, but rather on reason and the evidence of past experience. You could, in this situation, say either "I believe that eating this cereal will not kill me" or "I'm convinced that eating this cereal will not kill me", and I simply prefer the latter.

I don't "believe" when it comes to matters of fact or even many matters of opinion

What would constitute a matter of fact? I'm with you on the second one.


Matters of fact are those concerning things which really exist or which really happened. For example, it is a matter of fact that Ohio State beat Purdue in men's basketball 63-52 yesterday or that Coke sells more artificially sweetened, carbonated beverages than Pepsi every year. Those things are true for everybody, whether they are aware of them or believe them or not (unless you're a whacked-out, reality challenged post-modernist). But if I say that I think Ohio State is not as good a team as Wisconsin (who they play today) or that I think Coke tastes better than Pepsi, those are matters of opinion; other people may have opinions that differ but that are also valid.

As far as the strong/weak atheism thing goes, I have always taken weak atheism to mean that you find no evidence and no good reason to think that any gods exist and are therefore withholding acceptance, and strong atheism to mean that you are convinced with absolute certainty that there are no gods. That of course begs the question of how you define a god and how you dismiss all of them that could possibly exist, but that's another (though still important) question.

[varkam]

27. I think we agree on belief

But I understand the connotation that it has with faith. Belief can be based on faith or evidence. The way the word is used today, most people take it to be based on faith - which is why I don't use it a great deal either.

Matters of fact are those concerning things which really exist or which really happened. For example, it is a matter of fact that Ohio State beat Purdue in men's basketball 63-52 yesterday or that Coke sells more artificially sweetened, carbonated beverages than Pepsi every year. Those things are true for everybody, whether they are aware of them or believe them or not (unless you're a whacked-out, reality challenged post-modernist).

Call me a whacked-out, reality challenged post-modernist. I don't know if there is really any such thing as a matter of fact. I think things like you mentioned are pretty safe bets - but I still contend that we can't really know such things. Perhaps the news reporting was flawed, perhaps it's all a grand dream, perhaps I'm in your head or you are in mine. I know it borders on silliness, and I think for all intents and purposes we can treat such things as matters of fact, but running the risk of spinning off into the ether I contend that there is no such thing as a matter of fact.

I have always taken weak atheism to mean that you find no evidence and no good reason to think that any gods exist and are therefore withholding acceptance, and strong atheism to mean that you are convinced with absolute certainty that there are no gods.

Right. Weak atheism is just simple disbelief. It's the position that basically holds that the theists haven't succeeded in their task with the burden of proof.

I have a bone to pick with your take on strong atheism, though. Strong atheism is the positive assertion "There is/are no god(s)", which in turn gets you a big fat burden of proof in your lap. It's then incumbent on whoever makes that assertion to show why there is good reason to believe it. I am a strong atheist, and I believe the universe is empty of any sort of god being. That doesn't mean I'm certain though. After all, I'm an agnostic as well. I could very well be wrong, I just don't think I am.

You bring up a good point about how I could dismiss all gods possible in the universe. I guess a more apt description of what I believe is I am a strong atheist when it comes to the Judaeocrislamic god, and a weak atheist when it comes any infinity of other possible gods in the universe. In other words, I am pretty sure there's no all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful father figure in the sky that cares whether or not I masturbate.

[skepticscott]

29. Ok, you're a whacked-out, reality challenged post-modernist

Seriously, though, I'm basing my definition of matters of fact on the premise that what we experience as our everyday reality is the only reality worth worrying about. I certainly recognize, as you point out, that I can't be absolutely sure that 2 minutes from now I won't wake up in a laboratory somewhere and discover that what seemed like the last 45 years was just a stream of impulses fed directly into my brain from a computer for the last hour (including that night with the redhead in New Orleans-damn!), but that's not a useful way to define existence or reality, so I don't, except as an occasional mental exercise. But if you were REALLY a whacked-out, reality challenged post-modernist, you wouldn't even need to make that qualification-they consider everything that happens even in what I call everyday reality a construct, with no objective truth value whatsoever behind it. I'm sure you're saner than that.

But within that framework, I would argue that something can be a matter of fact even if there is no evidence that allows it to be "known". Take for (an admittedly silly) example the question of whether George Washington had eggs for breakfast on his 10th birthday. That's probably not a question that anybody knows or could ever find out the answer to (even if they cared), but the point is that it is still a question of fact-it either happened or it didn't, and in principle, if we had a Wayback Machine we could go back and determine with certainty which it was, even if in practice we'll never know. Contrast that with the question of whether George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or FDR was a better president. That's not a question of fact; there is no underlying truth behind it, no "right" or "wrong" answer, only opinions with varying degrees of support.

As far as weak and strong atheism, we seem to be on the same wavelength...I would consider myself a strong atheist with regard to the god of the Abrahamic religions, but a weak atheist with regard to anything that anyone might ever worship as a god, for the reason I mentioned.

[varkam]

30. Feel free to join the club - tin foil hats are complimentary.

Seriously, though, I'm basing my definition of matters of fact on the premise that what we experience as our everyday reality is the only reality worth worrying about. I certainly recognize, as you point out, that I can't be absolutely sure that 2 minutes from now I won't wake up in a laboratory somewhere and discover that what seemed like the last 45 years was just a stream of impulses fed directly into my brain from a computer for the last hour (including that night with the redhead in New Orleans-damn!), but that's not a useful way to define existence or reality, so I don't, except as an occasional mental exercise. But if you were REALLY a whacked-out, reality challenged post-modernist, you wouldn't even need to make that qualification-they consider everything that happens even in what I call everyday reality a construct, with no objective truth value whatsoever behind it. I'm sure you're saner than that.

I know it's not a useful way to operate, but I do recognize that we operate largely on belief (based on evidence and past experience) rather than knowledge. Even our perceptions can deceive us. Half of the time I think people see what they want to see.

But within that framework, I would argue that something can be a matter of fact even if there is no evidence that allows it to be "known". Take for (an admittedly silly) example the question of whether George Washington had eggs for breakfast on his 10th birthday. That's probably not a question that anybody knows or could ever find out the answer to (even if they cared), but the point is that it is still a question of fact-it either happened or it didn't, and in principle, if we had a Wayback Machine we could go back and determine with certainty which it was, even if in practice we'll never know. Contrast that with the question of whether George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or FDR was a better president. That's not a question of fact; there is no underlying truth behind it, no "right" or "wrong" answer, only opinions with varying degrees of support.

I think I follow. It is a matter of fact that GW either had eggs, or he didn't. We will never know, so we will never have knowledge of that one way or the other. It's also a matter of fact that I am either a human or an elephant (with either excellent typing skills or a dictation program). There are certain things that are grounded in fact, and certain things that are not.

As far as weak and strong atheism, we seem to be on the same wavelength...I would consider myself a strong atheist with regard to the god of the Abrahamic religions, but a weak atheist with regard to anything that anyone might ever worship as a god, for the reason I mentioned.

Abrahamic = Judaeocrislam. Judaeocrislam just flows better off the tongue, IMO. So we are in agreement, then :D

[NMMNG]

24. There is a difference

Weak atheism means one does not believe.

Agnosticism means one does not have knowledge.

So, what is the definition of agnosticism? Some imagine that agnosticism is an alternative to atheism, but those people have typically bought into the mistaken notion of the single, narrow definition of atheism. Strictly speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge, and knowledge is a related but separate issue from belief, the domain of theism and atheism.

<snip>

Confusion about agnosticism commonly arises when people assume that “agnosticism” actually just means that a person is undecided about whether or not a god exists, and also that “atheism” is limited to “strong atheism” — the assertion that no gods do or can exist. If those assumptions were true, then it would be accurate to conclude that agnosticism is some sort of “third way” between atheism and theism. However, those assumptions are not true. Commenting on this situation, Gordon Stein wrote in his essay “The Meaning of Atheism and Agnosticism”:

Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean “neither affirming nor denying a belief in God.” Actually, this is no great loss, because the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxley’s definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/what.htm


A person can be both a weak atheist and an agnostic, but they can also be a theist and an agnostic. They can also be simply an agnostic (as well as just a theist or an atheist).

[varkam]

28. Do I have to give up either my strong atheism or my agnosticism?

I notice you didn't mention those two :)

[NMMNG]

32. You don't have to do anything you don't want to

Only the fundies are into banning and denial. I'm not one of them.

[rasputin1952]

31. In simple terms, avoiding semantics...

An atheist does not believe in a god, or deity(s)

An agnostic does not necessarily believe in a god or deity(s), but can accept the possibility if compelling evidence exists.

A theist believes, by faith, that that god or a deity(s) exist and generally can be called upon to aid, or occasionally harm, those that aspects that pertain to mankind and nature.

In each of these, and other aspects or religion/non-religion, one must believe, and therefore have faith in themselves that they are correct in their assumption.

No one is "required" to believe in anything in this nation, but each of us make choices on what we think is the truth of the situation from a personal perspective.

[gravity]

33. I don't think there is much of a difference

I consider myself atheist, because there is no evidence for the existence of God. If there was evidence, my beliefs would change which is like agnosticism. Most atheist would become theist if God proved himself to the world, so I really don't think there is much of a distinction.

I really hate all the semantics involved since I think it is all essentially the same belief, and the differences are just superficial.

[Old and In the Way]

34. Agnosticism seems to be the place where you get pigeonholed between the believers.

Believers defined as those who believe in God and those who believe there is no God. I'm in the pigeonhole.

[rnrstar]

35. Equal chance or not

I get the impression that for one to be agnostic that they must not only be open to there being a god but that the probability of their being a god, lacking evidence either way, is the same as not. In other words, they must remain equally open to there being a god or not. Where as atheism is where one has come to a conclusion that lacking any evidence of gods there is virtually zero reason to believe that there is a god and thus can come to a reasonable conclusion that gods do not exist.

I frequently hear the "intellectually honest" argument and that the only way to be intellectually honest is to always remain open to the possibility of god no matter how remote that possibility. This completely ignores reasonable probabilities. Just because it is possible, it doesn't make it so and something that has a possibility of virtually zero deserves to not be considered without substantial evidence to the contrary.

[More Than A Feeling]

37. Belated welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Zhade]

36. Others have done a wonderful job answering, so let me add another thought: we're ALL agnostics.

This is because no one KNOWS gods exist (or don't).