Theist, Atheist, Agnostic, Oh My!
After my last post, my wife pointed out that it may have been the first time I’ve just come right out and identified myself as an atheist. She may be right about that. I didn’t mean for it to be anything shocking or revolutionary, but because the word carries so much weight, I can see how it would look shocking to some people. But I think much of that comes from a misunderstanding of the term “atheist.” So let’s look at that, as well as some other words that people may not completely understand.
First of all, let’s start with what I used to be: a theist. Dictionary.com defines it this way:
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).
So a theist is someone that believes in a god(s) that has been personally involved in the world through miracles or revelation. Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, and pagans are all examples of theists.
A deist is different, though people often think it means the same thing as “theist.” Deism is defined as:
1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
A deist is someone who does believe in God, but it’s not the god of Christianity, Islam, or any other revealed religion. Deists typically look at creation as evidence for God’s existence, but they don’t believe he’s communicated with man in any miraculous way. Many of our founding fathers were deists: Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc. When I first realized that there were problems in the Bible and with Christianity, I considered myself to be a deist. Though I don’t consider myself that anymore, I don’t have any problems with the idea of deism. In fact, I think it’s a pretty rational way to look at things. If you’re interested in learning more about it, I’d recommend deism.com as a great source of information.
So now we’re left with atheism and agnosticism. Atheists say there’s no god, and agnostics say they just don’t know, right? Actually, that’s not quite right, and that’s why the term “atheist” carries such a bad connotation.
Agnosticism is not some in-between position between theism and atheism. An agnostic is defined like this:
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
Someone who’s agnostic doesn’t know if gods exist, but they also think it’s impossible to know whether or not they exist. They think mankind will never know, so they offer no opinion on the subject. Very few people match the definition of a true agnostic. The term “agnostic” doesn’t tell you someone’s belief so much as it tells you the certainty of their belief. For example, very open-minded Christians might be considered agnostic Christians. When I thought of myself as a deist, I was an agnostic deist. In other words, I tended to view the Universe as something created by an intelligence, but I knew I could easily be wrong about that.
The term “atheism” is defined this way:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Many people think that an atheist is someone who emphatically denies the existence of any god. In other words, they think atheists are arrogant enough to claim that they know gods don’t exist. But that’s not what most atheists think. Most atheists (myself included) are agnostic atheists. In other words, they don’t believe in any particular god, though they realize it’s possible they’re wrong.
Let me illustrate it this way (and I won’t be the first to do so): Christians are atheists in regard to Zeus, Apollo, Thor, Allah, and Krishna. They can’t know that those beings don’t exist, but they feel quite certain that they don’t. Thor’s possible existence is not something they worry about. Atheists feel the same way; they just add one more to the list than Christians do.
My other posts do a great job of explaining why I quit being a theist. But why did I go from deism to atheism? It’s actually fairly simple. I realized that my only real reasons for being deist boiled down to wishful thinking. I liked the idea of having a soul and having an afterlife. But as I spent more time thinking about our discoveries in biology, chemistry, and physics, I realized that I had never witnessed anything that couldn’t be explained scientifically. And throughout history, every time people bumped up against a problem they didn’t have the answer to (like why does it rain?), science eventually found an answer. Right now, we don’t know what caused the Big Bang. It’s tempting to ascribe it to God, but every other time we’ve done that, we’ve eventually found a scientific answer instead.
So in the end, whenever I called myself a deist, it just didn’t feel genuine — like I was just trying to fool myself. I found that the label “agnostic atheist” more accurately described what I really thought. Do I worry that I might be wrong? Do I worry that I might face an eternity of torment for my beliefs? No, I don’t. Ironically, I was much more concerned about that when I was a Christian. But I think tackling that question sufficiently will require another post. Until then… “be excellent to each other.”
Well research and honest. I appreciate your post.
Thank you! That’s a very kind comment.
Hi. I am studying this today, and enjoying it much, very much. The definitions that Nate gives refer more to “hard- Agnosticism,” as opposed to “soft- Agnosticism”, and there are differant levels and kinds of Atheism. There are some soft Agnostics who think that some day we can get to the bottom of it, we will know for sure, or we will believe more strongly based on more reasonable probability, hopefully absolute proof. Maybe we are skeptical, cynical, but also hopefully optimistic. I am going through a very uncomfortable, miserable, frustrating, stalemate in my life, it is a “crisis-experience”, unfolding for several years now. Maybe I am “soft-Agnostic.” Hard Agnosticism bugs the hell out of me, I cannot handle it. I want it to be an egg on a roof, destined to eventually fall on one side, which side we do not know, we are divided. Cognitive Dissonance, the ultimate frustration. I could write a book here, not sure how many characters you allow here.
Thanks again Joseph; I enjoy your comments. And I don’t think there’s a limit to what you can type — I’ve had some really long ones on here before.
But you’re right that I was giving strict definitions. I probably should have written more about the way the terms are actually used. Most people do use agnostic to refer to an undecided state — usually someone who doesn’t believe in the gods of any “revealed” religion, but is open to the idea of a god existing. That’s pretty much where I sit too, but I’m personally more comfortable with the label “agnostic atheist” to describe my views.
I can really sympathize with what you’re going through right now, though I’m not familiar with the specifics. But I wish you well in it — I know how agonizing these questions can be. If I can help at all, please let me know.
I appreciate you writing. Give me some input regarding three component of belief.
I read deism.com regarding Islam, and not agree with the statement in articles. The verse and interpretation have been twist and turn.
Well, keep writing.
Thanks for the comment!
As I understand it, the “3 components of faith” are knowledge, belief, and trust. In other words, you must know something about a subject in order to believe it. Once you believe it, trusting in that belief is what finally makes it “faith.” I don’t know that I can offer much insight on it, but I’ll think on it a while. Maybe I’ll post about it.
I’m sorry that you found the articles on Islam at deism.com to be inaccurate. I’ve never read those, so I can’t comment much on that. I first found the site when I was going through my initial struggles with Christianity, so most of the articles I read there had to do with deism or Christianity — I thought most of them were pretty good.
Thanks again.
I’ve always used the term “agnostic” simply because of its implications. Growing up in the SE US, I’ve been inundated with a variety of religious beliefs for decades…each sect proclaiming their absolute authority on a litany of subjects. I’ve found that when replying to someone’s questioning of religious flavor, if you throw out “agnostic”, it implies a full conversation to the other party. Something to the tune of: “I really don’t care. I don’t care what you believe, it’s fine with me, and the continuation of this conversation is likely to die a swift death”.
If I used the term “atheist”, for right or wrong, I’m implying that I think an extremely religious person is wrong. If I’m using any sort of condescension in my speech patterns (or something that the other party senses as condescension), I’m implying that I likely think that they’re stupid as well. While this sort of misunderstanding is unfortunate, it’s a loaded subject, and it’s prone to misunderstandings by its nature.
This is an interesting post.
I think you make a really good point. In certain situations I try to emphasize the agnosticism of my position for exactly that reason.