(3 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Loading...QUESTION:
If you don’t think God exists, why do you refer to yourself as an agnostic? If this is your perspective, why not refer to yourself as an atheist? Could it be that you don’t believe the Christian God exists, but are open to the possibility that some kind of higher power exists (this is my perspective) and this is why you call yourself agnostic?
ANSWER:
I have been getting this question a lot, and so I’ve decided to try to explain my position a bit more fully here in this post.
The first thing to say is that I had no idea how militant both atheists and agnostics could be about their labels, until I became an agnostic myself!
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a member. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!
Very good answer. However, not sure about making atheism equivalent to faith. I see it as also a question of knowledge. Atheists are in some degree agnostics for the reason you described here. Obviously, no one can make an absolute statement about God’s existence or nonexistence but to say that atheism is based on faith and agnosticism knowledge makes it sound like atheism is not based on any kind of evidence or lack thereof, and therefore it has nothing to do with epistemology. That seems kind narrow to me. I agree we need not get to concerned about labels. I personally do not care one way or another. Its interest to me is merely an intellectual question only.
I think one of the issues is that, historically, there have been two meanings of the word “agnostic”.
The first is the more common sense of the term, of course, in which “agnostic” is used to describes the state of simply not knowing one way or the other (If I understand correctly, this is how the word is being used above).
But there is the more technical (and I believe both more original and more interesting) meaning of the term that ties deeply into its epistemological roots. In this sense, agnosticism is the tenet that it simply is not possible, _in_principle_, to know whether there is a god. More specifically that the answers to such questions are, virtually by definition, beyond the scope of human knowledge.. (This is typified in many brands of philosophy –for example Christian Existentialism, most notably in the works of Kierkegaard– where the acceptance of god is considered possible only as an explicit act of faith, and never of knowledge.)
I guess if we wanted to summarize these two views the distinction would be something like:
– “I *don’t* know if there’s a god”
vs
– “I *can’t* know if there’s a god.”
According to Wikipedia’s definition of agnostic atheism, “Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.” Although you just say you’re an agnostic, I believe you more fit the pattern of the agnostic theist.
By this definition I would actually be an agnostic atheist.
I remember you being on the Colbert Report, and the host asked you, “Isn’t an agnostic just an atheist without balls?” Hilarious line!
I see it as a distinction that is perfectly arbitrary. When we look into the respective beliefs of both atheists and agnostics, more often than not, they are the same. No atheist I know will have 100% certainty that there is no God, just like you can’t reasonably be 100% certain about anything. You can’t reasonably be 100% certain that there is no Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer!
The distinction between those two words is almost purely rhetorical, and it is much more about politics. Do you want to build a bridge to your Christian friends and colleagues? If so, you choose “agnostic.” Do you want to build a bridge to your Christian friends and colleagues just so you can carry a battering ram to their castle gate? If so, you choose “atheist.”
I’m glad *you* thought it was hilarious ! 🙂
I think I’m 100% on Rudolph….
My dictionary informs me that an ATHEIST is “Someone who denies the existence of god,”* while an AGNOSTIC is “A person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)”. Everyday experience has repeatedly demonstrated to me that ATHEISTS are militant; AGNOSTICS, not so much.
Christians label me as a HERETIC (hence, my chosen and frequently used e-mail and Twitter name of “Heterodoxus”). I prefer to identify myself as a SKEPTIC; i.e., “Someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs” (spec., orthodox Judeo-Christian beliefs).
_________________________
* All quotes are from the WordWeb Dictionary.
“Moreover, the term does seem to me to convey a greater sense of humility in the face of an incredibly awesome universe, about which I know so little.”
Very well said Bart.
I like your definitions based on “faith” and “knowledge.” I, too, have been having trouble putting my thoughts on this in a box. For a time I was substituting “non-theist” for “atheist” account the baggage that the latter term carries. That is a faith-based term once again, so that doesn’t make a different statement than “atheist.” I think you may have cut the fog.
I think there’s something worth noting, and probably obvious, in your statement about agnosticism: “But as to whether there is some greater spiritual power/intelligence in the universe, I’m agnostic.”
I gather that, given your admirably conceived and expressed response to the problem of evil (here and especially in God’s Problem), any existent “spiritual power/intelligence” would have to be either A) malevolent toward us and all sentient beings in this world, B) unable to control events and conditions in this world (e.g., perhaps like a cosmic bungler, unable to fix what it botched when it set the world going) or C) entirely unconcerned about this world (like Epicurus’ gods). (It seems to me that you’ve rightly ruled out not only the Christian god, but any god that could be both omnipotent and well-disposed toward us.) Am I correct in this inference, or am I am overlooking another possibility? Do you have any comment about these possibilities?
I think another possibility is that we simply cannot detect the greater pattern….
Wow! I’ll be trying to wrap my mind around that.
Some have argued that because so many people report having had “religious experiences”, photisms, voices, etc., that constitutes proof that there is a divine being. I called such experiences “brain chemistry.” I have argued that no one has seen wind, and in previous millenia, people’s imaginations created Aeolus and Zephyrus to account for the phenomenon. Now we see that wind is molecules of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and atoms of argon in motion, exerting pressure on whatever surface they encounter. Aeolus and Zephyrus have been banished to the archives of legend and/or myth. The effects are real, hence the myth part, but the explanation was dead wrong.
Prof Ehrman
Well said. I think this is one of those arguments that is so passionate because so little rides on the outcome! Huxley originally coined the term ‘agnostic’ to respond to claims of knowledge by believers of things they couldn’t possibly know, in essence a response to unreasonable certainty.
Of course know one absolutely knows for sure 100% if god exists but that’s only because no one absolutely knows anything 100%. Science deals in likelihoods, probabilities. I find the overwhelming lack of evidence for god compelling. So my default position is that no god exists until someone can demonstrate such compelling evidence.
I self-identify as an atheist because in my heart of hearts, at 3 o’clock in the morning when all the masks are off, and I ask myself, do you believe in god? The answer is no, I really don’t. So I’m honest.
But like you I am an ex-christian so I at least can change my mind on the issue. So if anyone can present compelling evidence for the existence of any kind of deity I’m ready to listen.
Recently, world famous atheist Richard Dawkins recently called himself an agnostic and confused a lot of people who had never read his position on this in The God Delusion. Most atheists are agnostics and most agnostics are atheists. If you’re in that intersection, which one you call yourself is a matter of taste. I think people who get worked up about labels need to realize there are more important issues in the world.
Personally, I prefer agnostic for pretty much the same reason you give, but I won’t protest if someone calls me an atheist accept possibly to point out that I’m not a strong/hard one. I tend to avoid both labels in venues where the atheist vs agnostic debate is prone to breakout, calling myself a non-believer or skeptic.
Dr. Ehrman I think that that was beautifully and concisely put. Thanks.
Prof. Ehrman wrote, “Why they are so incensed that I don’t follow suit, however, continues to be a mystery to me.”
Apparently you said “Sibboleth” instead of “Shibboleth.”
I really appreciated this post. Very honest and something I have always wondered about you in the back of my mind when reading your works. My question has more to do with your (non) belief in Jesus rather than in a sort of grand cosmic intelligence such as the Judeo-Christian God.
Concisely put, how do you make sense of the epistemological case (the “faith [that] might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God”, and “secret wisdom”) advocated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1&2? Also, could you ever “believe” in Jesus as being the solution to the world’s polemic and its now rightful ruler?
I think the problem is that we have no access to “the wisdom of God” except through our own brains — there’s no other way! No, I don’t believe in Jesus; I think he was completely human, and was later transformed into something more….
Why don’t you believe in Jesus? I do, even if (or maybe because) he was “completely human”. I believe in people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela, so why not Jesus of Nazareth? They demonstrate to us what we can become and what we can accomplish if we simply choose to.
As always, Dr. Ehrman, well stated! My own personal position is that, while I do not like the term “atheist” as a label (we don’t use the label non-alchemist or non-astrologist), I place myself very close to the “no-god” end of the spectrum because of how I view the burden of proving an idea. I require evidence to allow a level of certainty analogous to the burden of proof in criminal cases in the United States-beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not absolute certainty because that is nearly impossible. But the standard for me is very high. While there are possibilities, I try to make decisions about life based on measurable, reliable, and testable evidence. But I do not disagree with anything you have stated in your answer, as I too am more interested in knowledge.
Thanks again for sharing and being a well-reasoned voice in these debates.
(This is a lifted comment from Huff Post; something to think about) There’s no empirical objective construct tagged by the three letter combination “g-o-d”. We just can’t go around assigning letter combinations as tags to every figment of everyone’s imagination without destroying our language. “God” isn’t a word so it can’t be framed into a question of belief, disbelief or doubt.
Interesting. But I think “God” *is* a word. So is unicorn, and, well, a lot of other things that may or may not ever have existed….
Thanks for the answer. It has puzzled me before what you meant by being an agnostic…especially after I heard you say that you don’t believe in God. I do find it funny that internet community of non-religious often get caught up on these labels.
I will say that your interview on the Colbert Report was quite enjoyable. “Isn’t an agnostic an atheist without balls?” and I liked your response at the end. Did you enjoy your interviews with Colbert? Any chance that you will be appearing again?
No — it’s intimidating! (Well, I did *kind* of enjoy them; but it’s a challenge, knowing that no matter what you say, you’re going to get *zinged*.) Nothing planned just now, but, well, I don’t control such things!
Yes. I can imagine Colbert interviews can be quite daunting. I thought you did a good job on both of your appearances. I was spoke with Lawrence Krauss and he will be on Colbert shortly but he seemed a tad nervous about his upcoming interview for his book. So you are not alone in feeling the intimidation of being zinged.
It would be great to see an interview on your recent book…but hopefully your next book (which I am excited for) will score you an intimidating interview.
Dr Ehrman,
Good post, thanks for sharing. I suppose if you applied the same hyper-literal approach to “agnostic” it would simply mean “not a gnostic”, which would describe pretty much everyone today!
I have a somewhat tangential question concerning the word agnostic.
Recently, I was listening to a lecture on the opening chapters of Genesis. Describing various interpretations that these chapters had been given over history. In this context the lecturer –in all other respects first-rate– mentioned:
“…a group from the first and second century C.E. called the “Gnostics”.
All well and good. But at this point, however, the lecturer added as an aside, saying (quote):
“This is where we get the term ‘agnostic’.”
This can’t possibly be correct can it?
(That is, I certainly understand the etymological connection between the name “Gnostic” and the term “agnostic”. But surely there is no indication that the term “agnostic” is in any way associated with or derived from the first century beliefs of the “Gnostics”, is there?)
Well, roughly speaking it’s right. “Gnostics” were called that because they claimed to “know” (the truth — e.g., about the divine realm, the world, who humans really were, etc.). An “Agnostic” is someone who does *not* know (e.g., about whether there is a God). But no, the modern term was not invented in relation to ancient Gnosticism.
This is one of the clearest dissections of the two terms I’ve come across. I’ve wrestled with what to call myself for the past few years since my Pentecostal faith (followed by a more fuzzy general Christian faith) have unraveled.
The term atheist opens up the can of worms between “soft atheists” (who simply lack a belief in God) and “hard atheists” (who actively assert God doesn’t exist), and is freighted with so much societal baggage that I’ve been loath to claim it. To people (particularly believers) who haven’t thought deeply about its meaning, calling yourself an atheist implies a sense of certainty that I think is unwarranted in the case of most atheists. The word instantly creates tension that can require an investment of so much time (and perhaps emotion) to unravel that I’ve felt it just isn’t worth embracing. (At the same time, I chastise myself mildly for letting other people’s interpretations of a term affect my stance toward it rather than its actual meaning.)
At the end of the day, when I’m perfectly honest with myself, I conclude that when asked if I’m an atheist, I can’t adequately respond until I have a better understanding of what the questioner is asking, i.e. what does “God” mean? If the question is do I believe in the literal existence of Yahweh and/or his eternal son Jesus, then I am certainly an atheist. To a fundamentalist, this is the only meaningful definition of God, and therefore I’m an atheist, period. But if God can be defined more broadly, either as any kind of universal intelligence or even a nebulous “force” (in which case I’m still waiting on my lightsaber), then I have to honestly cop to agnostic. Therefore, to a large extent the answer to the question depends on the beliefs or worldview of the questioner.
Dr Ehrman wrote “(I sometimes believe in Dionysus/Bacchus, but that’s another story…)” I would like to hear that story.
It would have to be over wine. Which, I suppose, was my point. 🙂
Based on your last paragraph, I would draw a conclusion that you are agnostic – you don’t know but are open to a divine-like something because you don’t know for sure (agnosis – no direct knowledge; gnosis – direct knowledge). Just sayin’
Great explanation. Thanks for referring me here. Describing them in terms of faith vs. knowledge makes a lot of sense. I too have seen the war waged between agnostics and atheists, with atheists happy with nothing other than forcing self-professed agnostics to a complete denial of any gods in any way whatsoever. Yet, it is as you say. I am a recent deconvert from Christianity. And at first I was strictly agnostic, but I began to see how in some ways an agnostic is an athiest. Atheism deals with faith. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. I’ll remember that.