Michael Nugent with the second in a series of pieces on whether gods exist. 

What is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic? This is the second of a series of short posts about whether gods exist and why the question is an important one.

Many people think that theists believe in a god, and atheists believe there are no gods, and agnostics are somewhere in the middle: they don’t know.

Photo – new stars in Rho Oph dark cloud from NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope

But that is not how these ideas relate to each other. Theism and atheism are about belief, while agnosticism is about knowledge.

As one issue, theism and atheism are about what you believe. If you believe there is a god, then you are a theist. If you believe there are no gods, then you are an atheist.

As a different issue, agnosticism is about what you claim to be able to know. If you believe something, but you do not claim to be able to know for certain, then you are agnostic about that issue.

If somebody asks you whether you believe that a god exists, and you answer ‘I don’t know,’ then you are answering a different question that you were asked.

It may well be true that you don’t know whether a god exists, but you were being asked whether or not you believe that a god exists.

For example, I strongly believe there are no gods, and almost certainly no personal gods, based on applying reason to the best available evidence. So I am a strong atheist.

I also don’t claim to be able to know that there are no gods, because I am a fallible human being and there might be new evidence that I am currently unaware of. So I am also an agnostic.

However, I describe myself as an atheist because it more accurately gets across what I mean. If I said I am an agnostic, some people might mistakenly think that I am 50:50 on whether a god exists.

Michael Nugent is Chair of Atheist Ireland

Do Gods Exist? 2 ➤ Atheists And Agnostics

Michael Nugent with the second in a series of pieces on whether gods exist. 

What is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic? This is the second of a series of short posts about whether gods exist and why the question is an important one.

Many people think that theists believe in a god, and atheists believe there are no gods, and agnostics are somewhere in the middle: they don’t know.

Photo – new stars in Rho Oph dark cloud from NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope

But that is not how these ideas relate to each other. Theism and atheism are about belief, while agnosticism is about knowledge.

As one issue, theism and atheism are about what you believe. If you believe there is a god, then you are a theist. If you believe there are no gods, then you are an atheist.

As a different issue, agnosticism is about what you claim to be able to know. If you believe something, but you do not claim to be able to know for certain, then you are agnostic about that issue.

If somebody asks you whether you believe that a god exists, and you answer ‘I don’t know,’ then you are answering a different question that you were asked.

It may well be true that you don’t know whether a god exists, but you were being asked whether or not you believe that a god exists.

For example, I strongly believe there are no gods, and almost certainly no personal gods, based on applying reason to the best available evidence. So I am a strong atheist.

I also don’t claim to be able to know that there are no gods, because I am a fallible human being and there might be new evidence that I am currently unaware of. So I am also an agnostic.

However, I describe myself as an atheist because it more accurately gets across what I mean. If I said I am an agnostic, some people might mistakenly think that I am 50:50 on whether a god exists.

Michael Nugent is Chair of Atheist Ireland

19 comments:

  1. I say that I am an atheists but am careful not to say there are no gods, I prefer to say, I am an atheist because I can find no evidence for a god or gods.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm leaning towards agnosticism these days. The more I study nature, mathmatics and astromony the more I see that 'something' has set parameters.

      Delete
    2. Steve - but then we are logically compelled to ask what set the parameters for the "something"? Agnostic is ok insofar as it does not mean "I don't know but both are equally likely". That is most improbable.

      Delete
  2. AM,

    As improbable as a collection of star dust coalescing into both you and I having this conversation across the globe on a electro-mechanical device created by a hairless bipedal ape? And the message itself transmitted at the speed of light? Yet here we are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so the something that set the parameters is as probable as it is improbable? If so that is an intuition rather than a demonstration.

      Delete
  3. Intuition is seldom wrong. Perhaps that's where the true believers source their zeal? I'm aware it's an irrational 'belief' or feeling I have, and as such would not preach it to others. The old adage of keeping one's own council on such matters is wise I feel.

    I don't believe in a 'God'. But I do believe in a fundamental drive that pushes everything forward. What started it or for what purpose I do not know. I've seen some inexplicable things which confound my understanding of science and logic, so I know there is far more to life as we know it. Perhaps I should write down some of the things I've come across here in the Bush or overseas, but for some reason I fear ridicule.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Intuition is a hunch and is probably as wrong as it is right. Gamblers intuit they are going to win each horse they back but ...
      Are we hardwired to believe? I don't think so, more hardwired to fear as an evolutionary defence mechanism to help us avoid danger.
      What is the fundamental drive if not natural? It has to be supernatural and we have no evidence of any of that. A fundamental drive that pushes everything forward should not become a god of the gaps theory whereby because we don't grasp the drive we fil in the gaps with god. Brian Greene is pretty good on this. There will always be more to life as we know it and hopefully there always will be and act as a driver for us to continue to go forward.
      I get that about fearing ridicule and I certainly don't want that to occur because as much as I defend the principle it it can also stifle free inquiry.
      I was interested in what you said because you are not some bible bashing scripture squawker. I don't do the supernatural, therefore rule out any causal explanation that is not natural.

      Delete
  4. This debate cannot be defined until we understand consciousness. Whether consciousness is the matrix behind the matter as some theoretical physicists believe or a byproduct of a part of the brain that from a neurological perspective we can't yet dissect as Brian Greene, as mentioned, argues quite well on various podcasts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I might be better to claim it cannot be concluded rather than defined. I think it is pretty much defined as it stands.
      As the evidence suggests that the only explanations for anything are natural and there are no supernatural explanations for anything, we are best to go with the Dennett / Greene view. Consciousness external to the brain is a very dubious proposition.

      Delete
  5. Consciousness and it's potential capabilities fascinate me. I get intrigued by the idea of higher levels of consciousness and connections in the universe although if pushed I would agree it's probably our inability to fully understand the brain that make consciousness appear mystic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It doesn't appear mystic to me but then nothing does. Makes me wonder if I am missing out on something or am colour blind in that respect. From the blanket protest when I first learned of the Diderot concept of consciousness as the property of matter, I have taken the view that there is nothing other than material to it.

      Delete
  6. Gamblers are prone to desire above all other emotion, i'd argue that overules their intuition. If you look at the highly successful poker players they are very diciplined to walk away from a losing streak were an ordinary gambler forever chases the dragon.

    Are we hardwired to believe? I simply do not know though I am aware of fellow apes that display the beginnings, perhaps, of religious behaviour.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mysterious-chimpanzee-behaviour-could-be-sacred-rituals-and-show-that-chimps-believe-in-god-a6911301.html

    But what 'IS' the fundamental drive, why does it exist at all, and why is it so ubiquitous across even the most inhospitable of places? Why does life exist at all? I'm not invoking a supernatural explanation, science just needs to catch up with a lot in this plane of existence. It will no doubt someday provide the answers.

    A few months ago I saw something in the sky which defied logic. I was dumbfounded by it's capability, it was far beyond any aircraft I know of. At least one using a combustion engine. People roll their eyes when I tell them so I don't anymore. I was'nt under the influence of any substance and in fact had my 8 year old daughter in the car (she didn't see it- far more interested in facetiming her friends!)

    I know I'm not explianing myself clearly, I'm still trying to process it myself but I appreciate your feedback.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The truth is, your just realistic. The human race has a deep longing to be part of a deeper awareness. However unlikely, it drives our imagination, for good and bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would hope so. I just can't see anything else to it. It would take an enormous leap of faith which I do not have to believe otherwise.

      Delete
  8. Steve R,

    Gamblers are prone to desire above all other emotion

    The same could be said of believers. Against all the odds, previous experience, and available evidence, they still hope for a miracle or some supernatural intervention. The Gambler hopes for one last win.

    the poker players you refer to are calculating logicians not true believers.

    The Independent piece is one of the very few links in comments that I have ever opened. While reading it only in part, it struck me as a very weak case for religious belief. It seemed to work backwards and inferred because people have done this as a form of religious ritual, earlier apes may have done so as well. A more plausible take is that humans learned the practice from earlier apes and culturally applied it.

    I think everybody has had an experience of some sort that has jolted them. But over time we come to understand what was at first not explicable often soon is. People genuinely believe what their eyes tell them then the brain works it out for them.
    Now if the dead in the graveyard down the road started to come out of their graves for a daily game of soccer I would say WT Holy F. Then I'd go off in search of a natural explanation if I ever got over the shock of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AM,

      All fair points and time will tell, perhaps I'll find a reason for what i saw and I am very much a phyiscal evidence and reasoned logic sort of person so no doubt I'll keep looking for an answer.

      Peter&David,

      I agree and thanks for replying. It's just a daft gut feeling I have. Ah well, at least the footballs back on! lol

      Delete
  9. Interesting thread. The fact is that we just do not know with any certainty why or what. Though what we do know with certainty is that the Abrahimic god claims of the Torah, Bible and Qu'ran are absolute ballix.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that is definitely the case about the claims of the Abrahamic religions. There are some things we can be very definite about: biological evolution and cosmological time. The origins of either have not yet been discovered and might never be. Science discovers lots while religion uncovers nothing.

      Delete
  10. Sean Mallory says

    To David and whoever else maybe interested

    The Body Keeps the Score
    by Bessel Van Der Kolk

    Read this over lockdown after being recommended by ‘she who must be obeyed’ and found it very enlightening (ditch the word ‘very’ – after a brief discussion just been told by same person it is a P3 word and is not required).....harsh!

    Thought that this might interest you. It is a fascinating insight in to trauma and how it is dealt with by ourselves and the medical profession and how the brain reacts to the trauma and interacts to various treatments. Pumping prosaic is not always the solution!

    The relevant aspect of it all possibly to your interest in to the functioning of the brain and consciouness is how the brain actually functions. As I say, I found it fascinating.....the brain being really a series of chemical reactions....and if we were to be so bold as to expand upon that then all we perceive around us is a series of chemical reactions and their results...grass, trees, other people, the moon, the solar system and the universe.....it isn't a philosophical book but a pragmatic medical treatment book on trauma but those aspects of the brain might interest you.

    ReplyDelete