Agnostic or Atheist?

This issue has, of course, been treated to many times before in many forums, but I feel the need to offer my two cents' worth.

When it comes to the irreligious, "agnostic" and "atheist" are certainly the most common words tossed around.  But, as with many other somewhat similar terms - and these are similar only to an extent, as I will show later - these words are tossed around with inaccurate meaning more often that I find comfortable. I can understand, though, why this is so. Lots of people would say that the different denotations, and more so the connotations, can be a little bit confusing; I myself was not entirely accurate about my perception of the difference, not too long ago. But I think the most common reason people don't understand the difference it that they simply don't want to understand.

To many, the difference between an agnostic and an atheist is like the difference between a Jain and a Daoist: they don't know too much about them, and so long as it doesn't affect their lives directly, they are too similar to be bothered with the difference. Except that they're not. Now, my point here is not the nature of these two groups, so I'll leave the exploration to the readers' discretion. The point is, labels are misappropriated because of a lack of knowledge, which can often be traced back to a lack of ability to be bothered. Now, I know this isn't the case with many of the people I know who aren't clear about the difference. As I've said, many see it as tricky. For some of those whom I meet, though, this hypothesis of disinterest holds true.

The most common misconception seems to be that agnosticism is an intermediate step between religion and atheism. This puts someone who claims to be agnostic, but not atheist, in a somewhat convenient social position. These persons do not profess belief in deities they don't accept, but they're not cast in the same light by theists as those who call themselves atheist. The idea that agnosticism is "less severe" than atheism has, in fact, been around for quite a while. Biologist Edward Aveling, over dinner with colleague Charles Darwin one evening, is quoted as saying that "'Atheist' was but 'Agnostic' writ aggressive, and 'Agnostic' was only 'Atheist' writ respectable." Now, I can't say if Aveling was professing his own opinion, or if he was speaking on behalf of society, but the idea is the same.

Gnosticism is the state of knowing. Thus Agnosticism, the prefix "a-" meaning "without" (as in asexual and amoral), is the state of unknowing - the belief that that the nature of a particular subject (gods, the universe, etc.) is unknown or unknowable. Similarly, as theism is the belief in a god or gods, atheism is the lack of that belief. Atheism is not antitheism; it represents neither a claim that there cannot be a god nor, in its true form, antipathy or animosity for theists or theism; the choice to wage war is that of the individual and has nothing to do with what he or she believes or disbelieves. Thus, at person can in fact be and atheist AND agnostic. Similarly, there are, in fact, agnostic theists. This is possible because one can believe something while accepting that it is not infallible and is subject to correction. Thus I submit that not only are most agnostics either theist or atheist, as you either believe in a supreme being or lack that belief, but that most atheists are by nature agnostic, as the reason they lack belief probably has something to do with the fact that they had no reason TO believe, and thus no knowledge that this is true. There also exists no proof that there IS no god, so it would be pretty silly to claim to be gnostic on the mater. Alternatively, there are persons who call themselves (or meet the description of) apathetic agnostics, who don't know and don't care.

*Deep breath.*
Was that comprehensible? A bit too ranty, perhaps? Ah, well.

Personally, until a short while ago, I didn't understand all this. I, too, was of the opinion that atheists claimed to know what they could not, and said that I was agnostic, not atheist. Even after that, I decided that it would be best to go by the title agnostic simply because it was easier to live with. As shown above, it is accepted by society to be the more docile of the two, and it's easier to communicate with people once they've accepted that you're open to their version of reasoning. (Plus, I don't imagine my very Christian mother would very much like to hear the word "atheist", nor would the majority of her side of the family, most of whom likely still believe I'm Christian.)

No longer. I'm an atheist (that's more fun to type than I thought it would be) - and an agnostic one at that. My suggestion to those who read this is to think about if either (or both) of these terms is applicable to you. Even if you're theistic, you could be agnostic. I myself know a few people who, quietly, accept the description of the agnostic theist. I don't know how your particular faith sees it, but I think it's better to accept a degree of ignorance than to claim to know what you do not. If you call yourself agnostic INSTEAD of theist or atheist, and you DON'T see yourself as an apathetic agnostic, (this sounds harsh, but) don't kid yourself. You're probably theist or atheist.

To wrap it all up, we could say that (a)gnosticism and (a)theism are separate in that one touches on absolutism or the lack thereof, while the other addresses the issue of belief. It now occurs to me that this entire post could have been one sentence long. That's depressing.

Well, this has been your humble ranter. Happy reading, and keep thinking critically.