|
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' - from Through the Looking Glass by feywulf I say that i am an atheist. Since i might be using a different meaning for the word than you, i will explain just what i mean with the word. In order to do that i must also define theism. There are three main words used to identify whether or not a person believes in a diety. They are atheism, theism, and agnosticism. But there are more than three ways to believe or not believe in a deity. One could believe in a god and call themself a theist. Another could believe that they know that a god exists, and call themself a theist. These two would not have the same degree of belief. There also is the person who believes that there are no gods and calls themself an atheist. And the person who believes that they know that there are no gods and calls themself an atheist. And then there is the person who says i don't believe in gods or the lack of them, and that person is an agnostic. Some theists would call the atheist who believes in no gods, but doesn't claim to know that there are no gods an agnostic. Vice versa an atheist could say that a theist who believes but doesn't know is also an agnostic. Most likely neither of them would call themselves agnostic. The term agnostic is usually used to imply lack of knowledge, while many people as a matter of practice say that they know instead of that they believe. Calling someone an agnostic implies that they don't have a belief either way, which is not true of the person who believes in no god, or the person who believes in a god. A new adjective would be helpful. I propose that there are five practical divisions of belief about the existance of deity. An agnostic, who holds no belief about the existence of deity. An agnostic atheist, or atheistic agnostic, who believes that there is no god or gods, but doesn't know it. An agnostic theist, or theistic agnostic, who believes that there is a god or gods, but does not know it. A gnostic atheist, who knows that there is no god or gods. A gnostic theist, who knows that there is a god or gods. As i am an empiricist and not a rationalist i can see no justifiable grounds to be an gnostic atheist. It is impossible to prove that there are no gods, of any kind absolutely. Conversely, unless you've met a god, or seen direct evidince of a god, you can't prove that there is a god or gods absolutely. So gnostic theism is also unjustifiable, except for individual cases such as Moses, who supposedly met a god. Although it is impossible to prove absolutely that there are no gods, one can prove within reason that there probably aren't. If you look around for evidince of gods and find none, you can reasonably assume that there aren't any, or at least none close enough to be relevant. I don't know if there are any people who are aware of the concept of a god and who hold no belief about the existence of gods, but i can't see how it would be unreasonable. Either god(s) exist(s), or they don't. I see no reason to not believe in one or the other, except for lack of interest. As for agnostic theism it seems to be a natural condition for people to want to believe in something unseen. As such it is a normal irrationality. There are arguments that attempt to prove the necessity of the existence of a 'god', but which do not define what it has proven the existence of, if it has proven anything at all. If there was reliable objective evidence for the existence of a god, then there probably wouldn't be so many different religions. At least not with such a wide variety of beliefs. Without such evidence, it seems unreasonable to believe in agnostic theism, though there are reasons to be a part of a religious group that do not relate to the truth of its claims. I said at the start of this essay that i say i am an atheist. I should specify which kind i am, gnostic or agnostic. I am an agnostic atheist, because it seems to be the most reasonable position to have. |