In what follows, I propose to present a clear refutation of the claims made by many with the RRS that a conflation of the terms 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' is acceptable and that they mean the same thing. Or to put it differently, the claim that the terms 'atheist' and 'agnostic' can be conflated and are synonymous. To accomplish, this I'll briefly survey the nature of propositional attitudes; make mention of the some problems and absurd corollaries which follow from this conflation. Below, in small italic print, is the post by Todangst. One need not read this in order to analyze my critique. But it's helpful for two reasons: quick reference for me and for anyone reading to see if I'm accurately interpreting and representing the views expressed there. With that said, I have one final note before proceeding. I have not viewed the video which is available here, so I won't group the promoter of that video with Todangst's position until I do.

Todangst post on this issue:

A good deal of people consider themselves to be agnostics. By this they mean to identify themselves as doubters on the question of a 'god's' existence. They usually hold to this position of doubt because reason compels them to doubt the existence of any 'god', yet they resist calling themselves atheists because they also want to hold to their disbelief tentatively. Their expressed reason for this is clear: while their reason leads them to doubt the claims of theism, reason also demands that they keep an open mind on the question of 'god'.

If you are one such person then it might interest you to know that your doubt actually makes you an atheist, not an agnostic. Why is this so? Because the word 'theism' simply implies a belief in a god. Therefore, if you find yourself identifying yourself primarly as a doubter of the existence of a 'god', then you are an a-theist... someone who does not hold to a belief in a 'god', someone who does not accept the claims of theists. That's all the term means - a position of non acceptance, a position of non belief. The fallback position.

You might feel that the word 'atheist' still implies more than what you actually hold to. A common response to hearing that one is an 'atheist' is for some to say: "But I don't disbelieve, I just don't believe!" But take a look at those words carefully: if you literally "don't disbelieve" - then, by double negation, you'd believe! Not disbelieving is believing. But you are not identifying yourself as a theist with doubts, right? You're identifying yourself as a doubter... period. That is atheism.

But you still seek some sort of middle ground, right? Something between theism and rejection of theism. Well relax, because the atheism IS your middle ground. "A-theism"' implies everything that a rational doubter means when he declares himself an 'agnostic', for while it's a common misperception that atheism implies a denial or rejection or active disbelief in the very possibility of a god, this is not so. In fact, we require a special term for those those who hold to such beliefs: "Strong Atheism". The rest of us doubters simply don't hold the belief... we're all atheists, whether we are doubters or outright rejectors of theism. So the missing 'middle ground' that you are looking for, rational tenativeness, is already included within the term 'atheism'.

So what does the word "agnostic" actually mean and how ought we use it? Notice the 'a' in front. 'Agnosticism' is a position counter to gnosticism. And what is gnosticism? It's the belief that a human being can possess knowledge about a god. It's actually an epistemological term - about the possibility of knowledge in regard to 'god' claims. Agnostics tend to believe that human beings can't actually know anything about something beyond nature, something theists call 'supernatural'. So they believe that there's no way for a human to know anything about a 'god'. But there are many theists who agree! Theists can be be agnostics! In fact, many theists say that they hold to their god belief on faith because they agree that we humans can't know things about the supernatural, or 'god'. Some very famous theologians have agreed that man is limited and that this means that man cannot have 'god knowledge". The list of theologians would include people like Martin Luther or Soren Kierkegaard.

So when one says that they are an 'agnostic' and they mean a 'doubter', they are really saying that they are agnostic atheists. So if you find that this describes your own 'agnosticism', welcome to atheism!

- Todangst

SEE ALSO: Agnosticism and it's many misconceptions by RRS co-founder Rook Hawkins, and the definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary.

FAQ

Q: But I don't disbelieve in god! I just don't believe!

A: Again, if you literally 'don't disbelieve' then it would follow that you believe. You obviously don't mean to say this! What you probably mean to say is that you don't believe, OR reject the possibility of 'god' claims either. This leaves you without any theistic beliefs. Unless you are a pantheist or a polytheist (a person with god beliefs other than theism), this makes you an a-theist. Atheism does not necessarily imply anything other than a lack of theistic belief.

Q: But my dictionary says that 'atheism' is defined as ....

A: Will it surprise you to find out that dictionaries exist to provide definitions that people might use? I hope not! Will it surprise you to find out that not all of these definitions are appropriate for every context? I hope not!

Would it surprise you to find out that some theological and philosophical terms have colloquial usages? And that dictionaries list these definitions, even definitions based on common error, along with the proper theological definitions, and even, in some cases, in lieu of the proper definition?

Well, here's what you should know if you're going to cite a dictionary in a philosophical discussion: Dictionaries exist to provide all the popular definitions that exist for a word. If people use the word 'atheist' to mean 'satanic' or 'evil', then a dictionary might list that meaning. If people use 'atheist' to mean 'strong atheist' then a dictionary might list that meaning.

Dictionaries might even list the actual meaning of the 'atheist' or 'agnostic'. But one thing that dictionaries usually do not do is provide a rigorous philosophical justification for every definition listed. And that's just one reason why citing a dictionary in a theological or philosophical conversation is not the proper way to settle an issue:

First, you're not providing a source that actually provides a philosophical justification for the definition, they are merely citing common usage.

Second, it's likely that you're importing a non theological usage of the word into a theological debate, particulary if you are going through the list of alternative definitions until you find a definition that suits your particular need.

And that's a fallacy of equivocation, a fallacy just as silly as thinking that you could jack up your car with a Jack of Hearts.

Q: But common usage creates new meaning for words all the time. We should accept these popular conceptualizations.

A: Yes, common error does lead to new usages. But it is an error to transport these new definitions based on erroneous misperceptions back to their original context. We call this sort of error a fallacy of equivocation.

Example: the word 'agnostic' is now a catch-all term for 'undecided'. People literally say things like "coffee or tea, I'm agnostic on that."

Now, if a person were to enter into a discussion of 2nd century gnosticism, and were to try and use the word 'agnostic' as indicating 'uncertainty' they would obliterate the actual intention of the word 'gnostic' as it is used in this theological context, to indicate knowledge.

To begin, we need to get clear on the propositional attitudes one can take towards any proposition. For any proposition, P, a person can and must take one of the following attitudes: belief that P; belief that not-P; witholding of belief that P or belief that not-P. Regarding the proposition 'God exists', the first corresponds to theism, the second atheism, and the third agnosticism. This principle should be intuitively clear for most, but I'll give one more example to help one understand. Take the propostion 'Cats exist in our universe'. Of course, most of us (I hope) will accept this proposition as true. This is the first possiblilty (i.e, "belief that P" from our description). But what would the other two look like. Well, the second would hold the following: The proposition that 'Cats exist in our universe' is false; or, in other terminology, such a person rejects the propostion that 'Cats exist in our universe' (i.e., beleif that not-P). The third possibility would look like this: our subject in question has no opinion on the matter; he or she simply doesn't have a position on the truthfulness of the proposition 'Cats exists in the universe'. Such a situation can stem from a number of things. Maybe the person (e.g., a young child) doesn't yet understand the concept of a cat and is not equipped to muse over the truth status of this proposition. Any example may be someone who's look at the evidence he sees for and against the proposition and just can't decide whether beleif that P or beleif that not P in this instance is more reasonable. This last stance which one takes to propositional attitudes is usually expressed by saying "I don't know" in response to a question or issue.

With our understanding of propositional attitudes, we can now begin to critique the view promoted by the RRS that 'atheist' and 'agnostic' are synonymous. Let's first get a few references from the RRS on this issue:

Todangst's post:

If you are one such person then it might interest you to know that your doubt actually makes you an atheist, not an agnostic. Why is this so? Because the word 'theism' simply implies a belief in a god. Therefore, if you find yourself identifying yourself primarly as a doubter of the existence of a 'god', then you are an a-theist... someone who does not hold to a belief in a 'god', someone who does not accept the claims of theists. That's all the term means - a position of non acceptance, a position of non belief. The fallback position.

You might feel that the word 'atheist' still implies more than what you actually hold to. A common response to hearing that one is an 'atheist' is for some to say: "But I don't disbelieve, I just don't believe!" But take a look at those words carefully: if you literally "don't disbelieve" - then, by double negation, you'd believe! Not disbelieving is believing. But you are not identifying yourself as a theist with doubts, right? You're identifying yourself as a doubter... period. That is atheism.

Another source of the postion on this issue can be found in Sapient's claim that we are literally born atheists and must be taught to believe in God during his debate with Comfort.

With these comments in mind, let's see how they hold up. The best way I can see to introduce one to the confusion present in this view is through an illustration.

Let's assume that you're out working on a farm with some elderly farm owner. You're working in the fields, etc. and then you decide to bring up the issue of whether there is extraterrestial life on other planets with this old-timer. Here's how the conversation goes:

You: Do you think extraterrestrials exist?

Farmer: Oh, shucks, I don't know.

Now you with some philosophical background you decide to ask him to clarify what he thinks.

You: What exactly do you mean?

Farmer: What I mean is that I just don't know if there are or if there aren't any extraterrestials. Maybe there are and maybe there aren't; I just don't have enough info to make an decision either way. So, to come back to your original question, I do not hold the belief that extraterrestials exist. I just don't know about the issue.

At this point, a RRS member happens to be overhearing the conversation, and insofar as he feels he has a duty to correct what he seems as misguided, he enters the conversation.

RRS member: Farmer. I think you're confused on this issue. When you say that you literally don't believe that aliens exist, then by double-negation you do in fact believe that aliens don't exists. You see, to not disbelieve in something is to believe in it; and likewise, to not believe in something is to disbelieve. This is as clear as day, old man, and maybe you should just come out and state that you don't believe aliens exist, for this is truly your position.

The farmer looks at our rational responder in a quite frustrating manner and responds.

Farmer: Look, man. When I tell you that I don't know the truth value of some propostion, this is indeed what I mean. You're simply wrong. I neither believe that aliens exist nor that they don't exist. I've witheld my judgment on this issue because I don't have enough evidence. Are you claiming that I can never do such a thing as withold belief in a proposition? If you are, then how can you explain the usage of phrases like "I don't know" which permeate the english language. I think you've been in the sun too long.

I think the farmer's response is quite cogent, but what is it that fundamentally wrong with making claims like that "if you literally 'don't disbelieve' then it would follow that you believe. You obviously don't mean to say this!" as Todangst does? The problem is that such a position reduces us to two clearly absurd conclusions: either we take a position on every proposition in existence; or we all hold an innumerable number of contradictory beliefs. Both of these are unacceptable. But, you may ask, why does his position reduce us to this? To see why, we simply need to analyze another proposition, say the proposition 'Aliens exist in our universe'. Now, if I withhold judgment on this issue, then I'm literally saying that I don't believe that aliens exist, and I don't believe that aliens don't exist. But Todangst seems to think that we can't do this. But if we can't withold judgment on any propostion, what is left but for us to either believe that P or believe that not-P. I think you get what I'm saying. But what about the other horn of the dillema? Well, if Todangst is right, then when I withold belief in any propostion, P, then what I'm really doing is believing that P and not-P because withholding belief consists of literally not believing P or not-P; but Todangst thinks this entails believing both P and not-P. (Reread the last several quotes of his if you're don't see this.) This would actually make such statments as "I don't know" have a meaning quite contrary to how we usually view such phrases.

To the question of atheism and agnosticism, an atheist believes that God doesn't exist and an agnostic believes neither that God exists or that God doesn't exist. Now, Todangst wants to go to great detail to discuss the roots of such words and such. First, his understanding of the etymology of greek words such as 'gnosis' are completely wrong. Furthermore, he's simply wrong to group these two into one categories. People know and use these terms this way all the time. But, OK, I don't want to get into some semantic war on the meaning of terms. So, here's waht will say. The term 'zatheist' means someone who believes that God doesn't exist. The term 'zagnostic' means someone who neither believes that God exists nor that God doesn't exist. (We could add further 'ztheist', but since this word isn't under attack, I'll bypass that.) But now that we're clear on terms, Todangst, are you still going to insist that zagnostics and zathiests are the same. If so, why? The truth of the matter is that for any propostion a person can have one of three positions toward that proposition, and this doesn't change if we're talking about 'Unicorns exist in the physical world' or 'God exists'. I person can genuinely sit in between atheists and theists as it regards this latter proposition. I think I've made my case for this position, so the onus is the RRS, Todangst, Sapient, or any other adherents of this view to give some reason for rejecting my analysis.

There are some concluding reflections that I think are important to the current debate. First, I think it's irresponsible for Sapient to go on national television and proclaim such a blantant falsity such as that we are born atheists, which he derives this notion from adhering to a position like Todangst's. Many people can't see the distinctions I've made above on their own as a result of a lack of philosophical training. This is no fault of their own necessarily, but it can have an affect on the way in which people think about God, religion, etc. and this is exactly why Sapient makes the point he did. But the problem is that it's a gross misunderstanding of philosophical issues. Now, the person watching such an event may be excused from such an error, but someone like Sapient, Todangst, etc., certainly shouldn't. As I've made clear, it's not a difficult concept to grasp that we lhave three options to any proposition, and the fact that Sapient and Todangst are ignorant of this reveals a lack of philosophical depth in their thought. Now, why should they be held accountable? Because anyone who makes such a bold statment that a belief is God is mind disorder must be claiming that they know quite a bit in realm of philosophical discourse insofar as this is where the discussion of God's existence MUST be dealt within. What I propose is that they take down the post by Todangst because it is the epitome of "irrationality," or it's at least a clear example of puerile philosophical discussion. Now, if some of you from the RRS disagree with me on this, please, by all means, give me some sort of reason for you're view.