Atheists v Agnostics. The Second Great Schism

Any student of religious history will know that in AD 1054, the Roman church officially separated from its eastern counterpart, after many years of conflict. Conflict which did not, of course, end there. But there has, recently, been another great divide, which is less well known.

With any form of human endeavour, as a movement becomes more popular and attracts more people, the struggle against orthodoxy is often overtaken by internal dispute. So it is with those who are not religious believers.

It may seem strange to those of us today who do not believe, to realise that the confidence to speak publicly about such matters is a comparatively recent phenomenon and is limited in scope. Only one hundred years ago anyone ‘outing’ themselves as a non-believer had to be cautious of offending others and the possible repercussions thereof. Indeed, the same is true today in parts of the United States of America and most Islamic countries. But for Europeans and those living in other more secular areas of the world, including those parts of the US not dominated by the Christian right, it has become a non-issue. Perhaps something for personal reflection rather than shouting from a podium but a comfortable stance nonetheless. But within these ranks, a difference of opinion has arisen…..

Do you define yourself as an atheist or an agnostic?

I am an atheist, although I rarely use the term; refusing to be defined by a negative I prefer to label myself a humanist. The finer points of identity aside, I do not spend my time proselytizing my lack of belief, but I will answer truthfully if the subject arises. When this occurs there is often an exchange which goes something like this;

“Do you believe in God?”

“No, I’m an atheist”.

“Ah, but you should say that you’re an agnostic. Because you cannot know there is no God, the most you can honestly say is, ‘I don’t know’”.

This divide between atheists and agnostics is becoming more common and it stems from a complete misunderstanding. Which I hope to clarity here. Let’s begin with a definition of each from the Oxford English Dictionary;

Atheist - A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic - A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature

of God

At first glance these seem remarkably similar but they are not. The first deals with belief, whereas the second deals with knowledge.

In practical terms, an atheist does not assert that there is no god. Rather, an atheist will say that he/she cannot belief in a god without satisfactory evidence. I should clarify at this point that atheists do not accept anything written in a book or any personal testimony but require something more substantial; proof which can be empirically tested to reliably give the same result. The difference between refusing to believe and stating that there is no god may seem a fine distinction but it is an important one. And this is where agnosticism comes in.

To be agnostic, about anything, is simply to say that you do not know. This position does not rest on, or refer to, your beliefs only to what you actually know. It is therefore correct to say that everyone in the world is truly agnostic, in the religious sense, because nothing can be truly known about gods. Committed Christians, Muslims, Hindus and others will say that they ‘know’ but in reality, they are only affirming the depth of their belief. We need only consider that the faiths make competing claims and therefore cannot all be right, to see that no human possesses empirically tested knowledge of the divine, however strongly and sincerely they might believe.

So, perhaps non-believers would be more accurate to describe themselves as agnostic atheists? Admitting that they do not and cannot ‘know’ but not believing. But before we settle on that definition, we must look at probability.

Atheists, at least those that think deeply about their position, assert that their lack of belief is due to two things. The first is the simple truth that there is no evidence for the existence of gods. The second is that, in the modern world, with our ever-increasing knowledge of the universe and how everything works, the probability is that there is no God, or gods. Indeed, unlike previous generations who had little scientific endeavour on which to base their views, the modern atheist can state that the universe and what we know of its fundamental rules, functions perfectly well without the need to hypothesise about a creator or a guiding intelligence.

In a humorous response to the complaint from believers that science doesn’t know everything, the comedian Dara O’Briain, once said,

“science knows that it doesn’t know everything, or it would stop”.

This is funny, at least the way he delivers it, but it is also a good point. Only religion claims to have all the answers. Science is not a collection of answers, it is a process. But that process has given us some remarkable insights into the universe. Insights that the authors of the world’s holy books and the greatest religious minds of history did not possess.

We know that the earth does not exist within a sphere of water as the bible describes it, nor is heaven above the clouds or hell under the earth. We know that the sun and the moon are not merely lights placed in the sky to distinguish between day and night, which in Genesis already existed before they were put up there. We know that sun does not revolve around the earth. With the exception of the literalists, who believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God and therefore all scientific knowledge that does not agree with it is wrong, most religious people no longer believe these things. But their religions are based upon them and cherry picking is the only way such obvious fallacies can be reconciled.

Every culture on earth has its own creation myth. Often involving gods or animals that died to create the earth or had parts lopped off by other gods, or something equally far-fetched. To our modern eyes they are clearly false and are seen as little more than amusing folk tales but Jews, Christians, Muslims and Hindus cling to their own myths as if they are somehow different, exempt from our critical thinking.

The biblical authors thought that God lived above the clouds. Later religious thinkers claimed that he existed within our universe but somehow unseen. Today it has become popular to claim that God created the universe and lives outside it. As human knowledge expands, God is driven further away. Those that accept the idea that everything must have a cause and that this proves God created the universe, must answer honestly the question; if, by your own logic, everything must have a cause, who created God? It is intellectually dishonest to assert something as truth and then automatically exclude God because it suits.

For atheists then, the probability that God does not exist weighs upon the agnostic position that it is not possible to know. It is impossible to prove a negative and whilst it is true to say that such knowledge is therefore impossible, it is a valid position to say that the likelihood is that all gods were invented by men and that the monotheistic God is simply a development from the older pantheons and is no more believable.

The late Christopher Hitchens said,

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

Considering how much more we know than it was possible for our ancient ancestors to know, the claim that a creator God exists and, moreover, that he loves us and cares what happens to us, is far more extraordinary than any scientific idea. The onus of proof therefore rests with the religions of the world. But as human knowledge increases with exponential speed, the religious position remains unchanged and, most importantly, unproven.

To be agnostic is valid and applies to most of us about most things, but atheists have every right to refuse to ‘believe’ in a God without evidence.

I freely that I do not ‘know’ there is no God. But if the question were to be outlined on a scale of one to ten, with one being absolute proof of God’s existence and ten being absolute proof that he is fictional, the honest agnostic position would not be five, a comfy halfway point between the poles. It would be eight for most people claiming to be agnostic and nine point five for me.

Put this scenario to the next person who claims that agnosticism is the only honest position. Explain the way human knowledge has consistently pushed God further away and made belief in religious creation myths impossible, then insist that they are honest about their own position on the scale. The result may surprise them.