h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Your typical atheist activist would argue that if one looks at the word atheist -- 'a', meaning 'not', 'theist', meaning 'one who believes in god(s)' -- then the definition of an atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in god(s), not someone who believes there is no God, or even particularly cares about it. The intention of the word 'atheist' is inherently simply to divide the world into two groups, those who answer 'yes' to the question 'do you positively believe in a god or gods', and people who don't. There is indubitably no middle ground. An atheist in this case can believe there is no god, not be sure, not care, or have never heard of the concept of 'god'.

On the other hand, it is the contention of lexicographers the world over that a word means what people intend it to mean now, not what it was originally intended to mean or what its etymology implies it means. In this respect it is unarguable that by the far the most common use for the word atheist is 'one who positively believes there is no God', something which our atheist activist would call 'strong' or 'explicit' atheism, to discern it from a type of atheism adhered to by a huge number of people, in which belief is absent but so is conviction.

It gets more complicated, because some people would claim to be certain of the non-existence of certain gods (due, for instance, to contradictory attributes such as omnipotence and omniscience), but not of others, making them explicit atheists in some cases and implicit atheists in others.

"Hang on!" say the agnostics. You can't go telling me that people who 'aren't sure' or 'don't know' are atheists, that's what I am, and I'm an agnostic, damn it! Well, in this case we can be absolutely certain what the word means, because it was coined and defined by the eminent philosopher Thomas Huxley in 1876. Agnosticism has to do with what you believe can be proved, not what you actually believe. Agnostics believe that the question of gods existence is inherently unprovable. Agnostics can be atheists or theists. After all, your typical theist doesn't think the existence of god can be proved, in fact, they're rather proud of it, because by believing it anyway they have shown themselves to have a lot of faith (cf. 'wishful thinking', 'credulity'). The agnostic position is largely taken by atheists who have allowed society to lead them to believe that atheism is morally corrupt (much like the writer of this article), and therefore they'd better find a different word for it. In other words, the typical modern definition for an agnostic would be "intellectual coward".

So the moral of the story is, use the words to mean whatever you like, but just make damned sure you define them carefully first, otherwise you'll find yourself in meaningless arguments.

Joss

You won't get any argument on your position on agnostics from me. However, as the writer of the article, I'm curious as to where you got this observation: "The agnostic position is largely taken by atheists who have allowed society to lead them to believe that atheism is morally corrupt (much like the writer of this article), and therefore they'd better find a different word for it."

I'm atheist and proud, and I find atheists to generally be a group with exceptional moral standards. As I say in the article, "most atheists, since they believe in no afterlife, place a higher value on this life than other groups." Of course, the language was changed by the editors so the point no longer carries.

Read this version for a better perspective: a142804

Let's try that link again: A142804

I apologise. The article, and some subsequent conversations, make it sound like you are an agnostic with a distaste for the term "atheist". I'm thinking specifically of your use of the phrase "this is not *necessarily* the case".

However, I was really just trying to make a point about agnosticism in general, not your beliefs specifically. Sorry about that.

Joss

You made your point about agnosticism quite effectively. That I could only pick that little nit illustrates as much.