Bertrand Russell on why the term “agnostic” is for show

October 25, 2013 • 11:36 am

Reader Dom sent me a Bertrand Russell quote from what appears to be a very short essay, “Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?” (1947)

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of Homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

One problem here is that yes, you cannot give a logical demonstration that the Greek gods don’t exist. (That’s the “you can’t prove a negative” line.)  But you can give a practical demonstration that their existence is improbable, for if they interact with the world you should find some evidence of that interaction; and you find none.

One concludes from this piece that philosophers, at least in Russell’s time, respected logic more than evidence, and were more concerned with logical possibilities than with probabilities.

The answer, of course, is that if you have no belief in gods, you should call yourself an “atheist.”  The term “agnostic” is for wimps.

194 thoughts on “Bertrand Russell on why the term “agnostic” is for show”

  2. ” philosophers … respected logic more than evidence, and were more concerned with logical possibilities than with probabilities”

    I think that’s it, in a nutshell.

  3. I still prefer Dawkins’ seven point scale over Russell’s three-state categorization. The Dawkins approach is much more nuanced about saying, “I don’t see any evidence for one, ergo I live as if there is not one.”

  4. When you say that the term “agnostic” is for wimps, I know are doing so in keeping with your rules about civility here. But I must insist Jerry that you are being too kind.

          1. This is one of the weakest interactions I have ever seen on this website. Massively boring. Can’t wait to see who else will have leapt on this particular exchange.

          3. Well, maybe your somewhat singular perspective is brought on by the black holes of knowledge regarding the gravity of the matter.

          4. You don’t see Barry on this site very often. I think this is more his field. He’s a top man who can quickly get to the bottom of things. He can charm some people but I find him a bit strange. I’m not sure if he’s bipolar, but his mood can swing up then down. He used to muse about Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics, but after the campaign to elect Ron, politics distracted him from his research. Then he started gambling, always playing double-you or quit, one game after another; it really went to his head.

            /@

          6. I shall open a can of lager and toast to Barry. A vast and deep mind indeed, yet so fleeing and quantumfiable in appearance.

            To Barry!

    2. 🙂 I think a few months back I engaged a Youtuber (bad move) who was flogging that old horse about the only defensible position being agnosticism. I politely asked that he look at the wiki entries on “strong” and “weak” atheism, and consider his stance in light of those definitions… and that staunchly “not knowing” was decidedly not in the “theist” camp, ergo agnosticism was really a subset of atheism… you either believe or you don’t.

      Boy did that little dinkums get pissed. “Don’t you go around trying to include ME into YOUR camp, you @#%$# flaff’n @#$#’n flogger fruahgf’naffle…”

      That’s when I knew I had crossed paths with a militant agnostic.

      1. Yes indeed. A subset of the “reasonable middle position, you people on either side are wrong, and I am so sick of you people on either side telling the other that they are wrong (irony alert), and by the way atheism is the same as religious belief,” position.

        I just experienced a heaping dose of that myself on another bl*, er, website, the other day. Though I admit I had a momentary pang of SIWOTI syndrome, I decided not to join the conversation.

        1. Ya I’ve run into that too at another joint of skeptics, but shruggies aboot religion which isn’t woo apparently and Jesus is all love and forgiveness, while of course the BuyBull isn’t taken literally.

          I asked if anyone would forgive the priest who caused your 3 year old to bury his bloody underwear in the furthest reaches of his closet in fear of hellfire if he talked about being spelunked by Father Nelson

          Kinda ended the thread

  5. My favorite Russell quote:

    The fundamental difference between the liberal and the illiberal outlook is that the former regards all questions as open to discussion and all opinions open to greater or less measure of doubt, while the latter holds in advance that certain opinions are absolutely unquestionable, and that no argument against them must be allowed to be heard.

    — Bertrand Russell, Freedom and the Colleges, 1940

    2. “Science is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.”

  6. I am one of those pedants who still holds that “agnostic” and “atheist” are independently useful as epistemological and ontological signifiers, respectively. Thus one could be an “agnostic atheist” or an “agnostic Hindu.” I fully realize, however, that that train has sailed. So yes, I tend to say atheist is the preferable term in everyday speech.

    1. I wouldn’t abandon the usage entirely. When it’s useful to make the distinction, offer up the definitions and then use them within the context of that discussion.

      In that sense, I would first offer a caveat that this is not to be confused with the early Christian heresy, and then proceed with the following four examples:

      Gnostic theist: “I know that my Redeemer liveth.”
      Agnostic theist: Believes there are one or more gods, but does not have certainty as to the matter.
      Agnostic atheist: Doesn’t find any claims of gods credible, but is unwilling to absolutely rule out the possibility.
      Gnostic atheist: Generally finds the whole notion of the divine incoherent and / or absolutely contradicted by trivially-obtainable observation.

      Cheers,

      b&

      1. I would argue Jerry fits into the ‘agnostic atheist’ camp following Matt Dillahunty’s point regarding knowledge being a subset of belief. While Jerry doesn’t believe any gods exist he doesn’t *know* it to be true and is willing, unlike PZ Myers, to change his belief should the right evidence present itself.

  7. I think Bertrand Russell’s view is correct. The claim, “God exists.” is not an empirical claim. There is no evidence for it and it can not be tested against any evidence. Nor is it a logical claim like “2 plus 2 equals 4.”

    It is a metaphysical claim and is beyond confirmation by empirical test. It is not probable or improbable. As Alfred Jules Ayer argued, along with the logical positivist school, it is a meaningless statement. Cf. _Language, Truth and Logic_ by Alfred Jules Ayer.

    Possibility and impossibility are in the realms of logic.

    Probability and improbability are in the realms of science.

    Metaphysics is nonsense!

    1. “The claim, “God exists.” is not an empirical claim.”

      I might be missing something here? An inside joke or something?

      Perhaps in a philosophical Sophisticated Theologian™ context that might be the case, by definition as it were. But, in reality nearly every believer’s concept of god has some empirical aspect to it. If the believer believes their god actually exists and can affect our reality, what sense is there in pretending that “God exists” is not an empirical claim?

      Should I brace myself for a schooling in how philosophically unsophisticated I am?

      1. Which is why when asked “does god exist”, you should answer with a question “define god”. The only definable god that cannot be proven not to exist is the deistic god, and you are extremely unlikely to be asked that question by a deist.

        1. The deistic god is just as trivially disprovable as any theistic god. The deistic god, after all, is still a creator god. So which super-deisitic god created the deistic god? It’s turtles all the way down, again, with a Turing-style contradiction at the bottom. After all, the deistic god can no more rule out the possibility that some hidden super-deistic god created him than he can solve the Halting Problem. And if the deistic god can’t even theoretically know for sure whether or not he’s really the Alpha and the Omega, of what possible sense does it make to claim that he’s responsible for anything?

          Cheers,

          b&

    2. “The claim, “God exists.” is not an empirical claim.”

      I’m baffled too. It looks like an ordinary existence claim to me.

      Unless you attribute some extraordinary conditions to the magic agent (besides being magic). In which case you may want to have extraordinary evidence in order to make such a claim.

      But:

      – Inasmuch as it is a philosophical claim, it is uninteresting. As mentioned, it doesn’t apply to reality, saying nothing on probability.

      – Inasmuch as it is an empirical claim, which it mostly is used as, it is eminently testable.
      Generic magic action is excluded by now, at least informally as per the post. (Personally I think it is stronger than that. But that’s me.) Which is as far from the required (or not) extraordinary positive evidence that one could get.

    3. Metaphysical claims *can* be tested, in exactly the same way that very general factual (not empirical, that’s where the confusion arises, partially) hypotheses can be. It doesn’t follow that they can ever be 100% confirmed, but FAIAP, they can be, at least at any given time.

      Testing occurs via their *consequences*, just like, say, Newton’s law of gravitation is.

  8. Jerry, I love it when you beat me to the punch.

    All the gods have very specific properties which, of needs, must be in evidence if they are to exist in anything even vaguely resembling their claimed form. To conclusively and unquestionably disprove the existence of any god, one only need look for evidence where it must be found…and find nothing.

    That no god has ever even done so much as call 9-1-1 demonstrates that none of them have the means and / or moral conviction to do something about evil that even a young child with a cellphone does — let alone a mighty superhero. And that I may repeatedly blaspheme all gods as I have just done without fear of being smoted is equal evidence that the jealous gods don’t exist, either.

    Can one invent meaningless hypothetical entities whose existence cannot be disproven? Of course! Russell himself famously did so with his Teapot. But gods are not orbital teapots; they are forces more powerful than even Nature itself, and they have a vested interest at some level in humanity. And, just as we can know with certainty as absolute as is ever warranted that there is no Luminiferous Aether, we can be absolutely certain that there are no gods.

    Cheers,

    b&

    3. Thing about the teapot argument is tat it worked well when he said it but doesn’t hold up now because if someone was determined enough they could probably show there was no Martian teapot. I like the Homeric gawds argument much better.

      2. Well, what if one, sitting in an obscure portion of the Milky Way galaxy, claims that there is such a teapot in the Andromeda or Sombrero or another of a minimum 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe?

        1. Off topic, sorry, but the number of galaxies interests me. In my lifetime the estimate of their number has increased from 1,000 to your 10exp10.

          George Gamow (or perhaps a physicist of similar standing) said that there are only three interesting numbers: 0, 1 and infinity – and 1 is not all that interesting. Maybe there are an infinite number of galaxies. The cosmological implications of this speculation would be interesting to follow through.

          1. A lot of that has to do with the nature of the universe.

            There was a finite (but huge!) amount of “stuff” that was “created” as part of the Big Bang. Cosmological calculations plus Hubble observations is what gets us to the roughly quarter trillion to a trillion galaxies figures. Expect the James Webb telescope to further refine that number.

            But, of course, if any of the various multiverse theories is correct, there may well be an infinite number of Big Bang types of events, each of which has produced its own local volume of who-knows-how-many galaxies. Assuming, of course, that local conditions (including physical laws) in those universes is even anything similar enough to ours to produce something we would recognize as a galaxy….

            Cheers,

            b&

          2. Also, we can’t even see the whole universe because of how fast light travels to us and the stupid thing is expanding. 🙂

            So, there is an unknown number of galaxies outside the observable universe I’d suspect.

    1. It is just that the agnostic part is an unnecessary, pedantic, unparsimonious disclaimer but to each his own.

          4. He does appear to be a big fan of not appearing. Gods are tricky like that. 🙂

          5. You mean gods are good at not being seen?

            Come to think of it…Baihu not only is a god, he’s a master at not being seen. He can be sitting on his favorite chair in the middle of the living room and still, somehow, not be seen. You may be onto something….

            b&

          10. If “not being seen” is the defining characteristic of gods then I have a son who certainly qualifies. I know he lives in the house, and I see evidence of his passing, but he is rarely seen. He also fulfills the flowing beard qualification too, come to think of it.

          1. I’m not on the fence. It’s really uncomfortable up there, and crowded too, as you say. I am on the atheistic side, I just allow non-zero probabiliy that people from the other side can come up with a proof.

    2. Not all ignostics are apathetic…and, I suspect, your apathy diminishes rapidly when the theists start trying to shove Jesus into high school biology classes like a rusty barbed-wire wrapped Leica into…well, this is something of a family Web site, so perhaps I shouldn’t finish that analogy….

      b&

      1. A rusty Leica would be an abomination of Nephitic proportions; a barbed-wire wrapped Leica, damnable to eternity. (Worth a fortune at WestLicht, if genuine.)

        1. …which is exactly why you don’t want to have it shoved up your…um…the kids haven’t gone to bed yet, have they? Well, let’s just say that you don’t want the rusty barbed-wire-wrapped Leica…there…any more than you want a Jesus in your biology.

          Cheers,

          b&

      2. I would see Deepak Chopra as an ignostic – he always talks about this vague god notion.

        1. Yes.

          Don’t ask me why, but it’s somehow become the favorite whipping post for…shall we say…deeply suppository suggestions.

          Back in the day on USENET we generally used redwood two-by-fours for that purpose, but I’ll admit that there’s something somehow poetic about using a Leica instead.

          Cheers,

          b&

          1. Oh good. I was getting the reference then. 🙂 I suppose Canon would be a terrible camera to be lodged there as well esp if it was the common misspelling, Cannon! 🙂 Yikes!

          4. Funny you should mention that…I’m not aware of anybody doing serious astronomical work with the 1200 (though I’m absolutely positive that every single one ever made has been pointed at the Moon).

            However, if you have a look here:

            http://www.superwasp.org/

            you’ll see a total of eight Canon 200mm f/1.8 lenses mounted in a single array. More than a bit insane…but they’ve found over a hundred extra-solar planets already, and counting.

            The thing I find particularly amazing is that each lens is backed by a measly four megapickle sensor. I know those lenses are capable of far outresolving the sensors they’re using, and I can only imagine what they might be able to do with an upgrade….

            Cheers,

            b&

          5. Interesting project but crazy expensive when you can do the same with nice telescope lenses. Fun to try different things though.

          6. I wouldn’t be too sure. A 12° viewing angle is auper-ultra-wide for astronomy, and f/1.8 is almost magic faery dust bright — the Keck, for example, is f/1.75. (And has a focal length of 17,500 mm!) And the optical quality of that Canon lens is legendary. There might not be anything comparable that you can buy off the shelf, and anything custom of comparable quality is likely to be significantly more expensive.

            b&

          7. I guess I’m going by brute force experience of good optics of telescopes vs. good optics for cameras even at my consumer level. If I take a picture of the moon using my 8″ Schmidt Cassegrain and my 7D then take the same picture with my 300 mm prime lens L series f/4 I get much sharper results (incredible so) with my telescope. The scope glass is very good and it uses mirrors so I don’t know if that’s what makes the difference. It’s also inexpensive – the optical tube is around $2000 for its 8″ size while the lens I have is $1500. So, i figure that would scale up. But of course, one saves money because the telescope optical tube doesn’t have electronics in it like the lens for focusing.

            Having said that, using the Canon lenses is probably easier given the size…it would sure need a lot of precision.

            I think someone should pay me to take time off work and build an array of telescopes then those Canon lenses and see. 🙂

          8. Assuming the 8″ measurement of the telescope is its maximum aperture, that’s a physical opening of about 200mm. A 300mm f/4 lens has a physical aperture of 300 / 4 = 75 mm. To help put that in a bit more perspective and context, a 200mm f/1.8 lens has an aperture of 111 mm; a 400mm f/2.8 a 143mm aperture; and the 1200mm f/5.6 a 214mm aperture.

            In other words, you’d have to spend a hundred grand to get the largest production telephoto lens made to equal your telescope.

            A big part of that cost discrepancy, as you note, is that your telescope is using mirrors; it’s a reflector. Except for cheap (and typically nearly useless) camera lenses, they’re all refractors, and often using exotic materials (such as calcium fluorite). As I understand it, refractors are generally ideally preferred for astronomy but are rarely used because of cost and weight concerns. It might not be physically possible to build a ground-based instrument the size of the Keck as a refractor, no matter what level of technology you assume.

            If you’ve ever pointed your telescope at something on the ground during daylight hours — as I’m sure you have — you know how impractical such an instrument would be for general-purpose photography. But point it up at the sky at night, and you bring the Universe to your back yard….

            Cheers,

            b&

          9. Yes the SCT is a reflector – it bounces the light twice in the optical tube and then one more time up into the eyepiece. This causes some light loss but keeps the tube compact. SCT’s are good for astrophotography. Newtonian reflectors bounce the light into your eye only two times so they are longer but they require collimation. Then refractors are just too big to get the aperture you’re looking for. My 2000 mm focal length of my SCT is a good compromise.

          10. Sounds like an ideal backyard ‘scope. Big enough to actually see things, but not so heavy nor expensive that it’d stay under lock and key.

            One last bit of math…a lens with a 2 meter focal length and an 8″ optical aperture is f/10. Imagine how much deeper you’d be able to see with an f/1.8 lens (and try to not think about the cost or weight!).

            Cheers,

            b&

          11. Yeah, mine is an f/10 so your exposures are probably going to be longer and visually that can restrict you. I bought it ages ago because I wanted a good all around scope. It doesn’t have GPS or anything so I need to polar align it the old fashion way. I recently upgraded the mount so it has a precise tracker but I haven’t had the chance to use it much and the mount weighs a ton.

            A nice observation scope is a Dobsonian reflector. It doesn’t track so you can’t do astrophotography very well with it if at all but you can get nice sized ones for cheap and the images are a nice wide angle with the right eyepiece. My scope is not at all wide angle so it’s a pain to find things in it easily by eye.

          12. I’ve toyed with the idea of getting a telescope a couple times…but I live smack dab in the middle of what’s probably the worst light dome in the Four Corners states. Which is a shame, because a half a day’s drive to the north gets me to probably the best skies in the lower 48 — the area on the north side of the San Francisco Peaks. (For those unfamiliar with the area, Flagstaff is on the south side of the San Francisco peaks, and the Grand Canyon is to the northeast of them.)

            I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of getting a decent ‘scope at some point, but it’d have to be something reasonably portable. Long before then, I’ll be experimenting with stacking multiple exposures taken with my 400 f/2.8 of things I’ll track by eye on a regular gimbal photographic mount (with the expectation of cropping, of course). The next step would probably be a barn door tracker — and that plus a good pair of binoculars may well be just the bee’s knees.

            b&

          13. A good set of binoculars is much better than a scope that won’t get used due to size & there are a lot of astronomical ones around. You’ll also get some nice wide angle exposures with the camera too.

          14. You would positively swoon over the binoculars somebody had set up at the eclipse at the Grand Canyon. They were salvage from a WWII-era Japanese battleship, and the objectives had to have been at least five inches across. Mounted, of course, on a massive tripod. Positively glorious…and, sadly, probably even more impractical than anything that Meade or Celestron sell….

            b&

          15. I actually considered buying a nice pair of fancy telescope binoculars kinda like these but it started getting stupidly expensive when I already have a telescope!

          16. Yeah, that’s the general idea, except these were even more huge.

            The binoculars I’d buy would have to be hand-holdable, though a standard 3/4 tripod mount would probably have to be a requirement as well.

            b&

          17. I’m deeply impressed. Considering this started from a comment about ignostic apatheists, and went via a rather disreputable figurative use for a Leica, this most recent off-topic digression into techno-geek land must set some sort of record. D’you suppose Guinness Book of Record would recognise it? 😉

          19. Actually I just followed Ben’s link to the Canon 1200 lens. I’m deeply impressed. But I think what it needs is a spotterscope mounted on top of it.

          21. Aww, now that’s ridiculous. That ain’t a lens, that’s a telescope. (Oh I see Diana already said that – about the 1200!)

          22. I suppose that there is an optimum supine pose and posture for the purpose of positing and superpositioning and supporting a supple and eventually superating and superattenuating suppository, after supper.

  12. “Agnostic” is also for people who would rather maintain positive relationships with Christian friends instead of prompting needless stressful arguments that come with the strongly negative connotations of “atheist.” Call me a wimp, if you must. Labels don’t matter much to me anyway; my friends and family all know I’m not religious, and that’s what matters.

    1. I was watching an episode of the series, Revolution (don’t hate on this, I like it for some reason). A character described himself as an “agnostic jew”. Ha ha. It’s like the network just couldn’t say “atheist” but maybe it’s progress of sort that the character wasn’t religious.

      1. Actually, on Northern Exposure the shop keeper was openly atheist and she stated it openly. There’s a great line by Fleischman when she tells him she’s an atheist and he says, “Well, that takes a lot of faith.” Love it.

  13. I agree that “agnostic” is mostly for an academic audience. For the man in the street, I will sometimes say I am “non-religious”, as I think that will better convey my view. I don’t spend much time actually thinking about religion, except when debating creationists.

    1. That’s usually when I say I’m a secular humanist, as, to me, it sums up ‘a lack of interest in theism per se* coupled with a strong interest in secularism in the public square and a strong interest in making human lives better’.

      I think many atheists are like that (regardless of what words one IDs with most), depending on their level of engagement. I’d suspect Jerry, for example, thinks more about religion than I do because he runs this website and has to deal with more creationists et al. than I do on a day to day basis.

      * Well, actually, I have a sociological interest in religion, but I don’t really spend all that much time thinking about its truth or lack thereof.

  14. Atheism allows no doubt. But there is doubt. Doubt is the coin of science. Dogmatism is not.

      2. Right. Doubt doesn’t really enter into it. An atheist, strictly speaking, is someone without a belief in gods.

      3. I simply don’t like the word “atheism”, because it implies 100% certainty. “Agnosticism”, on the other hand, means (to me) 99.99% certainty, but simply short of 100%. That’s just the way I use the words.

        1. You might not have noticed, but that’s not how the words are used by most other people — or even how it’s defined in the dictionary. If you wish to be easily understood, you might wish to consider abandoning the Humpty Dumpty routine.

          Cheers,

          b&

          2. Actually, the way I use the words is the way they are defined in the dictionary; according to M-W’s Unabridged, an agnostic is defined as “…one who maintains a continuing doubt about the existence or knowability of a god or any ultimates…” — the key word being “doubt”. On the other hand, atheism is defined as “a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods…”, the key word being “strong”, which implies a 100% devotion to ones position. Agnostics just aren’t as sure as atheists, in my experience.

          4. As Ant has already informed you, even your own dictionary is using the inclusive “or.” Somebody who simply lacks belief in gods is an atheist. So is somebody who strongly disbelieves in the existence of even one god — but, you’ll note that somebody who strongly disbelieves in the existence of even god also lacks belief in all gods.

            Cheers,

            b&

          5. By the way, what is a “Humpty Dumpty routine”? I don’t believe it’s in the dictionary. 😉

          6. ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

            — Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll

            /@

          7. But my definition is not that idiosyncratic, at least according to M-W’s Unabridged.

          11. “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ” “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”

            …that would be from Through the Looking-Glass by the incomparably brilliant Charles Dodgson, aka Lewis Carroll.

            Cheers,

            b&

          1. See my comment above. I am using the words as defined in the M-W Unabridged Dictionary.

    2. I think atheism absolutely allows doubt if the doubter is accepting it provisionally. Gravity allows doubt – I accept it until it shows that it isn’t there. So does air – I accept that I’ll breath it until I don’t. The ability to doubt isn’t intrinsic in the noun but in the user of that noun.

    3. And here I thought atheism was all about doubt.

      An atheist doubts the claims made about supernatural beings and is unwilling to accept the truth value of those claims without evidence.

      In my experience, it’s among the religious that we see a distinct lack of doubt, they being willing to accept the most ridiculous fairy tales at face value without a shred of supporting evidence and in the face of massive evidence to the contrary.

    4. So how would you describe ‘lack of belief in a god’, William? Generally speaking, if I’m reasonably but not completely* certain that something does not exist as described, I’m not going to behave as if it does, and I think that’s its fair to say that I don’t believe in it.

      * There’s plenty of things that I acknowledge are not 100% certain, but approach 100%. I could find a lottery ticket on the ground that wins the Jackpot, but I’m not going to budget for that because it is almost 100% certain that that will not happen.

      1. I am not as confident as you that we are in possession of most of the truth about the cosmos. We don’t even know what dark matter is, much less dark energy. I doubt a God, but who knows what lies behind these mysteries? Wasn’t it Einstein who expressed a reverence for these mysteries?

        1. Start here:

          http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/09/23/the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/

          And then add in the fact that the confirmation of the Higgs and recent cosmological discoveries have only pushed the domain of the unknown even farther away from human scales.

          You can be even more confident that there is no magic in the universe than you can be that the Sun will rise tomorrow. That completely and totally eliminates any hint of a theistic god. All that’s remaining at that point are the theological gods, and they’re nothing but hopeless jumbles of self-contained contradictions. An all-powerful god cannot resign (or commit suicide). A creator god cannot rule out the possibility that some even more powerful god created it; of what sense does it make to declare such an entity a creator of anything, let alone an ultimate one? And, thanks to the Halting Problem, we know that even an all-knowing god can’t magic its way out of that dilemma.

          Or, another way to put it: how confident are you that Santa isn’t real, and that there are no married bachelors? If your confidence in those two propositions is absolute, and if you feel justified in that confidence, there’s no reason not to extend it to all other mystical and contradictory beasties, gods included.

          Cheers,

          b&

        2. Why do you think I think that we are in possession of most of the truth about the cosmos? I suggested no such thing.

          However much is unknown, I still know that I do not believe.

          /@

    7. To me, atheism means: I see no reason to accept any proposed gods or anything supernatural.

      Show me a reason, I’m open to new evidence.

      Do you hold doubts about the non-existence of Zeus, Thor, Ammon Ra, Mithras, Ganesha, Chi, or the Tao?

      Again, I’m open to new evidence.

      I see only: People, books written by people, religions invented by (scared, ignorant (and sometimes mendaciously avaricious)) and memes invented by people. No gods. No fairies. No ghosts.

    8. Atheism neither “allows” or “disallows”, just as “not golfing, not a golfer” gives or withholds permissions about golf. It is only a description. It’s about an individual, belief is. If I see a Amazonian tribesman, and I say “He doesn’t golf”, or he claims no knowledge of golf, it has nothing to do with “Dogmatism” or any such animal.

    9. Can you explain why atheism doesn’t allow doubt?

      Would you grant that theists can have doubts, and therefore that theism allows doubt? Why not atheism?

      1. Any atheist I have ever met is disdainful of the possibility of belief. Though I am an agnostic and am doubtful, I’m not as thoroughly convinced as the atheist.

  15. I usually tell people that atheist and agnostic are answers to different questions and that the one question isn’t really useful except as a only mildly interesting philosophical exercise.

    I believe we all live in a shared single objective reality in a materialistic, naturalistic, & macro-deterministic universe.

    That statement really should be sufficient to give you my basic understanding of the universe.

  16. It was to this question that Russell brought up the “teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars.” agnosticism. It was in pondering this that I realized the wishy-washiness of the “agnostic” label and so stopped using it for myself.

  17. I never use “agnostic.” I either dodge the question (where I must) or plainly state atheist.

  18. Yes. I have argued with sticklers for “agnostic” that the pope cannot prove that god is real just as I cannot prove that he is not. So, properly, the pope should also call himself an agnostic. We’re all agnostic! Yay. (But we know nothing about each other’s beliefs about God.) Sometimes we must sacrifice understanding for propriety.

  19. Dr Jerry C Cat: “The term “agnostic” is for wimps.”

    Purrfect! As was the whole post; duly bookmarked.

  20. I think B. Russell fails, in his use of “proof”. As I sat many years ago, bewildered, in a philosophy class, “Phenomenology”, there are many definitions within philosophy that take many years and conversations for philosophists to agree upon. “Philosophical proof” is no doubt one of them. As I have stated, what is established as “proof” is typically addressed in law and mathematics, within system, as the systems themselves are developed. “Proof” is simply misused, badly used, in the real world. And deities are, for believers, real in the real world. But the reality is that 100% nothing, nothing at all, can be proffered by theistic believers to establish their scientific existence. And, everything that exists has some sort of scientific backing/origin.

  21. Let me offer a great quote on this matter from the writing of the late Judith Hayes, “The Happy Heretic”:

    “One cannot be an agnostic. Agnostic means ‘not to know’ and almost by definition all humans are agnostic about God in that no one can be sure whether a God of some sort really exists. I know I haven’t a clue. But no thinking person can say that he does not know if he acknowledges a God. We all know if we believe in a God. In our heart of hearts, we either do believe or we do not believe. Either way, we know if we believe. There is no such thing as not knowing if we believe. This supposedly ‘neutral’ position about the existence of God, agnosticism, is no position at all. The sooner it is eliminated the better, for all of us freethinkers, atheists, unbelievers, nonbelievers, humanists, or whatever.”

    –Judith Hayes, from the essay, “A Freethought Easter In Orlando”

    1. Exactly. See my reply to #14.

      So, maybe that gives us the riposte to someone who insists that they’re an agnostic but, oh no, not an atheist: Do you not know if you believe in God or not?

      /@

  22. Russell makes two claims in the passage:

    1. On the evidence, the probability that any gods exist is extremely low.

    2. It is logically possible that one or more gods exist.

    Claim 1 respects the empirical probabilities. Claim 2 respects the logical possibilities. Whether to call people who accept both claims ‘atheists’ or ‘agnostics’ is a verbal question.

    Here’s how I’d answer that verbal question. If your audience thinks 2 is more interesting than 1, then describe yourself as an agnostic. If your audience thinks 1 is more interesting than 2, then describe yourself as an atheist. If your audience thinks 1 and 2 are equally interesting, it doesn’t matter how you describe yourself.

    1. Claim 2 is actually deeply problematic as well. I’ve yet to encounter a proposed god or definition of the term that didn’t necessarily entail an inescapable contradiction. Most trivially, all the omni-properties are inherently self-contradictory.

      When one understands that gods are best thought of as a certain class of literary characters, plot devices, really, basically all their problems instantly vanish. It’s only when you try to pretend that Superman really could be really real that you start to get into trouble.

      Cheers,

      b&

      1. Hi Ben,

        I agree with you that claim 2 is deeply problematic. I was wrong to write that claim 2 respects the logical possibilities. I should have said that it respects what seems to be a logical possibility prior to serious reflection.

        I suspect that the combination of 1 and 2 is quite popular among hard scientists. So the verbal issue arises as to what people who accept both claims should call themselves.

        Best,

        Doug

        1. I’d be hesitant to put numbers on scientists who fit your description, but it’s certainly far from the null set.

          Most of them, I suspect, simply haven’t given the matter much thought. They’re familiar, either directly or indirectly, with Russell’s position. It seems reasonably plausible on the surface, so they run with it.

          There’s a significant number, though, who really should know better but who promote the position nonetheless. They’re generally described as, “accommodationists.”

          Cheers,

          b&

      2. Shouldn’t that be…

        It’s only when you really try to pretend that, really, Superman gods really could be really real that you really start to get into real trouble.

    2. When the drums begin to roll, when it comes to flying the flag under fire, by all means ‘atheist’. Thin red line of reason, and all that.

      But in a civilised and fair-minded discussion, I prefer the Rationalist label. I find it absurd to define my stance merely in relation to a figment of the human imagination, a noxious and pathological non-entity. Je n’ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.

      Ian Stewart, paraphrasing John von Neumann, once wrote that the term ‘non-linear systems’, haughtily implying that linear phenomena were normative, was about as apt as a specialist of elephants conflating all other branches of biology under the sobriquet ‘non-pachydermology’.

      In general terms, ‘atheist’ is about as informative as ‘non-pachydermologist’. It assigns unwarranted importance to an inexistent, fictitious elephant.

      2. I’ll echo Ben’s approval.

        What you’ve written is largely why Sam Harris (and I) think the term should be unnecessary.

        It’s rather depressing that it is.

        1. As so many of us point out, we’re not just a-Theos-ists, aka a-Zeus-ists. We’re not even just a-YHWH-ists or a-Brahma-ists. We’re also, like the overwhelming majority of adults, a-Santa-ists, a-Leprechaun-ists, and a-Boogieman-ists.

          And most of us also don’t collect stamps, play cricket, or barbecue human babies. (Well, most!)

          Defining us by what we are not would be impossibly tedious.

          What we are, as Occam observed, is rationalists. We have concluded that the wisest bets are made by according belief in proportion with a rational analysis of empirical observation.

          I do believe — or, at least, I hope — that a review of my contributions to WEIT would reveal significantly more use of the term, “rationalist,” than “atheist.”

          Cheers,

          b&

  23. I have no problem with the use of agnostic in some cases.

    If a person is an agnostic atheist, but considers their uncertainty to be sufficiently important, they might be reasonably called an agnostic.

    A 3 on the Dawkins scale would be an atheist, but their uncertainty is pretty big. They might feel that they explain their position better by calling themselves an agnostic “Sure I don’t believe in god, but I’m not really saying he doesn’t exist either. I’m in the middle on this one, so saying I’m an atheist might give people the impression that I’ve determined his existence is unlikely, might be a bit misleading.”

    Essentially, when you are both an agnostic, and an atheist, and you only feel like going by one label, agnostic might be preferable if your uncertainty is ‘greater’ than your lack of belief.

    Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Agnostic is just the less stigmatized version of atheist, and also a term for people who seem to think that ‘atheist’ means ‘knows 100% for certain there is no god’.

    I was inclined to call that absolutist definition of atheist for idiots… but even Carl Sagan felt it was what the word means.

    1. ‘Atheist’ has at least two distinct meanings.
      1. Does not personally believe in a god(s). (Says nothing about whether he thinks a god(s) could be proved not to exist).
      2. 100% certain (or practically sure) that no gods exist.

      The disparity between the two meanings seems to be fuelling a number of arguments in this thread.

      1. And an infinite number of similar semantic squabbles! Gawd, I’m tired of them. This particular one over the definition of atheism/agnosticism has been going on forever–what a waste of time.

  24. One of my favorite quotes from Bertrand Russell is: “It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.”

    That pretty much sums up my opinion of the status of gods; I’ve never seen or heard any evidence that any of them exist. So I consider myself an atheist. I suppose if someone grabbed a god by the tail and plunked it down on my desk, I might consider changing my mind, so perhaps, technically, I’m an agnostic.

    1. oops…thought I was just giving link. Guess I’m not sure how to just give link.

      1. Chop off the http:// before you post it. Word Press will add it back on, but it will then appear as the link you wanted to post, not the embed.

        Reason: WordPress arcanity.

  26. I find agnostic a great word for when there’s genuine need for suspension of belief. For example, I’m agnostic about there being intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. There could be, the universe is a very big place after all, and we know that the universe permits for the existence of intelligent life, but in the absence of evidence of this life, we just cannot say. The idea that those aliens are here and probing people, however, isn’t something I’m agnostic about. It’s fairly evident that such accounts aren’t true.

    And that’s how I am with gods. It doesn’t make sense to talk about being agnostic in the sense of a suspension of belief – it’s fairly evident that the accounts of gods as being part of our world are false. There may be some conceptions of gods that do warrant genuine agnosticism, but they aren’t the interventionist accounts that form the overwhelming majority of accounts of gods that we are compelled to think about by their presence in our culture.

    1. Aliens and agnostism is an excellent mix. That would be awesome if there were ETIs out there or even just different lifeforms…Si based, etc. It is definitely in the realm of possibility.

  27. Some thoughts:

    Atheist has such negative connotations amongst the general population that the word is almost spat out.

    Non-theist sounds gentler but, somehow, never seems to have caught on. Non-theist…not a theist…almost self explanatory.

    Agnostic means your lack of knowledge makes you unable to come down on one side or another. A knowledgable non-theist cannot also be an agnostic.

    Once defined, all the gods theta people believe in are disprovable, except the deistic god who virtually no one believes and who is irrelevant.

  28. Elsewhere Russell writes:

    “I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla.” (Letter to Mr. Major)

    and here he gives both a no and yes answer to are agnostics atheists. Technically no, but for all practical purposes yes. From “What is an agnostic?”

    “Are agnostics atheists?

    No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.”

    1. As Jerry notes, it’s only the philosophers who have trouble dismissing the Olympians. All an empiricist has to do to dismiss them is to climb Mount Olympus, something that’s been done repeatedly with no signs of the gods….

      Cheers,

      b&

  29. Antitheist is the most purposeful definition. An atheist does not necessarily imply that one actively tries to combat theistic religions. An agnostic is just putting logic above evidence…it is a step in the right direction.

    An antitheist could be a deist, in the Einstein sense, and that is not all that bad if we filled the ranks of humanity with people like that. Althouh I sort of doubt Einstein would be a deist if alive today.

    1. The problem with, “antitheist,” is that it implies that one is against theists. I would probably fit a dictionary definition of the term, but I would not adopt it for myself for that very reason.

      I would, however, embrace, “antitheismist.”

      But “rationalist” works just as well — better, even.

      Cheers,

      b&

  32. Let’s say you ask me whether it is going to rain tomorrow.

    If I have not looked at the weather forecast, I am going to say “I don’t know” because I DON’T KNOW.

    Sneering at my honest claims for lack of knowledge suggests little regard for true statements.

    As an agnostic who rejects Christianity partly because Christians can’t prove their beliefs and claims, atheists can not win me by insisting I act similarly and calling me a coward for not doing so.

    Furthermore, demanding unprovable belief statements sure looks like dogmatic faith to me. Getting upset when Christians claim atheism is a religion based on faith seems hypocritical.

    I can think of all kinds of lies that would be very brave to say aloud.

    I don’t say them because speaking truthfully is a higher virtue than speaking bravely.

    1. Say what? That is a very confused comment, especially given it is the first one from you, at least on this posting.

      How can you say that someone has sneered at honest claims you haven’t made? Perhaps you can make yourself more clear.

    2. Presumably you have read the original post, all the comments here and that thoughtful video clip by Qualia Soup at comment #25.

      It seems to me there is ample information available here alone to end your lack of knowledge.

      Ask yourself what it is about the term atheist that you find you must reject it. Would friends or family treat you differently?

      Tell us in what ways you live your life as if there were a god. Do you pray to it for things, ask it for forgiveness when you break its rules? Perhaps you never consider acting as if there is a Zeus or YHWH or anything keeping an eye on you.

      Practically speaking, then, do you live your daily life as a theist would, or an atheist?

      1. It’s not about “lack of knowledge”. It’s about logic and pretendig to be smarter than Bertrand Russell.

  33. Agnosticism (or gnosticism) is about knowing, atheism (or theism)is about believing. Agnostics are atheists, because they cannot answer “yes” to the question, “Do you believe in god?” It doesn’t matter if they answer, “I don’t know”, or “That can’t be known”, or anything else, other than “yes”. If the answer is not “yes”, they are not theists, hence they are atheists. Wimpy, spineless gumby atheists.

  34. “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

    ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

    me too 😉

Comments are closed.