semanticsWhat exactly is agnosticism? As compared to atheism, what is the functional difference between the two and is it logical coherent for a person to be both?
Yes, a person can be both. Atheist and agnostic are orthogonal. Gnostic/agnostic refers to, essentially, whether you think one can know definitively. Theist/atheist refers to whether you believe in a god.
The Atheist/Theist spectrum usually refers to a person’s belief (or lack thereof) in gods or other similar divine entities. The Gnostic/Agnostic spectrum refers to a person beliefs regarding the availability of spiritual knowledge; it deals with the question of whether or not we can possess reliable knowledge concerning spiritual matters.
An Agnostic Atheist might claim that he sees no reason to believe in any gods but/because it is impossible to have any concrete knowledge of divine matters. A Gnostic Atheist might claim that it is possible to know, with confidence or utter certainty, that no God or Gods exist.
I am going to make up some terms here to explain how being agnostic and being atheist are not mutually exclusive.
An agnostic atheist (sometimes called weak atheism) says “I don’t believe in god, but I cannot be sure that I am right.”
A gnostic atheist (sometimes called strong atheism) says “I don’t believe in god, and I am pretty sure I am right.”
An agnostic theist (probably most people fit in this group) says “I believe in god, but I am not sure if I am right.”
A gnostic theist (very religious people) says “I believe in god, and I am pretty sure I am right.”
The term agnostic, when used by itself, usually describes someone who says “I have not committed my beliefs one way or the other.”
NOTE: Do not get my use of the word gnostic in this answer confused with the christian gnostics. I am using the term gnostic/agnostic to simply means “knows/does not know”. Also, weak atheism is not an insult to people who hold that position, it simply describes the position they hold.
Depending on whom you talk to, agnosticism is the position that the nature of God (including the question of His existence) is unknowable. As Josiah says, that’s orthogonal to the question of belief. You can say that it’s impossible to know whether or not God is real and still choose to believe (or not).
From WikiPedia
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable
In practice, self-described agnostics aren't sure if there is a god or not. They usually don't think there is one but they aren't sure enough to commit to be atheists.
There is the practical meaning and the legitimate meaning… although they seem to have become muddied… I think the definition resides on two words: Knowledge (Gnosticism), and Belief (Theism). Sometimes these overlap. You can have knowledge and believe, or lack knowledge and believe, or have no knowledge and yet still believe.
Most religious would be Agnostic Theists, since they require faith without proof. There are some who try to scientifically or logically prove the existance of god, and they are attempting to be Gnostic Theists.
This is a great question as many people seem to think agnosticism is some sort of middle-of-the-road option between theism and atheism. It is not.
Agnosticism addresses the question of wether the nature of God is knowable. An agnostic asserts that the nature of God is unknowable. One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
Most “agnostics” that use the word to describe themselves are actually atheists - they do not actually believe in any deity
Agnostic is a description over what we can know of a god, not the belief in or disbelief in one. They are different logical spheres.
You cannot just be ‘agnostic’ you can only be gnostic/agnostic atheist or gnostic/agnostic theist, either you believe in a god or you don’t. If you cannot say you have a belief in a god, you are atheist.
What we can know of a god defines whether one is agnostic or gnostic on that position. Some atheists (disbelievers) in a Christian god may be gnostic atheist in that regard, yet agnostic atheist in regard a deist concept of a pantheistic god.
An atheist agnostic is someone who does not believe in gods and also thinks that the existence of gods cannot be known. This might mean that they don’t believe in gods because they haven’t seen any evidence that supports their existence.
A theist gnostic is someone who believes in a god/gods and thinks that the existence of gods can be known. This position is usually referred to as just ‘theist‘, since people who believe in gods, usually also think that their existence can be known.
An atheist gnostic is someone who does not believe in gods, and who thinks that we can know that gods do not exist. A fairly unusual position, they might think they have found proof of the non-existence of gods, or might have been persuaded by life experiences.
A theist agnostic is someone who believes in gods, but thinks that they could not know for sure that their god exists. Another fairly unusual position, as people who have faith in gods usually also think that their god can be known to be real.
They reside in separate domains: Theism/Atheism are along the spectrum of Belief and while Agnosticism is about Knowledge/epistemology: What you can KNOW.
Atheism is the position of not believing there is a god. Theists believe there is a God. Gnostic atheists KNOW there is not a God. (untenable position, in my view.) Gnostic THEISTs claim to KNOW there IS a god.
Theistic Agnostics say “I don’t KNOW there is a God, but I believe it and act as though there is one.” Atheistic Agnostics say “I don’t KNOW there is NOT a God, but nothing leads me to believe there is one so I will act as if there is none.
All in all, the debate results in a lot of wasted effort and parsing of words. The burden of proof lies on the head of the person asserting a positive position. The theist who insists there is a god needs to demonstrate his case.
In this regard atheism and atheistic agnosticism are identical: they make NO positive assertion about the existence/NON-existence of God.
It is worth noting that not everyone agrees on the definitions of the two words, which is likely to lead to some disagreement. I believe, for example, that agnosticism is in many cases the position taken by people who don’t believe in god, but prefer not to put it so bluntly. The late Stephen Jay Gould, who clearly didn’t believe in god, insisted in calling himself a “Jewish agnostic,” for example. Gould was well known for his desire to avoid the debate over god’s existence. He gave us NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magesteria) in a fairly desperate (and unsuccessful) attempt, to avoid the fray.
I buy into the orthogonal position. The gnostic/agnostic position reflects a position in relation to knowing while the theist/atheist position relates to believing. I do not know if there is a god (agnostic), my epistemological position requires a testable hypothesis for the existence of gods for which there are none. I have no reason to believe that a god exists in the absence of evidence (atheist). There is no question (which may have an answer) of the existence of god(s) only an assertion of gods existence.
I’m going to answer this for my own group the Kingwood, Humble, Atascocita Atheists and submit it to the FAQ.
First, for the philsophical definition and differences, there is no better guide than the one provided by the freethinker, you can find a copy of it online here. If you have not read that specific article than go do it! It is in my top 10 list of best philosophical blog entries, and I can’t give it enough praise.
Second, for the rational argument for Atheism there is the Spectrum of Theistic Probability. Simply put, level 4 is an unmaintainable position, and level 7 requires an epistemology that is not scientific – you have to believe existence can be disproven absolutely. Most atheists will gladly agree that God shares the same chances of existence as unicorns, and that they’re not certain that unicorns do not exist.
All atheists, at least as far as defensible incarnations of atheism are concerned, are strictly speaking agnostic in nature. You can never disprove something’s existence, and you can only state that it is no more likely than other fictional things that you assume don’t exist. This rational argument should conclude on the only fair assumption, one of non-existence.
If one takes the option that knowledge is justified belief, which is quite contested, though we’ll ignore that, then this is pretty straightforward.
One might believe in god, believe that god does not exist, or merely not believe in god. This would make you a theist, a strong atheist, and a weak atheist
Then, if you believe that your belief is justified you would think you are a Gnostic theist or strong atheist. If you believe it is unjustified, then you would think you are an Agnostic theist or strong atheist.
It is unclear to me how the weak atheist can be anything but Agnostic. Since there is no belief to justify, there is nothing to be Gnostic about. You could be Gnostic about your Agnosticism (i.e. you believe that you are justified in believing god’s existence is unknowable) but that is different from being strictly Gnostic in a traditional sense.
So yes in a limited, but not complete, sense, they are orthogonal.
A post by the Rational Response Squad does an excellent job of answering this question. They make an interesting note that theists can in fact be agnostics as well (they don't know, they just believe).
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.