There is a great deal of misunderstanding today that surrounds the views of atheism and agnosticism. I often hear it explained that agnosticism means you do not think we can know if there is a god, and atheism means you think we can know, and you have concluded that there is no god. However, these definitions fall quite short for a number of reasons. The two worldviews are not always identifiable in simple terms, and they do often overlap one another. So what does it mean to be an atheist or an agnostic, and what is this I have heard about 'agnostic atheists?'

I. Agnostics, Atheists, and Agnostic Atheists

Agnosticism is a Greek word that means "without knowledge". It comes from a religious view known as gnosticism, an esoteric belief system which focuses heavily on experiencing God through hidden or secret spiritual knowledge. Like atheism is simply the rejection of theism, agnosticism is the rejection of gnosticism in the sense that the agnostic believes we cannot possess any real knowledge of God or of God's existence. The question of whether or not there is a god remains unsolved and may never be solved, and the specifics of this view will differ depending on who you ask.

Some agnostics believe that we cannot know if God exists because there is insufficient evidence to draw such a conclusion from. Other agnostics simply believe that they alone do not know if God exists, while allowing that others possibly may have that knowledge. Still others believe that we cannot know whether or not God exists because there will always be reason to doubt, and nothing can ever be concretely proven. It is also important to recognize where agnostics direct their doubts, since they may be atheists in consideration of the Olympian gods and yet be agnostic regarding recent monotheistic deities.

Where this viewpoint differs from atheism is that it provides a more specific reason for itself. As I mentioned in my article, Is Atheism a Religion?, atheism is the one simple proposition of rejecting theism, and it stops there, leaving the individual to give their own personal reasons for their atheism. Agnosticism is that second step for many people, as one person might say that they see no reason to accept theism because they cannot know whether or not there is a god. Even a theist could be agnostic though, as another person might say that faith is what is important, regardless of how uncertain they may be of God's existence.

To put it in very plain terms, atheism comments on the belief in god, while agnosticism refers to knowledge. This is why agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism, and why it is not actually an alternative or "middle ground" between the two. Some agnostics pretend that it is more respectable than being an atheist (and religious believers certainly tend to agree with them), because they misunderstand the nature of atheism's proposition about gods. Not every atheist flat out denies God. Many will say, as I often do, that it is possible that a god exists, though we think it is improbable that one does.

II. Weaknesses of Agnosticism

Strong agnosticism, as it is often called, is the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. A person may hold this view for a number of different reasons, claiming it is God's wish for us to believe based on faith, claiming that anything is possible, or claiming that nothing can ever be 100% proven. I might agree that there is indeed an infinity of possibilities, but possibilities are not actualities, and are therefore not sufficient reason to believe in anything, in my opinion. If probability and evidence are not taken into account, we find people maxing out their credit cards in anticipation of the apocalypse, or living in the constant fear of terrorists or predators attacking their family, for example.

Arguing that we can never definitively know anything also seems to be somewhat self-contradictory. We can know many things, and the extent to which they are factual is only relevant to us. Humanity has established the rules that we will use to determine what is proven and what is not, so it is pointless to ponder how things could be different under vastly different circumstances. Observing the sun rising each morning for several decades, knowing about the revolutions of the earth, how gravity keeps the celestial bodies in their orbits and in their places, and many many other factors - do these not indicate that the sun rising is a highly probable and factual event?

Of course we have no absolute guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but we can be pretty damn sure that it will. If postmodernists want to doubt the usefulness of empirical evidence and the scientific method, they are perfectly welcome to propose a better means for figuring out the functions of our universe and our role in it. We can say something is a fact or that it is proven, especially when it is independent of our influence or perception of it. We cannot will that the sun should stop revolving - it was revolving before mankind appeared upon it, and it will do so once we are gone. We also know that someday our sun will die out (another proven fact), yet this hardly changes the reliability of the sun rising on Earth for the time being.

III. Weaknesses of Atheism

Similarly, the idea that there is no possibility of a god existing (sometimes called strong or militant atheism) is something I do consider to be a weak view. Not because anything is possible or because nothing can be 100% proven/disproven, but because of the concept of God. There are countless differing opinions on what God is, but a great deal of them do agree that God is a being of insurmountable power. Not having a clear definition for God, and acknowledging that most believers consider all things possible for their deity, I think it is only fair to allow for the possibility of some sort of god existing. Yet for these same reasons, it may be useless to speculate what such a being would be like, and as I said before, possibility does not imply actuality.

I believe that claiming to know God does not exist is just as dogmatic as the believers who assert that they know he is real. With consideration of a being that is supposedly beyond our comprehension and outside of time and space, I think embracing agnosticism is not altogether unfounded. I cannot say with certainty that God does not exist anymore than I can say that aliens do not exist (with the expanse of space still left unexplored, who knows?). However, based on our current knowledge of the universe, the lack of contact with extraterrestrials, and the mythical stories told by "abductees", I think the evidence tells us that a higher, alien intelligence is probably unlikely to exist.

I could always be wrong though, and I am fully open to hearing any refutation. Though until reasonable, persuasive evidence is presented for the existence of God (or aliens), I see no merit in even entertaining the possibilities. Why should I believe in, accept, or acknowledge something that I suspect to be untrue? This is why most atheists attempt to debate believers by addressing contradictions in the bible, or by referring to science, and not just reciting lines from The Origin of Species. They realize that you cannot expect Christians to believe in certain things, and so they frame their arguments in ways that a non-atheist, religious believer might understand.

IV. Who Needs Labels?

Throughout history, more than a few disagreements have arisen over the definitions and uses in labeling someone an "agnostic", "atheist", or even a "theist". Some agnostic and non-religious people dislike the term "atheist", because they feel it has negative connotations, and some atheists dislike the term "agnostic", because they feel it is used mainly by people-pleasers who do not wish to offend anyone. It is important to remember that it is very rare that a person's views or personality can be summed up by one label. Not all atheists or agnostics are alike in their beliefs, just as not all Christians believe the same things about Christ or the reliability of the bible. The sure-fire way to find out an individual's views is always to simply ask them yourself.