Agnostic atheism

Agnostic atheism combines a negative or non-affirming form of atheism with an agnostic position about knowledge. In this usage, atheism refers to the absence of belief that any deity exists, while agnosticism refers to the view that the existence or nonexistence of deities is not known, cannot be known, or has not been established.^[2][3]

The compatibility of atheism and agnosticism depends on the definitions being used. On the broader belief-and-knowledge distinction, a person may lack theistic belief while also denying knowledge or suspending judgment. On narrower philosophical definitions, atheism and agnosticism may instead be treated as distinct positions.^[4]

The historical background of agnostic atheism lies in the distinction between disbelief and claims to knowledge. The term agnosticism was introduced by Thomas Henry Huxley in the nineteenth century to describe an epistemological attitude toward claims that were not, in his view, demonstrated or demonstrable.^[4] Later writers applied this distinction to atheism, treating atheism as concerning belief and agnosticism as concerning knowledge.

American freethinker Robert G. Ingersoll, often called "The Great Agnostic", presented atheism and agnosticism as overlapping rather than mutually exclusive. In 1885, Ingersoll stated that the agnostic says, "I do not know, but I do not believe there is any God", and that the atheist says the same.^[9] The statement illustrates an early formulation of the distinction between not believing in God and claiming knowledge that God does not exist.

Scottish theologian and philosopher Robert Flint used the expressions "agnostic atheism" and "atheistic agnosticism" in his Croall Lecture for 1887–88, later published as Agnosticism. Flint argued that atheism and agnosticism should not be treated as necessarily exclusive positions.^[1] In Flint's account, a person who finds no adequate reason to believe in God may be described as an atheist, while a person who also holds that God's existence cannot be known or proved may be described as both an agnostic and an atheist.^[1]

In 1947, Bertrand Russell discussed the difficulty of choosing between the labels atheist and agnostic in his essay "Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?" Russell treated the distinction partly as a matter of context and standards of proof, suggesting that a person might use agnostic in a strictly philosophical sense while using atheist in ordinary contexts where familiar theistic claims were at issue.^[5]

In 1976, Antony Flew argued in "The Presumption of Atheism" for using atheism in a negative sense unless sufficient reason had been given for belief in God. Flew's argument gave a prominent philosophical formulation to the distinction between merely not accepting theism and positively asserting that God does not exist, a distinction later used in discussions of negative and positive atheism.^[6][10]

In 1979, George H. Smith restated the belief-and-knowledge distinction in explicitly atheistic terms. Smith argued that theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god, while agnosticism concerns knowledge; on this account, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism, but may be either theistic or atheistic.^[2]

Later atheist writing also used probabilistic rather than strictly binary classifications. In The God Delusion (2006), Richard Dawkins presented a seven-point scale of theistic probability, ranging from strong theism to strong atheism. His sixth category, "de facto atheist", describes a person who does not claim certainty but regards God's existence as very improbable and lives on the assumption that God does not exist.^[7] The scale illustrates a modern formulation of an atheistic position that falls short of a claim to certain knowledge.

Agnostic atheism is usually classified through a distinction between belief and knowledge. In the terminology used by George H. Smith, theism and atheism concern the presence or absence of belief in a god, while agnosticism concerns knowledge; agnosticism may therefore be either theistic or atheistic.^[2] Under this classification, agnostic atheism is the atheistic form of agnosticism, while agnostic theism is the corresponding theistic form.

In taxonomies that distinguish between negative and positive atheism, agnostic atheism is generally associated with negative atheism when it involves the absence of theistic belief without the further claim that no deities exist. By contrast, positive atheism involves the additional affirmation that God or gods do not exist.^[10] This distinction corresponds to the broader psychological sense of atheism, in which atheism may mean lacking theistic belief, rather than to the narrower philosophical sense in which atheism is the proposition that God does not exist.^[4]

This classification is not universally accepted. In philosophy of religion, atheism is often used for the proposition that God does not exist, while agnosticism may be used for suspension of judgment about that proposition.^[4] On that usage, agnosticism and atheism are more naturally treated as distinct answers to the question of whether God exists, rather than as compatible labels.

Some philosophers further distinguish agnostics from people who merely lack the concept of a deity or have never considered the question. Graham Oppy, for example, distinguishes agnostics from "innocents", who neither believe that there are gods nor believe that there are no gods because they have not considered, or cannot consider, the question of whether gods exist.^[11] This distinction limits the classification of agnostic atheism to persons who have considered the question of divine existence, rather than to every case of absent theistic belief.

Agnostic atheism is commonly justified by an evidential or epistemic standard for belief. On this view, a person may withhold belief in deities because the available evidence is judged insufficient, while also declining to claim that no deities exist or that their nonexistence is known.^[2][3] The position therefore rejects theistic belief without necessarily adopting the stronger claim associated with positive atheism.

A related rationale concerns the burden of proof. In "The Presumption of Atheism", Antony Flew argued that atheism should be understood negatively unless sufficient reason has been given for belief in God.^[6] This approach supports a distinction between not accepting theism and affirming that God or gods do not exist, a distinction also used in discussions of negative and positive atheism.^[10] Agnostic atheism fits most naturally with this negative sense of atheism, although philosophers who reserve atheism for the proposition that God does not exist may instead classify such a position as agnosticism.^[4][11]

Related positions include ignosticism and theological noncognitivism, which question whether the term "God" or some statements about God are sufficiently meaningful to be judged true or false. Such views are sometimes discussed alongside atheism and agnosticism, although some philosophers treat them as distinct from both. A. J. Ayer, for example, argued that statements about God were not genuine propositions.^[12] Anthony Kenny distinguished agnostics, who regard the claim "God exists" as uncertain, from theological noncognitivists, who regard discourse about God as meaningless.^[13] Theodore M. Drange similarly distinguished atheism, agnosticism, and noncognitivism as separate positions.^[14]

The term agnostic atheism is disputed because it depends on contested definitions of both atheism and agnosticism. Under the broad definition used by Smith and some other atheist writers, atheism concerns the absence of theistic belief, while agnosticism concerns knowledge; on that view, the two labels can be combined.^[2] Under the narrower propositional usage described by Draper, atheism is the proposition that God does not exist, while agnosticism is the suspension of judgment about that proposition.^[4] On that usage, a person who lacks theistic belief but does not affirm that God does not exist may instead be classified as an agnostic.

Some philosophers therefore prefer to reserve atheism for the proposition that God does not exist, rather than for every absence of theistic belief. Oppy argues that, in philosophical usage, atheism is best understood as the view that there are no gods, while agnosticism is distinct from both theism and atheism.^[11] This stricter usage conflicts with classifications that treat agnostic atheism as a straightforward combination of atheism and agnosticism.