I have always understood these terms under their common definitions: atheism is a belief that god does not exist, and agnosticism is the view that we do not have enough evidence to state positively whether a god or gods exist or not. In short, that atheists say there is no god, while agnostics say they cannot accept nor reject any theories about god. These meanings are reflected in the common culture and language; for example, when you say that you are “agnostic” about a certain issue, it means that you have no convictions either way.

However, in listening to various atheists over the past year or so, I was surprised to hear agnosticism defined as “someone who believes that everything is inherently unknowable.” I have always seen myself as an agnostic, and yet I do not agree with that view at all; while one could make an argument for such a worldview, I consider it metaphysical navel-gazing, and irrelevant to practical experience, just like asking yourself “is reality real?” I do not see that mattering either way.

It would seem that many, if not most people who call themselves atheists are people whom I would regard as agnostics. The distinction is blurred because both are correct–depending upon what branch of atheism or agnosticism that you subscribe to. Atheism, for example, has two major branches: strong (positive) atheism, in which there is a positive belief that god does not exist, and weak (negative) atheism, in which uncertainty about theistic truths are emphasized. Agnosticism also has two varieties: the type which closely matches weak atheism, in which uncertainty is key–call this “strong agnosticism”–and the other type, mentioned above, where the validity of knowledge itself is questioned–call that “weak agnosticism.”

I myself reject the navel-gazing version, or weak agnosticism, as the definitive or representative form of agnosticism, because of its practical irrelevancy and (I believe) because it is far less common. At least, it may be recognized as a philosophical truism, but at the same time disregarded as pragmatically meaningless; a person may acknowledge “weak agnosticism” and yet still ascribe to “strong agnosticism” or even “strong atheism.” Because of this, I see what I refer to as “weak agnosticism” as being somewhat irrelevant, a thought-experiment off-shoot that applies less to personal beliefs and more to exercises in academic epistemology.

The problem is, many people seem married to the term they have chosen. Penn Jillette, for example, insists on atheism as including any non-religious people, including strong agnostics; he discarded the word “agnostic” as simply referring to the navel-gazers. I, on the other hand, have always associated the word “atheist” with someone who believes firmly in the non-existence of god, and see my own uncertainty best defined by the word “agnostic.”

I prefer my definition for a reason beyond simply being used to it: my demarkation gives clearly separate terms to describe the most commonly-expressed ideas outside of faith in a specific religious belief. When talking about religious beliefs, we usually refer to those who believe in god, those who believe god does not exist, and those who are not certain. It seems logical to me to reserve one commonly-used term for each of these states. Defining atheism to include the latter two and agnosticism to the navel-gazing seems to me to lend to confusion. If the term “atheist” covered both god-deniers and the uncertain, then one would have to spend a good deal more time explaining what your exact views are.

Nevertheless, I have gathered the impression that religious people tend to blur the terms not because of the finer niceties involved, but rather because they consider any non-belief to be of one general category; to them, there are those who believe, and those who do not–those who believe and have faith, and those who do not. It makes little difference as to why people do not believe.

Once I heard an evangelist (I forget which one) use a definition now common amongst religious people: “an agnostic is an atheist without the faith in his convictions.” This expression uses the definitions of the terms which I prefer. However, not only do I find this sentiment to be inaccurate, I find it insulting: it suggests that I do not believe what I believe, and the reason is because I am weak or lacking somehow.

I cannot understand those who positively believe that there is no god any more than I can understand the religious; in both cases, it seems to me that the belief is based upon “faith.” The (strong/positive) atheist is just as strong in “faith” as the religious person; neither has proof, only belief, but each believes their faith to be equivalent to unquestionable truth. To me, they are indistinguishable. In fact, I have heard strong-atheists express almost exactly that sentiment: they note that most religious people disbelieve in all religions except their own, and as such, are atheists in all but that they still cling to only one of the myriad religions out there. Strong-atheists differ only in that the disbelieve in just one more religion than religious people do. This makes a great deal of sense to me.

The only worldview that makes sense to me is to believe that god is a possibility, but not a certainty. To acknowledge the fallibility of humans and human beliefs is, to me, the most obvious of all conclusions. We have been wrong countless times before, and continue to be wrong about so many things. To think that we could be absolutely and unquestionably correct about the greatest mystery and most fundamental truths about the universe–given that all our knowledge derives from ancient mythology and purely non-empirical evidence–seems both arrogant and comically nonsensical. It strikes me that we should accept what we “know” as simply being the most current theory, and be ready to believe in whatever new facts come to our attention–rather than simply clinging to old, disproved facts, simply because we don’t want to believe that we can be wrong about something so important.

To me, anyone unwilling to accept new information simply because it differs with what was handed down to them is nonsensical and irrational. But that encroaches upon the next topic I would like to discuss: “faith.”