Zeal For Truth

Defining terms is frequently half the battle in any discussion - and discussion concerning the existence or non-existence of god(s) is no exception. Often meaningful conversation is made impossible by conflicting sets of definitions. I see two main different sets of definitions in use. Unfortunately, dictionaries are often mixed on the issue. For the record, I’m an ex-Christian who is now a weak agnostic.

Popular Definitions
Perhaps the most common set of definitions are what I here term the popular definitions. It appears that most people who haven’t been involved in much debate on this issue will hold to definitions like these.

Atheist - someone who claims to know that god(s) and the supernatural don’t or can’t exist.

Agnostic - someone who isn’t sure if god(s) or the supernatural exists.

Theists - someone who is sure god(s) and/or the supernatural exists.

These definitions are flawed for a few reasons, but many people do seem to hold these or similar definitions. When they talk to someone who is using the more technical definitions, communication can be difficult.

Technical Definitions
Here are the more technical (and in my view, correct) definitions.

Atheist - is simply someone who is not a theist (hence a - theist). This means that they lack a belief in any god(s), but it doesn’t mean that they deny the possibility of god(s) or supernatural forces. This is the position of the “new atheists” (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc) that have achieved much media discussion in recent years. They would say that while they can’t prove or state absolutely that a god doesn’t exist, they nevertheless don’t believe in one, and find the existence of one unlikely.

Recently the terms strong atheist and weak atheist have come into being. A weak atheist would be one as described in the above paragraph, whereas a strong atheist is as described in the popular definitions section. Those atheists who hold to the weak position appear to greatly outnumber those who hold to the strong position.

Agnosticism - literally means without knowledge. The agnostic position is that there is no evidence, or at least no good evidence, to suggest that god(s) exists or that god(s) doesn’t exist. Agnosticism also has a strong and weak division. Strong agnosticism states that the existence or non-existence of god(s) is unknowable. Weak agnosticism states that existence or nonexistence of god(s) is currently unknown (in the “weakest” view, perhaps merely unknown to the specific agnostic in question), but is not necessarily unknowable.

Theist - simply someone who has a belief in god(s).

It’s important to note that in this set of definitions, that agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with either atheism or theism. Someone can be an agnostic atheist - don’t know if god(s) existence and do not believe in any, or be an agnostic theist - don’t know if god(s) exist but believe in one (or more). Agnostic theists in theological terms are often called fideists, a term that emphasizes their position that religious questions are better (or only) answered by faith rather than by reason.

You can see how these two sets of definitions can lead to misunderstanding. A theist might challenge an atheist to prove that god(s) doesn’t exist. To which an atheist could very well reply that they can’t and that isn’t the position of atheism anyways.

Debate and the Burden of Proof
A key question, either overtly or covertly, in debates over the existence of god(s) is which side has the burden of proof. The atheist and the theist will likely insist that the other has to prove their position, and the agnostic is likely to agree with both of those statements. Atheists will say that they aren’t making a claim, and that the theist is, and therefore has the burden of proof. Theists will contest this.

In a debate, whichever side can force the other side to carry the burden of proof by making them defend their position more than they themselves have to, will often appear to have “won” the debate. Thus, the burden of proof issue is critical.

My personal view is that as long as the debate is about the existence of god(s) in general, theists and atheists should have an equal burden of proof. (With the atheist arguing that the position that the existence of god(s) is very unlikely). This changes though if the theist’s claim becomes more specific. If the theist is arguing for the existence of an omnipotent, loving god then they are making a greater claim and must suffer the greater burden of proof. And if the theist is arguing for a specific god or gods and that all other ones are false, then that is a very great claim and the theist must meet an extremely high burden of proof.