Category Archives: Misconceptions

Defining agnosticism, atheism, and agnostic atheism

Atheism, Misconceptions, , ,

Agnosticism

What is agnosticism? There are two different things that are called agnosticism, known as strong and weak agnosticism, or positive and negative agnosticism, or hard and soft agnosticism. (All of these alternate terms, “weak”/”negative”/”soft”, seem rather connotationally unfortunate. But I figure “soft” is the least so, so that’s the one I’m gonna choose to use.)

Hard agnosticism

Hard agnosticism is the belief that it’s impossible to know whether there is a God or not. So is hard agnosticism about knowledge, as opposed to mere belief? Sort of, though it is still defined in terms of a mere belief: Whether you’re a hard agnostic is not determined by whether you have a certain piece of knowledge, but by whether you have a certain belief about knowledge.

No position regarding the existence of God, not even hard agnosticism, can be defined as knowing (or not knowing) that some particular answer to the God question is true. That’s because one of the requirements for a belief to count as knowledge is that the belief is true.

So if, say, theism was defined as knowing that there is a God, you wouldn’t be able to talk about theism without implying that you agree with it. Nor would you be able to talk about atheism without implying that you agree with that. So these things need to be defined as believing (or not believing) something. Theism, atheism, and agnosticism are about what you believe or don’t believe, not about what you know or don’t know. Even hard agnosticism is just a belief about what we don’t know.

People might sometimes describe their beliefs as “knowing”, even if they don’t really mean to assert anything stronger than belief. That’s to be expected, because if you believe something is true, then you probably also believe that your belief has all the other requirements to count as knowledge. So that’s how you might talk about what you think, but that doesn’t mean that these things are actually about knowledge as opposed to belief. Not even agnosticism, and certainly not soft agnosticism.

Soft agnosticism

What is soft agnosticism? When I look at online resources that define agnosticism, they mostly seem to focus primarily on hard agnosticism. But they also (usually rather vaguely) define the soft kind as well. And their descriptions of soft agnosticism do seem compatible with it being about belief, and not actually being about a question of knowledge distinct from the question of belief.

A soft agnostic’s answer to the question of whether there is a God is “I don’t know”. But are people really talking about knowledge as opposed to mere belief when they say that? I don’t think they are.

Answering a question with “I don’t know” would normally most likely mean something like “I don’t know which answer I should give to that question”, or “I don’t know what to believe”. I would not expect someone who gave that answer to mean something like “Whatever I might believe about that, my belief is not properly justified and does not count as knowledge”.

Because as I said before, if you believe something, that generally comes with believing that your belief has all the requirements for it to be knowledge. So it would be pretty strange to believe something, but not to consider it to be something that you know.

Unless you’re saying you have faith, but if you had faith, you wouldn’t be an agnostic, would you? Or is everyone who has faith in God an agnostic, because they merely believe but don’t know that God exists (since their belief lacks the kind of justification that would be required for a belief to be knowledge)? No, they’re not. Or at least they’re not soft agnostics, because that’s not what the soft agnostic’s answer “I don’t know” means.

If you ask people whether there’s a God, you’re looking to find out what they believe. You’re not asking about anything to do with knowledge as opposed to mere belief. And people you ask may answer using an expression that happens to contain the word “know”, but that doesn’t mean they’re randomly deciding to answer that question with something irrelevant about knowledge, instead of actually addressing the question of what they believe.

I think people who answer that question with “I don’t know” are not really saying anything about knowledge. All they’re intending to say is simply that they don’t have a belief either way. So a soft agnostic is someone who lacks a belief that there’s a God, and also lacks a belief that there’s no God.

In other words, they have no opinion. They’re undecided. They’re suspending judgment. This is (and should be) the default state for the relation between any person and any claim, until the person comes to have a sufficiently good reason to either accept or reject the claim.

Soft agnosticism is a middle ground between believing that there’s a God and believing that there’s no God. Not to be confused with a middle ground between believing there’s a God and not believing there’s a God. There is no middle ground between those things; you have to do one or the other. But you don’t have to either believe there’s a God or believe there’s no God. It’s possible to have neither of those beliefs, which is what soft agnosticism is.

The principle of agnosticism

So those are the two main meanings that “agnosticism” has today, but the word actually had a different meaning originally. When Thomas Huxley coined the word “Agnosticism”, he didn’t intend it to mean either of the things that people use it to mean now.

What Huxley called agnosticism was the general principle that you should not act like you’re certain about something unless you have good evidence to support your opinion. (This was in response to the principle of faith, which claims that there are things you should believe with complete certainty regardless of the evidence or lack thereof.)

Neither the hard nor the soft modern senses of the word “agnostic” really seem to have much to do with its original meaning. But if I had to pick one, I’d say the soft meaning is closer to the original intent of the word. Because soft agnosticism and the principle of agnosticism are both fairly closely related to the principle of initially suspending judgment by default (which I mentioned a few paragraphs ago). I don’t know where people got the idea that agnosticism meant that knowledge about God’s existence is impossible.

Atheism

What is atheism? There are two different things that some people consider to both be forms of atheism, known as strong and weak atheism, or positive and negative atheism, or hard and soft atheism. (Again, I’m gonna go with hard and soft.) Hard atheism is the belief that there is no God, and soft atheism is a lack of belief that there is a God.

Hard atheism was originally the only thing that the term “atheism” meant. It’s what most people understand that word to mean. It’s how dictionaries say the word is used. And it’s what most philosophers use it to mean.1 But a lot of atheists now consider the broader category that they call “soft atheism” to be a form of atheism too. Some of them even say the soft version is the correct way to define atheism. Where did they get the idea that atheism is a lack of belief? Does it make sense to define atheism this way?

Some people have been trying to redefine atheism as soft atheism since Antony Flew in the 1970s: “Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of ‘atheist’ in English is ‘someone who asserts that there is no such being as God’, I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively.” (At least he acknowledged that his definition was not the standard definition of atheism.)

Some atheist activist groups are pushing this redefinition of atheism, not because it makes more sense, but mainly for practical agenda-driven purposes like inflating their demographic numbers by including soft agnostics as atheists. Are there any good reasons to define atheism as soft atheism? Are there any good reasons not to?

The atheist website EvilBible.com argues against the idea that “soft atheists” should be called atheists at all. That website lists several mostly good reasons to reject the “lack of belief” definition of atheism, and it also gives one particularly bad reason. (Which is the one that it asserts the most vehemently.) The bad reason is that English speakers commonly use “I don’t believe X” to mean “I believe X is false”. That’s not a good reason because:

  • The fact that people commonly use language in illogical ways is no reason to accept those illogical uses of language. Normally, when the majority of people think or do a certain thing, intelligent people don’t take that as indisputable proof that the thing must be right. But for some reason, some people seem to think that the popular consensus can never be wrong when it comes to language.
  • The fact that some people fail to make a distinction between two different things doesn’t mean there isn’t a distinction there to be made. And it doesn’t mean the distinction should not be made.
  • And what are they even trying to prove with this argument? If this common usage argument was valid, what would the conclusion be? That everyone who says they “don’t believe” in God is an atheist? That’s basically the opposite of the point that EvilBible is trying to make! Their argument #6 seems to directly contradict their argument #8, or to make the same stupid error that their argument #8 calls out. Why are they arguing against their own position??

“Soft atheism” is not atheism

I think some of EvilBible’s other arguments for limiting the term “atheism” to hard atheism are pretty good, though:

  • Some atheists say it doesn’t matter how most people use the word, because only atheists should get to define atheism.
    • EvilBible points out that that is not how words get their meanings. The word “baby”, for instance, means what it means because that’s how we all use that word, not because babies decided that that was what it would mean.
    • I’d like to also point out (though EvilBible doesn’t mention this) that this principle of exclusive self-definition can’t work, because you would have to already know what an atheist is before you would know who gets to define it.
  • When people argue that atheism shouldn’t be defined as only hard atheism because it should be defined by atheists, they are assuming that most atheists want it to be defined as soft atheism.
    • EvilBible notes that no evidence is being provided for this idea. (EvilBible then tries to further counter it with some statistics about people who report having “no religion”. But that could mean unaffiliated theists, so those stats are irrelevant and don’t really tell us anything.)
    • Anyway, like I said, you can’t solely use what atheists think as the basis for defining atheism, because you would have to already know what an atheist is before you could know who to ask and who to ignore.
  • Some atheists think it gives them a debating advantage if they can say they don’t have a belief or are not making a claim, and therefore have no burden of proof.2
    • EvilBible responds that the people making the extraordinary claim that there is a God already have a massive burden of proof, so shifting the burden of proof onto them really isn’t necessary.
    • Another response I’ve seen (not from EvilBible) is that if atheists want to be rational and to be seen as rational, they shouldn’t be trying to avoid the burden of proof just to try to make things easier on themselves.
    • Especially if we’re talking about people who do actually have a belief that there’s no God. Why pretend you don’t? Trying to avoid the burden of proof just gives the impression that you’re unable to justify your position. You do have good reasons to think there’s no God, don’t you? I do. I don’t see why atheists would have a problem with having a burden of proof.
    • If you really don’t have a belief that there’s no God, then you may legitimately have the debating advantage of having no burden of proof, because then your position really is the default position, which is soft agnosticism. But then why insist on calling it atheism? And why would you be debating the existence of God, and care about whether you have an “advantage”, if you don’t have an opinion on the matter?
  • Etymology doesn’t necessarily tell you how a word should be used today, but for what it’s worth, the origin of the word “atheism” involved combining “atheos” with “-ism” (godless + belief), not combining “a-” with “theism” (without + belief in God).
  • The EvilBible article on defining atheism concludes by extensively quoting several reputable dictionaries and encyclopedias. None of them define atheism as a lack of belief. All of them basically define atheism as either the belief that there is no God, or the “disbelief” in or “denial” of the existence of God.
    • And they define denial as declaring something not to be true. And they note that denying the existence of God is something agnostics don’t do,3 unlike atheists.
    • The dictionaries similarly define disbelief as rejecting something as untrue, or being persuaded that an assertion is not true. One of the dictionaries contrasts unbelief (merely tentatively not accepting that something is true) with disbelief (being convinced that something is false).
    • The quoted dictionaries only define disbelief this way half the time, though. And a few of them do include a definition of disbelief as “not believing”. But I’ll note that since people do often (illogically) use that to mean believing that something is false, it’s possible that those dictionary writers didn’t really mean to say that disbelief means “not believing”. Especially since one of the dictionaries that says that is the same one that repeatedly makes the point that to disbelieve something is to believe it’s false.

Here’s another problem (in addition to the ones listed on EvilBible.com) with labeling people who merely lack belief as atheists. I believe this argument was first made by atheist philosopher Graham Oppy:

If not believing that there’s a God is a form of atheism, then by the same logic, not believing that there’s no God must be a form of theism. And if you lack both beliefs (the belief in a God and the belief in no God), then it makes exactly as much sense to say you’re a soft theist as to say you’re an soft atheist.

If it’s wrong to call such a person a theist, then it’s equally wrong to call that person an atheist. Because calling yourself an atheist when you merely lack a belief that there’s a God makes as much sense as calling yourself a theist when you merely lack a belief that there’s no God. If you call “soft atheists” atheists, then you have to accept that a soft agnostic (someone who is neither a hard theist nor a hard atheist) would be both a theist and an atheist.

But you can’t be both of those things at the same time, can you? This absurd conclusion, that someone can simultaneously be both a theist and an atheist, shows that there must have been a wrong assumption somewhere, that should be rejected. And that wrong assumption is that mere lack of belief in God is atheism. It’s not. Lack of belief in God is called non-theism. And when combined with a lack of belief that there’s no God, it’s soft agnosticism.

It’s called non-theism

  • Everyone is either a theist or a non-theist.
  • Everyone is either an atheist or a non-atheist.
  • Everyone is either an agnostic or a non-agnostic.
  • All non-theists are either atheists or agnostics.
  • All non-atheists are either theists or agnostics.
  • All non-agnostics are either theists or atheists.
  • No one is both a theist and an atheist.
  • No one is both a theist and an agnostic.
  • No one is both an atheist and an agnostic.
  • Anyone who is both a non-theist and a non-atheist is an agnostic.
  • Anyone who is both a non-theist and a non-agnostic is an atheist.
  • Anyone who is both a non-atheist and a non-agnostic is a theist.

(By “agnostic” here, I mean a soft agnostic. Hard agnosticism is a separate variable, and it’s logically possible to combine that with soft agnosticism, theism, or atheism.)

Agnostic atheism?

Can someone be both an agnostic and an atheist? It depends on what you mean by “agnostic” and “atheist”…

Continue reading Defining agnosticism, atheism, and agnostic atheism →
Share this post:

Things the Bible doesn’t say

Misconceptions

There are a lot of things that aren’t in the Bible, but for some reason everybody assumes they are.

Old Testament stories

The Bible doesn’t say Adam had another wife named Lilith. The only “lilith” mentioned in the Bible is some kind of creature that Isaiah said would haunt the ruins of Edom. Possibly a demon, or maybe just an owl. And the word Isaiah uses is plural, so it’s not an individual. The idea of Lilith being a wife of Adam seems to have come from an 8th-century work of satirical fiction.

The Bible doesn’t say Adam and Eve ate an apple. It just says they ate a certain kind of fruit that was forbidden. You don’t think eating apples is forbidden, do you? I’m not sure why anyone would assume the fruit that was forbidden was an apple, when they don’t regard apples as forbidden in any other context.4

It doesn’t say that nudity became sinful when Adam and Eve sinned, or that their sin was actually discovering sex, or anything like that. The first thing God ever said to humans was telling them to reproduce, so he clearly didn’t have a problem with sex. And it never says God thought there was anything wrong with people being naked. That was Adam and Eve’s own sin-induced perception, which God didn’t really seem to agree with.

It doesn’t say Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve’s only children. They were their first, but it says Adam had other sons and daughters. Noah, and therefore everyone after him, was descended from Adam and Eve’s son Seth, not from Cain. (At least not patrilineally.)

It doesn’t say the mark of Cain was a curse of any kind. It says God cursed Cain, but then agreed to also give him a mark that would prevent people from killing him. Having the mark was desirable for Cain. It also doesn’t say Cain’s mark was the origin of dark skin. The Bible never says what the mark looked like. It doesn’t say Ham or his son Canaan had dark skin, either.

The Bible doesn’t say the dove brought back an olive branch to Noah. It was an olive leaf. Only one English version I know of mistranslates it as a branch.

It doesn’t say Job was patient. In fact, Job specifically rejects the idea that there’s any reason he should be patient. His resolve to refrain from criticizing God lasts no more than the first two chapters. Then for the next thirty chapters or so, he does almost nothing but rant about how cruelly and unjustly God is treating him, and how he can’t wait to meet God so he can let him know what God has done wrong.5 I have no idea why people think of Job as patient. What could he have done that would show less patience?

It doesn’t say God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality. The Sodomite men in the story do seem to be gay; they all want to have sex with the men visiting Lot, and they aren’t interested when Lot offers to let them have sex with his daughters instead.6 But the Bible never says that was why God destroyed Sodom.

There are two passages in the Bible that give specific reasons for Sodom and Gomorrah being considered evil. One is a list of failings that have nothing to do with sex. The other says they were punished for sexual immorality, but it doesn’t specify what kind of acts they were being punished for.

The Bible doesn’t say Joseph was the youngest son of Jacob. Benjamin was the youngest.

It doesn’t say God killed Onan for masturbating. It says God killed him for refusing to impregnate his brother’s wife. He could have completely avoided any kind of sexual act, and God still would have killed him. It doesn’t say Onan ever masturbated, and God never said there was anything wrong with masturbation anyway.

It doesn’t say Moses grew up not knowing he was a Hebrew. There is no scene in the Bible where he finds out he was adopted.

It doesn’t say the Pharaoh that Moses freed Israel from was Ramesses II. Most Pharaohs mentioned in the Bible, including that one, go unnamed.

It doesn’t say atheists are fools, or that they’re uncommonly evil. That verse in the Psalms says fools are atheists, which is not the same thing. If all fools are atheists, it’s still possible that most atheists aren’t fools. And it says everyone in the world is evil, not just the atheists.

It doesn’t say Jezebel was a prostitute. Apparently some people think she was because it mentions her putting on makeup once?? But in context, it certainly doesn’t seem like she’s trying to seduce anyone.

It doesn’t say Jonah was swallowed by a whale. Every translation I know of calls it a fish. Not that the ancient writers of the story would have even been aware of that distinction. And the mention of the fish in the book of Matthew does sometimes get translated as “whale”. But still, that’s not what the actual book of Jonah says. So why do people always call it a whale?

New Testament stories

The Bible doesn’t say anything about an “immaculate conception”. It does mention a virgin birth, of course, but the immaculate conception is something entirely different. Immaculate conception means being conceived without inheriting sin, which some Christians believe is true of Jesus’s mother Mary. But that didn’t become an official part of Catholic belief until the 19th century, because the Bible says nothing about it.

It doesn’t say how old Mary was when she married Joseph. Getting married at 12 wouldn’t have been anything unusual in the past, but the Bible doesn’t actually mention her age. Or his.

It doesn’t say Mary and Joseph were immigrants when Jesus was born. Some American liberals like to call them “undocumented immigrants” or “refugees” for some reason. They were not any of those things. At least not until they fled to Egypt a couple of years later, which I’m pretty sure is not what those people have in mind.

It doesn’t say Mary and Joseph had to stay in a stable because there was no room in the inn and they couldn’t go somewhere else because she was about to give birth. It just says she gave birth “while they were there”, not necessarily the night they arrived. And it doesn’t even mention an inn or a stable at all! All it says is that Mary put her baby in a manger “because there was no guest room available“. More likely, they were staying with relatives. With the livestock that the relatives had brought into their house, because people did that back then.

It doesn’t actually mention any animals being present when Jesus was born, though.

It doesn’t say Jesus was born on the 25th of December. Winter seems like an unlikely time for a Roman census. Or for shepherds to be out in the fields at night. Based on what the Bible actually says, it’s arguably more likely Jesus was conceived around that date, and born in September.7

The Bible doesn’t say three wise men visited baby Jesus, much less say what their names were. It just says the wise men (however many there might have been) brought him three gifts. It doesn’t say the wise men were kings. They were Magi, which might mean they were mathematicians, astronomers, priests, astrologers, alchemists, or magicians, but not kings. And it doesn’t say the wise men came on the night Jesus was born. It was more like two years later.

The Bible doesn’t say Mary was a virgin all her life. It says Joseph married her, and abstained from sex until Jesus was born. (The author wouldn’t have included that qualifier if he hadn’t mean that they did have sex after Jesus was born.) And later, it says Jesus had brothers and sisters.8

It doesn’t say Christ was Jesus’s last name. His followers called him by the title Christ, because they believed he was the Messiah, which is what Christ means. But other people wouldn’t have called him that. To everyone else, he was Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus son of Joseph.

It doesn’t say Jesus had long hair.9 According to the Bible, long hair on a man is disgraceful. It doesn’t say Jesus dressed in white, either. The Bible doesn’t say anything about what he looked like. Unless you count the alleged Old Testament prophecies about him, which call him horrifyingly ugly.

It doesn’t say Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Just about all it says about her is that she saw Jesus die and she saw him after he rose and she used to be possessed by seven demons. So where did people get the idea that she was a prostitute? Well, Luke and John both have stories where a woman pours perfume on Jesus’s feet. Luke’s story describes the woman as sinful, and in John’s story the woman is Lazarus’s sister Mary.

But to conclude that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute based on that, you would have to make three questionable assumptions: that both of these stories are supposed to refer to the same event even though they take place in different locations, that Mary Magdalene was Lazarus’s sister (note that there are several different people named Mary in the gospels), and that the “sinful” woman was specifically a prostitute.

The Bible doesn’t say the Jews killed Jesus. At least not directly. It says they wanted to,10 but under Roman rule they weren’t allowed to execute anyone themselves. So they had to convince the Romans to do it. Pilate tried to put all the blame on the Jews, even though he could have easily overruled their wishes if he really didn’t want Jesus to die. But anyway, the Bible says it was really God’s idea. Blame him.

It doesn’t say Saul of Tarsus changed his name and became Paul when he converted to Christianity. He just always had two names, a Hebrew name and a Latin name, because he was born both a Jew and a Roman citizen. He may have used the name Paul more often when he was traveling outside Judea to preach to the Gentiles, because he wanted to be relatable, but he never stopped being Saul.

Continue reading Things the Bible doesn’t say →
Share this post:

Christian values vs the Bible

Misconceptions, , ,

As an atheist who reads the Bible daily, I sometimes wonder if Christians read the Bible at all. They sure don’t act like it.

Why do Christians think they need to dress up in their finest clothes when they go to church? The Bible certainly doesn’t say they should do that. On the contrary, it says women, at least, should not adorn themselves with expensive clothes and jewelry and stuff. Christians seem to have decided that Sunday is disobey-the-Bible day.

Why do Christians think it’s proper to call priests, monks, the Pope, etc. “Father”? Jesus clearly told his followers not to call anyone “Father” except God.

Jesus also said it was wrong to take any kind of oath. Yet Christians don’t usually seem to see taking oaths as a bad thing. Avoiding oaths seems to be more associated with atheists. Most Christians have no problem with swearing on the book that tells them not to swear by anything.

Christians generally think following your conscience is good, important, and one of the best ways to make sure you’re doing right. The Bible, on the other hand, says it’s quite possible for your conscience to mislead you, making you think you’re doing right when you’re really doing wrong. It says a lot of people have no idea that they’re doing anything wrong, so their conscience clearly isn’t doing them any good. You have to train yourself to distinguish good from evil, because your conscience is naturally so unreliable. So if the Bible is right, trusting your conscience is a terrible idea!

Some Christians think it’s wrong for a couple to live together when they’re not married. But not only does the Bible not forbid that, it commands it in certain cases.

Continue reading Christian values vs the Bible →
Share this post: