What is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. Agnostic and atheist: what is common and what is the difference. How to distinguish an atheist from an agnostic

On the pages of popular science publications devoted to people's attitude to religion, one has to deal with a number of specific terms. In particular, authors of publications often divide people into two different categories - atheists and agnostics. What is the difference between them? If the question is more or less clear with the former, since in the Soviet period most of our compatriots considered themselves to be among them, then with the latter, not everything is so simple. Let's try to figure it out.

A short excursion into linguistics

Starting a conversation about the difference between an atheist and an agnostic, let's clarify the meaning of each of these terms. Let's turn to their etymology, that is, the origin of the words themselves. Both nouns - "atheist" and "agnostic" - have the prefix "a" at their beginning, expressing negation. The difference is that in the first case it refers to the noun "theos" - God, and in the second to "gnosis" - knowledge. Thus, it is easy to guess that the difference between atheists and agnostics is that the former deny God, and the latter, some kind of knowledge, which will be discussed below.

I don’t admit it because I don’t believe it!

First of all, it is necessary to refute the common and extremely erroneous opinion that an atheist is an unbeliever. Not at all. He is just a believer, but he believes not in the existence of God, but in his absence. He is driven by blind faith, since he cannot prove his point of view by any sensory sensations or logical constructions. History knows a number of thinkers who tried to build an evidence base based on logical conclusions, but the results of their works can hardly be called convincing.

Having embarked on the path of unfounded denial not only of God, but of all the supernatural in general, atheists thereby preach the self-sufficiency of the material world, and at the same time the purely human origin of all religions without exception. By this, they oppose themselves to theists - supporters of the divine origin of all things. As a rule, representatives of this category of people adhere to secular philosophical trends, such as humanism, materialism, naturalism, etc.

Possible, but unprovable

In turn, agnostics are in no hurry to make such categorical statements, although they are also not fans of the supernatural. What is the difference? Atheists and agnostics motivate their position in different ways. While the former categorically assert that there is no God, the latter generally refuse to answer this key question. Their deep conviction is that the world around us is, in principle, unknowable, and therefore, it is impossible to get the only correct answer regarding the existence of God. This is the fundamental difference between agnostics and atheists.

Famous agnostics of the past

It is known that the term "agnosticism", expressing such a skeptical attitude towards knowledge of the external world, was first introduced into use by the English scientist Thomas Huxley in 1869, but the doctrine itself appeared much earlier, back in antiquity. In the 18th century, Scotsman David Hume (1711-1776, portrait is given above) and German Immanuel Kant (1724-1804, portrait is shown below) became its prominent exponents.

The latter, in particular, argued that since we can judge the world around us only on the basis of the sensations that it generates in us, there can be no question of any objectivity of perception. The logic of his reasoning boiled down to the fact that in our minds the picture of the world is nothing more than a product of the brain, created on the basis of the information that he received from the senses.

However, no one guarantees that it is correct, since sight, hearing, smell, etc. often fail us. In addition, the human brain, unfortunately, is far from a perfect instrument, and can also distort the picture of the reality around us. Simply put, Kant, and with him all the philosophers who shared his point of view, rejected the real possibility of having an objective judgment in matters relating to the world order. This is the main difference between the views of agnostics and the position of atheists, who were their opponents and, vehemently denying the existence of God, did not allow even a shadow of doubt in their rightness.

Contradictions that took the form of conflicts

Both those and others have always entered and continue to come into conflict with believers, whose number, according to opinion polls, is steadily increasing. For people who recognize God as the creator of the world, both agnostics and atheists are ideological opponents alike. What is the difference between the reactions of representatives of these two very numerous categories of persons to criticism of their positions, which sometimes turns into violent attacks? Let's talk about this separately.

As for atheists, in disputes with believers, they never bothered to prove their case, since they could not present any convincing arguments and always closed themselves in their stubbornness. The discussion about the existence of God between atheists and believers, as a rule, boiled down to the fact that one of the parties stubbornly, but completely unsubstantiated: “Yes!”, While the other repeated its own, also not based on anything: “No! " As a result, they always became implacable enemies.

The form that their confrontation took depended on a number of external circumstances. So, in certain historical periods, the ministers of the church with a light heart sent to the stake everyone who expressed doubts about the truth of religious dogmas. At other stages of the development of society, militant atheists shot and sent to jail both the shepherds of God and their parishioners.

Convenient worldview position

In this regard, we can cite one more difference between atheists and agnostics. It consists in the fact that the latter never entered into open conflict with the ministers of the church. Moreover, this was explained not by the lack of adherence to principles, but solely by the convenience of their position. The adherents of agnosticism in the dispute with the clergy always had the opportunity to "iron out the rough edges", saying: "We fully admit that you are right, although we see no evidence of this."

They answered the same to atheists. As a result, it was possible to maintain completely peaceful relations with both those and others. The position is definitely comfortable. She always made it possible, without formally compromising principles, to avoid confrontation and not make enemies. That is why atheists and agnostics have coexisted so peacefully for centuries. The distinction between them is purely arbitrary. Some say: “We deny God,” others say: “We cannot believe in his existence,” which is essentially the same thing.

The intelligent choice of agnostics

In this regard, the question arises: what, in this case, prevents atheists from avoiding unnecessary attacks, because for this it is enough not to position themselves as enemies of the church, but only to evade accepting its teachings, citing its unprovability? Obviously, there can be two reasons. The first, called "intellectual choice", is that many atheists consider the agnostic theory to be false because, they argue, it is fundamentally wrong.

Atheists point out that, from the standpoint of ontology, that is, the doctrine of being as such, the very formulation of the question is incorrect. Proving the absence of something, you can give arguments that relate only to a particular case, but at the same time do not refute the existence of this object as such. A simple example: in order to make sure that there is no rabbit hiding in the magician's hat, it is enough to look into it. But even if it does not appear there, this does not mean at all that rabbits do not exist in the world at all. Thus, attempts to prove the absence of the existence of God are unacceptable for atheists, since, in their opinion, they are absurd.

Moral prerequisites for choice

But in addition, the irreconcilable position of atheists is often determined by their moral choice. As life shows, the most zealous of them are people who were once closely in touch with religion, but for one reason or another not only broke with it, but also became its opponents. There can be many such reasons, and their consideration is beyond the scope of this article.

It is only important that these people, unlike the followers of Kant and Hume, deliberately refuse to give their opponents the opportunity to even speculate about the proof of the existence of God. This is, in fact, the main contradiction between agnostics and atheists. What is the difference between their worldviews, it becomes clear from the fact that representatives of one of these teachings adhere to materialistic views, while their opponents are convinced supporters of the divine creation of the world.

In this article, we will look at who agnostics and atheists are, and how they differ from each other.

In the modern world, positions are quite common that in various ways oppose the existence of some religions or simply do not adhere to them. They are similar to each other, but not identical. The words atheism and agnosticism, as well as atheist and agnostic, evoke a number of different associations in most people. But ordinary citizens often have a misunderstanding of the problem, which is the main difference between the adherents of these two concepts.

How to distinguish an atheist from an agnostic?

It is a question of the existence of gods from the point of view of the life positions of agnosticism and atheism. Because of this, conflicts arise in society and misunderstandings between the adherents of these positions. To break any preconceptions and misinterpretations of these terms, it is necessary to consider the differences between atheists and agnostics. But first, it is important to understand the meaning of each of the words.

Who is an atheist?

An atheist is a person who does not believe in any god. Moreover, he denies in general all paranormal phenomena and mystical figures. And all the other things that cannot be explained by logic and thinking.

• At first glance, atheism is a very simple concept, but it is often misunderstood or not entirely accurate. Atheism can be interpreted in different ways, for example:
  • it is the lack of belief in gods or one god;
  • distrust of gods or, again, one god.
• But the most accurate definition that expresses the essence of the concept is the person who rejects the common statement “at least one god exists”.
• This statement does not belong to atheists and is categorically not perceived by them. To be an atheist, a person does not need to take any active action, and it is not even necessary to realize that he adheres to this position.
• All that is required of such a person is not to support the claims made by others, namely the representatives of theism and the church. Moreover, he scornfully treats both believers and faith itself.

Important: Atheists are not less than church supporters. And in some countries they cover half of the population. And even without hiding their position.

What kind of person can be called an agnostic?

An agnostic is any person who does not claim that there is any god. In other words, he even doubts his beliefs... This idea can be misunderstood, which is why agnostics are often confused with atheists.

• Since he does not claim to know for sure about the existence or absence of God, such a person is an agnostic. But there is a certain division in this issue. It remains to be seen whether he is an atheist agnostic or an agnostic theist.
• The atheist agnostic does not believe in any god, and the theist agnostic believes in the existence of at least one god. However, both of them do not pretend to acquire knowledge to support this belief. They believe that it is impossible to get true knowledge and confirm their hypothesis.
• It seems contradictory and complicated, but it's actually quite easy and logical. Whether an agnostic believes or not, it is convenient for him not to state his beliefs. It is enough for him to simply know - either it is true or false.
• It's easy enough to understand the nature of atheism - it's just a lack of faith in any gods. That agnosticism is not, as many believe, the "third way" between atheism and theism.
• After all, agnosticism - it is not belief in God, but knowledge about him. It was originally designed to describe the position of a person who could not express their beliefs. That is, he knows about the existence or absence of any gods.

Important: However, many people have the mistaken impression that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. But, in fact, “I don’t know” does not logically exclude “I don’t believe”.

How to understand who is agnostic and who is atheist?

There is a simple test that easily determines whether a person is agnostic or not, or what category he belongs to.

• If a person says that he knows for sure about the existence of any gods or one god, then he is not an agnostic, but a theist. That is, a person who is familiar to us. What kind of god is another matter.
• And if he believes and even knows for sure that God does not exist, then this is not a representative of agnosticism, but of atheism. That is, I am 100% sure of my ideas. It is even simply pointless to convince him of something. Except to show the real arguments.
• Anyone who cannot answer “yes” to one of these questions is a person who may or may not believe in one or more gods. Or he believes, but cannot reasonably explain the concept itself. Therefore, doubt arises within him. This person belongs to the group of agnostics.

What do an agnostic and an atheist have in common?

Yes, even a subtle thread of similarity can be established between these simultaneously opposing and similar views.

• It should be noted that these are sane people who guided by their own mind... They have a clear understanding of the world and its components, which must be visually confirmed. That is, everything should have a logical explanation and, preferably, an illustrative example.
• Continues their thinking and impossibility to prove the existence of god. Yes, there is a Bible and legends about past events. But no one saw with their eyes, and did not touch it with their hands. It is to them that the proverb “it's better to see once than hear 10 times”.
• It is worth highlighting more concreteness... Namely, in the matter with faith. That is, it is not. Neither an agnostic has a precise statement about faith, nor an atheist has extenuating circumstances in this matter.

What is the Difference Between Agnostic and Atheist: A Comparison

The emergence of agnostics and atheists was provoked by the historical conditions of human development. The main reason for their appearance is the presence in the world of a large number of different religious beliefs. After all, each representative claims that his position is the only correct option for creating the world.

• Already in primitive society, people appeared who cast doubt on the reliability of any religious belief. Whether it's paganism, Christianity or Judaism - it doesn't really matter. They did not recognize the existence of God as the creator of all living and nonliving.
• Among such people, representatives of agnosticism and atheism are most popular, but their life positions differ to a certain extent from each other.
• Nowadays, the difference between an atheist and an agnostic should be pretty clear and easy to remember.
  • Atheism is faith or, in this case, its absence. More precisely, it exists, but it is in the opposite character, that there is no God.
  • Agnosticism is knowledge or, in particular, unconfirmed ignorance. Moreover, it does not want to declare or receive any facts.
• In other words, an atheist doesn't believe in any god. And the agnostic does not know whether there is any god or not.
• It is a common misconception that agnosticism is a more “reasonable” attitude. Whereas atheism is "dogmatic" and ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in detail. This is an incorrect argument because it distorts or misconstrues the concepts of theism, atheism, and agnosticism.
• Atheists and agnostics, no doubt, have similarities. But there are much more differences. The first difference is the attitude of representatives of both groups to theism.
  • Atheists do not recognize theism and consider all believing supporters to be their opponents. Moreover, they are distinguished by a certain aggressiveness in this matter. Psychologists also note that among atheists there are more egoists and overly stubborn people.
  • Agnostics, on the other hand, are loyal to theism, and nothing prevents him from being a theist and believing in God at the same time. By the way, there are many altruists among them. That is, they show excessive kindness to others, even to strangers.

• It is also worth noting that the same person can be an atheist and an agnostic. The fact is that a person is not faced with the need to be only an atheist or an agnostic.
• Regardless of how they approach the question of the existence of God, agnostics and atheists are fundamentally different. Many people who have adopted the label of agnostic at the same time reject the label of atheist, even if it technically applies to them.
• Theists, in turn, recognize the existence of agnosticism and try to use the hypotheses developed by it to combat atheism, sometimes distorting them.
• It's worth noting that there is a vicious double standard. After all, theists claim that agnosticism is better than atheism. Because he is less dogmatic. But agnostics who take this argument into account rarely speak about it explicitly. More often they try to approve of religious theists by attacking atheists.
• Another difference is position in society. Atheists are still condemned and despised by society. The attitude to agnostics is completely different.
  • Yes, without exaggeration. The hallmark of the concept of atheism is the constant social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are not afraid to claim that they truly do not believe in any god are still despised by society.
  • At the same time, the word "agnostic" is perceived as a more respectable position, and the position of agnosticism is considered more acceptable to others.
  • But what is there, even prestigious to be agnostics, because they are considered representatives of science. Many agnostics were philosophers, and scientists still take their opinion with them.

Important: But there is a major difference between the two concepts. Atheism is the lack of faith in any gods. Agnosticism is the recognition that the existence of gods is an unconfirmed hypothesis. Because it cannot be verified.

• It's also worth noting that they have different views. on the human soul... And, by the way, you can't see or touch her either. But, the atheist remains unshakable in this matter, but the agnostic changed his position. He recognizes the presence of a soul in a person. And he argues this by the fact that he feels it inside himself.
• And in conclusion, I would like to recall the old folk traditions or even family rituals. Yes, even banal birthday gifts. The agnostic does not see the point in them and even reacts a little viciously to all useless waste. The agnostic has slightly changed his firmness in this matter - he approves with both hands for all traditional celebrations, if he likes them.

It is worth summing up so as never to confuse these words with each other. An atheist is a concept associated with faith, or rather with its absence. Agnostic is a term associated with knowledge, or rather, with the impossibility of reliable knowledge.

Video: Agnostic and Atheist, What's the Difference?

What is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? and got the best answer

Answer from Vladimir Pavlek [guru]
The agnostic believes that it is impossible to answer the question “Does God exist?” - and even more than that, it is impossible to assess which is more probable - the existence of God or His absence. The atheist denies the existence of God, or at least considers the probability of the existence of God too small to take into account. In general, both an atheist and an agnostic usually both understand that it is impossible to prove that there is no God. But if you ask both the same question: "Is there a God?" the agnostic will answer: - I don’t know, on the one hand there is no reason to be convinced that He exists, on the other hand, no one can prove that He does not exist. And the atheist will say: - I also cannot be 100% sure that there is no God, but all my own experience and all the experience of previous generations shows that all physical laws are unchanging, no manifestations of the supernatural in the whole history have never been reliably recorded, all questions sooner or later find their answers without the involvement of God, the poet i think there is no God. At least, there is no more reason for believing in Him than for believing in forest fairies, Santa Claus, etc. In short, an agnostic estimates the probability of the existence of God at 50%, and an atheist - very close to zero.

Answer from Kind fairy[guru]
the agnostic believes that it is impossible to prove the presence or absence of God. and the atheist denies that God exists in the same way that the believer claims that God exists.

Answer from Magura[guru]
The atheist doubts nothing, but the agnostic doubts everything. The atheist has guarantees that there is no God. The believer has assurances that God exists. The agnostic has no guarantees other than his own experience. He admits everything, he can be inclined to what he likes, but he perfectly understands that he can be wrong.

Answer from Oman Shevchenko[guru]
The agnostic thinks that God exists and is pleased with that.

Answer from Ѝl Chupacabra[guru]
Agnostic: there is a god, there is no god - science does not know. Atheist: But I know - no

Answer from Kaktus[guru]
Agnosticism (from ancient Greek ἄγνωστος - "unknowable, unknown") is a trend in philosophy that considers it impossible to objectively cognize the surrounding reality through one's own experience. Thus, agnosticism questions the truth or the possibility of proving or refuting statements in a certain area, especially in metaphysics and theology. History The term was coined by Professor Thomas Henry Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. By his definition, an agnóstic is a person who has renounced the faith associated with God and is convinced that the primary beginning of things is unknown, since it cannot be known. In other words, an agnostic is a person who believes that it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of God. The term is applied to the teachings of Herbert Spencer, Hamilton, George Berkeley, David Hume and others. Agnosticism can be found already in ancient philosophy, in particular in Protagoras, the sophists, in ancient skepticism. Attitude to religions An agnostic considers it impossible to know the truth in matters of the existence of God, eternal life, and other supernatural beings, concepts and phenomena. This does not exclude the belonging of an agnostic to religions or philosophical movements that give an unambiguous answer to these questions, since agnosticism does not fundamentally exclude the existence of divine essences and allows belief in them. Only the possibility of proving the truth or falsity of such entities in a rational way is rejected.In modern understanding, the term "agnostic" can also be used to describe those who believe that the question of the existence of God can be resolved, but consider the arguments given in favor of the existence or non-existence of God unconvincing and not sufficient to come to an unambiguous conclusion on their basis. To reduce the ambiguity associated with the use of the term "agnosticism," the terms "strict agnosticism" are sometimes used for the initial understanding of the word, and "empirical agnosticism" for the modern definition. Relationships with other philosophical currents Agnosticism develops in positivism, neopositivism and post-positivism as conventionalism. Agnosticism in the theory of knowledge Agnosticism can also be defined as a teaching based on the following statement: since the whole process of cognition is based on experience, and experience is subjective, the subject will not be able to comprehend the essence of the object under study, "thing in itself." Thus, the role of science is reduced to the knowledge of experience, and not the essence of things and phenomena. In this sense, agnosticism is any philosophical teaching that denies the possibility of achieving absolute truth, for example, Kantianism. Notable adherents of agnosticism Roger Waters Matt Stone Yegor Gaidar Zac Efron Artemy Troitsky Anna Vorontsova Bertrand Russell Huxley, Thomas Henry Herbert Spencer Hamilton Berkeley, George Hume, David Robert Anton Wilson Mark Twain Thomas Edison Sigmund Chaplinberg Jr. Charles Waglen Waglen Paul Verhoeven Stephen Jay Gould Daniel Dennett Richard Leakey John Carpenter Stephen Wozniak Douglas Adams Matt Groening Stephen Pinker Bill Gates Carrie Fisher Graham Greene

Answer from Ѓwives[guru]
The agnostic is sometimes represented as rushing between two fires: theism and atheism. But the expression "suspended state" is more appropriate here. The agnostic talks about suspense - suspension, suspension of judgment about the existence of God. For all that, theists regard the agnostic as a disguised atheist, and atheists as a cautious or shy theist. Who is an agnostic, the third or one of the two? Obviously, an agnostic is not a theist, unless we change the meaning of "agnosticism" or replace it with a philosophical meaning. But it seems that an agnostic cannot be considered an atheist either, because he does not make a negative judgment about the existence of God. However, the atheistic position is not limited only to the denial of the existence of God, as it is imagined by everyday consciousness. Atheism is not only, and not so much a theoretical position as a practical doctrine. The atheist rejects belief in God as incompatible with the consciousness of a free person and has a negative attitude towards religious worship. The atheist criticizes religion based on a wide arsenal of methods and scientific data, adopting the same anti-dogmatic attitude as an agnostic. And if an agnostic is effectively, practically opposed to religion and the church, then he is an atheist. And in this case, the differences between agnostic and atheist are internal theoretical. The only difference between them is that those arguments that the atheist considers probable enough to be accepted as reliable reliable, the agnostic considers insufficient for complete confidence (in the non-existence of God).

I only know that I do not know anything, but others do not know this either (Socrates)

The essence of agnosticism is that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. Numerous "proofs of the existence of God" throughout history have been refuted - often by believers themselves. But on the other hand, it is also impossible to refute the existence of God. And here the conclusion suggests itself that the most honest answer would be: "I don't know whether there is a God or not." An even more accurate answer would be: "Nobody knows whether there is a god or not." But agnosticism, unlike atheism, is touted as an “honest” solution. The reason for this is that most atheists claim things that cannot be logically proven.

There is often an opinion among believers that atheism itself is also a religion, since it takes the non-existence of God on faith. This is such a ridiculous statement that it is offensive to give him more than two sentences. First, as Bill Mayer said, if atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a position in sex. And secondly, atheism cannot be called a religion without violating the meaning of the word "religion".

Believers do not usually find fault with such an answer. A person does not make categorical conclusions, but simply expresses his judgment, his assessment. And due to the fact that the times of the Holy Inquisition have already passed, the agnostic with his answer is beyond criticism, criticizing religion.

Sometimes agnostics are mistakenly ranked on some "scale of radicality" between deism ("the god of Spinoza and Einstein") and atheism. This is often true - but not always. Both deists and agnostics can criticize religion. Deists like Voltaire and Thomas Paine were very successful critics of religion. Agnostic Bertrand Russell, author of Why I Am Not a Christian, was an agnostic, although he is often considered an atheist for his anti-Christianity. Deist, agnostic, and atheist can criticize religion with equal criticism. The difference between them is that a deist believes in "universal reason", an agnostic does not believe, but does not undertake to deny a certain deity, and an atheist denies.

As you can see, the difference between an atheist and an agnostic is only formal. "I do not believe that there is a god" and "I deny that there is a god." Considering that in practice this means almost the same thing, it advantageously allows the agnostic to avoid criticism. But why do atheists continue to call themselves atheists and do not take advantage of such a favorable position as an agnostic? There are two answers to this question: it is an intellectual choice and a moral choice.

In logic, in the science of thinking, one of the main methods of refuting a thesis is “Deprivation of the Foundation”. It is enough to show that the thesis has no foundation to make its statement impossible and illogical. To argue that we cannot know whether God exists is illogical, in light of the fact that the thesis of his existence has been refuted. Logically speaking, "there is no God because there is no reason to assert that he exists."

The atheist rejects the hypothesis about God because it is unnecessary and because it is divorced from reality, does not correspond to the Popper's Principle. It follows from this that there is no reason to say that God exists. The same conclusions as in logic. There is no need to prove that there is no god. Moreover, it would be illogical and unscientific. There is no need to prove that there is no Santa Claus. Or that Baba Yaga is not there. Just because there is no reason to believe that they are, the atheist automatically believes that they are not. This is a sound principle. If you are not guided by it, it is impossible to distinguish facts from illusions. We will have to accept any fantasy as a probable fact, because "it is impossible to prove non-existence." Therefore, from the point of view of rationality, from the point of view of scientific methodology, there is no God. In the same way as there is no Santa Claus. Moreover, among the critics of the scientific method, there is not a single one who could create another reasonable method that would allow the existence of God, while not allowing the existence of Santa Claus.

Someone might argue that maybe God did not specifically give reliable evidence of his existence, for some reason unknown to us? Maybe he created the universe and then stepped aside? But from the point of view of science, it is not needed for the universe to form. In theory, God can exist and hide from us, deliberately leaving no evidence. But even in this case, we cannot consider that he is, just because "he may be hiding somewhere." Such an argument, again, may mean that the Serpent Gorynych and Santa Claus are just hiding. In practice, this argument is useless. We cannot learn anything from unfounded guesses.

The agnostic creates a feeling of comfort in the believer, because he refuses to consistently conclude that God does not exist. The agnostic does not destroy his illusion as much as the believer must realize. Religious organizations, built around the ignorance of their victims, shamelessly exploit them for their own enrichment, to curb the struggle for their rights, to fight against science and everything progressive. Observing history, when religion suppressed science, and how it seeks to resist science, art, freedom of speech and conscience in the modern world, it is impossible to remain aloof. When supporters of a religious delusion try to politically validate their teachings, impose them on children at school, stifle any sound criticism under the pretext that it "insults the feelings" of those who share this delusion, then there is a threat to public freedom.

Secrets of the brain. Why We Believe in Everything Shermer Michael

Theist, atheist, agnostic and the burden of proof

Once I saw a sticker on the bumper that read: "Militant agnostic: yes, I don't know for sure, but you don't know either." This is my position on the existence of God: yes, I don’t know, but you don’t know either. But what does it mean to be agnostic? Is this the kind of person who refrains from judgment until more evidence has been gathered? Earlier in this book I announced that I do not believe in God, but does that mean that I am an atheist? It all depends on what definition is given to both terms, and for this we should turn to the Oxford English Dictionary, our most reliable source of information on the history of word usage: theism- this is "belief in a deity or deities" and "belief in one God as the creator and supreme ruler of the universe." Atheism- "disbelief in the existence of God or his denial." Agnosticism- "unknowable, unknowable, unknowable".

The term “agnosticism” was coined in 1869 by Thomas Henry Huxley, Darwin's friend and most enthusiastic popularizer of evolution, to describe his own beliefs: “When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself if I was an atheist, a theist or a pantheist ... it turned out that the more I learned and reflected, the less I was ready to give an answer. They [believers] are absolutely sure that they have reached a certain "gnosis" - more or less successfully solved the problem of existence, while I am quite sure that in my case this is not the case, and to a large extent I am convinced that this problem is insoluble. " ... So I am convinced that the question about God has no answer.

The question about God has no answer.

Of course, no one is agnostic about behavior. Acting in this world, we act as if God exists, or as if God does not exist, therefore, by default, we must make a choice, if not by reason, then at least by our behavior. In this respect, I admit that there is no God, and live accordingly, in the end I am an atheist. In other words, agnosticism is an intellectual position, a statement about the existence or non-existence of a deity and our ability to know it for sure, while atheism is a behavioral position, a statement about what assumptions we make about the world in which we act.

Despite the fact that literally everyone brands me as an atheist, I prefer to call myself a skeptic. Why? Words matter, labels carry meaning. Using the word “ atheist", People mean strict atheism, claiming that God does not exist, and this position is unreliable (you cannot prove denial). Lax atheismsimply refrains from believing in God for lack of evidence, and we exhibit this kind of atheism in relation to almost all the gods that humanity has believed in throughout its history. In addition, people tend to equate atheism with a particular political, economic, and social ideology, such as communism, socialism, extreme liberalism, moral relativism, and the like. Since I am a tax conservative civil rights activist and certainly not a moral relativist, these associations are irrelevant. Yes, you can try to define atheism in a more positive way than I do regularly, but since I publish a journal Skepticand keep in the journal Scientific americanmonthly heading "Skeptic", I prefer this particular label. The skeptic simply does not believe a claim to knowledge if the evidence presented is insufficient to reject the null hypothesis (that some claim to knowledge is false until proven otherwise). I don’t know that there is no God, but I don’t believe in God either; in addition, I have many reasons to consider the concept of God socially and psychologically constructed.

The problem we face when it comes to God is that certainty is impossible when such important questions as "What was before time appeared?" or "If the Big Bang marked the beginning of all time, space and matter, what triggered this first act of creation?" The fact that science is presented to us as problems with a question mark at the end does not bother scientists, since theologians are in the same epistemological impasse. You just need to push them, induce them to take one more step. My debates and dialogues with theologians, theists and believers usually develop as follows - on the question of what triggered the Big Bang, or the first act of creation:

God did it.

And who created God?

God is uncreate.

Then why can't the universe be “uncreateable”?

The universe is an object or event, while God is an active force (agent) or entity, and objects and events can be created by something, while acting forces or entities are not.

If God is part of the universe, isn't he an object?

God is not an object. God is an active force or entity.

But shouldn't the acting forces and entities also be created? We are an agent and an entity, namely human beings. We agree that human beings need an explanation of our origins. So why is this logical reasoning not applicable to God as an active force and entity?

God is outside of time, space and matter, therefore, does not need explanation.

If so, then none of us simply can know whether God exists or not, since by definition, being beings with a limit and acting exclusively within the framework of this world, we are able to cognize only other natural and finite beings and objects. It is impossible for a natural finite being to know a supernatural infinite entity.

At this point of controversy, my theologian opponents usually turn to auxiliary arguments for God's existence, such as personal revelation. By definition, personal, therefore, unable to serve as evidence for those who are not involved in the experience of these revelations. Or, theists refer to facts and miracles related to their particular faith, for example, Muslims - to the rapid growth of Islam, Jews - to the fact that their oldest religion has survived millennia of attempts to eradicate it, Christians - that the apostles would not have perished, defending your faith if miracles such as resurrection were not possible. In all three cases, it is implied that millions of believers cannot be wrong.

Okay, I parry, millions of Mormons believe that their sacred text was dictated in an ancient language, written on gold plates by the angel Moroni, then buried and later dug up near Palmyra, New York, by Joseph Smith, who translated the found text into English, immersing his face in a hat filled with magic stones. Millions of Scientologists believe that centuries ago, the lord of the galaxy named Xenu brought alien beings from another solar system to Earth, placed them in some of the planet's volcanoes, and then turned them to dust with hydrogen bombs and scattered their "thetan" (souls ), which are currently being introduced into people's bodies and causing drug and alcohol abuse, addiction, depression, and other psychological and social illnesses that only Scientology can heal. The credibility of statements is clearly independent of the number of people who believe in them.

The burden of proving the existence of God lies with believers, unbelievers are not obliged to refute his existence, but to this day theists have not been able to prove the existence of God, at least according to the high standards of evidence accepted in the world of science and reason. And we return again to the nature of faith and the origins of faith in God. I have consistently stated my opinion that belief in a supernatural force acting on purpose is programmed in our brains and that an agent, or agent, like God, was created by humans, and not vice versa.

The most popular evidence for God's existence boils down to the fact that millions of believers cannot be wrong.