Home » Kiosk » Kiosk Article » Atheists, Agnostics, and Unicorns – Oh My!

Atheists, Agnostics, and Unicorns – Oh My!

In the secular world there are generally three classes of beings: atheists,
agnostics, and ________. This third class is usually named “other non-theists”
or “freethinkers” or something of that ilk. In other words: “everyone else
who is not religious”. But this third category is hazily defined at best.
Therefore, we are left with our two, ever present, principal players: atheists
and agnostics.
So what exactly distinguishes the atheist from the agnostic? Here are
a couple of home-brewed definitions devised to stress their differences.
Atheist: A person who does not believe in the existence of god(s)*.
Agnostic: A person who believes that, regarding the existence of god(s)*,
there is no evidence to support either a positive or negative conclusion.
*Hereafter, I will use the singular “god” for increased readability,
but the term is inclusive of polytheism.
At first glance, it seems that the agnostic has the more tenable position.
After all, he is an open minded fellow, unlike the hard hearted atheist
who has clearly already cast his conclusion in stone. I wonder though.
I think the agnostic definition is misleading. In my mind, and in the
mind of many theists I believe, it conjures up a picture of someone who
thinks the existence of god is a 50/50 proposition, more or less. Someone
who sees the theist’s position as fairly rational and convincing – just
not quite enough. Someone who may be attending worship services already
(just in case) and, if not, is on the verge of doing so. In other words,
someone who is on that precipice of belief, and all it will take is right
inspiring event, person, or scriptural passage to put them over the edge.
If this is an accurate description of you, then I think “agnostic” is a
fitting title. However, if every agnostic I have ever met is to serve as
a sample, nothing could be farther from the truth.
The agnostics I have known are confident within 99.9% that god does
not exist. They see the theist’s position as specious and absurd. They
are not religious in any way, and view religion with something between
suspicion and disgust. In other words, they are atheists.
What’s this? Agnostics are atheists? Well, yeah.
Much is made of the agnostic’s vaunted admission of the possibility
that god exists. Yet I have never come across an atheist who thinks it
is impossible that god may exist. Atheists would be more than eager to
examine any hard, empirical data supporting the existence of god and even
change their minds if that conclusion was borne out by other corroborating,
testable evidence.
Likewise, the atheist position does not jump to an unwarranted conclusion.
Contrary to popular belief, atheists do not claim they can “prove” god
doesn’t exist. Admittedly, there are a few specific, clearly defined gods
(such as the omnipotent, all loving creator) who can be disproved by various
arguments (such as the Problem of Evil), but by and large theists construct
their definitions of god in the vaguest manner possible. God usually takes
the form of something unseeable, untouchable, and unknowable – occupying
a realm anterior to our universe. I always like to point out that these
very attributes are shared by another class of things: those which don’t
exist. Nevertheless, the point is that the theist deliberately sets up
god so that he is untestable by any scientific means. Of course, this is
ironic since the only real “proof” that something doesn’t exist is the
absence of evidence, and theists, in defining god’s ethereal nature, have
made certain of this absence.
Atheists, in stating that they do not believe god exists, are simply
invoking the type of default reasoning that everyone recognizes as completely
sensible, except when it comes to god, i.e. (in the words of the legendary
Bertrand Russell) “…that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when
there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.” Here’s a test. Ask
an agnostic if he believes in unicorns. I can almost guarantee you he won’t
say: “Well, there really isn’t any evidence to support either a positive
or negative conclusion. I guess the jury is still out on that one.” Rather,
he will likely respond with a flat “no”, perhaps followed by a hearty chuckle.
Why is he so sure? Has he scoured the earth examining every species
of horse in existence to make sure there aren’t any single horned equines
frolicking on the plains? I mean, unicorns have been mentioned by many
books and people throughout the ages – they even appear in that reputed,
infallible text known as the Bible (at least the King James Version). Of
course, the agnostic can’t “prove” unicorns don’t exist. He is simply acting
in accordance with the clearly rational position that, when there is no
evidence to support a conclusion, the onus is on the those making the claim
to provide proof – not the other way around.

The idea that “if evidence can be presented which contradicts earlier
conclusions, those conclusions are subject to change” is implicit in the
atheist’s thinking, and indeed, rational thought at large. Such an idea
is so obviously applicable across the board that it seems silly to build
it into a definition of one particular position. Yet that is the case with
“agnostic.” I wonder why.
I suppose the agnostic may be concerned that the theist will not understand
his rational willingness to alter his conclusions in the face of counter
evidence. This is understandable since theists have demonstrated a chronic
inability to apply that very concept since time began. And that is the
crux of what bothers me about the “agnostic” definition – it seems to prostrate
itself before the theist’s position, according it a respect it doesn’t
deserve. The agnostic should not have to plead his case as if his conclusions
are wildly paradoxical. This is why I find few questions as annoying as,
“Why don’t you believe in god?” As if I should be the one explaining myself.
I have taken to answering, “The same reason I don’t believe in unicorns”,
and leaving it at that.
Let’s recognize theism for what it really is: irrational and unfounded
conjecture. Even the term “atheist” doesn’t quite recognize this, since
the fact there is actually a word describing the position grants some measure
of respect it’s opposite. After all, there are no “aunicornists”. Yet,
because of the proliferation of theism, it demands an answer. And no answer
puts the concept of god in it’s proper place like that of the “atheist”.