Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"

[Confused Ape]

Anti-theism usually just means something like anti-religious. People can't have a misconception about what an atheist is (on the topic of belief in gods) if all they mean by 'atheist' is something like "one rejects the existence of gods", which is what most people mean by 'atheist'. And since words really have usage, not meaning (or essential meaning, rather), atheist "means" one who thinks gods do not exist.

If people get confused over what someone means by atheist we can always quote Richard Dawkins's formulation of The Spectrum Of Theistic Probabily.

Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

1: Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

2: De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3: Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4: Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5: Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6: De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7: Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.

What Jung actually meant isn't quite as straightforward as it seems, however - Jung's regret over “I don’t need to believe, I know.”

What Jung tried to do in his letters after the interview was repair some of the damage. He confirmed his assertion that he was convinced there is something there, but also said that none of us knew what is there. In the interview, he would have been better understood if he had acknowledged that there is something very real and mysterious, which we all call God, but the images of God we all hold are different and inadequate.

I lack Jung's belief that the mysterious something is real but I'm not obliged to believe that it's real in order to find Jungian psychology useful.