Agnostic: a pointless term?

[wiploc]

I have a question: I'm agnostic about many things, and so is my Beagle, Victor.

Christopher Hitchens said, "owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are god."

But would victor be classified as an agnostic atheist? I mean, he does lack a belief in God. How about my sock? Is it atheist?

The sock question is easier, so I'll start there. Agnostics and atheists are people. We don't say that an agnostic is anything that doesn't know whether gods exist; rather, it is anyone who doesn't know whether gods exist.

The dog is a harder case. Consider Jehovah: If Jehovah existed, and knew everything, then Jehovah would know that Jehovah existed. In which case, Jehovah would be a gnostic theist, right? So you have to be a person to be a theist (or atheist or agnostic) but you don't have to be a human person. (Chick Fil A may be a legal person, but that is not relevant to this discussion.)

Do you consider Victor to be a person? If not, that disposes of this issue. Socks and rocks are neither atheists nor agnostics.

If you do consider Victor to be a person, but don't want to think of him as an agnostic or atheist, then you can go with the dictionary definitions that exclude "implicit atheists." That is, in order to be an athiest, you have to consider the possibility that there is a god but come away unpersuaded.

Let's go to dictionary.com to see how that works:

An atheist is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

"Denies" and "disbelieves" are going to be the key points, then, so let's look them up.

Deny: "1. to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true." "2. To refuse to agree or accede to."

There are other definitions, but, in the first batch of definitions at dictionary.com, these seem to be the relevant ones. Therefore, has your dog ever said that he doesn't believe in god? If not, you are, as far as this definition goes, off the hook when it comes to the charge of owning a religiously eccentric dog.

Let's consider the word "disbelieve," then. The first definition of "disbelieve" is "to have no belief in." Despite the Christopher Hitchens quote above, I'm willing to stipulate that Victor passes that test. Victor is not a theist, therefore he is an atheist according to dictionary.com---if victor is a person.

Which is not where I wanted to come out. I believe Victor is a person, but I wouldn't call him an atheist. Given that I don't think you have to be human to be an atheist (Jehovah would be a theist if he existed) how do I resolve this discrepancy?

I'll say that you can't be an atheist unless you could be a theist. That is, if you can't contemplate the possibility that gods exist, then you fall outside the realm of theists/atheists and gnostics/agnostics.

The thing that galls me is that none of these fine variations on disbelief amount to squat in the real world. Regarding how he or she carries on with his or her life, a non-believer is a non-believer. Our morals, our political stances, our philosophies are not changed the slightest by it. Whether we are strong-atheist or traditional agnostic, we carry on as if God does not exist. No practical difference.

And there, it seems to me, is a motive that some of us have for preferring the new nomenclature: If there is no practical difference in these various groups, let's include them all under a single name. Therefore, anyone who is not a theist is an atheist.


.