Defining Atheism, Agnosticism, and Religion: A Scholar's View

The Importance of Definitions

As someone who has spent a decade researching the psychology of religion in a university environment, and two decades discussing religion on social media, I have come to believe that these two worlds don’t meet often enough.

The academic world lacks some of the philosophical and semantic insights that emerge online, while internet debates are largely bereft of input from modern science (besides that gleaned from popular science writers like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris).

What I've learned is that definitions are a touchy subject. Early in life, I declared myself agnostic and refused to be called an atheist. I now realize that I was both, and that a need to “find my tribe” is no longer important.

Even so, precise definitions are necessary for effective communication, because misrepresenting people’s beliefs allows emotion to distract from healthy debate and insightful research. I therefore hope that the following definitions, which draw on both academic research and popular consensus, are informative.

What is Atheism?

Atheism literally means “without a god” or “godless.” An atheist is therefore someone who does not believe in gods. There is an important distinction between not believing in gods and the belief that gods do not exist. Some atheists hold the latter belief, but it is not a defining feature of atheism. The proper definition includes everyone who is not a theist and, thus, many who prefer to be called agnostic.

This definition entails no beliefs of its own. Some academics call it nonbelief to avoid confusion because it is common for people to create new definitions of atheism that include beliefs, such as that:

1. Gods do not exist.

2. The universe came from nothing.

3. Morality has no fundamental guiding principle(s).
   
   

These beliefs are unsupported or unproven, suggesting that people who define atheism in this way are misguided or manipulative. For example, some theists may wish to create a “straw man” version of atheism that is as irrational as their theism is accused of being.

What is Agnosticism?

When used colloquially, agnosticism means uncommitted, unsure, and “wishy-washy” (e.g., “I’m agnostic about that”). However, people who are agnostic about gods are often quite sure that their agnosticism is the correct approach. Indeed, agnosticism means without knowledge, and declaring a lack of knowledge is an appropriate response to encountering a lack of evidence.

This definition does not exclude fence sitters, nor people who haven't thought about the subject. However, the dozens of informal discussions that I have had with declared agnostics suggest that a fair percentage have thoroughly considered the evidence for gods and are committed to their “without knowledge” position.

As with atheism, problems arise when scholars attach additional beliefs to agnosticism, such as that:

1. No-one else knows the answer (“I don’t know and neither do you”).

2. The question is unknowable and can never be answered (permanent agnosticism).

3. The question is knowable and will be answered (temporal agnosticism).
   
   

None of these beliefs are required for a person to be agnostic and, given their prior humility, agnostics would likely declare that they cannot possibly know what the future holds or what evidence other people have seen.

What is Religion?

Religion is rarely defined properly because most people are focused on large monotheistic religions. Although some people have read about the big five, most neglect the hundreds of indigenous religions that have helped anthropologists to establish its fundamental features.

For example, people sometimes say religion is about control. But are the rituals and beliefs of indigenous tribes an explicit exercise in control (by whom?) or an evolved disposition that helps them to understand, traverse, and cope with the world? It is likely that large monotheistic religions had the same roots, even if they temporarily became authoritarian institutions.

The first thing we can say about religion is it’s a social enterprise, involving shared beliefs and behaviours. Furthermore, with so many cultures developing similar beliefs and practices—such as worship of moralistic, creator gods—these are probably expressions of universal, evolved, psychological biases.

For example, humans have evolved to imagine beings and entities around every corner. We expect predators in the bushes and monsters under the bed because it is “better to be safe than sorry” (see the book, Faces in the Clouds). We are also drawn to novelty and unexpected ideas, see minds as non-physical, mistakenly see design and purpose in our environment, engage in rituals to establish a sense of control, and have a difficult time imagining being dead.

Although these biases have other purposes, they are extended or hijacked by religion, explaining why most cultures around the world have produced beliefs about afterlives, souls, and supernatural creators that respond to rituals. Put simply, religion comes easily to people. In fact, it is so intuitive that the above biases can even cause nonbelievers to instinctively react as if they were religious.

Given its ubiquity, religion was probably also beneficial in our evolutionary past, such as by allowing large groups to align their views, cooperate better, and conquer their neighbours. Finally, religion appears to provide psychological comfort (benevolent gods, idyllic afterlives, etc.), which may motivate people to believe in it. Taken together, we could say:

Such a definition would not be possible without hundreds of psychologists, anthropologists, and evolutionary biologists taking a cross-cultural look at the religions of the world.