A Theism

I think there’s a big problem with the word “atheism”.

For a start, nobody can agree on what it means (which is something of a failing in a word). Some say “atheism” is the belief that there is no god while “agnosticism” is an undecided middle-ground, whereas others use “atheism” for both and subdivide it into “strong” and “weak” atheism to make that distinction. But the problems with the word run much deeper than that.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to term agnostics as “atheists” even if you do call it “weak” atheism. An agnostic is a weak theist: the ‘default’ human being, before you add any upbringing or culture or language, won’t think there is a god, and nor will he be unsure whether there is a god. He will, most probably, not even consider that there might be one in order to then reject the idea. It simply wouldn’t occur to him. This is “atheism” parenthesised differently to normal: instead of (a-the)-ism – a belief (ism) in no god (a-the) – this is a-(the-ism) – no (a-) belief in god (the-ism). But that’s when it gets complicated.

Because an atheist is defined purely by comparison to theists. There aren’t any people who believe that I am England’s greatest spin-bowler, but most people have never considered the question and therefore haven’t got an opinion. They only form one when someone asks them about it. Similarly, the “clean slate” atheist I mentioned before has no ideas about the existence or not of god until someone asks him about it, whereupon he would say “what on Earth are you talking about?” and decide you were talking rubbish. That person is what most people call a “strong atheist” – it’s not a religious belief in a lack of a higher power (though some people hold such a belief – Buddhists, for example); it’s simply a rational dismissal of an apparently unfounded idea. Theists often claim that that person is an agnostic, as he doesn’t know if there is a god or not, but any one of a hundred straw-man ideas could be substituted there for “god”. He hasn’t considered that Bertrand Russell might, just to be perverse, have launched a teapot into orbit around Jupiter. He hasn’t considered that there might actually be a Flying Spaghetti Monster or an Invisible Pink Unicorn. And he hasn’t considered that I might be the greatest spin bowler England has ever produced. Those ideas are, in his mind, on a perfect level with the existence of a god. And those ideas are obviously (though not necessarily) false. Ergo, so is god. He was an atheist (although it would never have occured to him to label himself as such) without actively believing there was no god, and now he’s an atheist who believes there is no god only because a theist introduced him to the concept. Without a theist to say this he could have lived his whole life with no beliefs at all about god. This would not have made him an agnostic. An agnostic would usually say he has no belief in god either. But if you’re saying “I don’t know; there might be a god,” then that, to my mind, makes you a weak theist. The default position, remember, is “god does not exist”, and so any acknowledgement that there might be a god, beyond a healthy level of “yes, well, I suppose it’s technically theoretically possible,” is a form of theism. It is a belief that there may be a god.

That’s why I think agnosticism is a form of theism and not of atheism. (If you’re not convinced, think of it this way: an agnostic is essentially halfway between an atheist and a theist, so if you’re going to label him one or the other then that label should clearly be the one which best indicates his deviation from normal human behaviour – I’m taller than average but well within a normal height range, but I would describe myself as “tall” before “normal height” because that better identifies me in a crowd. And as the “default”, though not necessarily majority, behaviour for humans is to not believe in god at all, an agnostic differs from them in that he has more belief in god. He has more theism. He has a weak theism. He is a weak theist. He is therefore not an atheist, by my proposed definition.) And I think making that distinction would help stop this ridiculous “science is just another religion” bollocks which I also fully intend to write up my opinions of some time. And I think it’s important to recognise that atheism – which I refuse to capitalise – is not a movement, or an ideology, or a belief system, but simply a convenient word for everybody other than theists, much like “non-scientists” don’t practice “non-science” (although some practice nonsense which is etymologically very similar) and “foreigners” aren’t all from a country called Abroad. They’re just words that exist to save us saying “everyone except” all the time.