On the pages of popular science publications devoted to the attitude of people towards religion, one has to deal with a number of specific terms. In particular, authors of publications often divide people into two different categories - atheists and agnostics. What is the difference between the two? If with the former the question is more or less clear, since in the Soviet period most of our compatriots ranked themselves among them, then with respect to the latter it is not so simple. Let's try to figure it out.
A brief excursion into linguistics
Starting a conversation about how an atheist differs from an agnostic, we will clarify the meaning of each of these terms. Let us turn to their etymology, that is, to the origin of the words themselves. Both nouns - "atheist" and "agnostic" - have in their beginning the prefix "a", which expresses negation. The difference is that in the first case it refers to the noun "theos" - God, and in the second to "gnosis" - knowledge. Thus, it is easy to guess that the difference between atheists and agnostics lies in the fact that the former deny God, and the latter - a certain knowledge, which will be discussed below.
I do not recognize, because I do not believe!
First of all, it is necessary to refute the common and extremely erroneous opinion that an atheist is an unbeliever. Not at all. He is just a believer, but he does not believe in the existence of God, but in his absence. It is blind faith that drives him, because he cannot prove his point of view with any sensory sensations or logical constructions. History knows a number of thinkers who tried to build an evidence base on the basis of logical conclusions, but the results of their work can hardly be called convincing.
Having embarked on the path of unfavorable denial not only of God, but of the whole supernatural, atheists thereby preach the self-sufficiency of the material world, and at the same time the purely human origin of all religions without exception. In this they contrast themselves with theists - supporters of the divine origin of all things. As a rule, representatives of this category of people adhere to secular philosophical trends, such as humanism, materialism, naturalism, etc.
Perhaps, but unprovable
In turn, agnostics are in no hurry to make such peremptory statements, although they are also not fans of the supernatural. What is the difference? Atheists and agnostics motivate their position in different ways. While the former categorically assert that there is no god, the latter refuse to answer this key question at all. Their deep conviction is that the world around us is, in principle, unknowable, and therefore it is impossible to get the only true answer regarding God's being. This is precisely the fundamental difference between agnostics and atheists.
Famous agnostics of the past
It is known that the term “agnosticism”, which expresses such a skepticism about the knowledge of the outside world, was first introduced into use by the English scientist Thomas Huxley in 1869, but the teaching itself appeared much earlier, even in ancient times. In the XVIII century, the brightest spokesmen were the Scottish David Hume (1711–1776, the portrait is given above) and the German Immanuel Kant (1724–1804, the portrait is shown below).
The latter, in particular, argued that since we can judge the world around us only on the basis of the sensations that it generates in us, there can be no question of any objectivity in perception. The logic of his reasoning boiled down to the fact that in our minds the picture of the world is nothing but a product of the brain, created on the basis of the information that it received from the senses.
However, no one guarantees that it is true, since vision, hearing, smell, etc., often fail us. In addition, the human brain, unfortunately, is far from a perfect tool, and can also distort the picture of reality around us. Simply put, Kant, and with it all the philosophers who shared his point of view, rejected the real possibility of having an objective judgment in matters relating to the world order. This is the main difference between the views of the agnostics and the position of atheists, who were their opponents and, fiercely denying the existence of God, did not even allow a shadow of doubt in their innocence.
Conflicts in the form of conflicts
Both those and others always entered and continue to come into conflict with believers, the number of which, according to opinion polls, is steadily increasing. For people who recognize God as the creator of the world, they are equally ideological opponents of both agnostics and atheists. What is the difference in the reactions of representatives of these two very numerous categories of people to criticism of their positions, sometimes turning into violent attacks? We will talk about this especially.
As for the atheists, in disputes with believers they never bothered to prove their innocence, because they could not present any convincing arguments and always became isolated in their obstinacy. The discussion about the existence of God between atheists and believers, as a rule, boiled down to the fact that one of the parties stubbornly, but completely without proof proved: “Yes!”, While the other repeated its own, also based on nothing: “No! As a result, they have always become irreconcilable enemies.
The form that their opposition took was dependent on a number of external circumstances. Thus, in certain historical periods, ministers of the church with a light heart sent to the fires all who expressed doubt about the truth of religious dogma. At other stages of the development of society, militant atheists shot and imprisoned both God's shepherds themselves and their parishioners.
Convenient worldview position
In this regard, one more difference between atheists and agnostics can be given. It consists in the fact that the latter never entered into open conflict with the ministers of the church. And this was explained not by the lack of principle, but solely by the convenience of their position. Adherents of agnosticism in a dispute with the clergy have always had the opportunity to "smooth sharp corners", saying: "We fully admit that you are right, although we don’t see evidence of that."
They answered the same thing to atheists. As a result, it was possible to maintain completely peaceful relations with both those and others. The position is certainly comfortable. It always made it possible, without formally compromising principles, to avoid confrontation and not to make enemies. That is why atheists and agnostics have coexisted so peacefully over the centuries. The difference between them is purely arbitrary. Some say: “We deny God,” others insist: “We cannot believe in his being,” which is essentially the same thing.
Intelligent selection of agnostics
In this regard, the question arises: what in this case prevents atheists from avoiding unnecessary attacks, because for this it is enough not to position themselves as enemies of the church, but only to avoid accepting its teachings, referring to its unprovability? Obviously, there can be two reasons. The first, called the “intellectual choice,” is that many atheists consider the theory of agnostics to be false, because, as they say, it is based on a mistake.
Atheists point out that, from the point of view of ontology, that is, the doctrine of being as such, the very formulation of the question is incorrect. Proving the absence of something, one can cite arguments relating only to some particular case, but at the same time not refuting the existence of this object as such. A simple example: in order to make sure that a rabbit is not hiding in a magician’s hat, just look into it. But even if he doesn’t appear there, this will by no means mean that rabbits do not exist at all. Thus, attempts to prove the absence of God's existence are unacceptable for atheists, since, in their opinion, they are absurd.
Moral prerequisites of choice
But in addition, the irreconcilable position of atheists is often determined by their moral choice. As life shows, the most zealous of them are people who once had close contact with religion, but for one reason or another, not only broke with it, but also became its opponents. There can be many such reasons, and their consideration is beyond the scope of this article.
It is only important that these people, unlike the followers of Kant and Hume, deliberately refuse to give their opponents the opportunity to even speculate on the proof of the existence of God. In fact, this is, in fact, the main contradiction between the agnostics and atheists. What is the difference in their worldviews, it becomes clear from the fact that the representatives of one of these teachings hold materialistic views, while their opponents are staunch supporters of the divine creation of the world.