REPEAT: Atheist or Agnostic?

By Ed Buckner | 17 October 2025
Letters to a Free Country

(Image by Manuel Torres Garcia from Pixabay)

About the Friday Freethought Perennials in general: This subset of my blog is to answer questions, nearly always already answered by me and by many others but posed again and again—over many years and in many places—on freethought, atheism, secular humanism, secularism/church-state/”This is a Christian Nation,” and similar topics. These answers are mostly not intended to be original analyses, breaths of fresh air, so much as just putting a whole series of things on the record (I’d say “forever,” except I know better). One source for many of these answers is the 2012 Prometheus Books book by me and my son (Michael E. Buckner), In Freedom We Trust: An Atheist Guide to Religious Liberty. It’s available in many libraries and pretty readily in the used book after-market. I’ll cite writings of others that answer these things in more depth if I’m aware of them when I post these.

Atheist or agnostic?

Atheist or agnostic? I’m both and that’s not because I’m too wishy-washy or indecisive or chickenshit to say. I’m aware that the popular idea of these two labels makes them incompatible and mutually exclusive. But if what I take to be the proper definitions of both is correct, they refer to different things and it makes good sense to be both.

Atheist

The definitions of “atheist” (and “atheism”) have varied greatly over human history, quite often just essentially meaning, “One who doesn’t believe in and worship our (‘the true’) God.” It has been applied in that way by some Christians about other Christians, probably even by some Baptists about other Baptists. When used that way, every human being on Earth is an atheist, because some concepts of God are wholly (not holy) incompatible with other ideas.

The definition I prefer, especially so everyone can reasonably understand what I mean, is simply “one who currently holds no supernatural beliefs.” Arguably, one can break down the word into two parts: first, “a” meaning “without”—as in “asymptomatic” or “amoral” or “acellular;” then “theist,” meaning “having a god-belief.” Thus “atheist” just means “without god-beliefs.” Not necessarily, please note, one who is “anti-god” or “anti-Christian” or even “anti-theist.” Some atheists are “anti-” in one sense or another, but the word does not necessarily mean that.

I know and greatly admire Dale McGowan, who wrote/compiled the book Atheism for Dummies (2013). Like me, he’s not fond of the series title since it seems to hint that people who don’t understand the topic (like “atheism”) lack intelligence when in fact they may merely lack knowledge or understanding—or may just be interested in more detailed analysis. I have been an atheist and atheist activist for many, many years, but McGowan taught me all manner of new facts and slants to the subject. He writes with wit and grace, so anyone (atheist, agnostic, Christian, etc.) with an even slightly open mind would learn from his book. I also have read and enjoyed quite a few other books on atheism and related matters—a partial list of these was included in my 20 January essay (see second link below on “What Would Change Your Mind…?”)

I am an atheist because I lack any god-belief. That’s all.

So how can I be an agnostic, too?

Agnostic

“Agnostic” is a very modern word. Unlike “atheist,” it has a specific, known, recent history. It was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) in the latter half of the 1800s. T. H. Huxley, scientist, was a strong supporter of Charles Darwin and asserted that he was an agnostic—literally, from the Greek, “one without knowledge.”

His summary of what he meant by “agnostic” varied slightly over the years, and he claimed that “atheist” meant something somewhat different from what I mean by it. (He interpreted atheism as claiming to have confident knowledge that there is no god.)

But in 1899, he wrote:

… speaking for myself, and without impugning the right of any other person to use the term in another sense, I further say that Agnosticism is not properly described as a “negative” creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions.

I therefore follow T. H. Huxley in saying that I’m an agnostic because I lack knowledge of any god. I follow others in calling myself an atheist because of a lack of belief.

For more about what THH thought, start here.

If you wonder that I have referred to Huxley in every case above by his full name or at least include his first two initials, it is because there lived two other quite famous Huxley family members, THH’s grandsons Julian (1887-1975) and Aldous (1894-1963). Aldous Huxley is most famous for his science fiction novel, Brave New World (1932). Interesting to me about Julian Huxley is that he was the first organizer of the biology department at my alma mater, Rice University (then Rice Institute). Julian was not at Rice when I was there and I was an English major, not a biology major (and in fact did poorly in the one biology course I took, as a freshman. By far the best benefit I gained from going to Rice was meeting and later marrying a fellow Rice grad, Diane.)

Here’s a painting of THH, followed by an 1893 picture of grandfather and grandson Julian.)

Self-Label I Usually Use

So, since I claim both to be an atheist and an agnostic—and insist there is no contradiction in that—what is my preferred label and why? For what it is worth, I also use other labels that I think are compatible with both of these. I am a freethinker, a secular humanist, a secularist, a rationalist, an old fart, and a jolly good fellow besides.

Most of the time—but not always—when it comes to religion, I call myself an atheist. I think “secular humanist” is more specific and telling and I very much like and often use that label. I think “freethinker” is broader and slightly more politically correct and I am quite happy with the term. “Agnostic” is in some ways more precise and fits me quite well. So, why “atheist”? Because in a world where irreligion is perceived so incorrectly and emotionally, I am eager to be correctly understood as having no religious beliefs and not as being wishy-washy nor indecisive nor as afraid to face squarely my own lack of belief.

Some aspects of this have already been addressed here on Letters… by my good friends Pam Woodley and Perry Mitchell (see below for a link to their essay). I also know (I have the great privilege of reading essays by guest writers before you do!) that you’ll be able to read another take on this by Perry Mitchell in a week or two.

Ed Buckner is an American atheist activist who served as president of the organization American Atheists from 2008 to 2010. He served as executive director for the Council for Secular Humanism from 2001 to 2003 and was once the Council’s southern director. He is the author (with Michael E. Buckner) of In Freedom We Trust: An Atheist Guide to Religious Liberty (Prometheus Books, 2012).

“Letter to a Free Country” by Ed Buckner (with Q&A)

Atheist VS Agnostic – How Do They Compare & What’s The Difference?

Arguing for Agnosticism? | Episode 610 | Closer To Truth

Be sure to ‘like’ us on Facebook

2 COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here