There is a great deal of disagreement and confusion about the nature of agnosticism and atheism. For many people, the two represent mutually exclusive alternatives — you can be an agnostic or an atheist, but not both. Those who think this way also often think that agnosticism is a more reasonable position than atheism. They are mistaken on all counts.
- Agnosticism is a perfectly respectable and tenable philosophical position; it is not dogmatic and makes no pronouncements about the ultimate truths of the universe. It remains open to evidence and persuasion; lacking faith, it nevertheless does not deride faith. Atheism, on the other hand, is as unyielding and dogmatic about religious belief as true believers are about heathens. It tries to use reason to demolish a structure that is not built upon reason.
- Sydney J. Harris (1917–1986), “Atheists, Like Fundamentalists, are Dogmatic,” Pieces of Eight, Houghton Mifflin (1985)
One of the most significant aspects of agnosticism that draws people to it is the perception that it is relatively undogmatic and reasonable in comparison to other options. It does not claim to have certain knowledge about the nature of universe because it starts from the premise that we limited humans don't know a great deal and probably know far less than we realize. Such a starting point seems to many to be entirely fair and rational.
This perception, however, has led people to make unjustified assumptions about the nature of atheism and theism. Thinking that agnosticism is some sort of "middle ground" between the two, those drawn to agnosticism have made the leap to assuming that both atheism and theism are necessarily dogmatic, unyielding, and thus irrational. The problem is that people simply don't understand that agnosticism addresses a different question from the other two and, therefore, cannot qualify as a "middle ground" between them.
Agnosticism is about knowledge — an agnostic takes the position that they don't know if any gods exist or not, perhaps that they cannot know if any gods exist or not, and in some cases that no human being can possibly know if any gods exist or not. Saying "I don't know" can indeed be a reasonable answer to the question of what one knows, but neither atheism nor theism address the question of what one knows — they address the question of what one believes.
Theists believe in the existence of at least one god of some sort and atheists don't. That's it — that's all there is to mere theism and mere atheism. Both atheists and theists may be dogmatic, unyielding, or irrational in what they believe or don't believe. Then again, they may not. There's nothing about either that demands it. Both atheists and theists may be agnostics as well — whether one believes or disbeliefs, one may do so in the context of not claiming to know for sure one way or the other. Syndey J. Harris makes the mistake of not understanding this in the quote above.
At the same, time, though, Harris does seem to be raising an interesting point: if theism is n to built upon reason, then are atheists making a mistake in trying to "demolish" it through the use of reason? It's been said that you can't reason a person out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place, and I think that there is a great deal of merit to that observation.
At the same time, what else is there that one can reliably use to critique theism? If we don't use reason, what can we use? If we use something other than reason, do we betray our principles which insist upon the use of reason, rationality, and logic when analyzing claims? These are not easy questions to answer. One could perhaps use more emotion-laden arguments against theism if the opportunity presents itself, but that carries a great deal of danger. Encouraging the general use do reason would seem to make more sense, even if it may take a long time to be effective.
