If you’re an analytical thinker like me, you’ve probably had this argument in your head. Are you an atheist or an agnostic? What’s the difference? Is it important?

A google search for the definition of atheist states: “a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.” Similarly, a google search for the definition of agnostic states: “a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.”

An analytical mind might see the first definition and argue, well, since I do not see evidence in God or gods, I lack belief in God and therefore must identify with atheist. If belief is required to be a theist, it is implied that it is a faith-based belief. As an analytical mind, you probably prefer to base your beliefs on evidence, not on faith. Therefore, you would call yourself an atheist.

Likewise, an analytical mind might look at the second definition, which implies that a lack of omniscience on your part requires you to be open to the possibility of God or “anything beyond material phenomena,” as you lack the ability to prove or disprove such a notion. Lacking absolute certainty, it is more logical to proceed with an open mind and identify yourself as an agnostic.

Both of these trains of thought are logical, but are they not mutually contradictory? I argue that the problem is that both definitions depend on the definition of God, which itself is complicated. One definition for God is: “(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.” A second is: “(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.”

The first definition is more specific and implies an intelligent life form who not only created the Universe, but is also the source of  morality (and, oddly, a “ruler”). Our best scientific explanation for the origin of the Universe is that it was created in a Big Bang, or an expansion from a state of high density and energy. Cosmology has shown how the Universe can evolve from the earliest state to the present state of galaxies, stars, and planets. There is no evidence that an intelligent creator needed to be present for this process to occur. Furthermore, there is a logical problem with implying that an intelligent life form created the Universe. Primarily, it does not explain how the intelligent creator came into the Universe. And it introduces an unnecessary amount of complexity before the current Universe existed. There is no evidence for any extra complexity before our Universe existed, nor is there any logical reason for there to be. A 13.8 billion year progression of the Universe from a state of high density to the present is sufficient to explain our current Universe.

The first definition also mentions God being a source of moral authority. Certainly, human societies have moral codes. However, there is no evidence that a supernatural being has handed down morality. As evidence by studying the world, these moral codes vary slightly from once society to another and from one era to another. For 6,000 years, humans found slavery acceptable. Today we do not. Some current societies accept gay marriage. Others do not. Morality is constantly being altered, not from some higher power, but from the increased knowledge we acquire from Science and the increased economic output of labor-saving technologies resulting from Science.  Furthermore, our morality is largely based on the instinct we inherit being a member of a social species. Our species require us to exhibit behaviors like altruism and empathy. Other species have completely different codes of behavior. For example, the praying mantis exhibits a behavior called sexual cannibalism. During sexual reproduction, the female bites off the head of the male. Picturing humans exhibiting this type of behavior provokes an extreme sense of revulsion. (Not to mention the obvious loss of manpower that would result, clearly weakening human societies. The mantis species apparently does not suffer from this loss.) Clearly, morality is based partially on the instincts of each species and is species-dependent. There is no need or evidence for a higher power to act as a moral authority.

The second definition for God is more ambiguous – a superhuman being having power over Nature or human fortune. There is no creation of the Universe implied. Multiple gods could be imagined to fit into this definition. Could there be super-intelligent beings out there in the Universe who have powers we cannot imagine? Could they control Nature in ways we could not? Could they be here on the Earth controlling human fortunes? Logically speaking, this type of god (lowercase “g”) has some possibility. Just as humans evolved from the single-celled life over 4 billion years on Earth, other intelligent life could have evolved elsewhere in the Universe and traveled here. However, there is no evidence for such super-intelligent life forms. And it adds an unnecessary complexity to our world for no reason.

Based on this analysis, I would argue that it more logical to be an atheist regarding definition one of God, but it is more logical to be an agnostic regarding definition two.

A further problem, though, is that the word God will mean different things to different people. Because there is no evidence for a creator, a moral authority, or superhuman beings that control Nature and human fortune, it seems unnecessary for us to include a word like “God” in our vocabulary. For words to be useful, there should be agreed-upon definitions and evidence of the subject’s existence. For the word “God,” this is not the case. Plenty of people have created their own personal definitions of God. And there is no agreed-upon evidence for a God. Therefore, I would argue that any words whose definition depends on the definition of God (such as atheist and agnostic) are problematic.

That is why 20 years ago, when I had the internal debate of whether to call myself an atheist or an agnostic, I settled on the term secular humanist. The first part of the term is secular, meaning “denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.” I basically take it to mean not believing in anything supernatural, nothing beyond the laws of the Universe. The second part of the term is humanist, meaning “a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity.”I prefer referring to myself using a term based on things I believe in rather than referring to myself in terms of things I do not believe in. I also don’t believe in a flying spaghetti monster, but I don’t feel the need to call myself a flying spaghetti monster nonbeliever or a flying spaghetti monster agnostic. There are an unlimited number of irrational ideas people can conceive. Instead of making a list of things I don’t believe in, I refer to myself as one who believes in secular humanism, which, in simple terms, is: a person who believes that people should help people and that only people can help people. Of course, how exactly humans should help other humans and to what extent we should help other humans – these are tough questions with no easy answers.

– Analytical Cortex