(I was going to save this post for later, but it seems pertinent to comments from my first post, so I’ll just post it now.)
I’m an agnostic, but it turns out that’s not very exciting. For the record, I’m an agnostic atheist, and I don’t believe “agnostic” answers the question, “Do you believe in (a) god?”
So, this post will be short.
“Agnostic” was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in the late 1800s. Huxley said this:
“Positively [agnosticism] may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
I am on board with Huxley’s agnosticism. Unfortunately, it’s not really an answer to the question, “Do you believe in (a) god?” Let me compare it with another exchange:
Plinko: “Did you see last night’s episode of the Family Feud?”
Planko: “I remember it, but I cannot demonstrate to you that I saw it, so don’t make a certain conclusion that I did.”
“Agnostic” is a phrase used by some people today to mean “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure.” It’s kind of a word for the act of shrugging. But that’s not really what it means – agnosticism is a qualifier.
“Do you believe in (a) god?” should be answered “Yes” or “No.” If you don’t think there’s enough proof to assert that god is true and factual, then I think you have to say you’re an atheist – you don’t believe god is real and factual because you aren’t willing to assert it as true.
And of course, I think any reasonable person is an agnostic. How could we achieve absolute certainty for any given conclusion?
The problem is people think there’s something absolute about atheism. I don’t know why. It’s not like people treat theism like an absolute.
I’ll note – I don’t live my life badgering people who won’t answer “Do you believe in (a) god?” with a “Yes” or “No.” I accept some people just don’t know what it all means, don’t think about it or don’t care to discuss it.