I wanted to express my view on how someone can be an agnostic without being an atheist or theist. Feel free to join for discussion.
Pure Agnosticism
Most would agree that atheists are non-believers and/or disbelievers in God's existence and theists are the believers. Some agnostics don't clearly fit either the believer and disbeliever side which is one reason someone may be a pure agnostic. An agnostic (or any person) would not fit the atheist or theist label if they are uncertain about their own belief system, like if they have no stable or strong beliefs/confidence either way. A pure agnostic may also have contradictory beliefs which involves accepting some of the reasons for why a God doesn't exist and accepting some reasons for why God exists - there's evidence/reason(s) for BOTH sides of the issue, in other words. The latter scenario applies to me and my agnostic position when it comes to God and some related issues. If you believe that there is evidence for both sides then I fail to see why it isn't possible to have some belief in both sides. I also fail to see why someone in such a position must be forced to accept the theist or atheist label and only those two.
The virtue of Agnosticism
From my experience, I believe that there are some benefits to being an agnostic. My lack of strong commitment in any worldview, or in some of the mainstream polarized believer and disbeliever worldview, leaves me in a position of not being affected as much by the common biases on these issues. I say this because my interest don't involve protecting or reinforcing my side because I really can't say that I have a side (atheist or theist). In a sense, I can also look at both sides from the outside (I'm not totally outside, but I'm not as much on the inside or for a side) which I hope gives me a better perspective to see how both sides work. I also feel more freedom in thought to adopt positions from both sides and to come up with my own alternative explanations without the peer-pressure or group pressure that tends to come with being on a side. In general, I feel that this helps me remain objective (or fair-minded) on issues, especially polarized issues that relate to the atheist/skeptic vs. believer debate. I try to learn from both sides and apply both of their approaches and perspective where I can (going by reason AND my heart at times, being open to both natural and supernatural/paranormal explanations, etc). Some may call me weak but the way I look at it is that I'd rather be a soft agnostic than a wrong atheist or theist and to let those beliefs/philosophy (or my single focus on them) mislead me in my view/approach if I end up choosing the wrong side.
Selected excerpts from Thomas Huxley's writings
(Based on context, the terms "heterodox", "heterodoxy", and "anti-theology" refer to atheists and their views)
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/UnColl/Rdetc/AgnAnn.html
Pure Agnosticism
Most would agree that atheists are non-believers and/or disbelievers in God's existence and theists are the believers. Some agnostics don't clearly fit either the believer and disbeliever side which is one reason someone may be a pure agnostic. An agnostic (or any person) would not fit the atheist or theist label if they are uncertain about their own belief system, like if they have no stable or strong beliefs/confidence either way. A pure agnostic may also have contradictory beliefs which involves accepting some of the reasons for why a God doesn't exist and accepting some reasons for why God exists - there's evidence/reason(s) for BOTH sides of the issue, in other words. The latter scenario applies to me and my agnostic position when it comes to God and some related issues. If you believe that there is evidence for both sides then I fail to see why it isn't possible to have some belief in both sides. I also fail to see why someone in such a position must be forced to accept the theist or atheist label and only those two.
The virtue of Agnosticism
From my experience, I believe that there are some benefits to being an agnostic. My lack of strong commitment in any worldview, or in some of the mainstream polarized believer and disbeliever worldview, leaves me in a position of not being affected as much by the common biases on these issues. I say this because my interest don't involve protecting or reinforcing my side because I really can't say that I have a side (atheist or theist). In a sense, I can also look at both sides from the outside (I'm not totally outside, but I'm not as much on the inside or for a side) which I hope gives me a better perspective to see how both sides work. I also feel more freedom in thought to adopt positions from both sides and to come up with my own alternative explanations without the peer-pressure or group pressure that tends to come with being on a side. In general, I feel that this helps me remain objective (or fair-minded) on issues, especially polarized issues that relate to the atheist/skeptic vs. believer debate. I try to learn from both sides and apply both of their approaches and perspective where I can (going by reason AND my heart at times, being open to both natural and supernatural/paranormal explanations, etc). Some may call me weak but the way I look at it is that I'd rather be a soft agnostic than a wrong atheist or theist and to let those beliefs/philosophy (or my single focus on them) mislead me in my view/approach if I end up choosing the wrong side.
Selected excerpts from Thomas Huxley's writings
(Based on context, the terms "heterodox", "heterodoxy", and "anti-theology" refer to atheists and their views)
Source for excerpt:Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word "Agnostic" to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence;..
1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.
2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.
3. I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions. On trial of any so-called miracle the verdict of science is "Not proven." But true Agnosticism will not forget that [6] existence, motion, and law-abiding operation in nature are more stupendous miracles than any recounted by the mythologies, and that there may be things, not only in the heavens and earth, but beyond the intelligible universe, which "are not dreamt of in our philosophy." The theological "gnosis" would have us believe that the world is a conjuror's house; the anti-theological "gnosis" talks as if it were a "dirt-pie" made by the two blind children, Law and Force. Agnosticism simply says that we know nothing of what may be beyond phenomena.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/UnColl/Rdetc/AgnAnn.html
Last edited: