Agnosticism

Agnosticism denotes the philosophical position that the existence of God, the divine, the supernatural, or any other empirically unprovable assertion is either inherently unknowable or currently unverified. This term can also signify an indifference to such theological propositions, reflecting individual cognitive constraints rather than a comprehensive philosophical framework. Furthermore, it is defined as the perspective that human reason lacks the capacity to furnish adequate rational justifications for either affirming or denying the existence of God.

Agnosticism is the stance that the existence of God, the divine, the supernatural, or any other untestable claim is either unknowable in principle or unknown in fact. It can also mean an apathy towards such religious belief and refer to personal limitations rather than a worldview. Another definition is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."

The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley asserted that he originated the term agnostic in 1869 "to denote people who, like [himself], confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters [including the matter of God's existence], about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence." Consequently, agnosticism embodies a position of epistemic suspension regarding any assertion that lacks empirical testability or verification. While Huxley introduced this specific nomenclature, the underlying agnostic perspective predates him, evidenced by figures such as Sanjaya Belatthiputta, a 5th-century BCE Indian philosopher who questioned the existence of an afterlife, and Protagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher who expressed skepticism regarding the existence of deities.

Conceptualizing Agnosticism

[The agnostic] 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.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Agnostics deny... 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.

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.

Primarily as a scientist, Huxley conceptualized agnosticism as a principle of epistemic demarcation. He argued that a hypothesis lacking objective, testable evidence cannot constitute a valid scientific claim. Consequently, such hypotheses remain untestable, rendering any conclusions indeterminate. Huxley's agnostic stance precluded the formation of belief regarding the veracity or falsity of unsubstantiated claims. Notably, Karl Popper also identified as an agnostic. Philosopher William L. Rowe further clarifies that, in its rigorous interpretation, agnosticism posits that human reason is insufficient to provide adequate rational justification for either affirming or denying the existence of God.

George H. Smith, acknowledging the prevailing narrow definition of 'atheist' and broad definition of 'agnostic', advocated for an expansion of the former and a constriction of the latter. Smith contended that agnosticism should not be considered a distinct third option alongside theism and atheism. Instead, he proposed composite terms such as agnostic atheism, which describes individuals who lack belief in any deity but assert that a deity's existence is either unknown or fundamentally unknowable, and agnostic theism, which characterizes those who believe in a deity or deities while maintaining that their existence remains unknown or inherently unknowable.

Etymological Origins

The term Agnostic (derived from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-) 'without' and γνῶσις (gnōsis) 'knowledge') was introduced by Thomas Henry Huxley during an 1869 address to the Metaphysical Society, serving to articulate his philosophical stance that repudiates all assertions of spiritual or mystical knowledge.

Early Christian leaders employed the Greek term gnosis (knowledge) to denote "spiritual knowledge." Agnosticism, however, should not be conflated with religious perspectives that specifically opposed the ancient Gnostic movement; Huxley utilized the term in a more expansive and abstract context. Huxley characterized agnosticism not as a dogma but as a methodology of skeptical, evidence-driven inquiry.

The term agnostic shares a linguistic root with the Sanskrit word ajñasi, which literally translates to "not knowable." This connection extends to the ancient Indian philosophical school of Ajñana, which posited the impossibility of acquiring knowledge regarding metaphysical realities or determining the veracity of philosophical assertions. Furthermore, Ajñana contended that even if such knowledge were attainable, it would be futile and detrimental to achieving ultimate salvation.

Contemporary scientific literature in neuroscience and psychology has adopted the term to signify "not knowable." Within technical and marketing contexts, "agnostic" can also denote independence from specific parameters, as exemplified by "platform agnostic" (referring to software compatible across various platforms) or "hardware-agnostic."

Qualifying Agnosticism

David Hume, a prominent philosopher of the Scottish Enlightenment, argued that all meaningful assertions concerning the universe are inherently subject to a degree of doubt. He maintained that human fallibility precludes the attainment of absolute certainty, except in trivial instances where a statement is true by definition, such as tautologies like "all bachelors are unmarried" or "all triangles possess three corners."

Typologies

Strong Agnosticism

Also referred to as "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism," strong agnosticism posits that the inquiry into the existence or nonexistence of deities, and the fundamental nature of ultimate reality, remains unknowable. This unknowability stems from our inherent incapacity to corroborate any subjective experience with anything other than another subjective experience. A proponent of strong agnosticism would articulate, "I cannot ascertain the existence of a deity, nor can you."

Weak Agnosticism

Also known as "soft," "open," "empirical," "hopeful," or "temporal agnosticism," weak agnosticism maintains that the existence or nonexistence of deities is presently undetermined but not inherently unknowable. Consequently, adherents suspend judgment until potential evidence emerges. A weak agnostic would state, "I do not know whether any deities exist, but perhaps with future evidence, such knowledge could be acquired."

Apathetic Agnosticism

Apathetic agnosticism asserts that no amount of discourse can definitively establish or refute the existence of deities. Furthermore, it suggests that even if deities exist, they exhibit no apparent concern for human destiny. Consequently, some individuals may perceive their existence as having negligible impact on personal human affairs and thus warranting minimal interest. An apathetic agnostic would declare, "I am unaware of whether any deity exists, and I am indifferent to their potential existence."

Historical Context

Hindu Philosophical Traditions

Throughout the historical development of Hinduism, a robust tradition of philosophical speculation and skepticism has been consistently evident.

The Rig Veda adopts an agnostic stance regarding the fundamental question of the universe's and deities' creation. The Nasadiya Sukta (Creation Hymn), found in the tenth chapter of the Rig Veda, states:

Hume, Kant, and Kierkegaard's Contributions

Hume, Kant, and Kierkegaard

Philosophers such as Aristotle, Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, and Gödel advanced arguments endeavoring to rationally demonstrate God's existence. However, the skeptical empiricism espoused by David Hume, the antinomies articulated by Immanuel Kant, and the existential philosophy developed by Søren Kierkegaard persuaded numerous subsequent philosophers to relinquish these endeavors, deeming it impossible to construct any irrefutable proof for either the existence or non-existence of God.

In his 1844 publication, Philosophical Fragments, Kierkegaard asserts:

This passage discusses the concept of an unknown entity, labeled "God," asserting that this designation is merely a name. It argues that attempting to logically demonstrate the existence of this "God" is inherently problematic. If God does not exist, proof is impossible; if God does exist, any attempt at proof would necessitate a prior assumption of existence, rendering the endeavor circular and futile. The author further clarifies that if the intention is to prove that an existing "Unknown" is "God," this merely elaborates on a conceptual definition rather than establishing actual existence.

David Hume was highly regarded by Thomas Henry Huxley, who famously referred to him as "the Prince of Agnostics." A letter from Denis Diderot to his mistress recounts Hume's

During his initial dinner with the Baron, M. Hume was seated next to him. The English philosopher inexplicably commented to the Baron that he did not believe in atheists, claiming he had never encountered one. The Baron responded by instructing him to count the attendees, revealing there were eighteen. He then remarked, "It is quite a significant number to be able to identify fifteen for you immediately; the remaining three have not yet decided their position."

United Kingdom

Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin (1809–1882), despite being raised in a religious household and initially studying for Anglican clergy, eventually developed doubts about aspects of his faith. He maintained involvement in church matters while personally refraining from regular attendance. Darwin asserted that it was "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist." Although he typically reserved comment on his religious perspectives, he articulated in 1879 that he had "never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God," concluding that "an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

Thomas Henry Huxley

While the philosophical underpinnings of agnosticism are as ancient as skepticism itself, the specific terms "agnostic" and "agnosticism" were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–1895). He devised these terms to encapsulate his reflections on contemporary metaphysical discourse concerning the "unconditioned" (as defined by William Hamilton) and the "unknowable" (as conceptualized by Herbert Spencer). Although Huxley formally introduced the term agnostic in 1869, his underlying philosophical stance had developed earlier. For instance, in a letter dated September 23, 1860, addressed to Charles Kingsley, Huxley elaborated on his perspectives:

I neither assert nor refute the concept of human immortality. While I perceive no compelling rationale for its acceptance, I simultaneously possess no methodology for its refutation. I harbor no a priori objections to this doctrine. Individuals routinely engaged with natural phenomena cannot afford to be preoccupied with a priori challenges. Provide me with evidence comparable to that which would warrant belief in any other proposition, and I shall embrace it. Why would I not? Such a belief is no more extraordinary than the principles of force conservation or the indestructibility of matter...

Discussions centered on analogies and probabilities are unproductive for me. I possess a clear understanding of my conviction when I state belief in the inverse square law, and I refuse to base my existence and aspirations on less robust convictions...

While the certainty of my own personality might be acknowledged, any endeavor to define its essence invariably descends into mere semantic intricacies. I have extensively engaged with and dismissed the superficial discussions surrounding the ego and non-ego, noumena and phenomena, and similar concepts, recognizing that the human intellect swiftly becomes overwhelmed when attempting to grapple with such profound questions.

Furthermore, in another communication to the same recipient, dated May 6, 1863, Huxley stated:

I have consistently lacked any affinity for a priori arguments opposing orthodoxy, and my inherent nature and disposition foster a profound aversion to all atheistic and infidel philosophies. Nonetheless, I recognize that, despite my inclinations, I embody precisely what Christians would term, and are arguably justified in terming, an atheist and an infidel. I discern no trace or fragment of evidence suggesting that the profound unknown underlying the universe's phenomena relates to humanity as a benevolent Father who loves and cares for us, as asserted by Christianity. Similarly, concerning other major Christian tenets—the immortality of the soul and a future state of divine rewards and punishments—what conceivable objection could I, who am compelled to accept the immortality of what we term Matter and Force, and an undeniable present state of consequences for our actions, harbor against these doctrines? Provide a scintilla of evidence, and I would readily embrace them.

Regarding the genesis of the term 'agnostic' to characterize this philosophical stance, Huxley provided the subsequent explanation:

Upon attaining intellectual maturity, as I pondered whether I identified as an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I observed that increased learning and reflection diminished the clarity of an answer. Ultimately, I concluded that I aligned with none of these classifications, save for the final one. The singular point of consensus among most of these individuals was precisely where my divergence lay. They confidently believed they had achieved a specific 'gnosis,' having, to varying degrees, resolved the enigma of existence; conversely, I was certain I had not, and held a firm conviction that the problem remained intractable. Supported by the philosophies of Hume and Kant, I did not consider it presumptuous to steadfastly maintain that perspective. Consequently, I deliberated and devised what I deemed the fitting designation of 'agnostic.' The term emerged in my mind as a suggestive antithesis to the 'gnostic' of Church history, who claimed extensive knowledge regarding the very subjects of my ignorance. To my considerable satisfaction, the term gained acceptance.

William Stewart Ross

William Stewart Ross (1844–1906), who published under the pseudonym Saladin, was affiliated with Victorian Freethinkers and the British Secular Union. He served as editor of the Secular Review starting in 1882, which was subsequently retitled the Agnostic Journal and Eclectic Review before its cessation in 1907. Ross advocated for agnosticism, contrasting it with Charles Bradlaugh's atheism, as a framework for open-ended spiritual inquiry.

In his work Why I am an Agnostic (c. 1889), Ross asserts that agnosticism represents "the very reverse of atheism".

Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) published Why I Am Not a Christian in 1927, a seminal articulation of agnosticism. In this work, he urged his readership to "stand on their own two feet and look fair and square at the world with a fearless attitude and a free intelligence".

In 1939, Russell delivered a lecture titled The existence and nature of God, wherein he identified himself as an atheist. He stated:

The existence and nature of God constitutes a topic of which I can address only one half. Should a negative conclusion be reached regarding the initial component of the inquiry, the subsequent part of the question becomes moot; and my stance, as may be inferred, is negative concerning this subject.

Nevertheless, later in the same lecture, while examining contemporary non-anthropomorphic conceptions of God, Russell articulated:

Such a conception of God, in my estimation, is not one that can be definitively disproven, unlike, I believe, the omnipotent and benevolent creator.

In Russell's 1947 pamphlet, Am I An Atheist or an Agnostic? (subtitled A Plea For Tolerance in the Face of New Dogmas), he contemplated the challenge of self-identification:

As a philosopher addressing a purely philosophical audience, I would assert that I should characterize myself as an Agnostic, given my belief that no conclusive argument exists to definitively disprove the existence of God. Conversely, to accurately convey my position to the general public, I believe I should state that I am an Atheist, for when I declare an inability to prove God's non-existence, I must equally acknowledge my inability to disprove the existence of the Homeric gods.

In his 1953 essay, titled What Is An Agnostic?, Russell articulated:

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

The distinction between agnostics and atheists is often raised.

Russell clarified that agnostics are distinct from atheists. He explained that both atheists and Christians assert knowledge regarding the existence of God: Christians affirm God's existence, while atheists deny it. In contrast, an agnostic defers judgment, contending that insufficient evidence exists to either confirm or refute God's presence.

Further elaborating in the same essay, Russell remarked:

I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including events that would have seemed highly improbable, and if all these events then produced to happen, I might perhaps be convinced at least of the existence of some superhuman intelligence.

Leslie Weatherhead

In 1965, the Christian theologian Leslie Weatherhead (1893–1976) authored The Christian Agnostic, presenting the argument that:

... many professing agnostics are nearer belief in the true God than are many conventional church-goers who believe in a body that does not exist whom they miscall God.

Despite its radical nature and potential for controversy among traditional theologians, Weatherhead's interpretation of agnosticism is considerably less comprehensive than Huxley's, and even less so than weak agnosticism.

Of course, the human soul will always have the power to reject God, for choice is essential to its nature, but I cannot believe that anyone will finally do this.

United States

Robert G. Ingersoll

Robert G. Ingersoll (1833–1899), an Illinois lawyer and politician, gained prominence as a highly regarded orator in 19th-century America and was subsequently dubbed the "Great Agnostic".

During an 1896 lecture, specifically titled Why I Am An Agnostic, Ingersoll articulated the following perspective:

Is there a supernatural power—an arbitrary mind—an enthroned God—a supreme will that sways the tides and currents of the world—to which all causes bow? I do not deny. I do not know—but I do not believe. I believe that the natural is supreme—that from the infinite chain no link can be lost or broken—that there is no supernatural power that can answer prayer—no power that worship can persuade or change—no power that cares for man.

I believe that with infinite arms Nature embraces the all—that there is no interference—no chance—that behind every event are the necessary and countless causes, and that beyond every event will be and must be the necessary and countless effects.

Is there a God? I do not know. Is man immortal? I do not know. One thing I do know, and that is, that neither hope, nor fear, belief, nor denial, can change the fact. It is as it is, and it will be as it must be.

Concluding his address, Ingersoll succinctly summarized the agnostic stance:

We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know.

In 1885, Ingersoll elucidated his comparative perspective on agnosticism and atheism, stating:

The Agnostic is an Atheist. The Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic says, 'I do not know, but I do not believe there is any God.' The Atheist says the same.

Bernard Iddings Bell

Canon Bernard Iddings Bell (1886–1958), a prominent cultural commentator, Episcopal priest, and author, championed the necessity of agnosticism in his work Beyond Agnosticism: A Book for Tired Mechanists, characterizing it as the bedrock of "all intelligent Christianity." He posited agnosticism as a provisional intellectual stance involving rigorous scrutiny of contemporary beliefs, including one's understanding of God. Bell contended that figures such as Robert Ingersoll and Thomas Paine were not assailing authentic Christianity but rather "a gross perversion of it." He attributed part of this misapprehension to an inadequate grasp of the concepts of God and religion. Historically, a god represented any tangible, perceptible force governing human existence and inspiring reverence, affection, dread, and veneration; religion constituted the practice of this devotion. While ancient civilizations worshipped deities with concrete manifestations, such as Mammon (representing wealth and material possessions), Nabu (symbolizing rationality), or Ba'al (associated with violent weather), Bell argued that modern societies continue to venerate these archaic gods of affluence, carnal desires, and self-deification, often at the cost of their own lives and those of their progeny. Consequently, passive agnosticism, he suggested, inadvertently leads to the worship of these worldly idols.

In Unfashionable Convictions (1931), Bell critiqued the Enlightenment's absolute reliance on human sensory perception, enhanced by scientific instrumentation, as a definitive means of apprehending Reality. His critique rested on three primary points: Firstly, this epistemological approach was relatively novel, an innovation of the Western world, originating with Aristotle and subsequently revitalized by Thomas Aquinas within the scientific community. Secondly, the disjunction of "pure" science from direct human experience, particularly evident in American Industrialization, had profoundly altered the environment, frequently disfiguring it, thereby indicating its inadequacy for human needs. Thirdly, given the incessant generation of scientific data—to an extent that no single individual could assimilate it comprehensively—it logically followed that human intellect was inherently incapable of achieving a complete understanding of the universe. Therefore, Bell concluded that acknowledging the mysteries of the unobserved universe was, in fact, a truly scientific posture.

Bell posited two additional modalities through which humans could perceive and engage with the world. Artistic experience encompassed the expression of meaning via speech, writing, painting, gesturing—any form of communication that conveys insight into an individual's internal reality. Mystical experience involved the capacity to "read" and harmonize with others, which he equated with what is commonly termed love. In essence, Bell characterized humanity as simultaneously scientist, artist, and lover, asserting that neglecting any of these three dimensions would result in an imbalanced individual.

Bell defined a humanist as an individual who cannot justifiably disregard these alternative modes of knowing. However, he considered humanism, much like agnosticism, to be a transient phase, ultimately culminating in either scientific materialism or theism. He articulated the following thesis:

1. Truth cannot be ascertained solely through reasoning based on scientific data. The pervasive dissatisfaction experienced by modern individuals stems from an over-reliance on such incomplete information. Our faculty of reason serves not as a pathway to discover Truth, but rather as a mechanism to organize our knowledge and experiences coherently. Without a comprehensive, human perception of the world, reason is prone to misdirection.
2. Beyond the scope of scientific measurement, other forms of perception exist, such as the ability to comprehend another human being through love. While one's affections cannot be dissected or cataloged in a scientific journal, they yield a far more profound understanding than our knowledge of, for instance, the sun's surface. These experiences unveil an indefinable reality that is nonetheless intimate and personal, revealing qualities more beautiful and authentic than those provided by detached facts.
3. To be religious, within the Christian framework, signifies living for the entirety of Reality (God) rather than for fragmented aspects (gods). Only by conceptualizing this Whole of Reality as a personal entity—characterized by goodness, truth, and perfection—rather than an impersonal force, can humanity approach ultimate Truth. An ultimate Person is capable of being loved, whereas a cosmic force is not. While a scientist may uncover peripheral truths, a lover possesses the capacity to apprehend the fundamental Truth.
4. Numerous arguments support theistic belief, yet these are often insufficient to convert an agnostic to a theist. Mere adherence to an ancient sacred text is deemed inadequate, even if impartial analysis demonstrates its superior trustworthiness and merit compared to secular instruction. Similarly, acknowledging the high probability that a personal deity would guide humanity, given inherent human difficulties, does not suffice. Furthermore, the historical prevalence of millions attaining a "Wholeness of Reality" solely through religious experience is also deemed insufficient. While these considerations may foster an inclination towards religion, they ultimately lack persuasive power. Nevertheless, an experimental presupposition of God as a knowable, benevolent entity, followed by adherence to a corresponding religious practice, is posited to lead to unprecedented personal experiences. Such an approach is claimed to imbue life with profound meaning, fulfillment, and an absence of fear concerning mortality. This perspective is presented not as a defiance of reason, but as an experience that exceeds its conventional boundaries.
5. When a divine encounter is perceived through the lens of love, the practices of prayer, communal engagement, and spiritual devotion gain significance. These practices are asserted to establish order in an individual's existence, perpetually restoring a sense of completeness that was previously absent. They are also believed to cultivate compassion and humility, counteracting tendencies toward narrow-mindedness or arrogance.
6. No assertion of truth should be summarily dismissed; rather, all claims warrant critical examination. Scientific inquiry progressively unveils an expanding comprehension of the cosmos, which ought not to be disregarded due to preconceived notions or adherence to antiquated paradigms. Rational thought merits trust and diligent cultivation. Theistic belief is presented not as an abandonment of reason or a rejection of scientific evidence, but as an embrace of the unknown leading to the discovery of a comprehensive life experience.

Demographics

Typically, demographic research methodologies do not distinguish among different categories of non-religious individuals; consequently, agnostics are frequently grouped with atheists or other non-affiliated populations.

A 2010 survey featured in Encyclopædia Britannica indicated that non-religious individuals, including agnostics, constituted approximately 9.6% of the global populace. Furthermore, a poll conducted in November–December 2006 and published in the Financial Times provided statistics for the United States and five European nations. Agnosticism rates in the United States stood at 14%, whereas the surveyed European countries exhibited significantly higher percentages: Italy (20%), Spain (30%), Great Britain (35%), Germany (25%), and France (32%).

Research by the Pew Research Center revealed that approximately 16% of the global population, representing the third-largest demographic after Christianity and Islam, reported no religious affiliation. A 2012 report from the Pew Research Center further specified that agnostics comprised 3.3% of the adult population in the United States. The 2024 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, also conducted by the Pew Research Center, indicated that 54% of agnostic participants affirmed a disbelief in God, while 41% expressed experiencing tension due to their non-religious identity within a predominantly religious society.

Data from the 2021 Australian Bureau of Statistics indicated that 38.9% of Australians identified as having "no religion," a classification encompassing agnostics. In Japan, between 64% and 65% of the population, and in Vietnam, up to 81%, identify as atheists, agnostics, or non-believers in a deity. An official survey conducted by the European Union reported that 3% of its population expressed uncertainty regarding belief in a god or spirit.

Criticism

Agnosticism faces critique from diverse perspectives. Certain atheists contend that the term 'agnosticism' is functionally synonymous with atheism, leading to frequent accusations that individuals adopting the agnostic label are merely evading the atheist designation.

Theistic

Theistic critics assert the practical impossibility of agnosticism, arguing that an individual must necessarily conduct their life either as if God did not exist (etsi deus non-daretur) or as if God did exist (etsi deus daretur).

Christian

Pope Benedict XVI contended that strong agnosticism, specifically, is inherently contradictory because it simultaneously affirms reason's capacity to ascertain scientific truth. He attributed the omission of rational thought from religious and ethical frameworks to severe societal pathologies, including crimes against humanity and environmental catastrophes. Benedict characterized agnosticism as "always the fruit of a refusal of that knowledge which is in fact offered to man ... The knowledge of God has always existed." He further asserted that agnosticism represents a preference for comfort, pride, control, and practical utility over truth, contrasting it with virtues such as rigorous self-criticism, humble engagement with existence, the diligent patience and self-correction inherent in the scientific method, and a willingness to be refined by truth.

The Catholic Church acknowledges the value in scrutinizing what it terms "partial agnosticism," referring to frameworks that "do not aim at constructing a complete philosophy of the unknowable, but at excluding special kinds of truth, notably religious, from the domain of knowledge." Nevertheless, the Church has historically resisted any complete rejection of humanity's rational capacity to comprehend God. The Council of the Vatican affirms that "God, the beginning and end of all, can, by the natural light of human reason, be known with certainty from the works of creation."

Blaise Pascal contended that, even in the absence of empirical evidence for God, agnostics ought to consider Pascal's Wager: the infinite expected value derived from acknowledging God invariably surpasses the finite expected value of denying His existence, thereby making the choice to believe in God a more prudent "bet."

Atheistic

Richard Dawkins posits that differentiating between agnosticism and atheism is problematic, as it hinges on an individual's assessment of the probability of a god-like entity's existence approaching zero. Regarding his own stance, Dawkins elaborates, "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." Dawkins further categorizes agnostics into "Temporary Agnostics in Practice" (TAPs) and "Permanent Agnostics in Principle" (PAPs). He asserts that "agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP category. Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability," and characterizes PAP as a "deeply inescapable kind of fence-sitting."

Ignosticism

Ignosticism represents a related philosophical concept, asserting that a coherent definition of a deity is a prerequisite for any meaningful discourse regarding its existence. Should the proposed definition lack coherence, an ignostic adopts the noncognitivist position that the deity's existence is either semantically vacuous or empirically unverifiable. Philosophers such as A. J. Ayer and Theodore Drange consider both atheism and agnosticism incompatible with ignosticism, arguing that the former two accept the proposition "a deity exists" as a meaningful statement open to debate.

References

Agnosticism. Forgotten Books. pp. 164–. ISBN 978-1-4400-6878-2.

• Agnosticism. Forgotten Books. pp. 164–. ISBN 978-1-4400-6878-2.The Humanist, February 19, 2019.
• Annan, Noel. Leslie Stephen: The Godless Victorian (University of Chicago Press, 1984)
• Cockshut, A.O.J. The Unbelievers, English Thought, 1840–1890 (1966).
• Dawkins, Richard. "The poverty of agnosticism", in The God Delusion, Black Swan, 2007 (ISBN 978-0-552-77429-1).
• Huxley, Thomas H. (February 4, 2013). Man's Place in Nature. Courier Dover Publications. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-0-486-15134-2.Hume, David (1779). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Penguin Books, Limited. pp. 1–.Kant, Immanuel (May 28, 2013). The Critique of Pure Reason. Loki's Publishing. ISBN 978-0-615-82576-2.Kierkegaard, Sören (1985). Philosophical Fragments. Religion-online.org. ISBN 978-0-691-02036-5. Archived from the original on February 22, 2014. Retrieved February 9, 2014.Smith, George H. (1979). Atheism – The Case Against God (PDF). Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-124-X. Archived from the original on November 26, 2013. Retrieved February 9, 2014.Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Atheism and Agnosticism." In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 1095-5054. OCLC 429049174.
  • Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Atheism and Agnosticism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 1095-5054. OCLC 429049174.
  • Nielsen, Kai (1973) [1968]. "Agnosticism". Dictionary of the History of Ideas. University of Virginia Library.Source: TORIma Academy Archive