Anyone here consider themselves agnostic, or at least see value in the agnostic approach to the 'big' questions?
I've been wrestling with the question of God on an almost daily basis for 21 years. For the last couple of years I have debated online. To my disappointment I find both theists and atheists take a similar approach: if you're not for me you're against me. I have been accused of being a wolf in sheep's clothing, having a Judas complex, having an imaginary friend, and many other slams that make assumptions about my mind, experiences and motivations. If they are that willing to settle on false assumptions about me (them being a human just as I am), then why should I trust their assumptions about issues that lie at the edge of human perceptions? I see more parallels in the thinking of the strong atheist and theist than between those and the agnostic. These are some assumptions they share:
1. The human mind has the capacity to determine the nature of all things.
2. The answer to this question is simple and obvious.
3. Those who do not share our conclusion are flawed (evil vs. stupid) and the world would be better off without them.
4. Certain questions are considered off limits.
5. It is based on a system of dismissal.[
Humility of thought is the quickest path to truth from what I can tell. The ability to examine the limitations of the human mind is a necessary first step towards growth. Agnosticism is not a reluctance to choose sides, it is not a desire to not offend, it is not a lack of desire to explore the topic. It is a different mental process altogether. It focuses on examining assumptions, withholding judgment, approaching all aspects of the question and the people who hold them with respect. It is a willingness to ask questions, the process of formulating questions that lie at the boundary of human perception. It is a willingness to accept that not only can we not find every answer, but we are also unable to ask every question.
Let's avoid having this thread evolve into a debate about the existence of God. If that happens, I'll rename it and try again.
Agnosticism, the way that you've posed the question resembles more one's religious perspective from a political scope than that of the philosophy of religion.
You asked not to address the latter, so I will only comment on the former.
Agnosticism appeals to those who wish to be neither leaders nor followers, as religious views are often used as outlets to make waves in the political arena. It is also a popular view among scholars of philosophy and psychology, especially the former. This is mostly because religion has been stygmatized as a way of life for those who can not think for themselves but can only accept what is said to them. It is more popular than atheism because by embracing agnosticism, a scholar can easily avoid confrontations with unreasonable religious zealots and focus more on the more intellectually stimulating problems. It also appeals to NPs, or people who prefer not to make decisions concerning the big questions of life that there is no clear-cut rationale for.( Could not be accessed with Ti, Ti is most adept with pure reason.) For these reasons, agnosticism tends to be popular among INTPs.
As far as religious zealots are concerned, I think this has a lot to do with them not being able to think critically and not being open to new ideas. So they have to cling to tradition just to get through life as they are not comfortable with novelty and dont think they could handle it with just their minds alone.
Dogmatic atheists are only marginally to be preferred to dogmatic theists. They tend to be the activists who believe for religion to be harmful through and through and that society is an urgent need to be rescued from it.
Again, when people profess to be religious fundamentalists, agnostics or atheists, they are usually talking about religious politics. Not philosophy of religion. They profess themselves atheists not because they have seriously thought the question of God's existence and came to the conclusion that he does not exist, but simply because they are making a political statement against the campaignings of religious movements. Those who profess to be religious fundamentalists dont necessarily have deep spiritual faith or for philosophical reasons believe in God, all they are saying is that they support the political movements of religious institutions. And the agnostics just say that they want to have nothing to do with this.
These are the two most common attitudes about God's existence and the afterlife among the conventional people.
A)You don't need to think about it, just focus more on practical things. (Agnostic)
B)God is inscrutable, you cant answer many of those questions that God gives you answers for, so just accept what he says. You were made not to question him but to worship Him.(Religious fundamentalist)
Atheists among conventional people tend to be rare, those are the ones who were likely raised under the tyranny of religious indoctrination. Those who were raised in atheist households where generally shift to agnosticism later on, as they see no reason to dogmatically cling to atheism.
As again, we see that people hold a particular position mostly based on the factors in their personal experience/current social life. They tend not to be interested in philosophy of religion and only hold an opinion on matters such as these for the sake of connecting with those who affirm their values.