There are many misconceptions about agnosticism, agnostics, and the reasons why anyone would adopt a position of agnosticism in the first place. This is unfortunate, because whether agnosticism is conceived of as a philosophy or simply an isolated position on the existence of gods, it is eminently reasonable and defensible.
The term agnosticism is used primarily for a single issue: do any gods exist or not? Those who disclaim knowledge of gods or even that such knowledge is possible are labeled agnostics. There are many misconceptions about agnosticism, agnostics, and the reasons why anyone would adopt agnosticism in the first place. This is unfortunate, because whether agnosticism is conceived of as a philosophy or simply an isolated position on the existence of gods, it is eminently reasonable and defensible.
So, what is the definition of agnosticism? Some imagine that agnosticism represents an alternative to atheism, but those people have typically bought into the mistaken notion of the single, narrow definition of atheism. Strictly speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge, and knowledge is a related but separate issue from belief, the domain of theism and atheism.
To understand the concept of agnosticism, it can be helpful to learn a bit more about its history. It has been used in a variety of ways, not all of which are entirely compatible. They may be similar, but there enough differences that there can be some confusion.
Agnosticism may simply be the state of not knowing whether any gods exist or not, but people can take this position for different reasons and apply it in different ways. These differences then create variations in the ways in which one can be an agnostic. It is thus possible to separate agnostics in two groups, labeled strong agnosticism and weak agnosticism as analogs to strong atheism and weak atheism.
Many people who adopt the label of agnostic assume that, in doing so, they also exclude themselves from the category of theist. There exists a common perception that agnosticism is more 'reasonable' than theism because it eschews theism's dogmatism. Is that accurate or are such agnostics missing something important?
Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist - there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more "reasonable" position while atheism is more "dogmatic," ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. Is this a valid position to take?
Many people treat agnosticism as a 'non-committal' approach to the question of God's existence - this is why it is so often treated as though it were a "third way" between atheism and theism, with each of the other two committed to some particular answer and agnostics refusing to take sides. This perspective may be mistaken, but it is common enough to merit further explanation.
Although Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term agnosticism, it did not spring fully-formed from his mind. On the contrary, Huxley was relying upon a long philosophic tradition of religious and epistemological skepticism when he argued that we should approach the question of the existence of God in the 'agnostic' fashion he described.
Robert Green Ingersoll was a famous and influential proponent of secularism and religious skepticism during the mid- to late 19th century in America. He was a strong advocate both of the abolition of slavery and women's rights, something that was rather unpopular. The position which really caused him problems, however was his strong defense of agnosticism and his stringent anticlericalism.
The term agnosticism was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. For Huxley, agnosticism was a position which rejected the knowledge claims of both 'strong' atheism and traditional theism. More importantly, though, agnosticism for him was a method of doing things.
