Philosophically, agnosticism can be described as being based upon two separate principles. The first principle is epistemological in that it relies upon empirical and logical means for acquiring knowledge about the world. The second principle is moral in that it insists that we have an ethical duty not to assert claims for ideas which we cannot adequately support either through evidence or logic.
So, if a person cannot claim to know, or at least know for sure, if any gods exist, then they may properly use the term “agnostic” to describe themselves; at the same time, this person likely insists that it would be wrong on some level to claim that gods either definitely do or definitely don’t exist. This is the ethical dimension of agnosticism, arising from the idea that a strong atheism or strong theism is simply not justified by what we currently know.
Although we now have an idea of what such a person knows or thinks she knows, we don’t actually know what she believes. As Robert Flint explained in his 1903 book Agnosticism, agnosticism is:
- ...properly a theory about knowledge, not about religion. A theist and a Christian may be an agnostic; an atheist may not be an agnostic. An atheist may deny that there is God, and in this case his atheism is dogmatic and not agnostic. Or he may refuse to acknowledge that there is a God simply on the ground that he perceives no evidence for his existence and finds the arguments which have been advanced in proof of it invalid. In this case his atheism is critical, not agnostic. The atheist may be, and not infrequently is, an agnostic.
It is a simple fact that some people don’t think that they know something for sure, but believe anyway, and that some people cannot claim to know, and decide that that is reason enough to not bother believing. Thus agnosticism is not an alternative, “third way” going between atheism and theism: it is instead a separate issue compatible with both.
As a matter of fact, a majority of people who consider themselves either atheist or theist might also be justified in calling themselves agnostics. It is not at all uncommon, for example, for a theist to be adamant in their belief, but also be adamant in the fact their belief is based on faith and not on having absolute, incontrovertible knowledge.
Moreover, some degree of agnosticism is evident in every theist who considers their god to be “unfathomable” or to “work in mysterious ways.” This all reflects a fundamental lack of knowledge on the part of the believer with regards to the nature of what they claim to believe in. It might not be entirely reasonable to hold a strong belief in the light of such acknowledged ignorance, but that rarely seems to stop anyone.
