Is it reasonable to claim to know for certain not only that God exists, but also what the will and intent of God are? Some people feel that it is and make such assertions on a regular basis. Those who consider themselves agnostics, though, will disagree. Agnoticism argues that claiming such knowledge is arrogant and irrational.
- All great religions, in order to escape absurdity, have to admit a dilution of agnosticism. It is only the savage, whether of the African bush or the American gospel tent, who pretends to know the will and intent of God exactly and completely.
- H.L. Mencken, Damn! A Book of Calumny, (1918)
Agnosticism, fundamentally speaking, is about a lack of knowledge — specifically, a lack of knowledge about the existence of God. An agnostic is someone who refuses to assert that they know for certain that a god does or does not exist. An agnostic may also be a theist (someone who believes but doesn't claim to know for sure) or an atheist (someone who doesn't believe but doesn't claim to know for sure).
Many atheists are self-professed agnostics as well, but not quite as many theists. Quite a few atheists insist that everyone is an agnostic because no one really knows for sure whether God exists, but the point of agnosticism is whether you assert knowledge — even if you are mistaken. Mencken is taking a similar line here, claiming that all religious belief systems must necessarily include at least a hint of agnosticism.
Is Mencken justified in this claim? I think that he certainly has a valid point to make. Claims of certain, absolutely knowledge can be difficult to maintain over a long period of time. Cracks can appear in the armor of apologetics and even the cleverest theologian can't necessarily defend against every flaw and contradiction. That's where "mystery" comes in. Believers may take comfort in knowledge claims that seem to make the universe a more predictable place, but they also seem to take comfort in a few "mysteries" that defy rational explanation.
Here, if nowhere else, agnosticism plays an important role in religious beliefs. For something to be any sort of "mystery," it must be something that one cannot quite know for certain. One may believe and have faith, but knowledge requires a higher standard that isn't achieved. If you know the Truth, then it isn't a mystery anymore. Thus, mysteries are a convenient way for theologians and apologists to duck difficult questions or contradictions, deferring answers until some "afterlife" — belief in which, naturally enough, tends to rest upon similar "mysteries" as well.
It is arguable, then, that Mencken is right: all religions, insofar as they are the least bit reasonable, attempt to incorporate at least a hint of agnosticism into their doctrines. This is appropriate from the perspective of reason, because it is only reasonable to acknowledge gaps in knowledge, and it is appropriate from the perspective prudence, because it is wise to hedge your bets and not trap yourself into a theological corner that you can't escape. "Mystery" happens to be a very popular escape-clause.
That said, however, there are quite a few people who seem to have no problem asserting that they know the "will and intent of God" completely, at least in the context of particular subjects. Leaders of the Christian Right in America, for example, can often be found claiming to know what God wants when it comes to how people should vote, what countries America should invade, etc. There isn't much "agnosticism" in the religious systems of people like this.
