Furst 1

Agnosticism
For over a century, agnostics have been under siege for questioning ideas held as truth for
over a millennia without scrutiny. Current polls show that the majority parties of America have a
cold reaction towards agnosticism (Pew Research Center fig. 3). All throughout an Americans
school life they will hear that there is no such thing as a stupid question, but that appears to only
be true if one is asking questions about math or grammar rules. If this philosophy of no stupid
questions is dragged into the theological spectrum it is abused and battered along with the person
asking the question. In light of this, agnostics have learned to better appear as apologists or as
fence sitters so that they may avoid the unnecessary mudslinging perpetrated by the majority and
to seek a better angle by which they may raise these questions without the inquired party
becoming too defensive. In a sense, agnostics are excellent politicians; capable of bringing the
listener back from the brink of stubborn reluctance when necessary. If it were allowed, agnostics
would much rather be able to discuss these things with anyone without fear of prejudice, perhaps
from this open forum a higher understanding could be reached by all.
As agnosticism works throughout the world, whether or not one realizes its influence, it is
worth noting that agnosticism almost always favors rational explanation and an unbiased
approach. People that use the core principles of agnosticism in their life often find themselves
driven to find out as much as they can about any given topic they take interest in. Whether the
topic is politics, religion, science, or something else agnostics will explore it to the fullest of their
abilities so that they might find out all of the answers one can pertaining to it. These people have
played a significant role in shaping our society, inventing and pioneering things that are still
effecting civilization today.

Furst 2

Agnosticism, a philosophical position commonly associated with atheism, is much more

than many know, but what is it? The origins of Agnosticism are found in skepticism and was
coined by Thomas H. Huxley in the mid-nineteenth century (Blinderman par. 3). He did this in
an effort to give himself an ism amongst colleagues whom all identified with a specific belief or
creed (Blinderman par. 9). This act is further elaborated on by Smarts entry on agnosticism in
the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: [he] took it from a description in Acts 17:23 of an
altar to an unknown God (par. 10). There are a few misunderstandings regarding agnosticism;
the most common of which is that agnostics are simply undecided or fence-sitting. A person that
turns to agnosticism does not do so because they are ignorant of the current evidence, rather it is
because they have found the current evidence to be insufficient.
The amount of misinformation that is present in many regarding agnosticism is vast. Few
can claim to understand what agnosticism is, but before the what can be answered, first the
misunderstanding must be highlighted. The most common criticism an agnostic can face include
the fence-sitting claim, that it is a belief, and that an agnostic simply doesnt know. The fencesitting claim is the most common thing attributed to agnostics by the layman, that is those that
have had little to no contact with agnosticism. It is possibly the most harmful to the philosophy,
as it suggests that agnostics are simply evasive of the issue pertaining to deity. The second
assertion, which contends for the top spot of misunderstandings about agnosticism, is that
agnosticism is a belief (Peverini par. 8). Nothing could possibly be further from the truth.
Agnosticism, as a word, breaks down into two parts; the prefix a which means no and gnostic
which means knowledge (Peverini par. 4). Which brings us to the final of the common
misunderstandings, an agnostic simply doesnt know. This is usually thrown at agnostics in an
attempt to discredit them when in argument with theists and atheists. Unfortunately, dictionaries,

Furst 3

while a good source for a basic understanding of a words spelling and use, arent encyclopedias
and do not really care to explain the complexities of a philosophy, such as agnosticism. With the
common misconceptions out of the way it is time to tackle the more esoteric ones. There are
people that would insist that agnosticism is simply a part of a belief or lack thereof. This differs
from agnosticism being a belief by making it a part of either theism or atheism, that is the belief
or lack of belief in one or more deities. This is partially true, agnosticism can be added as a
modifier to either, but it is also a false claim because it leaves no room for agnosticism to stand
alone. This is a failing in the thinking on agnosticism, which often its members hold both theists
and atheists in equal regards, at least the strict agnostics do. With the misunderstandings
exposed we can now move on to finding out what agnosticism is.
What is agnosticism if it is none of those things then? To quote Einstein, [t]o sense that
behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and
whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness.
In this sense I am religious (Baddar par. 6). It is a complex philosophy, in that it requires that
the agnostic be well versed on the issue surrounding deity. However, it is incredibly easy to
define. It is a decision that some arrive at because they are dissatisfied with the current evidence
which exists between theism and atheism (Dutch par. 12). Presume for a moment, three people
are asked a single question: do you think global warming is real? The first answers that they
dont really know anything about it. The second answers that theyve heard a few arguments
from both sides and that each side has compelling evidence, but are undecided. The third
answers that though they have researched the issue, both for and against, they do not think that
the evidence for either side is good enough to come to a conclusion. In each instance these

Furst 4

people do not know, however, the third doesnt know because the evidence does not seem to
support one claim or the other, this is the essence of agnosticism (Dutch par. 9).
Of course, agnosticism would not even be possible without skepticism. Skepticism
teaches to question everything and to accept nothing as true (Rohmann 361). It is, in and of
itself, much more extreme than agnosticism as it does not permit skeptics to accept even the
things that they have experienced firsthand as true in its purest form (Rohmann 361). This
allowed early agnostics to question even the things that were taken as absolute truths and put
them under the category of the unknown. It is from the ability to question the validity of things
such as God and the difficulty of actually committing to the spirit of skepticism plus the rise of
the scientific method that allowed agnosticism to come into being. The man that brought
agnosticism into being, T.H. Huxley, did so to define his assertion about the many unknowable
things as they pertain to theology (Blinderman par. 8). This is exemplified in Herbert Spencers
words, I feel that whether the universe had an origin -- and if it had -- what the origin is will
never be known by man. (qtd. in Darrow par. 4). And further dragged out into the light by T.H.
Huxley himself, with his famous quote, I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see
no reason for believing in it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it, (qtd. in
Dutch par. 5). This is to say, that for all of the advances of man, there will likely never be a time
when everything is known by him. Now combined, to finally give a full definition of
agnosticism; agnostics do not know, but this is because they find the current evidence
unsatisfactory and that it is unlikely that evidence to confirm that a deity exists or not will never
be known to mankind.
So, who is T.H. Huxley and can he really be considered credible? Aside from being the
father of agnosticism, he was the Dean of the Normal School of Science and heavily promoted

Furst 5

his passion of biology (Blinderman par. 18). He was so engrossed in the cutting edge of his
passion that he became a staunch proponent for evolution as defined by Charles Darwin
(Blinderman par. 18). So great was his conviction to this idea that he became known as Darwins
bulldog (Blinderman fig. 1). It was his, and other notable agnostics of his day, attachment to the
theory of evolution that earned agnosticism the ire of the Christians of his day. T.H. Huxley was
even criticized by a man he greatly admired, notable philosopher Thomas Carlyle, for his
acceptance of mans apparent evolution from apes (Blinderman par. 18). However, despite this
he maintained his equal contempt for atheists, going so far as to write against the burial of an
atheist at the local church when asked to support it by atheists in the community (Blinderman
par. 18). He was a man of science and philosophy and was never one to stick to ideas when
adequate information was presented to dissuade it (Blinderman par. 20). One such case being his
assertion that at one time humanity lived alongside dinosaurs. Which, when provided evidence to
the contrary, he abandoned (Blinderman par. 18).
With T.H. Huxley as an example of what an agnostic should aspire to be, there is only
one question remaining. Why choose to be agnostic, deny belief in all of its forms, and embrace
skepticism in the face of the comfort of belief? To quote a Muslim turned agnostic, Were not
qualified to have strong opinions about God and the universe because we dont know anything
yet, (Baddar par. 5). That is, in the presence of all of the information, a thinking, rational
person would have to be skeptical of the large picture and for some this removes belief from the
equation. After all, there is a difference between not knowing and the evidence does not support
a conclusion much less a decision and it is understanding this difference that allows a person to
consider themselves an agnostic in the truest sense (Dutch par. 13). As Descartes once wrote in
Treatise on Human Nature, take nothing for truth without clear knowledge that it is such,

Furst 6

and though he meant it to poke at the fallacy of religion it is better suited towards agnosticism,
because atheists dont really know any better than theists (qtd. in Blinderman par. 13).
In the world of politics, agnosticism can be seen pushing for greater equality for those
that inherently are harmless. This stems from agnostics not seeing a point in discriminating
against anyone over something that isnt really established in fact. Agnosticism had come under
criticism from Pope Benedict for being intolerant of the Churchs right to discriminate
homosexuals (Pullella par. 7). To which many agnostics would argue that they are not saying
that the Church has to accept homosexuals, only that laws should not be erected based on this
belief. And then this should only apply to secular nations. Of course, there are minority figures
within any group that would not be happy without total submission to their ideas, but that is no
different than extremists from any creed. There is also a note of hypocrisy in the former Popes
assertion and one of my more favorite sayings from Christians is, hate the sin, not the sinner.
Which seems to have different definitions depending on the person, however it seems to mean
that one should not punish the person committing the sin, rather condemn the sin itself.
Unfortunately, in todays America there are plenty of places that will fire a person simply
because they are homosexual. This type of discrimination is constantly being fought here in
America on a rather constant basis, whether it be religious, racial, gender, interracial, or sexual
preference Americans seem to have a hard time just letting nonviolent people be and that tends
to push these people to violence. After a certain point one has to assume the cycle wouldnt
repeat itself.
Outside of politics, agnosticism finds its most powerful calling in science, with many
famous scientists subscribing to agnosticism of some form. One of the most famous scientists to
call himself an agnostic was Carl Sagan who once said, An atheist has to know a lot more than I

Furst 7

know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God, (qtd. in Achenbach par. 1). Sagan put
a lot of effort into bringing science to young people during the 80s with his show Cosmos
(Achenbach par. 3). It was his passion and he earnestly sought to pass on that passion. One such
occasion was when he invited Neil deGrasse Tyson to spend the day with him after reading his
college application to Cornell University (Welsh par. 4). It was because of this that Neil
deGrasse Tyson feels compelled to also nurture young scientific minds as Sagan had once did for
him (Welsh par. 8). Between the two of them, both at Sagans time and now, children and the
rest of the populace are being introduced to a passion they may not have even known that they
had. There are many scientists that can say that Cosmos has inspired them and it would not have
even been possible if these people werent compelled to ask the questions necessary to arrive at
an adequate conclusion.
Continuing the impact of agnosticism in science, Albert Einstein ignited the imaginations
of people from all walks of life. His works revolutionized the world of science and played a
large role in cementing quantum physics as a form of natural science (Nedimyer par. 10). His
famous equation E=mc2 explains the equivalency of energy and matter as matter accelerates
(Nedimyer par. 3). But despite all of his accomplishments, traditional methods of learning from
his time were not enough to keep him interested in the material (Nedimyer par. 2). It was only
when he was allowed to dictate the method and the material of his education that Einstein was
able to expand his knowledge in physics and truly find a way to revolutionize the field
(Nedimyer par. 2). Einstein molded this world in a way that cannot be undone, by writing to
President Roosevelt to construct an atomic bomb due to the suspicion that the Germans were
already working on one (Nedimyer par. 4). This weapon of mass destruction would cement
American power and authority worldwide making the U.S. the world super power for decades.

Furst 8

Moving away from the natural sciences and into the world of social sciences, agnosticism
is seen helping scientists by driving them to question the very core of what it is they are
attempting to discover or invent. The first sociologist, Emile Durkheim, was an agnostic that
worked very hard to push sociology into the realm of science (Henslin 11). He developed the
theory of social integration, a cornerstone of the field, which is used to break the populace down
into statistics so that trends may be learned (Henslin 12). He insisted that people should not just
be focused on as individuals, but as groups because of his research (Henslin 12). It was through
this group evaluation that one could learn how society affects individuals and how they behave,
even providing the basis for predicting how many people will commit suicide in an area over a
year (Henslin 12). Because of him, the field of sociology would become a legitimate career
choice. Sociology has spawned several types of careers. Mostly in survey-type jobs, but also in
law enforcement and, of course, academics.
Even in technology and business agnostics have shaped our world in tremendous ways.
Bill Gates, the world famous billionaire, built an empire on his passion. In his youth, he
devoured computer programming at the Lakeside prep school when they rented one from
General Electric (Mirick par. 2). He and his friends quickly used up all of the time that the
school had rented from General Electric (Mirick par. 3). These friends would be among the first
employed by Microsoft (Mirick par. 3). His grades began to fail, as well as those of his
classmates that worked on the computer, as he sought to totally understand the computer (Mirick
par. 4). Unfortunately, he could not access the computer any longer and was forced to find a new
way by forming the Lakeside Programmers Group with his friends, they were able to get contract
work with various companies (Mirick par. 5). Eventually, this need to understand computers
evolved into the business Microsoft (Mirick par. 8). Again, it is because of the core tenant of

Furst 9

agnosticism that this was achieved, one must question everything before arriving at a conclusion.
Gates found his answers through exploring computers until he felt he knew them inside and out.
This is the most powerful trait of agnosticism and it helped him build an empire.
However, it is not common knowledge that these people are, or were, agnostics. Why
arent these people more vocal about their philosophy? One part of it is that agnostics are not
inclined to tell others when not asked or challenged. Another part is, as mentioned previously,
the argument that agnostics simply do not know is a fairly common one and it is used heavily to
discredit an agnostic. This is partially due to the overly simplified definition of agnosticism that
agnostics, and a few others, give as a brief introduction to the philosophy. Unfortunately a big
part of not admitting to being an agnostic is, over a century ago, the Church painted agnostics as
being against everything that the Church stood for. That somehow, being agnostic would lead to
a life without morals and that agnostics will lead Christian children to commit acts of evil
(Blinderman par. 14). If this were true, would it not seem likely that agnosticism would make
the news far more often for all of the crazy things that the Church claims of the philosophy? And
then there are the supposed allies of agnosticism, or at least the group that agnostics are most
commonly associated with, the atheists who have a vocal part of their own criticizing agnostics
as being fence sitters. Basically calling them too cowardly to make a decision or to stand against
the Church for fear of the social backlash from Christians (the group most commonly
encountered in America). However, the agnostics look at all of the evidence that one can and
decide that neither side is correct in their absolute assertions, it would appear that agnostics set
up their own side. Granted, it seems like fence straddling when an agnostic is seen using both
theist and atheist arguments as well as their own to attempt to convince the opposing party not to

Furst 10

deal in absolutes. If somehow these old prejudices could be left in the past where they belong,
then agnostics may feel more comfortable admitting to their philosophy.
If agnosticism were more accepted and allowed to perform the way it was meant to, we
might see greater levels of advancement in all areas. Due to the nature of agnosticism, those that
subscribe to the philosophy would be driven to learn about whatever it is that they were most
passionate about and many other things as well. Agnosticism drives people to learn everything
they can about whatever they are studying so that they might feel comfortable forming an
opinion about the subject. That isnt a bad thing, humans should take advantage of their natural
curiosity. Because it is only through questions that an answer might be learned.
Agnosticism is simply the acknowledgement that, at the end of the agnostics research,
current evidence is not enough to base a concrete opinion on. People might be agnostic on a
whole host of issues, ranging from; deity, evolution, extraterrestrial life, gravity, immortality,
physics, and much more. Strict agnostics are always driven to learn, granted more often about
things that they have a passion for learning, and it is this passion that could help humanity
succeed in many things. How does expanding ones knowledge hurt a deity, should one exist? It
is deific and as such, in popular cases, would have been the being that wrote all of the rules.
How does learning these rules defy a deity, unless that deity specifically said it werent allowed?
It is time to let go of the basic human fear of change, instead we must learn to embrace it.
Because we are only doing ourselves harm by denying that these things exist and we are only
doing ourselves harm by being willfully ignorant of our hand in our world, indeed the hand we
could have in our universe.

Furst 11

Works Cited
Achenbach, Joel. Carl Sagan Denied Being an Atheist. So What Did He Believe?
Washington.com. The Washington Post, 10 July 2014. Web. 24 July 2014.
Baddar, Omar. Why Im Not an Atheist: The Case for Agnosticism. Huffingtonpost.com.
Huffpost News, 28 May 2013. Web. 9 July 2014.
Blinderman, Charles, and David Joyce. Agnosticism. The Huxley File. ClarkU.edu. N.p., 1998.
Web. 9 July 2014.
Darrow, Clarence. Why I Am An Agnostic. Assumption.edu. Augustians of the Assumption.
n.d. Web. 9 July 2014. http://www1.assumption.edu/ahc/scopes/Why I Am An Agnostic
Dutch, Steven. Whats an Agnostic? uwgb.edu. University of Wisconsin, Green Bay, 2 June
2010. Web. 9 July 2014. https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Agnostic.HTM
Henslin, James M. Sociology A Down to Earth Approach. 11th ed. Pearson. 2012. Print.
How Americans Feel About Religious Groups. PewForum. Pew Research Center. 16 July
2014. Web. 10 Aug. 2014.
Mirick, John. William H. Gates III Before Microsoft. vt.edu. Virginia Tech, 26 Sept. 1996.
Web. 24 July 2014.
Nedimyer, Reid. Who is Albert Einstein. psu.edu. Pennsylvania State University. 2008. Web.
13 Aug. 2014.
Peverini, Daniel. Knowledge or Belief? The Agnostic Fallacy. lasierra.edu. La Sierra
University, 21 Jan. 2014. Web. 9 July 2014. http://criterion.lasierra.edu/knowledge-or-beliefthe-agnostic-fallacy/

Pullella, Philip. Pope Benedict: Church Must Stand Against Intolerant Agnosticism.
Huffingtonpost.com. Huffpost News, 6 Jan 2013. Web. 24 July 2014.

Furst 12

Rohmann, Chris. Skepticism. A World of Ideas: A Dictionary of Important Theories,

Concepts, Beliefs, and Thinkers. 1st ed. 1999. Print.
Smart, J. J. C. "Atheism and Agnosticism." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring
2013 edition). Ed. N. Zalta. (ed.). The Metaphysics Research Lab, 29 Dec. 2012. Web. 9
July 2014.
Welsh, Jennifer. Neil deGrasse Tyson Describes His Life-Changing First Encounter With Carl
Sagan. Businessinsider.com. Business Insider Inc. 9 Mar. 2014. Web. 4 Aug. 2014.