Is it wrong to be purely Agnostic?

[Polygamist]

As an agnostic, I tend to be one of those that sees gray where theists and atheists may see black and white. I tend to be one of those that sometimes takes the middle ground, and other times the neutral ground, and other times a completely independent view/ground.

With that said, is it a valid position to just be purely Agnostic? Some may say that even if you don't know that God exists, you still have are left with either the "belief" or lack of belief in God's existence. But what if you don't even know if you believe in God's existence or not? In other words, what if someone can't honestly say that they believe or disbelieve in the existence of a god? Would that be invalid, or confusion, or purely Agnostic?

[McCulloch]

Honest sane people admit their doubts, so that to some degree or other, most of us are agnostic. However, if one has looked carefully at the arguments and the evidence, it is not very likely that one could maintain complete indifference or an equal balance of one's perception of the probabilities of the various options. So, if by pure agnostic, you mean one who believes that there is either equal probability that god exists or does not exist, or that such probability is so far beyond human reason that we cannot even hazard an informed guess, I doubt that there are many pure agnostics.

[Devilry]

A pure agnostic would say that we cannot know what the probability for God existing and God not existing is. And no, I think it is entirely possible to review every single argument out there for and against God and still hold the position that the existence and nature of God is indeterminable. After all, it's not as though all these arguments out there aren't flawed.

I think the reason why people might think negatively of Agnosticism is because they might be under the impression that Agnostics are apathetic and lazily avoid all the problems and conflict regarding God by sitting on the fence. This is not true. Reason is required to back the Agnostic position too. In fact, the strongest challenge to an agnostic is to prove that none of these arguments, from both sides, work. That's double the burden, if you ask me.

[Angel]

A pure agnostic would say that we cannot know what the probability for God existing and God not existing is. And no, I think it is entirely possible to review every single argument out there for and against God and still hold the position that the existence and nature of God is indeterminable. After all, it's not as though all these arguments out there aren't flawed.

I agree with you here. Agnosticism has come to be defined more restrictively in some cases like someone who's an agnostic when it comes to theism or atheism (agnostic a/theist, etc.). But yes, if someone is claiming to be only an agnostic then they would not claim to know anything with certainty.

I think the reason why people might think negatively of Agnosticism is because they might be under the impression that Agnostics are apathetic and lazily avoid all the problems and conflict regarding God by sitting on the fence. This is not true. Reason is required to back the Agnostic position too. In fact, the strongest challenge to an agnostic is to prove that none of these arguments, from both sides, work. That's double the burden, if you ask me.

I only disagree with the last part of your statement about agnostics having the strongest challenge. There is no man-derived epistemic justification for any absolute knowledge/certainty. The problem is not just epistemology but also our nature, i.e., we are beings with limits and prone to error even to our own standards. I think this is part of the strong point for the philosophy behind agnosticism unless someone can show how we can prove or know any absolutes, let alone absolute negatives. Interestingly, recent debates by professional philosophers that I've seen debate the issue of the existence of God have centered around making a "probable" case and that being put on top of a cumulative case. Ironically, we're all born agnostics and I think we should keep that in perspective and not hold anything as absolute truth, and just question everything or always keep seeking.

[NoisForm]

As has likely been mentioned, agnosticism/gnosticism deals with knowledge claims, while atheism/theism deal with belief claims. They are not mutually exclusive. All atheists and theists alike are also either gnostic or agnostic.

While one can claim to know, not know, or even that one cannot know - there is no third option for belief or lack of belief. Degrees of knowledge certainly provide your gray area, but belief does not.

If we feel we are in the midst of deciding, we still either have a positive belief in a deity, or we do not. We hold one of these two positions at any given time.

If you are uncertain, this means you do not currently hold a positive belief - and are therefor an atheist. For that is all that is required of an atheist - having no belief in a deity.

If you also claim that you don't know or cannot know, you are an agnostic atheist. The vast majority of atheists I have met fall within this category.

Do you currently have a belief in a deity? If 'no', you are an atheist. If 'I don't know', this is still not a positive belief, and you are an atheist. This says nothing of what or how much you think you can or do know about the actual existence of a deity. Only when one has a positive belief in a deity are they no longer an atheist. 'I don't know' doesn't enter into this equation.

Incidentally, I spent a while on Richard Dawkins site in the now defunct forum. There was a large atheist community, as you might expect. They had a running poll there regarding degrees of belief that Dawkins had developed. Approximately 70% self identified as agnostic atheist (a '6' on his scale), including, the last I'd heard, Dawkins himself.

So sorry, no. I don't think there is some happy medium when it comes to belief alone.

[Angel]

As has likely been mentioned, agnosticism/gnosticism deals with knowledge claims, while atheism/theism deal with belief claims. They are not mutually exclusive. All atheists and theists alike are also either gnostic or agnostic.

While one can claim to know, not know, or even that one cannot know - there is no third option for belief or lack of belief. Degrees of knowledge certainly provide your gray area, but belief does not.

If we feel we are in the midst of deciding, we still either have a positive belief in a deity, or we do not. We hold one of these two positions at any given time.

If you are uncertain, this means you do not currently hold a positive belief - and are therefor an atheist. For that is all that is required of an atheist - having no belief in a deity.

If you also claim that you don't know or cannot know, you are an agnostic atheist. The vast majority of atheists I have met fall within this category.

Do you currently have a belief in a deity? If 'no', you are an atheist. If 'I don't know', this is still not a positive belief, and you are an atheist. This says nothing of what or how much you think you can or do know about the actual existence of a deity. Only when one has a positive belief in a deity are they no longer an atheist. 'I don't know' doesn't enter into this equation.

Incidentally, I spent a while on Richard Dawkins site in the now defunct forum. There was a large atheist community, as you might expect. They had a running poll there regarding degrees of belief that Dawkins had developed. Approximately 70% self identified as agnostic atheist (a '6' on his scale), including, the last I'd heard, Dawkins himself.

So sorry, no. I don't think there is some happy medium when it comes to belief alone.

The only way I think someone can maintain strict agnosticism even on the level of "beliefs" is if they have contradictory beliefs when it comes to a god's existence. I think someone putting equal weight or probability on the reasons both for and against God's existence would lead some people to this position. In other words, a person may have a whole list of reasons for why they believe some god would exist while having a whole list of reasons for why a god doesn't exist. These would either cancel each other out or lead to contradictory beliefs that you can't really take one side or the other on, but nonetheless that is still a belief - one that is compatible with a pure Agnostics.

I may be wrong, but being an agnostic I don't know.