The Intellectual Side of Agnosticism: a call to progress beyond "I don't know"

[AgnosticBoy]

A lot of people think that Christianity does not have an intellectual side because it is based on beliefs and faith. There are also plenty of fundamental Christians that don't engage with atheists and skeptics in rational way. Well, Christianity also has an intellectual side, and as a field it is referred to as Christian apologetics. This field deals with how Christians should think and reason about the faith.

Agnosticism also has the same deal. It is not limited to a view or just simply being undecided or uncertain. Thomas Huxley who coined agnosticism also developed principles that explain how agnostics should think and draw conclusions. I've summed up these principles as these: being non-partisan, open-minded, and freethinking. Huxley used these principles to reach his conclusion, but it's important to keep in mind that he was not expecting other agnostics to reach the same conclusions. Here is some of what Huxley says on that matter,

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproven today may be proven by the help of new discoveries to-morrow. (source)

And this:

The extent of the region of the uncertain, the number of the problems the investigation of which ends in a verdict of not proven, will vary according to the knowledge and the intellectual habits of the individual Agnostic. I do not very much care to speak of anything as "unknowable." (source)

To Huxley, what makes an agnostic is how you reach the conclusion which involves using the agnostic principles together. Too many agnostics today may just be non-partisan by not wanting to take sides, especially if it involves leaving one dogmatic side (Christianity) for a side that can be just as dogmatic (atheism). But the agnostic should not forget to apply the other principles which could take them beyond the "I don't know", although there is no problem if that is your landing spot.

Any thoughts, questions, reactions are welcomed!

 

[William]

The illusion created by the warring sides of Supernaturalists and Materialist Philosophies is what confuses agnostics as they instinctively reject both sides and the result is a type of no-mans-land that they have yet to claim ownership of as a legitimate position - a position which both of the sides mentioned will/do claim, doesn't exist.
With ownership comes responsibility and the requirement of developing.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The illusion created by the warring sides of Supernaturalists and Materialist Philosophies is what confuses agnostics as they instinctively reject both sides and the result is a type of no-mans-land that they have yet to claim ownership of as a legitimate position - a position which both of the sides mentioned will/do claim, doesn't exist.
With ownership comes responsibility and the requirement of developing.

In reality, there may not be a valid distinction between supernatural and materialist philosophies if both can be reconciled. If or when an agnostic encounters such a view that's valid, then they should adopt that. Although, part of my point in the OP was to show that agnosticism wasn't limited to a view, but is also a way of thinking.

 

[William]

In reality, there may not be a valid distinction between supernatural and materialist philosophies if both can be reconciled. If or when an agnostic encounters such a view that's valid, then they should adopt that. Although, part of my point in the OP was to show that agnosticism wasn't limited to a view, but is also a way of thinking.

That in itself is beside the point I am making. Agnosticism is its own position and is responsible for maintaining a free flowing philosophy or not.
If not, then I would no longer be able to refer to my position as agnostic, even that in practical terms I am being agnostic in that I recognize philosophy isn't "the truth" but is still useful in helping me make rational logical decisions on - not just questions supernaturalist philosophy brings with it, but also questions materialist philosophy brings to the table.

In that, I am saying that Agnosticism - at least for me - is proactive and as proactive as those other positions are and could do with having a philosophy of its own - nothing dogmatic - but something substantial and useful in arguing the case for the sensibility of the agnostic position in general.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I posted this elsewhere but still relevant here:

I don't much care for the label as I do for what it stands for. Even if I dumped the label agnostic, I still find that what it stands for is very much in need.

Whenever we have two sides of an issue becoming too polarizing and close-minded (to anything that is not part of their group or views), then I want to distance myself from such views and perhaps even the groups that are pushing them. Such a position is needed between the theist and atheist side, and in many other areas, including politics. ALthough, I'd also say that to thrive in such a position requires more than just taking a position that "I don't know". Being open-minded, non-dogmatic, non-partisan, etc are all things that can help one thrive in such circumstances.

That's what I see Thomas Huxley's agnosticism advocating for. The emphasis on "I don't know" or even just on God's existence, is a gross oversimplification in my view.