According to some definitions, agnostics tend to be non-committal...

Agnostic defined:
- a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
- NONCOMMITTAL, UNDOGMATIC
Source: Merriam-Webster

Let's discuss this side of agnosticism.

I know personally, especially lately, I've found myself being non-committal on a lot of things. The reason is that I've found too many people, including friends, being dogmatic and polarizing when it comes to a lot of things. Some of my Democrat friends tend to accept everything the Democrat/liberal side says, or never has anything good to say about the opposing or alternative positions. The same goes for some of my Republican friends. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm not purposely trying to be non-committal because if so that would probably just be anti-social.

But my reason for not committing (to a view or position) like others do, is because I don't see any one side as being right, not even mostly right. Secondly, the dogmatic or orthodoxy attitude doesn't help. It's a complete turn off. If you attempt to deviate from the group, especially if the deviation gets too close to the opposing side, then you're automatically labelled a traitor or as being part of the other side all along. This is why I've had to create a signature saying that I'm not a conversative even if I defend conservatives from time to time.

Anyways, I'll quit venting because I want to hear everyone elses experience with this.

Why do you think agnostics tend to be non-committal? Also, feel free to share your own experience of this.
 
Another one of my information-hunting discoveries: Pyrrhonism.

Lifted from a Wikipedia article that I keep a link to:

"As with Epicureanism, Pyrrhonism places the attainment of ataraxia (a state of equanimity) as the way to achieve eudaimonia. To bring the mind to ataraxia Pyrrhonism uses epoché (suspension of judgment) regarding all non-evident propositions. Pyrrhonists dispute that the dogmatists – which includes all of Pyrrhonism's rival philosophies – have found truth regarding non-evident matters. For any non-evident matter, a Pyrrhonist makes arguments for and against such that the matter cannot be concluded, thus suspending belief and thereby inducing ataraxia."

Personal thoughts later. Maybe I'll also bring the link, but that is one hard, dense, long article.
 
In my view, if the truth or falsehood of any position cannot be supported by being a verified true belief, then the agnostic is unable to take a position.

For example, there is no justified true belief to support the existence of free will and, on the other hand, there is no justified true belief showing that it does not exist. The agnostic will observe the matter is unsettled. For pragmatic reasons, she may assume that it does exist otherwise the concept of personal responsibility becomes without foundation.
 
Another one of my information-hunting discoveries: Pyrrhonism.

For any non-evident matter, a Pyrrhonist makes arguments for and against such that the matter cannot be concluded, thus suspending belief and thereby inducing ataraxia."

Personal thoughts later. Maybe I'll also bring the link, but that is one hard, dense, long article.
Good find... I flirted around with Pyrrhonism for a while after finding this quote, "Nothing can be known, not even this".

It seems like a fair position, but in my view it is very limiting. Beyond just the nature of knowledge, you have to adopt some less than perfect/absolute standard for truth otherwise you can't live or offer any view on important matters. For now, I stick with science and the best available evidence :cool:
 
In my view, if the truth or falsehood of any position cannot be supported by being a verified true belief, then the agnostic is unable to take a position.

For example, there is no justified true belief to support the existence of free will and, on the other hand, there is no justified true belief showing that it does not exist. The agnostic will observe the matter is unsettled. For pragmatic reasons, she may assume that it does exist otherwise the concept of personal responsibility becomes without foundation.
100% agree. I am imperfect, but I try to apply that thinking on all important matters.