Is agnosticism a valid middle ground?

Question

Not attacking agnostics, but it seems to me there is either a god, or there isn't and "I don't know" might be a valid position for a person to hold, but it occurs to me that there is no middle ground in such a debate, it's black or white, there is no, well, it kinda does and kinda doesn;t exist

Answer 1

An agnostic believes in God or some other prime mover. He does not however believe in any denomination or religion. I believe in this world of black and white. He may be the only right one out there.

Answer 2

The notion of a middle ground implies a single axis of judgment. A line from does not exist to does exist. The problem with this approach to the question is that you are assuming that the term god is a constant. The problem is that the term god is not a constant--there really is no agreement on what the word means.

If you change the question: Does Zeus exist? We come closer to being on a single axis of judgment. (But even here the problem becomes the word "exist." If you were to ask, Is it probable that any amount of travel to any normal space time coordinate would bring one into the presence of Zeus?, most moderns would reply with an unambiguous No. Does Zeus exist in literature? Of course, he does.)

Personally, I am not happy with the term agnostic, because it is too broad. It is not really a problem of knowing the answer, but making the question make any fixed sense.

If, however, the term god is used to imply some standard of perfection---do these standards exist in some normal sense of exist?---I think that they might, and that some individuals may very well think of these standards as divine.

I simply do not think that the term god is very useful. It is hard to say if it is worth calling any"thing" god.

Answer 3

maybe.

but what if the range of possibilities was "knowing" or "not knowing." Then "partially knowing" would be the middle ground. If we group all belief systems together (thiest or not), then we can say those fully commited to their own philosophy "know" the ins and outs of their group. People who know enough to spout off but not really understand their group would then be the middle ground, and agnostics would be the opposite extreme.

Just a theory.

Answer 4

I think it's a black and white issue. There is a God or there isn't. BUT, I think it's fine to say you 'don't know' or that it is unknowable. I'm only human and I don't feel I have the knowledge when it comes to something as 'mysterious' as that. If something is so great that I can't comprehend or sense it, it doesn't mean it's not there but it doesn't mean it's there either.

Answer 5

I believe it is. While agnostics may answer a question to the liking of "Do you believe" with "I don't know," the fact remains that most of them would claim to be Athiest if they didn't think that there was at least SOMETHING out there. While they take their time to explore their thoughts and their beliefs, they would rather not cause conflict, so they keep their thoughts to themselves. Very valid.

Answer 6

It is valid. Agnostics can have concrete beliefs, it's just that the label is all-encompassing.

I debate specifics that I do or do not believe.

Answer 7

I think it is fine to be agnostic and stay in the middle. However, it seems that some agnostics tend to lean towards bashing religion...or I should say bashing Christians. If they really didn't know...and they think all could be possible truths...why would they bash any of them?

Answer 8

Jesus said that if you're not with Him, you're against Him. Agnosticism still leads to eternal hell, because it refuses to believe that Jesus, who is God, died on the cross for our sins and rose again.