There is a metallic looking cube of an unknown substance measuring twelve inches on each side weighing only half a pound. All of your senses tell you that it is a metal. There is no way inside the cube and there are no signs of welds or any method of manufacture to suggest how it got to be this cube. There is no sound when it is shaken and any attempt to break into it or discover what might be inside is unsuccessful.
A person may say that it was made hollow because it’s light. This believer may believe this because it looks to them like it should be very heavy and it can’t possibly exist like this without being hollow and being made as a hollow cube. They believe all of this even though it appears to be a solid cube when examined. The fact that the cube is hollow makes it easier for them to believe that the heavy looking cube could actually be so light. It explains the cube’s existence and characteristics for them and satisfies their curiosity.
A nonbeliever may say that it is solid because it appears to be solid. There is no evidence that can suggest that the cube is hollow other than the weight. Since the substance that makes up the cube is unknown, they can easily suggest that the lightness of the cube is just a trait of the unknown substance. The fact that the cube definitely appears to be solid makes them not want to jump to any other conclusions if it can’t be proven that the cube is hollow. They also reject the believer's conclusion that the cube was made since there is nothing to suggest that it was manufactured.
The Agnostic accepts the cube as it is. There is no way of knowing what is inside without breaking the cube open and any attempts to do that so far have failed. It could be hollow, solid, or filled with some other unknown substance that makes it lighter, which may not have even occurred to the others. The Agnostic doesn’t really care to make a guess about what’s inside the cube or how it came to be this way because such a guess does not give them any beneficial knowledge about the cube. The Agnostic just knows that in fact nobody really knows!
Theists have a belief in some sort of creator for the universe. Theists have anywhere from an exact view of a creator to a vague notion of what that creator is and the nature of that creator's existence. A theist that qualifies their belief by saying they only believe in their definition of their creator and do not have actual knowledge of it are not agnostic. This uses the word agnostic as an adjective to qualify the theistic belief and not as a noun describing their overall viewpoint on creation and gods.
Atheists are the opposite of theists by either actively rejecting the entire idea of a creator or at the least rejecting specific definitions of a creator as defined by theists. An atheist that qualifies their belief by saying they only believe this because they lack knowledge is not an agnostic since they have a belief or viewpoint concerning creation. This is also using the word agnostic as an adjective to qualify their atheistic belief and not as a noun describing their viewpoint on creation and gods.
Everyone is atheistic
about some gods since various gods are defined by humanity. For example, we're all
probably atheistic about Zeus now. Atheism as a belief means
that you're atheistic about ALL gods and the overall supernatural god concept, otherwise it's best to define
yourself as a believer of whichever god it is you are not atheistic about.
Agnosticism came about for those people that are atheistic towards all gods defined by
humanity but cannot say for certain they are atheistic about an unknown creator
or god
concept not presently defined and known by humanity. In binary math the
theist is one, the atheist is zero, and the agnostic is an unknown variable.
The assertion of being atheistic towards all gods puts atheistic belief in the same league as most religions concerning their viewpoint about creation. If they are truly without gods then they are stating as a belief that they actually know without a doubt that the universe was created by natural causes and that there is no such thing as supreme beings and the supernatural. Just like the dogmatic religions, this view could be proven wrong some day.
Agnostics do not have a defined belief in regards to creation because Agnostics do not know. Agnostic means "without knowledge." An Agnostic cannot be a theist because you can't have a belief in something that you have no knowledge about. You cannot believe in the undefined. As soon as the belief takes on any vague definition of a creator or god then you are a theist (albeit an agnostic theist) and not an actual Agnostic. An example of a vague definition would be pantheism.
An Agnostic is not an Atheist in the strictest sense since an Agnostic cannot completely lack a belief in the overall creation or god concepts. This is because an Agnostic does not know the nature of the origins of the universe and does not have the knowledge to reject such a concept in general terms. An Agnostic's lack of knowledge does align them with atheism in that they must agree with the rejection of specific theistic beliefs. This is because the Agnostic belief in the fact that we do not know contradicts any defined beliefs.
In short, the Agnostic
sees belief for or against the idea of a creator or god as wrong because we lack the
knowledge to believe in such things as well as the knowledge to completely
reject the entire idea. The Agnostic doesn't jump into the spectrum
of belief or complete disbelief in gods and says that we don't have the
knowledge to put ourselves on a point of the line for that scale. It is not done
to sit on a fence on the subject, but just to simply say that we are not in the
fight for or against belief and anyone engaging in such a fight is doing so from
a position of complete ignorance.
The Agnostic belief really says that Atheists are just as wrong as the religious in their belief. The Agnostic belief that "we do not know" means that Atheists do not know without a doubt that no gods or supreme beings exist. Likewise, the religions that believe in gods do not really know that their gods exist. Agnostics believe they are both equally wrong in what they think they are absolutely sure of and that the unknown is the only honest and accurate truth.
Thomas Henry Huxley created the term Agnostic in 1869 when he wrote:
When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last...So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "Agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "Gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant...
Huxley later expanded on his explanation of Agnosticism since some of the confusion we see today with the term was already starting to appear then. The true core of Agnosticism for me is the notion of "the not dreamt of in our philosophy" that Atheism does not have or address. Here is Huxley's explanation:
Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word "Agnostic" to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence; and it has been a source of some amusement to me to watch the gradual acceptance of the term and its correlate, "Agnosticism" (I think the Spectator first adopted and popularised both), until now Agnostics are assuming the position of a recognised sect, and Agnosticism is honoured by especial obloquy on the part of the orthodox. Thus it will be seen that I have a sort of patent right in "Agnostic" (it is my trade mark); and I am entitled to say that I can state authentically what was originally meant by Agnosticism. What other people may understand by it, by this time, I do not know. If a General Council of the Church Agnostic were held, very likely I should be condemned as a heretic. But I speak only for myself in endeavoring to answer these questions.
1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.
2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.
3. I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions. On trial of any so-called miracle the verdict of science is "Not proven." But true Agnosticism will not forget that existence, motion, and law-abiding operation in nature are more stupendous miracles than any recounted by the mythologies, and that there may be things, not only in the heavens and earth, but beyond the intelligible universe, which "are not dreamt of in our philosophy." The theological "gnosis" would have us believe that the world is a conjuror's house; the anti-theological "gnosis" talks as if it were a "dirt-pie" made by the two blind children, Law and Force. Agnosticism simply says that we know nothing of what may be beyond phenomena.
Robert G. Ingersoll was a famous American Agnostic of the 19th century. He had this to say about evil in the universe and the people that believe the universe was created and run by God:
There is no subject -- and can be none -- concerning which any human being is under any obligation to believe without evidence...The man who, without prejudice, reads and understands the Old and New Testaments will cease to be an orthodox Christian. The intelligent man who investigates the religion of any country without fear and without prejudice will not and cannot be a believer.... He, who cannot harmonize the cruelties of the Bible with the goodness of Jehovah, cannot harmonize the cruelties of Nature with the goodness and wisdom of a supposed Deity. He will find it impossible to account for pestilence and famine, for earthquake and storm, for slavery, for the triumph of the strong over the weak, for the countless victories of injustice. He will find it impossible to account for martyrs -- for the burning of the good, the noble, the loving, by the ignorant, the malicious, and the infamous.
Bertrand Russell was a well known British philosopher of the 20th century. He answered the question “Are agnostics atheists?” with the following:
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.
Technically, arguments about theism aren't just about the creation and origin of the universe. I see the idea of our creator as the easiest way to think of this, but to expand upon the Greek gods mentioned above by Bertrand Russell I could rephrase the theist, atheist, and agnostic sections above to talk about non-creating gods the same way as it talks about creators. If you're looking for a simple way to categorize these differences then this is how I see that categorization breakdown even though such categorization is not an exact science supported by those that apparently study these matters. In this I am just a simple layman and this is how I break it down.
Defined gods (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Pantheist, etc.) - theists obviously believe in their defined god, agnostics and atheists do not believe in any of them
Undefined gods (the overall god and/or creator concept) - theists believe, atheists do not believe, agnostics hold as a possibility that we know nothing about
The name God appears in many places in the United States and has been argued to be a generic word encompassing all religious beliefs when used in the government setting. “In God We Trust”, “so help me, God”, “God bless America”, and “One Nation, Under God” are some examples. The question for nonbelievers in God is: does the word really fit into the lexicon of America since it does not represent everyone? Some people are already fighting the legal fight for the removal of the word and may or may not win. But if God continues to stay as it has and in most cases just since the 1950s, what do we do then? Should a nonbeliever say it or remain quiet in protest? What if a day comes when we are required to say it and profess a belief in God without choice?
I have come to the conclusion that perhaps Agnostics can, and should, redefine the word God to match Agnostic belief. This should be easier than Atheists trying to do it since they completely deny the existence of God, whereas Agnostics do not know and do not necessarily care. Instead of defining God as the being that originates and rules the universe, it could be the name we put to the unknown origin of the universe. God for all Agnostics could then become synonymous with the phrase “the unknown”.
This would render some sayings rather silly, but relatively harmless in thought. They would now be synonymous with “In the unknown we trust”, “so help me, the unknown”, “the unknown bless America”, and “One Nation, under the unknown”. If I were asked if I believed in God I could just reply yes knowing I mean the unknown. I would still not worship or pray to God because it is silly to worship or pray to the unknown. Our free will definitely comes from an unknown. “The unknown’s will” matches very well with the seeming randomness of the universe. I could go on, but you probably get the point.
The advantage to this compromise in words is that it puts Agnostics in line with other religious beliefs, as I feel we really are. I do feel a sense of awe when I really think about the universe and all that is unknown about it. I do not think science gives us the answers of our origin just like other religions do not. That is why I think the Agnostic belief in the unknown is a matter of religious faith that none of us know our true origin. It is a very simple belief without worship or dogma.
The real advantage would be to say that we believe in God because we believe in the unknown creator that the word represents to us, even if the unknown creator ends up being nothing anyone would ever call a God in the traditional sense or actually nothing at all.
I think my beliefs should be considered religious and on the same playing field as the major religions. Hindu and Buddhist belief is nothing like Christianity and yet Christians typically do not criticize their belief like they do a complete lack of belief in a supreme being. It is odd that claiming a belief in a supernatural unknown would probably get me more respect than just saying I do not believe anything from the classically defined religions. If it were to help me be a more accepted part of the world, would it be worth redefining the word for me? We would all be meaning the same thing when we talk of God as our creator; it’s just that my God in that sense is unknown. I believe in the unknown God.
I will not actually go down the path of using the word God in this way without a good reason to do so. I will keep this concept in mind in case one day I am forced to state a belief of "In God We Trust" and "One Nation, Under God." I see no reason to have to go to jail or die for a belief that nobody really knows the answers, but as long as I am free to be Agnostic I will continue to avoid using God in those contexts.