Agnosticism Is A Way To Stay On The Fence, Until It Falls

I was an agnostic for many years of my life. Not only in regard to the topic of God's existence (or non-existence), but on almost every single topic I was able to be. I would stay on the fence, claiming that "I was just waiting for more evidence to surface or for strong personal experience to convince me before picking a side of the fence to jump over to". But the truth, deep down as I am now discovering, was that I did not want to have to make a decision when the fence was no longer there to use. In other words, I would use the fence as a means to ensure I would never be in the position to be seen as intentionally hurting, intentionally offending or intentionally judging another person because that was worse than not being able to clearly define my position. For a reasonable person, this is not an acceptable position.

Please understand, I am not suggesting that waiting for facts, evidence and more credible details to emerge before committing to a position or fighting for it is bad or wrong, I am just saying that deciding to do these things for the purpose of avoiding being negatively judged by others is stupid behaviour. I have personally learnt this the hard way, and because of this my desire to utilise "compromise" (especially when it is the only option left) is difficult to channel into because I now almost see it as an exclusively "weak" position. My head, heart and soul know that it takes strength, courage, resilience, trust and a giant leap into unknown territory to achieve "compromise", so how could I still resist the idea of it being a strong quality?

So, my dear agnostic friends, whether your agnostic views render you unable to state whether or not you believe in God's existence (or your preferred method of stating you don't know if it's even possible or not to determine whether God exists); or whether your views "prevent" you from speaking honestly on controversial issues like abortion, euthanasia or promoting equality of outcome, just remember: sometimes it is necessary to stay on the fence, but if you want to make a difference on a topic that is considered controversial and are faced with a decision to choose a side to jump into, TAKE THE JUMP! Because whether you are right or wrong, you WILL learn something valuable as a result. I guarantee it! I am a good example of how to overcome excessive agnosticism because I lived under its iron fist for so many years. If I can escape it, so can YOU!

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Wow. thanks for this. somehow I knew I would find something here.

a reply to: SupermassiveBlackHOLE

Thank you. As cliche as it sounds, if my thread managed to strike a chord in at least one other person, then my decision to create this thread was definitely worth it.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

" the iron fist of agnosticism " ??????????????? just WTF ?????????

Pictures or.....

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
" the iron fist of agnosticism " ??????????????? just WTF ?????????

It became an iron fist because I was justifying its continual use for mostly incorrect reasons.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

What if we don't care? Or the topic is irrelevant?

You make the assumption that a fence with sides even exists for everyone, when for many the idea isn't even worth our time.

a reply to: Dark Ghost


Glad you enjoy not sitting on the fence any more. I'd point out that there IS a 'fence' to sit on.

Personally, I believe both sides of it haven't got it right. Sitting on the fence is also a decision, methinks.


When we know the truth, PM me....

a reply to: Dark Ghost

What exactly do you mean by the fence falling? That agnosticism is simply a weak philisophical position on which to base a belief system?

It sounds analagous to something much more dramatic. Can you expand on that?

I think you're reading way too much into it. Agnosticism is basically just saying that there's neither hard evidence that God exists nor hard evidence that God doesn't exist.

It does get a little more complicated than that, however. Different factions within agnosticism have different views on what this lack of evidence means. Hard agnostics believe knowledge of deities is inherently unknowable so even if a God does exist it will forever be impossible to prove it. However, this stance is very much like a belief in that it cannot be proven. Since we do not know the true nature of such a (possible) deity, it's impossible to say for certain whether knowledge of said deity will forever remain beyond the scope of human knowledge. This is the same problem that atheism has. Our current level of knowledge renders it impossible for us to disprove the existence of God. So really atheism is inherently a belief system, similar to a religion or philosophy. It can't currently be proven correct.

If you're strictly concerned with empirical evidence, you would most logically fall into the "open agnostic" sect, who believe there is no evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God, and are therefore open to either possibility and open to possible future evidence. They don't believe anything yet, since there is currently no hard evidence to support any conclusion.

originally posted by: watchitburn
What if we don't care? Or the topic is irrelevant?

You make the assumption that a fence with sides even exists for everyone, when for many the idea isn't even worth our time.

If you don't care, simply ignore the topic and don't feel obliged to comment on how wrong those who do care about it happen to be.

Only proponents of moral absolutism would argue that an even fence is not a reasonable possibility. Since I am not a proponent of moral absolutism, I can see that an even fence is always possible.

You will not find me going into threads about moral absolutism and trying to argue how bad an idea I think it is if it is clear my views are not able to be considered.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I am a Christian. But I totally and completely understand the agnostic position, because I also appreciate scientific rigor. Now, me personally, I believe that there are matters which scientific methodology can help a person muddle through, and that there are matters which it cannot. Matters of faith are one of those things, that scientific thinking cannot, in specificity, assist one with too terribly well.

Some scientists are finding that things they are learning about the universe, suggest that there might be an argument for design in the universe, others as always want nothing to do with such a thought, others still believe that there is no way to tell, and therefore refuse to come to a conclusion beyond that it is impossible to know.

What I would say about this, is as follows. Agnosticism is the most reasonable position to take, unless you have had an experience which leads you to a faith, to God. If you have not been in that position yet, then there is no reason why you ought to believe ANYTHING without having examined and dissected the hell out of it, none what so ever, and I say that as a believer myself. If ANYONE ever gets in your face about being on the fence, so to speak, then do not listen to them. It is a reasonable position, a solid one. Jumping either way as an experiment may be something you are interested in, but do understand, there is no experiment you can run which will bring you closer to the truth of the matter. Divinity resists examination. The only way to know it is there, is to come to it by way of being drawn toward it.

I think evangelism which this clearly is, completely misunderstands agnosticism.

Perhaps you were sitting on the fence.

To many agnostics it has absolutely nothing to do with sitting on the fence.

Epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, and cosmology are much deeper than yes or no answers if your actually seeking something honest and not a lifeboat.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Great post. Interesting take from a believer who values science.

To me, agnosticism is the most honest position because it relies on the individual coming to terms with the fact they simply do not know the truth.

Is there a god? I don't know.

Is there not a god? I don't know.

Anyone that says there is or is not a god is only telling you what they believe, without knowing the complete truth.

While I applaud you taking the time to share your views with us, I can't make any sense of what you're saying. Are you implying that because some religions state that if you don't believe in 'their version' then you'll spend eternity in fiery torment that its just safer to pick one and hope you're right?

Is something ever 100% determinable? By the current understanding of quantum physics and probabilistic determinism, it would seem that anyone claiming a 100% probable opinion is inherently wrong, and therefore an 'agnostic' approach (while perhaps less decisive) is likely the safer and more correct approach.

Thanks for your time and opinions.

originally posted by: Dark GhostI am a good example of how to overcome excessive agnosticism because I lived under its iron fist for so many years. If I can escape it, so can YOU!

Yeah, but you chose the Dark Side, Anakin, so what should we take away from that?

Also, I agree with you for the most part, but sometimes with topics that are unprovable, such as the existence of the Christian (or any other religious) god(s), agnosticism is actually an intelligent way to approach the topic, and it shows that one is open to the possibility, but also that the individual is not willing to commit to something based on faith.

I am mostly agnostic when it comes to any gods' existence, but if I had a gun to my head and was told to choose, I would latch on to atheism's assertion that there is no such thing as a god, or at the very least, and creator god. I even mostly identify as an atheist these days...hell, I think about 100% of the time.

But I would caution that if someone is prone to agnosticism on many topics, it's great to jump off the fence onto one side or the other, but ensure that you do so intelligently and do your research.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: watchitburn
What if we don't care? Or the topic is irrelevant?

You make the assumption that a fence with sides even exists for everyone, when for many the idea isn't even worth our time.

If you don't care, simply ignore the topic and don't feel obliged to comment on how wrong those who do care about it happen to be.

Only proponents of moral absolutism would argue that an even fence is not a reasonable possibility. Since I am not a proponent of moral absolutism, I can see that an even fence is always possible.

You will not find me going into threads about moral absolutism and trying to argue how bad an idea I think it is if it is clear my views are not able to be considered.

Moral absolutism is an outrageous position in my opinion.

Morality and ethics come from several things anthropologicaly speaking.

The social contract,..everyone agrees eating monkey brains is a sin,

Moral philosophy,...the lineage of discussion about how to act ex, The Categorical Imparitive

Superstion/ancestor beliefs,...passing down of legends

Your internal feelings are shaped by your belief system which is fed by your understanding of reality.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Decent thread, wish I could relate to it more. I am agnostic myself.

I am a person who has made it a point to say what is on my mind. I do find myself restricted by social norms some times and that sucks but some times it's all for the better. The things you mentioned "abortion, euthanasia or promoting equality of outcome" don't prevent me personally from speaking my mind but I can see how for some it would. There is some sense of normalcy to be gained by being deceptive and I can respect that. I think I agree with what I believe to be the premise of the thread though. Make the consideration and possibly take the jump.

I'll help and share some controversial opinions out there to show you that even though disagreements can be had, you need controversy to grow.

"abortion, euthanasia or promoting equality of outcome". I am prochoice, I think that abortions and are killing babies. I just have no moral issue with killing an animal or human that doesn't have awareness of it's own existence. As long as there is a reason (subjective) and methods used aren't violent. Where I become conflicted is, because I am not sure if a god exists or it's plan, am I seen negatively because of this in it's eyes?

I believe in Euthanasia too. Terminally ill, mentally ill or for population control. Sure I would prefer not to be apart of population control and if mass sections of the world start dying off I'd feel sadness but death is inevitable.

It isn't so much about stubbornly sitting on the fence as it is about not becoming stubbornly defensive of what you think is the truth.

It's about retaining the ability to admit openly you may have been mistaken.