The agnostic says that there are no sufficient reasons for either an affirmation or denial of the existence of God, Satan and so on. He sits on
fence about these matters. But his stand is irrational, as we can see now.
Rational approach to truth
A belief to be true should be rational. It should have reasons for its acceptance by people.
Those reasons should compel us to accept it fully. The test of rational belief, as A.C.Grayling, the philosopher says, is ‘a question of an all-or-nothing affair and not a matter of degree.’
‘It is likely that God exists’ is an agnostic‘s stand; ‘there is no proof that God exists’ is a rationalist’s position. The former is a proposition of degree of belief and the latter is a proposition of total belief with evidence. The first statement is irrational and the second one is rational.
‘But agnosticism, as the position that entertains the possibility that there might be or could be one or more supernatural agencies of some sort, is an irrational position, for precisely the same reason as holding that there might be or could be fairies or goblins or the Olympian deities or the Norse gods.’-A.C.Grayling.
Again, “Is the belief that ‘rain might not wet me next time I do not have an umbrella’ less irrational or absurd than the belief that rain does not wet at all? Obviously not.”-A.C.Grayling.
Experience and experiment have long back found out that there is no evidence for the existence of God, devil, ‘fairies or goblins or the Olympian deities or the Norse gods.’
Theists resort to agnosticism to somehow defend their faith in God, heaven, hell, soul, afterlife, and so on. You now know that their religious faith dependent upon agnosticism too has no foundation.
Agnosticism is a believers’ ‘quibble that does not ……. hold water.’ It is a fallacy with a possible ulterior motive.