Yo're captain of the ship till you're ready to embark at the next port, there is no choice if you don't want to step off the ship is there ?
Consider a comparison between the two agnostic figures in the history of philosophy, Bertrand Russell and Socrates. That Russell was an agnostic, though one who was “atheistically inclined”, we can take as right because it was what he called himself. He described the position (agnostic) saying: “An agnostic is a man who thinks that it is impossible to know the truth in the matters such as God and a future life with which the Christian religion and other religions are concerned. Or, if not for ever impossible, at any rate impossible at present.” Socrates is an agnostic figure for a different reason. From what can be gleaned via Plato, he came to understand that the key to wisdom is not being able to prove beliefs, but understanding the extent of your ignorance. He was agnostic in not assenting to philosophical systems, and instead went around ancient Athens asking awkward questions. For him, the importance of reason was not that it could potentially understand all but that it exposed the limitations of all our understanding.
The fact remains that an agnostic is open to both ideas, whether they are inclined to favor one or the other is irrelevant, you have to be open to both.
For me, too. Just noticed about it again when traveling through Laos.... It can become an issue when for instance one (maybe an own child) decides to kill in the name of his/her belief.... Yes I know...let me add the way I'd express it... To me to ask god for guidance means to focus on stillness. From there anything emerges, independent from old patterns of the past (memory).....without stillness no sound, without space no objects. Focusing on the background (stillness/ space) is listening to god..... Finally to recognize the nature of god in oneself appears as wisdom that we are free.
By 'agnosticism' what I understand is a claim to public, and not private, ignorance. Most of what's knowable, or known publically, is not known privately e.g (by any individual). If the God is more than a private entity, then in principle it is accessible to public examination. So if there is a X (God) with attributes which entail changes in the observable world, then, at the very least, this X (God) can be indirectly known by observing those changes. If a X (God) is real like (e.g) a quark or black hole, then it not only can be known but must be knowable. Specifically, the question of God's existence is a question of fact and is therefore knowable either directly or indirectly .. insofar as this God is alleged to cause changes to or in the world. One might not be able to answer this question, or be convinced by any of the answers, but it can be answered beyond a reasonable doubt to the degree any God at issue is defined with attributes that purportedly affect the world. Thus, holding an "agnostic" position with respect to a deistic God-concept e.g (an entity which does not cause changes in the world) seems plausible but for theistic God-concepts e.g. (non/Abrahamic deity) is simply incoherent.
Missing the point: agnostics can't be fookin' bothered with either of the unprovable ideas, as they are, after all, the two sides of the same coin!!! Instead, we bother with worldly things (stuff we make) we can influence, change, be creative about etc. etc.
As long as anybody is assigning an own idea to the term 'god' to differentiate/determine theist, atheist and agnostic or even different forms of them is individual.... God as absolute nature itself don't need any differentiation, though. Only the question about if there is an absolute beyond all what's relative requires differentiation. Yes, no, I don't know.
Please refer yourself to the Predestination debates : Predestination (Wiki) It's a debate that tries to explain what is Eternity, how to explain the origins of the Universe with this concept and how Free Will can or cannot exist. These themes are a lot discussed by monotheist religious, theologians and of course some others. Even scientists can participate to these debates. There are links with the Trinity and it's fascinating. The logic of the Origin of Eternity is also smartly explained into the science-fiction movie Predestination (Michael Spierig). It explains how a paradox can be the origin of everything, or at least of an entity. But the internal logic can explain origins of the Universe and the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Our brain is not adapted to treats complex problems with more than 4 dimensions in the equations. We come up against the limit of our capacities of reflection, which are intrinsically bound to the functioning of our internal logic, submissed by Time dimension ( =our mind architecture). For example, a traditional computer will have difficulty in making tasks of a quantum computer and this quantum computer will have difficulty to treats some others tasks well done by traditional computer. We also need CPU and GPU because some tasks work well on CPU and others on GPU. Our brain still has difficulty in handling certain problems and it considers then as paradoxes. Partial ignorance of our consciousness reminds us that we can make choice (with the feeling of "Free Willing"), but the mentalism and hypnose tends to prove that everything finds its origin in complex mechanisms of our subconscious / unconscious / everything-that-does-not-relate-to-our-consciousness. We can persuade somebody that he chose to think of the "red hammer", but this person was manipulated without being aware of it. Yes, we are complex biological computer with a body.
And some religious (not monotheists) doesn't make difference between objects, plants, animals and humans on a metaphysical plan. It is a question of faith.
I agree with this vision of the World, but not everyone. For example, Christians have a great deal of the evil to adopt this philosophy because the religion bases itself on the fact that the human being is a creation apart from everything else, done by God. They mostly DON'T WANT to understand other point-of-view about us, but I don't blame them. The most important from a religion is to help someone to find his balance and an (social) integrity. Some of us find them from something else than religion. It could be philosophy, science, art, etc. and then they don't "need" to be religious to be a complete person.
Accepted. The question about an absolute beyond all that what's relative appears as different forms and don't have to be religious at all. Phil: Is there something one can be absolute certain of? And if yes how should it be expressed/proved without to relate? Btw: The question Does god exist is not really different to it.... In other words no position/point of view without relation....no identity as individual without relation. But 'what/who' makes the relation 'before' it is related at all and what else can it be other than 'absolute' from that all relations emerge? The question here might appear as: Is there consciousness 'before' relations are made? No. To say everything is the same is like to say anything is green. Things are not 'the same' they are as they are (sorry I haven't found a better way to try to refuse from to make relations). In relation to the idea of yourself they become relative = what you think they are and an own value. Their real 'meaning' their totality is ever ungraspable, though.