Certain things are relative: Although we can say “hot” or “cold”, we can also compare, and say “hotter/colder than”. There are also things that are binary – either or. No matter what Hegelians might claim, I doubt you can be “a little bit pregnant”. In this context, an intellectually honest philosopher has to acknowledge a methodological flaw in agnosticism.
Theism is the belief in the existence of a supreme being – “God”. A pedantic observer would perhaps make all kinds of elaborations on this (arguably focusing on the difference between a theist and a deist), but for the purposes of this post – and focusing on what I term as the methodological flaw of agnosticism – the above definition should suffice.
That is, we have people – theists – believing in the existence of God. We also have atheists, who don’t find evidence for such a claim, and therefore do not accept the existence of God. Agnostics, on the other hand, are people who argue that nothing is known or can be known about the existence of God.
Agnosticism is effectively a perpetual suspension of judgment. As an agnostic, you basically say “I can’t know that there is a God, but I also can’t know that there isn’t. Hence, I refuse to take a stance”.
However, that’s precisely what the methodological flaw of agnosticism really is, as we’ll see.
– Trick question, I am God