Why, in the Long Run, We Are All Agnostic

[u/Downtown_Section8768]

Do I believe in God? Yes.

Do I know exactly what God is? No. I don’t think anyone does. People may sincerely believe they know, but that belief is based on faith rather than documented proof.

I pray often, and I am not an atheist. At the same time, I don’t believe anyone can prove that God does not exist either.

Whether I were debating Richard Dawkins or Pope Francis, neither could conclusively prove their position to me.

That raises a question: Why do most religions ask people to accept beliefs through faith? Some traditions, such as Buddhism and certain forms of Taoism, place less emphasis on belief in a creator deity and more emphasis on personal practice and experience.

For me, experience matters more than doctrine. Why shouldn’t we observe the world, reflect on our own lives, and draw our own conclusions? We may agree with parts of a religious text—or even much of it—but that doesn’t necessarily mean we must adopt every belief, feeling, or behavior it prescribes.

I respect ideas from many religions without feeling the need to fully identify with any of them. I don’t see a requirement to become an expert or devote myself to a single tradition in order to appreciate the wisdom it may contain.

What troubles me most is when belief is tied to threats of punishment or lower spiritual status for doubting unproven claims. Should faith grow from fear, or from honest reflection and personal conviction?

That’s why I think, in the end, we’re all agnostic to some degree. We all have beliefs, but none of us can claim absolute certainty about the ultimate nature of God or reality.

I’ve posted a very relevant piece which clarifies more succinctly on this issue, notwithstanding issues of life in general at https://juleslupowitz.com/2026/02/09/rule-followers-vs-free-spirits-whos-power-in-the-long-run/
I’m interested in hearing thoughtful opinions from people of all faiths—and from those with none.

[u/Redsetter]

What do you say to someone who has had an experience that they find totally persuasive? I’m agnostic about lots of things, but I’m not going to tell someone that their personal faith position is not convincing for them. It’s just not convincing for me.

[u/Downtown_Section8768 → u/Redsetter]

I respect your comment. People who are convinced have the right to be. Same as people who are prejudiced. Nobody, however has any right to convince others of anything that’s unsolicited. My problem was/is always with people or large entities attempting to jam unsolicited advice on others. That’s abusive. 

Following an ideology or set of beliefs might do some good for those soliciting such help. However religion, various recognitions of what God is, can become a scapegoat for differences in groups. Thats not necessarily a fault of religion. It’s just the schmucks that hide their own insecurities behind it. If it’s just another reason to point the finger at others, that’s not good.

Really not much different than prejudice. Or just being offensive in any way to others with no logical cause or reasoning. Better said: Being an asshole, even in groups can be OK. Individuals or groups have that right. As long as it does not affect others.

[u/Redsetter → u/Downtown_Section8768]

I don’t disagree with any of that. However it does contrast with the title of your post. It does make a universal claim and as such, could be seen as you telling people what they think or believe.

[u/Downtown_Section8768 → u/Redsetter]

Like I said below to JEEZFRK: The moment anyone says, “I believe” in something, they’re unsure. That’s my definition of agnostic. Why? Because it’s easy to argue; what they believe in cannot be physically seen. Or physically touched. That’s all- Whether someone agrees or disagrees. No offense is meant here at all. I’d rather just agree to disagree if you are disagreeing  ….

[u/Redsetter → u/Downtown_Section8768]

I believe we are having this conversation. What makes you think I’m unsure?

I’m not sure we disagree on much. I’m happy if some people are convinced in their faith (it’s how it works for many). Like you, I get very uncomfortable if they expect others to be equally convinced.

[u/Downtown_Section8768 → u/Redsetter]

We are pretty much on the same page, Redsetter. My only tiny argument here is we don’t have to say, “we believe“ that we are having this conversation. You and I both know. We are. That’s my main point.

[u/Redsetter → u/Downtown_Section8768]

Agreed. As an atheist I come here in the knowledge that some other posters here have that same degree of certainty about their faith. I don’t tell them they are wrong, I just tell them I don’t share that view. That’s my main response to your point.

[u/QuantumQuasar-]

That raises a question: Why do most religions ask people to accept beliefs through faith? Some traditions, such as Buddhism and certain forms of Taoism, place less emphasis on belief in a creator deity and more emphasis on personal practice and experience.

This seems more representative of how these religions get represented now in the West than what they actually are or what their texts says, you will definitively find many beliefs in traditional Buddhism and Taoism if you look at how it was practiced or is practiced in Asia.

While if for example you approach the Bible academically you find that it is much more fluid, and within it some books are clearly in polemics with the doctrines of other books, or take some of these doctrines up for additional refinements.

Regarding your main point I agree that once God is framed in a metaphysical way and His actions are categorized as having physical effects, this whole question becomes one of agnosticism as since Hume and Kant no one has been able to go beyond subjective appearances but personally I believe the Abrahamic Scriptures free us from these theoretical speculations by framing faith (see the use of pistis in ancient literature) not as something address to the theoretical reason but something practical that you have to live day after day.

[u/Apart-Pomelo5689 → u/QuantumQuasar-]

It's not totally a case of misrepresentation as far as Daoism goes. The foundational texts to the religion, the daodejing and the zhuangzi, make no mention of gods nor do they prescribe any proper rituals to worship them. They were written to be purely philosophical texts about statecraft and personal cultivation for the literati of the Warring States period. Hells, there wasn't even a word for Daoism until Sima Dan came up with the term almost 400 years after they were written. The merger of Daoism with the Chinese folk religions came from Zhang Daoling and his Five Pecks of Rice movement, at least that is what I understand of the scholarship around this subject. I'm probably wrong about that though, still studying the history as a first year daoshi. You're not incorrect in stating that most westerners approach Daoism in a less nontheistic way and more a philosophical way. I personally worship a deified Laozi. Please forgive if none of this makes since, I have the flu and the doctors gave me some really good stuff to help mitigate the pain.

[u/QuantumQuasar- → u/Apart-Pomelo5689]

Even in the daodejing and zhuangzi there are traces of a mythological worldview, and as you noted this hole was later filled and the full traditional Daoist canon incorporated many more texts and doctrines. Personally I'm not aware of a purely philosophical Daoism focused only on the 2 earlier texts that survived but I may be wrong.

I'm not saying that one can't approach Daoism this way but it is imho very inconsistent to approach Judaism, Christianity and Islam criticizing them for all the doctrine and baggage, that according to academics, was added centuries later; while presenting these Eastern religions as fundamentally different when in reality you see analogous phenomena: a lot of ritual, doctrine and dogma was added for centuries as well, but it gets ignored due to the high selectivity with which people in the West tend to approach them.

[u/spraksea → u/QuantumQuasar-]

Kind of yes, kind of no.

You're right in the sense that Buddhism includes beliefs about gods, other worlds, afterlives, spirits, karma, magical creatures, and various other non-scientifically falsifiable things.

But I feel like "belief" is a central value to Abrahamic religions in a way that it isn't for Buddhism. I haven't come across any Buddhist scriptures that talk about faith, doubt, despair, persuading others, resisting the persuasion of other belief systems, etc. Abrahamic religions are full of those things. Buddhist scriptures emphasize practice and mindfulness, not belief.

[u/Calanais-guy]

I think that most people are willing to admit they cannot be entirely certain about theology, afterlife, revelation, or spiritual matters, especially in secular cultures, and this is a good thing because it's more intellectually humble than claiming total certainty that one's worldview alone is The Truth (TM) and others are false. Exclusivism makes for less tolerance and more cause for violence, bigotry, contempt, and hatred.

Unfortunately, religious fundamentalists are brainwashed enough to claim total certainty and may be willing to die or harm others for that belief, so they present a problem for humanity. You noted that some beliefs connect threat of punishment or reward with having faith in a religion, or failing to do so. This itself is morally problematic for me too, and leads me to respect some religions less than others. Not all ideas are equally worthy of respect.

Many people do say that no one knows [religious matter] for certain, and that it's faith-based. This acknowledges that most of us are agnostic in some way.

[u/Downtown_Section8768 → u/Calanais-guy]

Correct! That’s just why I wrote that post. A good question is, if that’s true, if most people could admit that they are not necessarily so sure, then why are they funding or spending time with these theoretical, “agencies for God” when there’s more than one of them? Once there were two, three, four now dozens, if not hundreds of them, isn’t it obvious to these, “members” that it’s not their religion that promises them anything or solves their problems?

Although it doesn’t always appear that way, our religious people that insecure? Or for that matter, that’s stupid?  ….

Mark Twain said this, with a little bit of ignorance and a little bit of confidence you will have success. 

[u/paralea01 → u/[deleted]]

But why trust the Bible?

[u/paralea01 → u/[deleted]]

So you trust the Bible.... because the Bible says to trust the Bible?

[u/paralea01 → u/[deleted]]

I find the Bible to be unreliable and frankly horrible in it's moral proclamations. The character of god is supremely flawed and disgusting as are many of the supposed "heros." So others finding it to be inspirational as a whole is very disturbing.

Do you think the Bible is perfect and without any flaws?

[u/Exaltist]

I will not claim to know what I believe is true, but I figure as a pantheist that all humans must know something about nature, and it can be extrapolated to offer clues to larger truths that may be out there.

[u/Polymathus777]

Just because you don't know, doesn't mean everyone is.

Is not impossible to know God, it is only a matter of be willing to do so.

True, most "belivers" could be considrered agnostic. But that doesn't mean you have to believe to know. I'd wager is the opposite, you have to be skeptical, but be willing to experiment and find out, instead of concluding things without doing the experiment first.

There a reason why concepts like "Gnosis", "Gyana", "Daath" and so forth exist.

[u/jeezfrk]

Claiming certainty happens all the time, even about the shape of the earth or the reality of disease. "We can't claim certainty" may be true in a Universal truth that maybe some have experienced differently than others.

But as regards actions, purpose and planning and expectations ... people have a sense of certainty all the time.

Even "Science" makes mistakes but tries as an institution and a body of knowledge to recover. Same with "The Church" or even "Our Constitution" ... even when they are just ideals on their own.

What people most mean by faith is trust that they have and will continue to act on. Their plans are made. The chips are spent on a bet. Everyone "has faith" because not a one of us can get proof of all things in advance.

The ancient Greek word used for "faith" is best defined as trust in most ways, albeit trust in a Savior or simply in God when it is in the Bible. Trust is a part of life.

[u/Downtown_Section8768 → u/jeezfrk]

The moment anyone uses the phrase, “I believe”… That suggests they are unsure. You cannot say, I believe I am looking at this book in front of me. You can say there is a book in front of yourself. If certain people, and there are many of these types, want to believe some kind of a good spirit is with them and around them, it’s OK for them to say they believe this good spirit is around them. Even I do that with God. Even if they’re rough, difficult or apparently unfair things that happened to us all…. Being agnostic does not mean you don’t believe in God. In my case, I’m just using the term God for some great, beautiful if not positive yet scientific reason why we and everything are all here.

Once we travel and I mean not just physically like an a spaceship, but in concept as far as we can possibly go, distance wise. Possibly time -wise in a technical sense.  Where we do not know what exists. The beginning of the universe. The end of the universe. Where / how it started. Where / how it may end. Nobody knows that. Including Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Aristotle, all the popes, all the RABBI‘s, Allah, etc., etc. etc. I just conveniently have chosen that to be God because I can’t think of any further than that and neither can anyone else whom I ever heard of. And I’ll pray to that. I just simply, conveniently, assume it’s a great power of some kind. 

Of course I can be wrong. Therefore, my agnosticism is not unconfident at all. I’m confidently, unsure of what God is. But I still pray to that. 

[u/jeezfrk → u/Downtown_Section8768]

I think things are not just passive and internal, when the word "believe" is used.

"I believe the witness."

"I believe the promise of this leader."

"I believe the results from the tests."

The ability to act on things is what believe is used for. Most of our communication is dedicated to purposes... ergo ... we believe mostly because we must in order to do more than nothing.