ag·nos·ti·cism [ag-nos-tuh-siz-uhm] –noun
- An intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.
- The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
- The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
[Origin: 1870–75; agnostic + -ism]
I don’t want to wade into the current (or latest, if you look at this historically) spat between atheists and theists, but I find it tragic that – and I don’t know why I’m surprised – there is no middle ground of perspective in the discussion. It’s not much of a “discussion” to begin with, is it?
I don’t particularly care about Richard Dawkins, his followers/imitators, fundamentalist zealotry of any sort, and atheism in general. I think atheism, while legitimate, is about as interesting and constructive as a “zero” on a chalkboard. Of theoretical curiosity, but not much else. Yet lately there have been many books published – the latest of note being Christopher Hitchens’ – throwing down the atheist gauntlet against organized religion.
I have a healthy wariness toward organized religion and I understand, in light of the recent alignments in many parts of the world between fundamentalists and political/military activity, why the gauntlets are hitting the ground on either side of the theist atheist debate.
Or at least I think I understand – I’m just a layman.
Yet agnosticism is never mentioned. Atheists joke that agnostics are just vacillating fools and leave it at that. The problem is this: history proves that certainty has a best-before date. Anyone remember the Age of Reason, when classical physics had reached such austere heights that it became referred to as the Age of Certainty? And then those crazy guys, like Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein, had to go and blow the head off of it – essentially showing that presumptions about time and space (as well as lot of other things) were not as they had been presumed to be. And yet, perplexedly, many pro-atheism websites contain quotes from Einstein proudly questioning the limits of God.
You can be certain that the sun will rise every morning (even if obscured by clouds), yet, technically speaking it’s in the process of burning out (when it reaches thermal equilibrium with that cold “space” stuff). So, not even that is certain.
I argue that our need for certainty is an ancient one, and whether it be expressed in theistic or nihilistic terms, it is always coupled by Thoth’s ape: the spectre of an annoying footnote which clearly states “You know this could all change at any minute.”.
What’s wrong with embracing uncertainty – does it not open more doors, feed more thoughts, raise more questions? Is it not more analogous to the inherently uncertain and complex world around us? Allowing for uncertainty is being honest with the way life works; it is neither cynical nor pessimistic. In fact, I consider it more spiritually genuine (although agnosticsm itself does not need to be used only in those terms) than holding a fixed idea of what “lies beyond”, whether it be God or maggots.
I just wanted to put this out there, as I’m tired of only hearing two sides to an argument which cannot be limited to such a static form.





As a Canadian citizen living in the US, I have perspective from both sides.
The question being dealt with here isn’t so much about Lou Dobbs [whom I do like and agree with on a lot of the points he discusses on his program].
Traditional media sources have long ago lost their way. In paying attention to a broadcast or the written story most times I’m struck by either the wrong question being asked or the answer given is either inadequate or no answer at all. The reporter/interviewer doesn’t follow-up to hold the respondant [sic] to task about their evasive answer.
It’s seems that the truth/answers are just commodities and any response to a posed question will do. Media sources, particularly television media, are just production houses.
We, the public, need start thinking of what is not asked and also hear what is not said, in a response to a question/interview.
I thought it was the media/journalists job to obtain the truth whereever [sic] it was rooted. Not just report answers.
As for Lou Dobbs and his cohorts, opinion is just that, opinion. You don’t have agree with what anybody/everybody says/believes. It’s his opinion not yours.
That is what makes it GREAT to live in the part of the world that we do, we have the FREEDOM to disagree and NOT pay with our lives.
I think my previous posters would all AGREE with this.