An agnostic is a person who believes thatknowledge of the world is impossible in principle. The laws of nature, as well as the horizons of being, are obscured by our worldview, adopted by scientific and philosophical concepts, and therefore the world and people exist as if by themselves, independently of each other. In this approach, science and religion are perceived only as an element of culture, a necessary attribute of civilization, and not as a technology of self-improvement, which is inherent in other philosophical trends.
Therefore, asking: “Agnostic - who is it?", - we must perceive people of this kind of mind as skeptics who have chosen absolute doubt as a way of life, a social habit. This worldview helps them to survive in the world of universal faith and unconditional acceptance of scientific truth.
In search of an answer to the question “Agnostic — who is it?For some reason, I remember the cult film "Beware of the car." Remember the conversation in the car: some believe that there is no God. Others believe that there is a god. And the one and the other is unprovable. That's about thinking agnostics. The opposite of such thinking is Gnosticism. Supporters of this doctrine believe that everything in our world, including human actions, boils down to certain regularities. Accidents do not happen, and all events occur with a 100 percent probability. Another thing is that we can not know those or other laws of nature, but this is only a matter of time and patience. However, in my opinion, gnostics and agnostics are similar in one thing: they regard a limited number of things and phenomena as “starting points”, a material from which they repel and build their theory. For the Gnostic, it is a point, a straight line, space. For agnostic - own attitude, the individual idea of things. In other words, all philosophers are similar in one thing: you need to take something (a kind of Aristotelian prime mover) on faith, and then prove the right to your point of view.
Reasoning on the topic “Agnostic - who is it?“One cannot but touch upon the problem of atheism. If in religion it is a question of categorically designing the world through the essence of the highest Absolute, then an atheist has a problem: what exactly to take on faith. Scientific truths or laws of nature do not count. According to them, these are just tools of knowledge. To form axioms (like the above point and space), you also need starting points, but you also need to come to this. And not necessarily through skepticism. Most likely, again, through faith. No wonder Albert Einstein at the end of his life became a deeply religious man. Moreover, doubt also has an suspicious nature: who will say now, what is the difference between universal denial and one’s own opinion about the nature of things? Of course, subject to the rejection of specific views of the philosophical or scientific community.
Therefore, answering the question posed: “Agnostic — who is this?”, It is necessary to understand that the answer lies, oddly enough, in the plane of politics.
Firstly, because doubt in God and scienceemphasizes the free choice of the “third party”, associated with a liberal world view and an individual assessment of what is happening, based on their personal interests. In other words, agnosticism, despite its ancient Greek origin, turned into a bourgeois concept and clearly fits into the rhythm of Protestant values.
And secondly, agnostics live in a world of absolutefree will, which conditionally can be considered their god. But free will is a Catholic concept underlying the late medieval and bourgeois law, the foundations of which are formed by Napoleon and Hegel. The conclusion is the same - a person is responsible only for himself and is personally responsible for his actions. Therefore, he is free in his doubts about others.
