Agnosticism

Not to be confused with Gnosticism.

"Agnostic" redirects here. For platform-agnostic data schemas and ontologies, see Cross-platform software.

Agnosticism is a questioning attitude toward God's existence.^[1]

Agnosticism is a questioning attitude toward the existence of God or the divine. On a psychological level, it is a personal attitude that suspends judgment, withholding both belief and disbelief. In philosophy, agnosticism is often treated as a general theory stating that God's existence is unknown or unknowable. In the broadest sense, agnosticism is not restricted to theology and can also express skeptical attitudes toward nonreligious claims.

Agnosticism is commonly contrasted with theism, which affirms God's existence, and atheism, which denies it. It is understood either as a neutral middle ground between the two or as a rejection of their shared assumption that knowledge is attainable. Agnosticism is often characterized as an informed indecision by someone who has reflected on the issue but has not reached a conclusion, distinguishing agnostics from those who lack a belief because they have never considered the issue. It overlaps with skepticism and fallibilism, which deny that knowledge or absolute certainty are possible.

Various arguments for and against agnosticism are discussed in the academic literature. Proponents typically hold that evidence regarding God's existence is inconclusive and that intellectual humility demands suspending judgment. Critics usually contend that there is decisive evidence either for or against God's existence, or that the absence of decisive evidence leaves disbelief, rather than the suspension of judgment, as the default attitude. Agnosticism is often associated with a secular lifestyle that resembles atheism in practice. However, it does not necessarily preclude religion. For example, agnostic theists believe in God while denying that true knowledge of the divine is possible.

The term agnosticism was coined in the 19th century by Thomas Henry Huxley. However, its precursors and theoretical roots trace back to antiquity, including ideas found in ancient Greek and Indian thought.

Definition

Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term agnosticism.^[2]

Agnosticism is a questioning attitude toward the existence of God or the divine. It is a neutral position in which an individual neither affirms nor denies God's existence. Instead, they withhold judgment and remain open to both possibilities. Agnosticism is typically contrasted with belief and disbelief and is understood either as the absence of both or as a distinct mental attitude, such as a settled indecision.^[3] A commonly discussed criterion is that the agnostic person has considered the question of God's existence but has not reached a positive or negative conclusion. In this sense, someone who does not comprehend the question or has never thought about it, such as an infant, does not count as agnostic.^[4] Agnostics are often motivated by the idea that the available evidence is inconclusive, preferring to withhold assent as an expression of intellectual humility rather than adopt a dogmatic stance.^[5]

Philosophers often define agnosticism in a stronger sense as the theory that the existence of God is unknowable. This attitude goes beyond suspension of belief by embracing the claim that human cognition is too limited to access or verify this information.^[6] In its broadest sense, agnosticism is not restricted to religious questions but can be applied to any field. For example, a person can be agnostic about the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life or free will if they are unable to reach a verdict on these issues.^[7][a]

Agnosticism is often contrasted with theism and atheism and treated either as a middle ground between the two or as a rejection of their shared assumption that knowledge about God is attainable. Some approaches group agnosticism with atheism as an irreligious attitude in which belief in God is absent.^[9][b] However, agnostics are not necessarily opposed to religion and may engage in some religious practices and traditions while remaining uncommitted about God's existence.^[11][c]

The word agnosticism derives from the ancient Greek terms ἀ-, (a-) meaning 'not, without', and γνῶσις, (gnōsis) meaning 'knowledge'. It was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech to the Metaphysical Society in 1869 to describe the view that humans lack the cognitive capacity to attain definitive knowledge about God and related matters.^[13][d] Agnosticism is discussed in several fields of inquiry, including theology, philosophy of religion, psychology of religion, religious studies, and the social sciences.^[15]

Types

Various types of agnosticism are discussed in the academic literature, distinguished by kind of attitude, form of inquiry, and scope of subject matter.^[16]

Based on attitude

Psychological or doxastic agnosticism is a suspension of judgment. In this sense, a person is agnostic if they have considered God's existence but neither believe nor disbelieve it. Psychological agnosticism describes someone's state of mind without implying that this state is rational or demanded by a general lack of evidence. It contrasts with epistemological or cognitive agnosticism, which asserts that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. This view argues that humans are unable to acquire this kind of information or that there is insufficient evidence to reach a definitive verdict. Some versions maintain that no evidence is available, while others hold that the evidence for and against is mixed and balances out. In either case, epistemological agnosticism concerns what people should or should not believe, not what they actually believe. Accordingly, it rejects both theism and atheism for claiming more than the evidence permits.^[17] Epistemological agnosticism is sometimes interpreted as skepticism about God because of its focus on the limits of knowledge.^[18]

A related distinction focuses on the degree of the agnostic commitment. Weak agnosticism is a personal attitude of someone who neither believes nor disbelieves. It is a lack of conviction in which an individual does not commit to either option without generalizing this stance into a universal claim about what others can or cannot know. Strong agnosticism, by contrast, embraces the more assertive position that knowledge of God's existence is impossible.^[19] The contrast between weak and strong agnosticism is sometimes framed as a claim about what it is reasonable to believe. In this sense, weak agnosticism holds that it is rational to suspend judgment about God. This view does not deem theism and atheism irrational; it merely treats suspension of judgment as a permissible option. Strong agnosticism, by contrast, involves the more wide-sweeping claim that agnosticism is the only viable option, meaning that claims about the existence or non-existence of God lack sufficient justification and should be withheld.^[20][e]

Based on inquiry

A different set of distinctions targets the inquiry involved in the agnostic stance. Grounded agnosticism is the result of serious inquiry: the person has considered the different options, tried to gather relevant evidence, and reflected on the arguments for and against. After taking everything into account, they have concluded that neither belief nor disbelief is decisively justified, leading them to see the matter as unresolvable. Ungrounded agnosticism, by contrast, withholds judgment without engaging in substantive investigation. In this case, the person understands the issue and has a basic idea of how an inquiry could proceed but has not undertaken it, for example, because they do not consider the issue important enough to merit an in-depth examination.^[22] The term stored agnosticism is sometimes used for an even weaker form in which a person lacks an opinion because they have never considered the issue. However, it is controversial whether this attitude should be regarded as a genuine form of agnosticism.^[23]

Optimistic, pessimistic, and hesitant agnosticism agree about the current lack of knowledge but disagree about the prospects of future inquiry. According to optimistic agnosticism, also called temporary agnosticism in practice, current evidence is insufficient, but the issue may be decided in the future. In this case, a person suspends judgment for now but remains open to the possibility that future discoveries could provide decisive evidence one way or the other. Pessimistic agnosticism, or permanent agnosticism in principle, rejects this possibility. It holds that the question is irresolvable in principle, meaning that no amount of inquiry can conclusively settle the matter. Hesitant agnosticism is undecided both about the issue itself and about the prospects of future inquiry. Accordingly, it is unsure whether further investigation can provide evidence or whether the obstacles to knowledge are insurmountable.^[24]

Pessimistic forms of agnosticism differ over whether the problem is with available evidence or with the underlying fact. According to evidence-based views, the available evidence is insufficient to settle the matter. One suggestion holds that there is no serious evidence and that all proposed arguments fall short of the standards of rationality. Another suggestion acknowledges the presence of evidence but contends that the considerations for and against God's existence cancel each other out, meaning that the balance of all reasons favors neither side. Fact-based views assert that no future inquiry can resolve the issue because there is no determinate fact of the matter one way or the other. According to this view, the statement "God exists" is neither true nor false but indeterminate.^[25] For example, ignosticism challenges the definition of the word God, arguing that the term is incoherent or meaningless.^[26]

Others

Researchers also distinguish types of agnosticism based on the subject matter about which judgment is suspended. Agnosticism is typically associated with the existence of God but can be applied to various other topics. For example, someone can be agnostic about the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life or the possibility of a Grand Unified Theory in physics. Accordingly, a person is agnostic about any religious or non-religious statement if they suspend judgment about it or hold that it is unknowable. This form of local or partial agnosticism is limited to a specific domain: one can be agnostic about God without being agnostic about alien life. Global or complete agnosticism, by contrast, is a broader stance that seeks to suspend judgment about everything, arguing that nothing is knowable. It is similar to radical or philosophical skepticism, which puts everything into question. Global agnosticism is rarely defended as a serious position in contemporary philosophy.^[27]

Secular and religious agnosticism are distinguished by their relation to religious attitudes and practices. Agnosticism is typically associated with a secular or atheistic outlook in which doubts about the existence of the divine and the truth of sacred scriptures result in a non-religious lifestyle that avoids traditional worship and favors naturalistic explanations. Agnostic atheists directly combine these two strands, justifying their lack of belief by arguing that knowledge is unattainable. However, not all forms of agnosticism are opposed to religion. For example, a person may suspend judgment only about specific aspects of doctrine while accepting others and engaging in religious practices. Some religious traditions explicitly embrace a form of agnosticism, such as agnostic theism and Christian agnosticism. Such an approach can be motivated by the idea that true knowledge of the divine is impossible and that religious devotion should be guided by faith rather than reason.^[28][f]

The distinction between existential agnosticism, truth agnosticism, and semantic agnosticism concerns the type of phenomenon that is put into question. Existential agnosticism focuses on a specific entity, such as God, questioning its existence. It can also be applied to a type or group of entities, such as the question about whether moral facts exist. Truth agnosticism targets a specific proposition and asks whether its truth can be known. For example, someone may be agnostic about the proposition that their preferred football team will win the next match.^[g] Semantic agnosticism is also concerned with a proposition. However, it does not ask whether it is true but what it means or under which conditions it would be true. This is the case, for example, if a person is unsure under which conditions a moral statement like "murder is wrong" would be true.^[32] Semantic agnosticism is sometimes contrasted with meta-linguistic agnosticism, which suspends judgment about whether religious language aims to report truths.^[33]

Methodological agnosticism is an approach to the study of religion that suspends judgment about the truth of religious doctrines. Following this approach, researchers describe, analyze, and compare the beliefs, experiences, and practices of religious traditions and their followers without endorsing or critiquing their truth claims. A key motivation is to ensure scholarly neutrality and to examine religious phenomena on their own terms without importing the researcher's personal naturalistic or supernaturalistic assumptions.^[34]

Related views

Theism and atheism

Main articles: Theism and Atheism

The exact understanding of the nature of the divine varies by tradition, such as the contrast between Hindu and Christian conceptions.^[35]

Agnosticism is typically contrasted with theism and atheism, but their exact relation depends on how these views are defined.^[36] Theism is the view that God or some kind of deity exists. A god is a supreme or supernatural being, usually believed to possess extraordinary power used to create, sustain, or govern the universe.^[h] Monotheism holds that there is exactly one god, a view central to the Abrahamic religions. Polytheism asserts that there are many gods, as in the ancient Egyptian pantheon, which includes Ra, Osiris, and Anubis.^[38]

Atheism can be defined narrowly or broadly. In the narrow sense, it is the view that there is no god. In the broad sense, it is the absence of belief in God. This distinction matters for the relation between atheism and agnosticism. According to the narrow definition, they are distinct positions. According to the broad definition, agnosticism is a form of negative atheism that withholds belief by suspending judgment. It contrasts with positive atheism, which replaces belief with disbelief, affirming the nonexistence of God.^[39] Another distinction is between local and global atheism. Local atheism targets a specific concept or understanding of God, arguing that this sort of God does not exist. For example, Christians are local atheists regarding ancient Egyptian gods but theists regarding the Christian God. Global atheism, by contrast, denies the existence of any deity, independent of tradition-specific conceptions.^[40]

According to one framework, there are four mutually exclusive attitudes toward the existence of God: theists believe, atheists disbelieve, agnostics suspend judgment, and innocents have not considered the issue.^[41] This framework is complicated by an alternative definition of agnosticism, characterizing it not as a suspension of judgment but as the view that knowledge of God is unattainable. Following this definition, agnosticism can be combined with theism and atheism: agnostic theists believe in God and agnostic atheists disbelieve, while both agree that knowledge is impossible.^[42] Fideism is an outlook that often aligns with agnostic theism. It holds that reason is neither adequate nor necessary to justify religious belief, affirming faith instead as a superior path to religious truth.^[43]

Skepticism and fallibilism

Main articles: Philosophical skepticism and Fallibilism

Agnosticism overlaps in various ways with skepticism, which is a doubt toward knowledge claims. In its strongest form, radical skepticism is the view that knowledge is impossible. This view rejects not only knowledge of God but any form of knowledge, including the common-sense beliefs that there are other people or that there is an external world outside of one's mind. Radical skepticism is often based on the idea that it is never possible to exclude all doubt and reach absolute certainty. Narrower forms of skepticism limit doubt to specific domains. For example, moral skepticism denies knowledge of moral matters, such as statements about what actions are ethically right or wrong. In this sense, agnosticism can be interpreted as a form of religious or theological skepticism that challenges knowledge of God's existence.^[44]

Fallibilism, a related view, agrees with skepticism that absolute certainty is impossible. However, it rejects the conclusion that knowledge is unattainable, arguing instead that people can know something even if they cannot rule out all possible doubt.^[45] Accordingly, fallibilist theists and fallibilist atheists can defend their positions against skepticism and agnosticism, arguing that belief or disbelief is justified even in the absence of conclusive proof. Nonetheless, they are closer to agnosticism than their dogmatic counterparts since they remain more open to opposing positions by not ruling them out completely.^[46]

Others

Like agnosticism, apatheism and ignosticism are attitudes toward the topic of God. Apatheism is an attitude of indifference: it does not care whether God exists. Apatheists are not interested in investigating the issue as they hold that it is irrelevant to everyday concerns. Ignosticism, or igtheism, by contrast, targets the concept rather than the existence of God. It holds that the concept is ill-defined and that talk about God is neither true nor false, for example, because it is meaningless.^[47]

Various other philosophical views are often invoked in the context of agnosticism, including naturalism, physicalism, empiricism, and positivism. They are sometimes attributed to agnosticism, but they are not essential to it, and a person can be agnostic without endorsing them. Naturalism is the view that the universe is governed by natural laws and forces, excluding the influence of supernatural entities like gods or deities. It is closely related to physicalism, the view that everything that exists is physical, implying that there are no irreducible mental or spiritual entities. Empiricism argues that all knowledge comes ultimately from sensory experience, denying the possibility of theological or metaphysical knowledge that exceeds empirical evidence. This view aligns with positivism, which emphasizes a science-based approach and verification through scientific methods. Some agnostics ground their outlook in logical positivism, dismissing theological statements that cannot be empirically verified.^[48]

Agnosticism is often associated with secularism—the view that public life should be free from religious influence. While this outlook seeks to minimize the role of religious values, it need not endorse nihilism and can promote other values, such as moral or humanistic values.^[49]

Arguments

Philosophers discuss various arguments for and against agnosticism, often by comparing it with theism and atheism. Many arguments focus on the available evidence for and against God's existence, relying on different principles about the relation between evidence and knowledge.^[50] Evidence for a proposition is information that counts in favor of it. Evidentialism is the view that what people should believe depends on the evidence they possess. It typically holds that a belief or disbelief is justified if it is supported by the overall balance of evidence.^[51] For example, the Lockean thesis holds that belief is justified if the degree of confidence or evidence is sufficiently high.^[52] Conversely, Clifford's principle maintains that belief without sufficient evidence is wrong. Regarding agnosticism, a common view is that suspension is justified if all available evidence for and against is perfectly balanced or if no considerations meet minimal evidential standards.^[53][i]

Another suggested principle is the burden of proof: the obligation placed on one party in a dispute to justify its position. In this context, one position is often treated as the default view, requiring the other side to provide compelling reasons to challenge the privileged side. Discussions of agnosticism often hinge on whether one side bears the burden of proof or whether a stalemate between both sides leaves agnosticism as the preferred position.^[55]

The success of the different arguments also depends on the type of agnosticism at issue. Weak forms with few theoretical commitments are usually easier to defend, whereas stronger versions require more substantial justification and are more vulnerable to criticism. For example, the weaker claim that agnosticism is permissible (leaving open whether theism and atheism are also permissible) is less demanding than the stronger claim that agnosticism is obligatory (meaning that neither theism nor atheism is permissible).^[56]

For

One key argument for agnosticism holds that the available evidence regarding God is insufficient to come to a definitive conclusion. On this view, neither theism nor atheism can be ruled out in principle since both are plausible to some extent: there are reasons why a person may adopt either position. However, these reasons are ambiguous, indecisive, or balance each other out: there is no firm basis for judging that one view is significantly superior to the other. Accordingly, agnostics maintain that intellectual humility and honesty require withholding both belief and disbelief.^[57]

David Hume argued that knowledge of a supernatural god is impossible since all knowledge of the world is limited to sensory experience.^[58]

A related set of arguments asserts that, strictly speaking, there is no evidence either way.^[59] For example, empiricists like David Hume hold that all knowledge of the world ultimately comes from experience. Following this view, agnostics argue that God is beyond the scope of sensory experience, so no observation or experiment could confirm or disconfirm God's existence. A similar perspective, based on Kantian philosophy, states that knowledge is limited to the realm of appearances, while knowledge of things-in-themselves, including knowledge of God, is inaccessible in principle.^[60]

Some religious traditions maintain that there is no evidence because God is hidden. According to this view, the divine intentionally conceals itself from human understanding, meaning that God remains inaccessible to empirical verification and that faith, rather than objective proof, is the appropriate attitude toward God.^[61] A related view holds that God is inaccessible to human understanding because God cannot be grasped through mental concepts. For example, Sir William Hamilton argued that knowledge always limits its topic to certain conditions, and that God, as the unconditioned or the absolute, cannot be grasped this way.^[62]

One science-based argument attacks the standards of theological evidence. It contends that, compared to the empirical rigor of the scientific method, theological arguments are often too weak to support knowledge claims.^[63] Arguments based on peer disagreement focus on the opinions and discussion of experts, such as theologians and philosophers of religion. This line of thought maintains that the persistent, deep disagreements among well-informed authorities indicate that the current state of inquiry justifies neither belief nor disbelief but calls for a neutral attitude.^[64]

A different argument focuses on the beneficial consequences of agnosticism. It holds that agnostic open-mindedness is best suited to intellectual progress and cultural tolerance, making it particularly conducive to the peaceful coexistence of diverse religious and non-religious groups in pluralist societies.^[65]

Against

Alvin Plantinga suggested that belief in God may be a fundamental belief that does not require justification through external evidence.^[66]

Theistic criticisms of agnosticism typically seek to show that there is decisive evidence for God's reality, rendering the suspension of judgment irrational.^[67] The first-cause argument asserts that everything that begins has a cause. It argues that to explain the existence of the universe as a whole, one needs to posit God as a first cause or an unmoved mover responsible for bringing the universe into being.^[68] The argument from intelligent design focuses on complex order present in the universe, such as intricate biological organisms and intelligent life. It holds that such complexity could not have emerged on its own through mere chance but is best explained as the product of a divine intelligent creator.^[69] Moral arguments assert that a supreme moral authority and lawmaker is the most plausible account of the existence of morality, such as binding moral values and duties.^[70] Another line of reasoning appeals to religious experiences, such as dreams and visions of the divine or mystical episodes, as evidence of God's existence.^[71] Tradition-specific arguments claim that particular holy texts, such as the Bible, reveal God's reality.^[72]

Inspired by Alvin Plantinga, some theists hold that belief in God is a basic or fundamental belief, meaning that its justification does not rest on external evidence. In this sense, belief in God is analogous to belief in one's perceptions: people usually trust them without requiring independent external proof to validate them.^[73]

Atheistic criticisms of agnosticism typically seek to show that there is overwhelming evidence that there is no God, rendering neutrality indistinguishable from unjustified doubt.^[74] Science-based arguments hold that scientific explanations are superior to religious ones without invoking deities, emphasizing the rigor of inquiry through testable hypotheses and empirical confirmation or disconfirmation. For example, the theory of evolution is often used to explain phenomena that some theists attribute to God, including the emergence of complex order and morality. It asserts that these phenomena arise through the principle of natural selection, based on the mechanisms of survival and reproduction.^[75] Other arguments target specific conceptions of God, contending that they fail to align with reality. The argument from suffering targets the presence of suffering in the world, caused by disease, natural disasters, war, terrorism, moral evil, and other factors. It holds that an all-knowing, all-benevolent, and all-powerful deity would not allow suffering, leading to the conclusion that such a being does not exist.^[76] Another line of thought asserts that the notion of an all-powerful god is contradictory because it leads to paradoxes, like when God creates a stone too heavy for God to lift.^[77]

Blaise Pascal recommended belief in God because of potential practical benefits, even if knowledge is not possible.^[78]

Another atheistic objection focuses not on the presence of evidence for the non-reality of God but on the absence of evidence for the reality of God. It asserts that the burden of proof lies with theists and that they are unable to meet it, leaving atheism rather than agnosticism as the default position. For example, the lack of evidence for the existence of unicorns is usually taken as a sufficient reason to disbelieve rather than to suspend judgment.^[79][j] A different criticism holds that if a benevolent God existed, they would make ample evidence of their existence available to relieve humans of doubt. Accordingly, the absence of decisive evidence is taken as a reason for disbelief.^[81] A related argument holds that the evidential standards of agnostics are too high, resulting in excessive skepticism and paralyzing neutrality.^[82]

A position inspired by logical positivism critiques agnosticism alongside theism and atheism. It asserts that talk of God is meaningless because it cannot be verified or falsified, undermining the assumption that believing, disbelieving, and suspending judgment are coherent alternatives.^[83]

Some criticisms of agnosticism target its practical consequences rather than its theoretical justifications.^[84] Pascal's wager recommends belief in God based on considerations of possible outcomes. It holds that the potential benefits of being right, such as an eternal blissful life in heaven, outweigh the finite costs of erroneous belief, making belief a wager worth taking.^[85] Another line of thought claims that agnosticism has harmful consequences. For example, its focus on doubt may inhibit action and lead to moral collapse, leaving individuals without guidance or answers to the big questions of life. A different objection holds that agnosticism is a weak or anti-intellectual attitude, allegedly rooted in laziness toward inquiry and an unwillingness to use reason.^[86]

Lifestyles and implications

Researchers discuss which lifestyles are compatible with agnosticism. Agnosticism is often associated with a non-religious way of life centered on secular values, worldly well-being, and everyday concerns. In this sense, agnostics differ from atheists on a theoretical level but align on a practical level: they act as if God does not exist, eschewing religious traditions and faith-based rituals. Instead of following religious moral teachings, they may adopt secular ethical frameworks, practice compassionate social engagement, or seek meaning in personal relationships.^[87] Agnostics may also cultivate an inquiry-based outlook focused on uncertainty, open-mindedness, and love of the unknown. This perspective treats the question of God's existence as an unsolved mystery and continues to investigate it, similar to how a detective approaches a vexing open case by remaining receptive and entertaining suspicions. In this regard, the agnostic actively considers the different possibilities, staying interested without committing to either side.^[88]

Agnosticism is also compatible with some religious lifestyles. For example, an agnostic may engage in religion on a practical level while suspending judgment on a theoretical level. Accordingly, they may participate in devotional practices, observe faith-based customs, and follow religious teachings, guided by hope without holding a firm belief. A related form of agnosticism accepts belief but denies knowledge: an agnostic may affirm God's existence on a personal level while acknowledging that it cannot be known objectively or with certainty. This doubt about the capacity of human reason to comprehend the divine can be combined with an emphasis on faith as a leap beyond evidence to guide conduct. Agnosticism is further compatible with religious traditions that do not believe in a personal deity, such as certain strands of Buddhism and Taoism.^[89]

On a psychological level, religious individuals report higher mental well-being than atheists and agnostics, including higher overall happiness and self-esteem, and lower levels of depression and anxiety. They also tend to have stronger social support networks. Surveys further indicate that atheists and agnostics are more reflective than believers and rely more on analytical thinking for problem-solving and decision-making.^[90] Research also suggests differences in personality traits between agnostics and atheists: agnostics tend to be more open, prosocial, spiritual, and anxious, whereas atheists are more inclined toward analytical reasoning and have higher emotional stability.^[91]

On a social level, one line of thought holds that agnosticism fosters cultural tolerance, helping different religious and secular groups live together peacefully.^[92] A different outlook warns of potential negative effects of agnosticism, arguing that lack of commitment can paralyze decision-making and result in moral decay.^[93] In some religious societies, agnostics may face discrimination as other members associate their neutral attitude with social deviance or negative personality traits.^[94]

Different estimates of the global prevalence of agnosticism have been suggested. They are complicated by the tendency of researchers to group atheists, agnostics, and non-believers into a single category, and by the fact that many countries do not systematically track the religious identification of their populations. According to a 2007 estimate, about 7% of the world's population is either atheist or agnostic, with the number of atheists and agnostics being roughly the same.^[95] The proportion of agnostics varies widely by country. A 2008 survey reports rates as low as 1% in Venezuela and Turkey, and as high as 19% in Japan and Sweden. Men are more likely than women to identify as agnostic.^[96]

History

Ancient and medieval

Maimonides held that God's nature is unknowable and that accurate descriptions can only be given in negative terms by saying what God is not.^[97]

Although the term agnosticism was coined only in the 19th century, its theoretical roots lie in antiquity.^[98] In ancient Greece, the pre-Socratic philosopher Protagoras (c. 490 – c. 420 BCE) formulated an early form of agnosticism, arguing that the gods are veiled in uncertainty and questioning the possibility of objective knowledge.^[99] Socrates (c. 470 – c. 399 BCE), another forerunner, emphasized the limits of human knowledge, advocating humility and awareness of one's own ignorance.^[100] Ancient skepticism was another precursor, typically targeting knowledge in general rather than specifically knowledge of God. Pyrrho (c. 360 – c. 270 BCE) maintained that humans cannot reach certainty and recommended suspension of judgment over dogmatic belief as a way to achieve peace of mind. Pyrrhonian skepticism was later systematized by Sextus Empiricus (fl. around 200 CE), who examined how different arguments often lead to opposite conclusions, suggesting that people should remain neutral rather than take sides.^[101]

In ancient Hindu thought, agnostic ideas are found in the Nasadiya Sukta (Hymn of Creation), a text from the Rigveda, composed in the 2nd millennium BCE. It questions whether knowledge of gods and the creation is possible.^[102] In the 6th century BCE, a broader skepticism, advanced by the school of Ajñana, challenged the possibility and usefulness of knowledge in general.^[103] Some agnostic themes, such as a skepticism about knowledge of ultimate reality, are also found in Buddhist philosophy, a tradition that arose roughly in the 6th century BCE,^[104] and in the thought of Confucius around 500 BCE.^[105]

In medieval Christian philosophy, Pseudo-Dionysius (5th or 6th century CE) formulated key ideas of negative theology, arguing that God transcends human concepts and understanding.^[106] The problem of negative theology also played a central role in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274 CE). He affirmed God's existence but adopted an agnostic attitude toward knowledge of God's nature, holding that representations of God's attributes are never fully adequate.^[107][k] Similarly, William of Ockham (c. 1287 – c. 1347 CE) argued that the human intellect is too limited to know God, contending that religious faith takes precedence over philosophical reason in theological matters.^[109] In Jewish philosophy, Maimonides (c. 1135–1204 CE) asserted that although God's existence can be known, the divine essence remains utterly unknowable, meaning that God can be described only in negative terms by stating what God is not.^[110]

Modern and contemporary

In early modern philosophy, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) argued that even if certain knowledge of God is impossible, one should nonetheless choose to believe because of potential practical benefits.^[111] Following an empiricist outlook, David Hume (1711–1776) held that knowledge of the world is limited to sensory experience, leading him to conclude that knowledge of a supernatural God is impossible. Inspired by Hume, Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) contended that human understanding is limited to the realm of appearances and cannot extend to things-in-themselves, which implies that the existence of God is not accessible to theoretical knowledge.^[112]

William Kingdon Clifford and William James disagreed about whether belief without sufficient evidence is always wrong.^[113]

Sir William Hamilton (1788–1856) developed Kant's ideas about the nature of knowledge to defend agnosticism, maintaining that to understand something is to impose certain limits on it. He held that this process necessarily misconstrues God since God has no such limits, making accurate knowledge of the divine impossible.^[114] Drawing on Hamilton, Henry Longueville Mansel (1820–1871) concluded that reason can attain only relative knowledge while knowledge of the absolute is contradictory. For Mansel, the realm of theology lies beyond rational inquiry and depends on revelation and faith.^[115] Hamilton's thought also influenced Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), who sought a comprehensive philosophical system synthesizing science and religion. He held that an ultimate reality is responsible for phenomena while knowledge is limited to phenomena, with science dedicated to what is knowable and religion dedicated to what is unknowable.^[116]

Charles Darwin's (1809–1882) formulation of the theory of evolution was a key factor in the popularization of agnosticism as it undermined traditional religious teachings of a divine creator to explain the diversity of life.^[117] Influenced by Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–1895) coined the term agnosticism in a speech to the Metaphysical Society in 1869 as an alternative to theism and atheism. He understood it as a method of inquiry that refuses speculative conclusions when decisive evidence is lacking, applying it specifically to theological and metaphysical problems.^[118][l]

Anthony Kenny formulated a comprehensive defense of agnosticism.^[120]

Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) explored how agnosticism can be combined with belief in God. He proposed a leap of faith, arguing that what matters for religion is an inward passion even when there is no objective certainty.^[121] Influenced by scientific naturalism, George Eliot (1819–1880) rejected orthodox Christian doctrine and adopted an agnostic outlook instead.^[122] In his repudiation of Christian belief, William Kingdon Clifford (1845–1879) formulated Clifford's principle, stating that it is always wrong to believe without sufficient evidence. William James (1842–1910) challenged this principle from a pragmatist perspective. He maintained there can be practical reasons to believe in the absence of decisive evidence and that the goal of avoiding errors must be balanced against the risk of missing momentous truths.^[123] Leslie Weatherhead (1893–1976) proposed a form of Christian agnosticism as a response to the clash between scriptural doctrine and the realities of modern life.^[124]

Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) defended a form of agnosticism inclined to atheism, holding that there is no decisive evidence for or against God's existence. Responding to Russell's ideas, Richard Dawkins (born 1941) argued that the lack of evidence calls for disbelief rather than suspension of judgment. He proposed a New Atheism focused on scientific rigor.^[125] In turn, authors like J. L. Schellenberg (born 1959) and Robin Le Poidevin (born 1962) formulated a "new agnosticism" that can exist alongside religious faith and practice.^[126]

Arguing from the perspective of logical positivism, A. J. Ayer (1910–1989) maintained that utterances about God are meaningless. Consequently, he attacked theism, atheism, and agnosticism for their shared assumption that they disagree about a substantive issue.^[127] Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) characterized faith as a form of life rather than a theoretical conclusion, meaning that it is not primarily about accurately representing reality or tracking evidence.^[128] Influenced by Aquinas, Anthony Kenny (born 1931) formulated a comprehensive defense of agnosticism, focusing on the lack of solid evidence, flaws in arguments about God's existence, contradictory elements in divine attributes, and meaninglessness of religious language.^[129] Alvin Plantinga (born 1932) suggested that belief in God may be a fundamental belief that does not require justification through external evidence, similar to how people typically trust their perceptions without demanding additional external verification.^[130]

See also

• Acatalepsy
• Agnostic atheism
• Agnostic theism
• Apatheism
• Apophatic theology
• Asimov's Guide to the Bible
• Avidyā (Buddhism)
• Christian agnosticism
• Existentialism
• Ietsism
• Ignoramus et ignorabimus
• Instrumentalism
• List of agnostics
• Objectivism
• Possibilianism
• Rationalism
• Relativism
• Religiosity
• Religious skepticism
• Russell's teapot
• Scientism
• Secularism
• Solipsism
• Spirituality
• Spiritual but not religious
• Subjectivism
• Unknown God
• Philosophy portal
• Religion portal

References

Notes

1. Another meaning of the term is found in computer science where agnostic means that a system can function independently of a specific framework. For example, a platform-agnostic application is a software designed to run seamlessly on different platforms, such as Windows, Linux, and macOS.^[8]
2. Some religious societies discriminate against agnostics, associating them with social deviance or other negative traits.^[10]
3. Unlike organized religions, agnosticism is not a codified institution and lacks canonical scriptures or formal membership.^[12]
4. The term agnosticism is not the direct opposite of gnosticism, which refers to a family of Hellenistic religions that flourished in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE.^[14]
5. Another conception equates the distinction between weak and strong agnosticism with the distinction between temporary and permanent agnosticism. It holds that weak agnosticism leaves open the possibility of reaching knowledge in the future, which strong agnosticism denies.^[21]
6. For example, fideism contrasts faith with reason and asserts that faith is better at arriving at religious truths.^[29] Negative theology, another school of thought, maintains that the divine transcends human concepts and language, meaning that one can describe it only in a negative sense by stating what it is not.^[30]
7. Existential agnosticism can be defined as a subtype of truth agnosticism targeting the proposition that the doubted entity exists.^[31]
8. The exact definition and the divine powers attributed to deities vary widely among traditions, reflected in the contrasts between Hindu, Greek, Norse, Japanese, and Aztec gods.^[37]
9. Guidelines of belief change include the principle of conservatism, which states that one is justified to continue believing if one does not encounter a special reason against it, and the principle of positive undermining, which states that one should stop believing upon realizing that the reasons supporting the belief are not good.^[54]
10. Russell's teapot is a similar thought experiment illustrating how the burden of proof lies with those who make unfalsifiable claims. It considers the hypothesis that a teapot orbits the Sun between Earth and Mars—an object too small to detect on the scale of the Solar System. Bertrand Russell argues that disbelief, rather than agnosticism, is the appropriate attitude despite the absence of definitive evidence against the hypothesis.^[80]
11. A comparable outlook is also found in the thought of Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1328).^[108]
12. Robert G. Ingersoll (1833–1899) helped popularize the newly coined term in the United States.^[119]

Citations

1. • Rowe 1998, Lead section, § 1. Degrees of Agnosticism
   • Wagner 2022, pp. 671–672, 694
   • Archer 2024, pp. 1–2, 6, 203–204
   • Oppy 2018, pp. 1–5
2. • Chuman 2000
   • Cotter & Lee 2020, § Agnosticism Defined
   • Fallon & Hyman 2020, pp. 7–8
   • Cliteur 2010, pp. 57–58
3. • Rowe 1998, Lead section, § 1. Degrees of Agnosticism
   • Wagner 2022, pp. 671–672, 694
   • Archer 2024, pp. 1–2, 6, 203–204
   • Oppy 2018, pp. 1–5
4. • Oppy 2018, p. 4
   • Ferrari & Incurvati 2022, pp. 368–369
   • Archer 2024, pp. 2, 7–8
   • Wagner 2022, pp. 673–674
5. • Archer 2024, pp. 1–2
   • Chuman 2000
   • Dixon 2005, § The Philosophical Sources of Agnosticism
   • O'Neal et al. 2007
6. • Rowe 1998, Lead section
   • Lightman 1987, p. 5
   • Dixon 2005, § The Philosophical Sources of Agnosticism
7. • Archer 2024, p. 1
   • Poidevin 2010, pp. 10–11
   • Schellenberg 2019, pp. 86–87
8. Malavasi 2025, p. 5
9. • Chuman 2000
   • Oppy 2018, pp. 50–51
   • Poidevin 2010, pp. 8–9
10. Oppy 2018, pp. 1–3
11. • Poidevin 2020, p. 39
    • Flew 2026, § Religious Agnosticism
    • Shanahan 1907, § Exposition
12. O'Neal et al. 2007
13. • Shanahan 1907, § Exposition
    • Cotter & Lee 2020, § Agnosticism Defined
    • Rowe 1998, § 1. Degrees of Agnosticism
    • Holloway 2003, Lead section
14. • Moore, Lead section
    • Rudolph 2013, § i. In the Pre-Islamic Iranian World
15. • Fallon & Hyman 2020, pp. 1, 21–22
    • Draper 2022, § 2. Definitions of 'Agnosticism'
    • O'Neal et al. 2007, § The Nineteenth Century to the Present
    • Poidevin 2010, pp. 24, 85, 91
    • Martin 2018, pp. 53–55
16. • Ferrari & Incurvati 2022, pp. 365–366
    • Draper 2022, § 2. Definitions of 'Agnosticism'
    • Shanahan 1907, § Exposition
17. • Draper 2022, § 2. Definitions of 'Agnosticism'
    • Moser 2008, Lead section
    • Rowe 1998, Lead section, § 1. Degrees of Agnosticism
18. • Flew 2026, Lead section
    • Draper 2022, § 2. Definitions of 'Agnosticism'
19. • Rowe 1998, § 1. Degrees of Agnosticism
    • Poidevin 2010, pp. 9–10
    • Fallon & Hyman 2020, p. 5
20. Oppy 1994, pp. 147–148
21. Fallon & Hyman 2020, p. 5
22. • Ferrari & Incurvati 2022, pp. 373–374
    • Ferrari & Susanna 2025, pp. 128–129
23. • McGrath 2021, p. 12
    • Ferrari & Incurvati 2022, pp. 368–369
24. • Ferrari & Incurvati 2022, pp. 374–375
    • Ferrari & Susanna 2025, pp. 125–129
    • Poidevin 2010, pp. 16–17
25. • Ferrari & Susanna 2025, pp. 129–130
    • Poidevin 2010, pp. 83–85
    • Poidevin 2020, pp. 34–37
26. • Lindsay 2015, pp. 67–68
    • Oppy 2018, p. 18
27. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 10–13
    • Shanahan 1907, § Exposition, § Total Agnosticism Self-refuting
    • Watkins 1995, pp. 33–34
28. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 10–13
    • Alican 2025, pp. 45–46
    • Flew 2026, § Religious agnosticism
    • Vernon 2007, pp. 121–125
    • Holloway 2003, § Kinds of Agnosticism
29. • Shook 2011, pp. 18–20
    • Alican 2025, pp. 45–46
30. Poidevin 2010, pp. 10–13
31. Poidevin 2020, p. 32
32. • Poidevin 2020, pp. 32–33
    • Fallon & Hyman 2020, pp. 14–15
    • Palmqvist 2024, § 2. Semantic Agnosticism
33. Palmqvist 2024, § 3. Meta-Linguistic Agnosticism
34. • Martin 2018, pp. 53–55
    • Porpora 2006, pp. 57–85
35. Oppy 2018, pp. 50–51
36. • Chuman 2000
    • Oppy 2018, pp. 50–51
    • Poidevin 2010, pp. 8–9
    • Shanahan 1907, § Exposition
37. Oppy 2018, pp. 4–5
38. • Oppy 2018, pp. 4–7
    • Schneider 2007, pp. 19–21
    • Hart 2005, pp. 1–7
39. • Fallon & Hyman 2020, pp. 5–6
    • Draper 2022, § 1. Definitions of 'Atheism'
40. • Oppy 2018, pp. 4–7
    • Draper 2022, § 3. Global Atheism Versus Local Atheisms
41. • Oppy 2018, pp. 4, 19
    • Oppy 2006, pp. 37–39
    • Jonbäck 2023, pp. 35
42. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 8–9
    • Alican 2025, pp. 45–46
43. • Amesbury 2022, Lead section
    • Alican 2025, pp. 45–46
44. • Oppy 2018, pp. 14
    • Hookway 2005, p. 838
    • Cohen 1998, § Article Summary
    • Draper 2022, § 2. Definitions of 'Agnosticism'
    • Neufeld 2019, § Introduction
45. • Hetherington, Lead section, § 9. Implications of Fallibilism: Knowing Fallibly?
    • Rescher 1998, § Article Summary
46. • Oppy 2006, pp. 15, 34–35
    • Corlett 2010, p. 46
    • Murray 2010, pp. 25–26
47. • Oppy 2018, pp. 8–9, 17–18
    • Archer 2024, pp. 203
    • Lindsay 2015, § Ignosticism, § Not Caring
48. • Oppy 2018, pp. 13–14
    • Lightman 1987, pp. 17–18, 28
    • Dixon 2005, § Thomas Huxley and the Coining of Agnostic, § Agnosticism in the Twentieth Century
    • Hepburn 2006, pp. 92–94
49. • Lindsay 2015, § Secularism
    • Oppy 2018, p. 14
    • Lightman 1987, pp. 1–2
    • O'Neal et al. 2007, § Influences of Agnosticism and Atheism
    • Chuman 2000
50. • Hepburn 2006, pp. 92–93
    • Rowe 1998, § 2. Justifications for Agnosticism
    • Poidevin 2010, pp. 116–118
51. • Blaauw & Pritchard 2005, pp. 50–51
    • DiFate, Lead section, § 1. The Nature of Evidence: What Is It and What Does It Do?
    • Kelly 2016, Lead section, § 1. Evidence as That Which Justifies Belief
52. Hawthorne 2009, pp. 49–50, 73
53. • Oppy 2006, pp. 416–417, 419
    • Poidevin 2010, pp. 116–118
    • Oppy 1994, pp. 159–160
54. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 116–118
    • Oppy 1994, pp. 159–160
55. • Draper 2022, § 6.2 The Low Priors Argument
    • Dore 1982, pp. 505–506
    • Fallon & Hyman 2020, p. 11
56. • Draper 2022, § 7. An Argument against Agnosticism
    • Oppy 1994, pp. 147–148, 160
    • Archer 2024, p. 4
57. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 76, 116–118
    • Draper 2022, § 4. An Argument for Agnosticism
    • Fallon & Hyman 2020, p. 5
    • Oppy 1994, p. 148
58. • Flew 2026, § Antecedents of Religious Agnosticism
    • Hepburn 2006, pp. 92–93
59. Fallon & Hyman 2020, p. 5
60. • Hepburn 2006, pp. 92–93
    • Rowe 1998, § 2. Justifications for Agnosticism
    • Holloway 2003, § Empiricism, § Kantianism
61. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 73–75
    • Huff 2021, p. 50
    • Vasady 2025, p. 30
62. • Hepburn 2006, pp. 92–93
    • Holloway 2003, § Theory of the Unconditioned
63. • Hepburn 2006, p. 93
    • Rowe 1998, § 2. Justifications for Agnosticism
64. • Oppy 2006, p. 414
    • Archer 2024, pp. 4, 172
65. • Poidevin 2010, p. 118
    • Batchelor 2017, p. 155
66. • Fallon 2020, pp. 84–86
    • Rowe 1998, § 2. Justifications for Agnosticism
    • Poidevin 2010, pp. 87–91
67. Oppy 1994, pp. 163–164
68. • Oppy 2006, pp. 99–100
    • Plantinga 1998, Lead section, § 1. Cosmological Arguments
69. • Rowe 1998, § 2. Justifications for Agnosticism
    • Poidevin 2010, pp. 57–63
    • Plantinga 1998, Lead section, § 4. Teleological Arguments
70. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 63–67
    • Oppy 2006, pp. 352–354
    • Plantinga 1998, Lead section, § 6. Other Theistic Arguments
71. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 67–73
    • Oppy 2006, pp. 345–346
    • Swinburne 2004, pp. 293–294
72. • Oppy 2006, pp. 343–344
    • Dawkins 2006, pp. 92–94
73. • Rowe 1998, § 2. Justifications for Agnosticism
    • Poidevin 2010, pp. 87–91
74. Oppy 1994, pp. 163–164
75. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 57–63
    • Dawkins 2006, pp. 113–119
    • McCormick, § 4g. Atheistic Naturalism
76. • Oppy 2006, pp. 259–262
    • Poidevin 2010, pp. 73–74
    • McCormick, § 4c. Problem of Evil
77. McCormick, § 3a. Single Property Disproofs
78. • Cliteur 2010, pp. 62–63
    • Vernon 2007, pp. 133–134
79. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 40–43, 46–47
    • Wainwright 2020, pp. 75–76
    • Hanson 2020, p. 308
80. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 40–43
    • Fallon & Hyman 2020, p. 11
81. • Poidevin 2010, p. 76
    • Teeninga, Lead section
82. Poidevin 2010, p. 5
83. • Hepburn 2006, p. 94
    • Poidevin 2010, pp. 78–82
84. • Dore 1982, pp. 503–505
    • Rowe 1998, § 2. Justifications for Agnosticism
    • Poidevin 2010, pp. 91–96
    • Archer 2024, pp. 3–4
85. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 102–103
    • Fallon 2020, pp. 88–89
86. • Oppy 1994, pp. 164–165
    • Oppy 2018, p. 50
    • Poidevin 2010, pp. 4–5
    • Jonbäck 2023, pp. 38–41
87. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 97–107
    • Fallon & Hyman 2020, pp. 4–7
88. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 103–104
    • Fallon 2020, pp. 83–84, 92–95, 101–103
89. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 97–107
    • Flew 2026, § Religious Agnosticism
    • Schellenberg 2019, pp. 102, 112–115
    • Fallon 2020, pp. 81–84, 92–95, 101–103
    • O'Neal et al. 2007, Lead section
90. • Hayward et al. 2016, § Abstract, § Introduction, § Discussion
    • Pennycook et al. 2016, § Introduction
91. • Karim & Saroglou 2023, pp. 118–119
    • Karim & Saroglou 2024, pp. 248–249
92. • Poidevin 2010, p. 118
    • Batchelor 2017, p. 155
93. • Oppy 1994, pp. 164–165
    • Oppy 2018, p. 50
    • Poidevin 2010, pp. 4–5
94. Oppy 2018, pp. 1–3
95. • Keysar & Navarro-Rivera 2013, pp. 553–554
    • Fallon & Hyman 2020, p. 2
96. Keysar & Navarro-Rivera 2013, pp. 563–564
97. • Flew 2026, § Antecedents of Religious Agnosticism
    • O'Grady 2020, pp. 170, 175
98. Huff 2021, pp. xxiii–xxiv
99. • Vernon 2007, p. 18
    • Cliteur 2010, pp. 55–57
100. • Vernon 2007, pp. 12, 18–21, 125–126
     • Flew 2026, § Antecedents of Secular Agnosticism
101. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 13, 35–37
     • Lightman 1987, pp. 19–20
102. • Sober & Velasco 2025, § 8 Different Kinds of Agnosticism
     • Tull 1989, p. 145
103. • Fountoulakis 2021, p. 23
     • Warder 1998, pp. 43–44
     • Fletcher et al. 2020, p. 46
104. • Horwitz 2011, p. 112
     • Almond 1988, pp. 99–100
     • DK staff 2018, p. 76
     • Huff 2021, p. 1
105. Huff 2021, p. 1
106. • Corrigan & Harrington 2023, § 3.4 Mystical Theology, § 4.1 Sources, Ideas, and Terms, § 4.2 Character of Writing
     • O'Grady 2020, pp. 166–167
107. • O'Grady 2020, pp. 163–167
     • Buijs 1988, pp. 723, 729–731
108. O'Grady 2020, pp. 163–167
109. • Charlesworth 1972, pp. 89–90
     • Holloway 2003, § Nominalism
110. • Flew 2026, § Antecedents of Religious Agnosticism
     • O'Grady 2020, pp. 170, 175
111. • Cliteur 2010, pp. 62–63
     • Vernon 2007, pp. 133–134
112. • Flew 2026, § Antecedents of Religious Agnosticism
     • Hepburn 2006, pp. 92–93
113. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 91–96
     • Oppy 2006, pp. 416–425
114. • Hepburn 2006, pp. 92–93
     • Holloway 2003, § Theory of the Unconditioned
115. • Dixon 2005, § The Philosophical Sources of Agnosticism
     • Hepburn 2006, pp. 92–93
     • Lightman 1987, pp. 32–39
116. • Dixon 2005, § Victorian Agnosticism
     • Hepburn 2006, pp. 92–93
     • Lightman 1987, pp. 71–73, 82–87
117. • Lightman 1987, pp. 3, 15, 156–157
     • Huff 2021, pp. 60–63
118. • Chuman 2000
     • Cotter & Lee 2020, § Agnosticism Defined
     • Fallon & Hyman 2020, pp. 7–8
     • Cliteur 2010, pp. 57–58
119. Huff 2021, pp. 125–126
120. O'Grady 2020, pp. 167–170
121. • Fallon & Hyman 2020, p. 6
     • Rowe 1998, § 1. Degrees of Agnosticism
122. • Chuman 2000
     • Newton 2018, pp. 52–53
123. • Poidevin 2010, pp. 91–96
     • Oppy 2006, pp. 416–425
124. Huff 2021, p. 3
125. • Cliteur 2010, pp. 57–58
     • Poidevin 2010, pp. 41–43
     • Vernon 2016, p. 43
126. Fallon & Hyman 2020, p. 14
127. • Hepburn 2006, p. 94
     • Poidevin 2010, pp. 78–82
128. • Fallon & Hyman 2020, pp. 6, 20
     • Fallon 2020, pp. 82
129. O'Grady 2020, pp. 167–170
130. • Fallon 2020, pp. 84–86
     • Rowe 1998, § 2. Justifications for Agnosticism
     • Poidevin 2010, pp. 87–91

Sources

• Alican, Necip Fikri (2025). The Devil's Advocate versus God's Honest Truth: A Dialectical Inquiry into the Rationality of Religion. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-71485-4.
• Almond, Philip C. (1988). The British Discovery of Buddhism. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-35503-2.
• Amesbury, Richard (2022). "Fideism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved April 17, 2026.
• Archer, Avery (2024). The Attitude of Agnosticism. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-009-21476-6.
• Batchelor, Stephen (2017). Secular Buddhism: Imagining the Dharma in an Uncertain World. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-22758-1.
• Blaauw, Martijn; Pritchard, Duncan (2005). Epistemology A–Z. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-2213-9.
• Buijs, Joseph A. (1988). "The Negative Theology of Maimonides and Aquinas". The Review of Metaphysics. 41 (4): 723–738. ISSN 0034-6632.
• Charlesworth, Max (1972). Philosophy of Religion: The Historic Approaches. Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-349-00201-6.
• Chuman, Joseph (2000). "Agnosticism". In Roof, Wade Clark (ed.). Contemporary American religion. Macmillan Reference USA. ISBN 978-0-02-864928-3.
• Cliteur, Paul (2010). The Secular Outlook: In Defense of Moral and Political Secularism. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4443-9044-5.
• Cohen, Stewart (1998). "Scepticism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-P045-1. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Retrieved July 31, 2024.
• Corlett, J. Angelo (2010). The Errors of Atheism. Continuum. ISBN 978-1-4411-5893-2.
• Corrigan, Kevin; Harrington, L. Michael (2023). "Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved April 27, 2026.
• Cotter, Christopher R.; Lee, Lois (2020). "Agnosticism". The SAGE Encyclopedia of the Sociology of Religion. Sage. doi:10.4135/9781529714401.n16. ISBN 978-1-4739-4220-2.
• Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Bantam Press. ISBN 978-0-593-05548-9.
• DiFate, Victor. "Evidence". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved August 20, 2024.
• Dixon, Thomas (2005). "Agnosticism". In Horowitz, Maryanne Cline (ed.). New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Vol. 1. Thomson Gale. pp. 35–38. ISBN 0-684-31379-0.
• DK staff (2018). Timelines of Everything: From Woolly Mammoths to World Wars. Dorling Kindersley Limited. ISBN 978-0-241-42807-8.
• Dore, Clement (1982). "Agnosticism". Religious Studies. 18 (4): 503–507. doi:10.1017/S0034412500014396.
• Draper, Paul (2022). "Atheism and Agnosticism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved April 10, 2026.
• Fallon, Francis (2020). "3. If Agnosticism, Then What?". In Fallon, Francis; Hyman, Gavin (eds.). Agnosticism: Explorations in Philosophy and Religious Thought. Oxford University Press. pp. 81–106. ISBN 978-0-19-260296-1.
• Fallon, Francis; Hyman, Gavin (2020). "Introduction". In Fallon, Francis; Hyman, Gavin (eds.). Agnosticism: Explorations in Philosophy and Religious Thought. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–28. ISBN 978-0-19-260296-1.
• Ferrari, Filippo; Incurvati, Luca (2022). "The Varieties of Agnosticism". The Philosophical Quarterly. 72 (2): 365–380. doi:10.1093/pq/pqab038.
• Ferrari, Filippo; Susanna, Gioia (2025). "7. The Normative Profile of Agnosticism: Some Case Studies in the Philosophy of Mathematics". In Wagner, Verena; Zinke, Alexandra (eds.). Suspension in Epistemology and Beyond. Taylor & Francis. pp. 125–143. ISBN 978-1-040-34131-5.
• Fletcher, Robert; Romero, Paola; Talbot, Marianne; Warburton, Nigel; Whiston, Amna (2020). Philosophy: A Visual Encyclopedia. Dorling Kindersley Limited. ISBN 978-0-241-50422-2.
• Flew, Antony Garrard Newton (2026). "Agnosticism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved April 10, 2026.
• Fountoulakis, Konstantinos N. (2021). Psychiatry: From Its Historical and Philosophical Roots to the Modern Face. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-86541-2.
• Friedman, Jane (2013). "3. Rational Agnosticism and Degrees of Belief". In Gendler, Tamar Szabó; Hawthorne, John (eds.). Oxford Studies in Epistemology Volume 4. Oxford University Press. pp. 57–81. ISBN 978-0-19-967270-7.
• Hanson, Norwood Russell (2020). What I Do Not Believe, and Other Essays. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-94-024-1739-5.
• Hart, George (2005). The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses (2nd ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-34495-1.
• Hawthorne, James (2009). "The Lockean Thesis and the Logic of Belief". In Huber, Franz; Schmidt-Petri, Christoph (eds.). Degrees of Belief. Synthese Library. Vol. 342. Springer Netherlands. pp. 49–74. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9198-8_3. ISBN 978-1-4020-9197-1.
• Hayward, R. David; Krause, Neal; Ironson, Gail; Hill, Peter C.; Emmons, Robert (2016). "Health and Well-Being Among the Non-religious: Atheists, Agnostics, and No Preference Compared with Religious Group Members". Journal of Religion and Health. 55 (3): 1024–1037. doi:10.1007/s10943-015-0179-2. PMID 26743877.
• Hepburn, Ronald W. (2006). Borchert, Donald M. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 1: Abbagnano - Byzantine Philosophy (2. ed.). Thomson Gale, Macmillan Reference. pp. 92–95. ISBN 0-02-865781-0.
• Hetherington, Stephen. "Fallibilism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved July 31, 2024.
• Holloway, M. R. (2003). "Agnosticism". New Catholic Encyclopedia. Thomson/Gale. ISBN 978-0-7876-4005-7.
• Hookway, C. J. (2005). "Scepticism". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 838–840. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
• Horwitz, Paul (2011). The Agnostic Age: Law, Religion, and the Constitution. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-987630-3.
• Huff, Peter A. (2021). Atheism and Agnosticism: Exploring the Issues. Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-4408-7083-5.
• Jonbäck, Francis (2023). "Sceptical Agnosticism". International Journal for the Study of Skepticism. 13 (1): 31–43. doi:10.1163/22105700-bja10026.
• Karim, Moise; Saroglou, Vassilis (2023). "Being Agnostic, Not Atheist: Personality, Cognitive, and Ideological Differences". Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. 15 (1): 118–127. doi:10.1037/rel0000461.
• Karim, Moise; Saroglou, Vassilis (2024). "'I Am Agnostic, Not Atheist': The Role of Open-minded, Prosocial, and Believing Dispositions". Self and Identity. 23 (3–4): 248–267. doi:10.1080/15298868.2024.2357845.
• Kelly, Thomas (2016). "Evidence". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved August 20, 2024.
• Keysar, Ariela; Navarro-Rivera, Juhem (2013). Bullivant, Stephen; Ruse, Michael (eds.). [10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199644650.013.011 A World of Atheism]. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-964465-0. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help)
• Lightman, Bernard (1987). The Origins of Agnosticism: Victorian Unbelief and the Limits of Knowledge. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-3375-5.
• Lindsay, James (2015). Everybody Is Wrong About God. Pitchstone Publishing. ISBN 978-1-63431-037-6.
• Malavasi, Alexandre (2025). Modern Full-Stack Web Development with ASP.NET Core: A Project-Based Guide to Building Web Applications With ASP.NET Core 9 and JavaScript Frameworks. Packt. ISBN 978-1-78913-516-9.
• Martin, Craig (2018). "Incapacitating Scholarship: Or, Why Methodological Agnosticism Is Impossible". In Blum, Jason N. (ed.). The Question of Methodological Naturalism. BRILL. pp. 53–73. doi:10.1163/9789004372436_004. ISBN 978-90-04-37243-6.
• McCormick, Matt. "Atheism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved April 20, 2026.
• McGrath, Matthew (2021). "Being neutral: Agnosticism, inquiry and the suspension of judgment". Noûs. 55 (2): 463–484. doi:10.1111/nous.12323.
• Moore, Edward. "Gnosticism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved December 20, 2025.
• Moser, Paul K. (2008). "Agnosticism". In Darity, William A. (ed.). International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). Macmillan Reference USA. ISBN 978-0-02-865965-7.
• Murray, Malcolm (2010). The Atheist's Primer. Broadview Press. ISBN 978-1-55111-962-5.
• Neufeld, Dane (2019). Scripture, Skepticism, and the Character of God: The Theology of Henry Mansel. McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN 978-0-7735-5826-7.
• Newton, K. M. (2018). George Eliot for the Twenty-First Century: Literature, Philosophy, Politics. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-91926-3.
• O'Grady, Paul (2020). "6. Aquinas and Agnosticism". In Fallon, Francis; Hyman, Gavin (eds.). Agnosticism: Explorations in Philosophy and Religious Thought. Oxford University Press. pp. 163–186. ISBN 978-0-19-260296-1.
• O'Neal, Michael; Jones, J. Sydney; Schlager, Neil; Weisblatt, Jayne (2007). "Agnosticism and Atheism". World Religions. Thomson Gale. ISBN 978-1-4144-0226-0.
• Oppy, Graham (1994). "Weak Agnosticism Defended". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 36 (3): 147–167. doi:10.1007/bf01316921.
• Oppy, Graham (2006). Arguing about Gods. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-45889-4.
• Oppy, Graham (2018). Atheism and Agnosticism. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-63843-2.
• Palmqvist, Carl-Johan (2024). "Taking Issue with Le Poidevin's New Agnosticism". Philosophia. 52 (3): 699–715. doi:10.1007/s11406-024-00762-0.
• Pennycook, Gordon; Ross, Robert M.; Koehler, Derek J.; Fugelsang, Jonathan A. (2016). "Atheists and Agnostics Are More Reflective than Religious Believers: Four Empirical Studies and a Meta-Analysis". PLOS ONE. 11 (4) e0153039. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1153039P. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153039. PMC 4824409. PMID 27054566.
• Plantinga, Alvin (1998). "God, Arguments for the Existence of". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-K029-1. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6.
• Poidevin, Robin Le (2010). Agnosticism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-161454-5.
• Poidevin, Robin Le (2020). "1. The New Agnosticism". In Fallon, Francis; Hyman, Gavin (eds.). Agnosticism: Explorations in Philosophy and Religious Thought. Oxford University Press. pp. 29–46. ISBN 978-0-19-260296-1.
• Porpora, Douglas V. (2006). "Methodological Atheism, Methodological Agnosticism and Religious Experience". Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 36 (1): 57–75. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.2006.00296.x.
• Rescher, Nicholas (1998). "Fallibilism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-P019-1. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6.
• Rowe, William L. (1998). "Agnosticism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-K001-1. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6.
• Rudolph, Kurt (2013). "Gnosticism". Encyclopaedia Iranica. Encyclopædia Iranica Foundation.
• Schellenberg, J. L. (2019). Religion After Science. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-49903-3.
• Schneider, Laurel (2007). Beyond Monotheism: A Theology of Multiplicity. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-94782-8.
• Shanahan, E. (1907). "Agnosticism". Catholic Encyclopedia. Robert Appleton Company.
• Shook, John R. (2011). The God Debates: A 21st Century Guide for Atheists and Believers (and Everyone in Between). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-14673-6.
• Sober, Elliott; Velasco, Joel (2025). Core Questions in Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-040-66029-4.
• Swinburne, Richard (2004). The Existence Of God (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-927167-4.
• Teeninga, Luke. "Divine Hiddenness Argument against God's Existence". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved April 21, 2026.
• Tull, Herman W. (1989). The Vedic Origins Of Karma. SUNY Press. ISBN 0-7914-0094-8.
• Vasady, Bela (2025). The Main Traits of Calvin's Theology. Wipf and Stock. ISBN 979-8-3852-6521-3.
• Vernon, M. (2007). Science, Religion, and the Meaning of Life. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-01341-4.
• Vernon, Mark (2016). How To Be An Agnostic. Springer. ISBN 978-0-230-30144-3.
• Wagner, Verena (2022). "Agnosticism as Settled Indecision". Philosophical Studies. 179 (2): 671–697. doi:10.1007/s11098-021-01676-3.
• Wainwright, William J. (2020). "5. The Burden of Proof and the Presumption of Theism". In Wallace, Stan W. (ed.). Does God Exist?: The Craig-Flew Debate. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-94315-4.
• Warder, Anthony Kennedy (1998). A Course in Indian Philosophy (2 ed.). Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. ISBN 978-81-208-1482-0.
• Watkins, John (1995). "Epiphenomenalism and Human Freedom". In Jarvie, I. C.; Laor, Nathaniel (eds.). Critical Rationalism, Metaphysics and Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 161. Springer Netherlands. pp. 33–39. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-0471-5_4. ISBN 978-94-010-4211-6.

Further reading

• Agnosticism. Forgotten Books. pp. 164–. ISBN 978-1-4400-6878-2.
• Alexander, Nathan G. "An Atheist with a Tall Hat On: The Forgotten History of Agnosticism." The Humanist, February 19, 2019.
• Annan, Noel. Leslie Stephen: The Godless Victorian (U of Chicago Press, 1984)
• Cockshut, A.O.J. The Unbelievers, English Thought, 1840–1890 (1966).
• Dawkins, Richard. "The poverty of agnosticism", in The God Delusion, Black Swan, 2007 (ISBN 978-0-552-77429-1).
• Huxley, Thomas H. (February 4, 2013). Man's Place in Nature. Courier Dover Publications. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-0-486-15134-2.
• Hume, David (1779). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Penguin Books, Limited. pp. 1–.
• Kant, Immanuel (May 28, 2013). The Critique of Pure Reason. Loki's Publishing. ISBN 978-0-615-82576-2.
• Kierkegaard, Sören (1985). Philosophical Fragments. Religion-online.org. ISBN 978-0-691-02036-5. Archived from the original on February 22, 2014. Retrieved February 9, 2014.
• Lightman, Bernard. The Origins of Agnosticism (1987).
• Royle, Edward. Radicals, Secularists, and Republicans: Popular Freethought in Britain, 1866–1915 (Manchester UP, 1980).
• Smith, George H. (1979). Atheism – The Case Against God (PDF). Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-124-X. Archived from the original on November 26, 2013. Retrieved February 9, 2014.

External links

• Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Atheism and Agnosticism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 1095-5054. OCLC 429049174.
• Agnosticism at PhilPapers
• Agnosticism at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project
• Albert Einstein on Religion Shapell Manuscript Foundation
• Why I Am An Agnostic by Robert G. Ingersoll, [1896].
• Agnosticism from INTERS – Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science
• Agnosticism – from ReligiousTolerance.org
• What do Agnostics Believe? – A Jewish perspective
• Fides et Ratio  – the relationship between faith and reason Karol Wojtyla [1998]
• The Natural Religion by Brendan Connolly, 2008
• Nielsen, Kai (1973) [1968]. "Agnosticism". Dictionary of the History of Ideas. University of Virginia Library.