Agnostic is a person who believes that knowledge of the world is impossible in principle. The laws of nature, like the horizons of being, are obscured by our worldview, accepted scientific and philosophical concepts, and therefore the world and people seem to exist on their own, independently of each other. Science and religion in this approach 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 movements.
Therefore, asking: "Agnostic - who is this?" - we should perceive people of this mindset as skeptics who have chosen absolute doubt as a way of life, a social habit. This worldview helps them survive in a world of universal faith and unconditional acceptance of scientific truth.
In search of an answer to the question "Agnostic - who is this?" for some reason, the cult film "Beware of the car" comes to mind. Remember the conversation in the car: some people think there is no god. Others believe that there is a god. Both of these are unprovable. This is how agnostics think. The opposite of this kind of thinking is Gnosticism. Proponents of this doctrine believethat everything in our world, including human actions, comes down to certain patterns. There are no accidents, and all events occur with a 100 percent probability. Another thing is that we cannot know certain 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 consider a limited number of things and phenomena as “starting points”, material from which they build their theory. For a Gnostic, this is a point, a line, space. For an agnostic, it is their own worldview, an 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.
Arguing on the topic "Agnostic - who is this?", It is impossible not to touch upon the problem of atheism. If in religion we are talking about the categorical design of the world through the essence of the highest Absolute, then the atheist faces 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. In order to form axioms (like the above point and space), starting points are also needed, and this must also be reached. And not necessarily through skepticism. Most likely, again, through faith. No wonder Albert Einstein became a deeply religious person towards the end of his life. In addition, doubt also has a suspicious nature: who will now say what is the difference between universal denial and one's own opinion about natureof things? Of course, subject to the rejection of specific views by the philosophical or scientific community.
Therefore, answering the question: "Agnostic - who is this?", - it is necessary to understand that the answer lies, oddly enough, in the plane of politics.
Firstly, because the doubt in God and science emphasizes the free choice of the "third party", associated with a liberal view of the world and an individual assessment of what is happening, based on their own, personal interests. In other words, agnosticism, despite its ancient Greek origin, has turned into a bourgeois concept and clearly fits into the rhythm of Protestant values.
And secondly, agnostics live in a world of absolute free will, which can conditionally be considered their god. But free will is a Catholic concept underlying the late medieval and bourgeois law, the foundations of which were formed by Napoleon and Hegel. The conclusion is the same - a person is responsible only for himself and bears personal responsibility for his actions. Therefore, he is free in his doubts about others.
