The paradox of the agnostics

We often associate agnosts with those who abstain themselves of the opinion wheter God exists. We cannot observe God, thus we cannot answer the question.

The intellectual appealing of the agnostic attitude that it feels as the most rational choice to make. It feels like Wittgensteins famous statement: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

There are many topics where an agnostic attitude seems most rational; anything where multiple options exist, but none can be verified:

• anything’s nature
• anything’s existence
• anything’s true meaning
• anything’s true purpose
• any absolutes
• etc.

However, can we be truly agnostic?

The God question as example shows that our mind abstains from opinion. However, our daily life contradicts such. We either live as if God exists, or we live as if God doesn’t exist. If we truly act according to ‘I don’t know if God exists’, how do we act in any given situation? Don’t act at all? And if we don’t act, how is this inaction different from living as if God doesn’t exist? Is there a neutral ground for the agnostic lifestyle? How do we verify this agnostic ground?

The same problem is with justice. Since we cannot verify righteousness, I abstain from the definition of right and wrong. But the minute someone betrays us, are we not (even a tiny tiny bit) angry because betrayal is wrong?

The agnostic position is untennable in daily life. Like abstaining from a definition of healthy food when shopping for food.