Agnostic - who is this?

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 by scientific and philosophical concepts, and therefore the world and people, as it were, exist by themselves, 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 that is inherent in other philosophical currents.

Therefore, asking: "Agnostic - who is this?" - we must perceive people of such a mindset as skeptics who have chosen absolute doubt as a way of life, social habit. This worldview helps them to 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 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 God exists. Both are unprovable. That's what the agnostics think. Opposite to this kind of thinking is Gnosticism. Supporters of this doctrine believe that everything in our world, including human actions, is reduced to certain regularities. There are no accidents, and all events occur with 100 percent probability. Another thing is that we can not 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: they consider a limited number of things and phenomena as "starting points", a material from which they repel and build their theory. For the Gnostic, this is a point, a straight line, a space. For the agnostic, one's own worldview, the individual idea of things. In other words, all philosophers are similar in one thing: one must accept something (a kind of Aristotelian primordial motor) on faith, and then prove the right to their point of view.

Arguing on the topic "Agnostic - who is this?", One can not help but touch upon the problem of atheism. If in religion we are talking about the categorical design of the world through the essence of the higher Absolute, then the atheist faces a problem: what exactly is to be taken for granted. Scientific truths or laws of nature do not count. In their opinion, these are just instruments of knowledge. To form axioms (as the above point and space), you also need starting points, and you need to come to this as well. And not necessarily through skepticism. Most likely, again, through faith. No wonder Albert Einstein became a deeply religious person by the end of his life. In addition, doubt also has a suspicious nature: who now will say, what is the difference between general denial and own opinion about the nature of things? Of course, subject to the rejection of specific views by 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 policy plane.

First, because doubt in God and science emphasizes the free choice of a "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 is clearly within the rhythm of Protestant values.

And secondly, agnostics live in a world of absolute freedom of will, which conditionally can be considered their god. But freedom of the will is a Catholic concept, which is the basis of late medieval and bourgeois law, the foundations of which are formed by Napoleon and Hegel. The conclusion is the same - a person is only responsible for himself and bears personal responsibility for his actions. So he is free in his doubts with respect to others.