Jason, there’s always value in “respecting and celebrating” other views, no matter what they are. That doesn’t mean I’m good at it. Fact is, I suck. If you don’t agree with me, you’re wrong and I’m going to show you just how wrong you are. I’m working at getting better, but it’s a long, hard road. As agnosticism itself, I’ve known too many strong-willed people with the viewpoint to ever believe it’s wishy-washy.

I think agnostics fall into a range, just as Christians do. For some it is a “default” point & doesn’t need much thought. Others put much thought into it. It makes me wonder if the folks i know who label themselves as atheists are that, or they are agnostics saying, “I really don’t know.” Off the top of my head, i think they have rejected the possibility of God because of the state of the world, or whatever.
Christians can fall into a “default” point as well. They may say the words, etc., but it has become a social/cultural thing for them rather than a well thought out choice. I think some of these “default” people are the worst at being critical & rigid & dogmatic as they hold to arguments they may never have thought thru thoroughly.

Atheism and agnosticism are both being misrepresented by Rosenbaum. Atheism is not a certainty that there is no god. It is the belief there is no god, allowing the possibility that there is a god. Agnosticism is not an alternative to theism or atheism. All people are agnostic, otherwise they are simply wrong. It is easy to propose a god that cannot be proven to not exist. It is simple to show theists they have no truths about a god, and therefore cannot prove it exists. Therefore all people are agnostic, or like Rosenbaum they simply do not know what agnosticism is.

I found your post intriguing. I then read the Rosenbaum post and all the vitriolic comments he inspired. Interesting that almost everyone felt the need to define or redefine the words “agnostic” and “atheist,” regardless of their stance, and then to say which of us belonged where.
Since you asked, I’ll go ahead and say that I believe in God, AND find huge value in respecting and celebrating uncertainty. There are more things about my faith I’m uncertain about now than ever, even though I’ve been a Christian for 40+ years. The Bible is full of paradox and ambiguity, and much about God remains a mystery. I’m content with that and comfortable with my faith. I would always want to give others the grace to question, doubt, and say “I don’t know.” I heard recently that “doubt is not the opposite of faith, certainty is.” I take that to mean that God is too big to be explained or put in our pathetically small boxes, and that honest doubt can be a path toward spiritual growth. How can we expect the God of the universe to be understandable when there’s so much in our finite lives that isn’t black or white?
I liked this quote from the blog:
“Wilkins’ suggestion is that there are really two claims agnosticism is concerned with is important: Whether God exists or not is one. Whether we can know the answer is another. Agnosticism is not for the simple-minded and is not as congenial as atheism and theism are.
The courage to admit we don’t know and may never know what we don’t know is more difficult than saying, sure, we know.”
There is a difference between asking “Can God be proven?” and asking “Can God be known?” Two very different questions. Those looking for intellectual proof may remain unsatisfied. My experience — which I can never prove to you — is that if we ask to know Him, we may not only discover Him, but find that the God of the Universe has been loving us and pursuing us for a very long time.

GKLR -
I find it interesting that atheist define themselves as people who simply have a “disbelief.” Yet, in practice, most atheists seem to be far more agressive in asserting a certainty to their position. Why is that? Every atheist I’ve met agrees with the notion “I believe it is true there is no God,” which indicates certainty, no? No offense, but the “disbelief” definition is little more than clever semantics and goalpost moving.

“To my atheist readers, do you agree or disagree with Rosenbaum’s manifesto?”
No. Rosenbaum, who apparently isn’t well-read, offers up a strawman version of atheism. For example, he states, “Faced with the fundamental question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually.” I am a scientist, and yet I think it quite possible that there are questions science may never answer. The difference between me and Rosenbaum is that I understand what a null hypothesis is, and I understand on whom the burden of proof lies. Just because science cannot answer a question does not mean the answers offered up by religion are true. That is the fallacy of the argument from ignorance.
I don’t see how you can characterize Rosenbaum’s column as “a thoughtful piece” when he apparently hasn’t put in even the most basic legwork to understand the arguments in play, and commits fallacy after fallacy.

Hi All,
I do not believe Agnosticism is wishy-washy. They have the courage and honesty to admit: “I just don’t know”, while Atheists and Theists just pretend to know. It is totally ok to say “show me proof”, or “prove your theory to me, with some evidence I can understand”. I am pagan, I do believe in spirits, angels, and yes, dieties, can I use proof others would understand? Unless they had seen it for themselves, probably not, does that mean it doesn’t exist, or even happen? no. Is there physical evidence that it happened, that is totally explainable by other means? no.
I believe it, because I saw it and experienced it myself, that’s good enough for me.
I will give you one example of what I just tried to explain above.
One night in my mobile home (It burned several years ago), I was sleeping on a mattress on the floor, with a cat on my chest (he was a korat), a dog in the next room gaurding the door, and another cat in the back bedroom, my 2 kids (@ the time) in the bedroom next to me. My mattress picked itself up, moved itself, and dropped itself, with me and the cat on it!
Can this be proved by physical evidence? no, not anymore.
Can this be explained by other methods? no.
It just happened. I just know that I saw it and experienced it for myself, and that’s good enough for me.
Blessings to you all.

Stand back! I’ve got Occam’s razor and I know how to use it.

As a Christian I definitely think it is not only valuable to respect and celebrate uncertainty, but it’s essential to embrace it. Faith is full of mystery. If it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be faith. I think when we pretend we have certainty about everything, it just turns everyone off; not only that, but it’s certainly dishonest. I think faith is about asking questions and understanding that the answers to those questions are found in a lifelong journey.

again…..how can you be super certain that those who are super certain are wrong?

In “The God Delusion” Dawkins called himself an agnostic. I think we all fit in the agnostic continuum; some towards the theistic end and some toward the atheist end.
I’ve never met an atheist with absolute certainty. Or a theist, for that matter. I don’t think such creatures could exist.
I personally consider the probability of gods’ existence low enough to be okay with being classified as an atheist. I certainly live my life based on the assumption that atheists are correct. And, if I happen to be incorrect, I doubt it’ll be used against me in the afterlife.

Andy,
“I find it interesting that atheist define themselves as people who simply have a disbelief.”
gklr: If that is what they say then remind them that a disbelief that I have 1 million dollars in my pocket is the belief that the proposition is false. Don’t buy the “disbelief” is not a belief nonsense, it is false.
“Yet, in practice, most atheists seem to be far more agressive in asserting a certainty to their position. Why is that? Every atheist I’ve met agrees with the notion “I believe it is true there is no God,” which indicates certainty, no?”
gklr: No. All beliefs are propositions that are possibly true and possibly false. As an atheist I realize that saying there is no god is a belief (and what atheism is). By logical necessity, whether those you discuss this with realize it or not, atheism must allow the possibility of a god.
“No offense, but the “disbelief” definition is little more than clever semantics and goalpost moving.”
gklr: and it is not even clever. Those telling you things like “atheism is a lack of belief” or “atheism is not believing” and so on, do not know what atheism is and misreperesent themselves as atheists. They are people I label “notters” (derived from nutter), where they say they are what they are not. Refer them to Bertrand Russells 1905 essay that argues how the present King of France is not bald and has no hair. Remind them the present King of France does not believe in a god, is absent of belief in a god, lacks belief in a god and is not an atheist. As well, theism is incapable of belief and also lacks belief in a god (it is the belief itself and beliefs don’t believe anything), so if atheism IS a lack of belief and theism lacks belief in a god then according to them theism is atheism. You are talking to too many doofuses in my opinion, and you’d be forming a view of atheists without having spoken to one.

If I had to pick a label I’d pick agnostic, though I don’t like to have to pick.
But regardless, Rosenbaum is pretty much illiterate about agnosticism. He uses the silliest definition, doesn’t read Huxley deeply.
I would never follow a movement started by someone with this lack of intellectual curiosity. It’s rather embarrassing how many people in the comment section at slate correct his basic conceptions.
Huxley’s agnosticism is not some vague “oh I don’t know”. It’s a strong statement about the method by which one can get to claims. He rejects all claims that don’t follow that method. Hence Huxley is actually very close to an atheist.
But really Rosenbaum is writing a hit piece on New Atheism, not citing a single word they say, just reinforcing their rather bad image among believers, while using agnosticism as a rather shallow excuse to do so.
It is sure to get him cheers with believers, but anyone who is serious on the skeptic side will be anywhere from bewildered to tempted to rip him to shreds over his obvious ignorance.

When Rosenbaum learns to embrace any level of humility, won’t you let me know? I’ll be sure to raise to raise a glass and celebrate the day. The article in quesiton was the laziest kind of late-night dorm-room jawing. Rosenbaum can not or does not care to follow the arguments of the people he criticizes, so he makes up the crudest strawman positions he can and puts them in their mouths. Contemptible. Very thoughtful rebuttal at http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/ron-rosenbaums-new-agnosticism/