It seems somewhat clear what an atheist is and a theist is if you ask the average person on the street. (Though how much that is worth will vary by person of course.) An atheist is a person who believes there is no God and a theist is a person who believes that there is a God. But what exactly then of a person who is not sure and not willing to make a commitment one way or the other? Such a person would be labeled an agnostic most likely. But is this an accurate definition? And don’t agnostics deserve to define themselves and their world view?

Such is the question in chapter one of Robin Le Poidevin’s book Agnosticism: A Very Short Introduction. If agnosticism is simply a refraining from answering a question, then it is not a viewpoint at all and certainly not in need of a book explaining it. But agnosticism is not simply being a fence sitter, as Le Poidevin points out. Agnosticism, as defined by Le Poidevin, is “The principle never to claim certainty for anything for which one does not have adequate justification: that is the agnostic principle.” (pg.26) Le Poidevin’s definition is similar to one given by David Hume (who Thomas Huxley, the father of agnosticism, called “The Prince of the Agnostics) in his essay Of Miracles where he states that a wise man is a person who proportions their belief to the evidence.

Le Poidevin then gives a brief history of agnosticism, showing how the name itself was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in the nineteenth century as an attempt to define his position to those who claimed to know for certain the truth of how the world is in itself. But as it turns out, Huxley’s view was an old one with a new name, since such philosophers as Pyrrho, Hume, and Immanuel Kant had also stated that it was impossible to know for sure whether or not God exists.

The most powerful point that Le Poidevin makes in his brief book is towards the end, when he shows that being an agnostic is not incompatible with being a believer. He writes:

A religious life, then, is possible for the agnostic, and not simply as a cautious, experimental, ultimately detached affair. But of course it is not obligatory. Many agnostics may find that they are psychologically unable to take this imaginative and emotional step. (pg. 107)

Why is this the case? Because agnosticism is about the question of knowledge, not about belief. We believe many things because we think there is sufficient evidence for them, but does that mean that we are sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are right? Most of the time the answer is no. So, a person can say that they believe in God while at the same time admitting that they are not 100 percent sure of whether or not God exists.

The one part of the book that I strongly disagreed with was in his closing chapter “How should agnosticism be taught?” In that chapter he notes that while he agrees that Intelligent Design Theory should not be discussed in biology classrooms, he is okay with it being discussed somewhere in the curriculum. In the age of climate change denial and fake news, this is a dangerous thing to do. Science, which depends on both verification and falsification, is not possible with intelligent design, and it is a religious doctrine veiled as science as multiple authors such as Jerry Coyne and Michael Shermer have written at book-length. We have a limited time to teach students, and if we spent countless hours discrediting false theories, when would we have time to teach them facts?

Aside from this disagreement, this book is very informative and will get you to think, which should be the goal of any book. I recommend it to atheist, agnostic, and theist alike, because it seems we all must grapple with the issues that Le Poidevin brings up. A truly commendable book.

Brand	N/A
Rating	4.2 (61 ratings)
Price	$10.6
Category	Agnosticism