To some extent.
As blunt as this may seem to religious believers, my opinion on the importance of religion remains very low and insignificant. Although I was baptized as a catholic Christian, I strongly doubt the existence of a higher and transcendent force most of us seek. Every religion has its scared scriptures and believers that strongly reinforce its credulity and yet opposing religious teachings continue to question its veracity. While one religion may have sufficient evidence to prove its justification of life, another may have just enough to successfully contradict it with its philosophical theories. Through my eyes, the concept of religion was created solely to reassure people that there is a logical explanation for how we all come to be. Religion leaves no moral or ethical questions unanswered except for one; how it was created.
In such a heavily populated world, you'd think that there would be enough intelligence to find answers to every possible question; however, more questions always seem to arise. One of these questions deals with the concept of God's existence according to theism. In my opinion, agnosticism is the most credible concept thus far when compared to all other religious concepts; such as theism and atheism. This stand for agnosticism is not so much a belief in God according to theism nor is it a disbelief but merely a concept that explains that there is not enough reason or truth in the world to pick a side. Therefore, agnostics remain neutral, in the sense that they are undecided in their opinion of God according to theism.
When we take a closer look as to why agnosticism would be the logical choice, there are many different types of evidence that facilitate this position. Firstly, God's existence has not yet been proven as a guarantee. In other words, knowledge of God's existence is unattainable because evidence of God's existence is unattainable. No one has ever been able to successfully prove that God exists using physical evidence; only attempts at factual evidence have been made to proving God's existence. It suffices to say that there is an equally balanced number of atheists compared to theists but the issue still remains that both oppositions continue to contradict each other's concepts. Agnosticism has a clear way of grasping the most un-biased ideas and turning them into a methodology of thinking. It allows its believers to rightfully take views from all perspectives and make an educated decision in terms of their desired belief system.
Many philosophers and atheists seem to feel differently about the concept of agnosticism. St. Thomas Aquinas was an outstanding theologian, philosopher, and Christian apologist that challenged the views of agnostics by enforcing an argument from contingency in order to prove God's existence. One of his arguments, otherwise known as "The Third Way", explains that due to the fact that living matter can only be created by life itself, there must have been a necessary being that created life to begin with. In his passages, he refers to this so called being as God.
As a response to St. Aquinas' argument, most agnostics interject with the counter argument that claims that just because life had to have been created from something necessary, they do not feel obliged to accredit this so called "God" with this necessity. In other words, why do theists automatically believe that it is God that created the universe, or even a being for that matter? As a result, Aquinas' argument is therefore incomplete considering it has not made clear why God among all other things was given the role of the creator of the universe. The reoccurring concept of theodicy is repeatedly used to enforce the agnostic perspective as well. This concept merely explains that it is unsure whether or not God is imminent among us due to the fact that evil is still very much present within the world. Theists believe that God is an omnipotent, omniscient, immutable and necessary being; then how can such an authoritative figurehead still allow evil to take place among us? This is the argument of theodicy and affirms that we cannot ascertain God's existence nor can we reject it. Many so called religious experiences have led others to believe that God is in fact among us, but who can verify these experiences beside the victims themselves? Does that seem to be enough? What about atheists that are convinced that all religions are false or less bluntly reject the concept of theism? How can they ascertain that God is not among us with such a heavily opposed group; theists? The one concept that is the most irrefutable in my opinion stands to be agnosticism due to the fact that it has a very small oppositional group, if one at all.
Another common argument to support my belief in theism is the following. Most of us have always inherited our religion and traditions from our parents. Having said that, if someone were to be born in Iraq, the child would be blessed as a Muslim as opposed to an American born child that would otherwise be baptized as a Christian. This stands to reason that if religion were such an important concept among us, we would not leave our belief system up to our ancestral path; we would make an informed decision based on solid research.
To put an end to what seems to be a widely disputed ideology; I will restate that agnosticism is the one logical concept in my opinion when placed alongside all of today's idiotic theories and prophets. In other words, religion is simply a concept that was created in other to ensure everyone that there is an explanation for the universe's existence; otherwise, let's face it, there would be utter and total chaos. Religion is meant to keep everyone inbound in a way and I stand to argue against it. You may perceive it as you wish, but that is how I grasp the concept of religion among our society. It has evolved into a way heir of life rather than what it used to be; a belief system. Parents have their children commit to the lives
after they prioritize religion, when in reality, it should be the other way around.
My reasoning for entrusting my belief in the concept of agnosticism is simply due to the fact that all other concept with the help of justifications and evidence, fail to convince me that we must follow a superior example. Agnosticism rejects the concept of religion, choosing to not take part in such preposterous propaganda while enforcing the possibility of a scientific beginning. For some, religion has rapidly evolved from a way of life to a set of instructional guidelines. This, in my opinion, is not healthy. We shouldn't let religion determine our lives; rather we should live our lives by our values. Agnosticism is the most convincing concept when compared, with all others due to its evidential credibility being reinforced by the laws of science.
Don't be disappointed if you don't share a common ground. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.