What Is Agnosticism?

Agnosticism is the view that we cannot know with certainty whether God exists. Some agnostics go further and maintain that questions about God’s existence or nature lie beyond the limits of human knowledge. Agnosticism therefore differs both from belief in God and from the conviction that God does not exist.

The term agnosticism was coined by the English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–1895). It comes from the Greek a (not or without) and gnosis (knowledge). Huxley used the term to describe a position in which a person does not claim to know something that he does not believe can be proved. According to The American Heritage Dictionary, agnosticism is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity cannot be known with certainty.

Short Answer: Agnosticism is based on the view that we cannot know with certainty whether God exists, or that God cannot be known by human beings. The Bible acknowledges that our understanding of God is limited, but it does not teach that God is unknowable. On the contrary, Scripture says that God has made his existence known through creation and has revealed himself to humanity. The question, therefore, is not only how far human reason can take us, but also whether God himself has made it possible for us to know him.

This position may at first seem both cautious and reasonable. If we do not have sufficient knowledge about God, why should we claim to know whether he exists? But the question goes deeper than that. Can we really know nothing about God’s existence? And if human reason cannot lead us to a complete knowledge of God, does that mean that God cannot be known at all?

In this article, we will examine the basic claims of agnosticism, take a closer look at Thomas Henry Huxley’s arguments, and ask whether agnosticism provides a satisfactory answer to the question of God—or whether Scripture gives us reason to reach a different conclusion.

Huxley’s Agnosticism—A Method of Inquiry

Thomas Henry Huxley did not regard agnosticism as a creed but as a method. He explained:

“Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle.”

He then described the principle as follows:

“Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”

There is much in this principle that initially seems reasonable. We should not claim certainty without a basis for doing so, and our beliefs should be able to withstand examination. The Bible likewise encourages people to examine, reason, and test what they hear. (Acts 17:2, 11; Isa. 1:18)

But Huxley’s principle raises an important question: Is human reason sufficient as the ultimate standard for determining what can be known to be true?

If God exists, it does not necessarily follow that human beings, relying on reason alone, can discover everything that can be known about him. A God who transcends humanity could also make known something about his own existence, nature, and purpose. The question, therefore, must not only be what human beings can discover on their own, but also whether there is a trustworthy revelation from God that reason can examine and evaluate.

Is Human Reason Sufficient?

Reason is necessary if we are to investigate questions about God and truth. Without the ability to think, compare, and draw conclusions, we could not examine the claims of the Bible either. The problem with agnosticism, therefore, is not that it uses reason. The question is whether human reason alone is sufficient.

Human reasoning does not operate independently of the person who uses it. Our judgments are influenced by our knowledge, experiences, upbringing, and the assumptions we bring with us. Two people can therefore examine the same question and still reach different conclusions. History also shows that people can regard a conclusion as highly reasonable, only to discover later that it was based on incomplete knowledge or mistaken assumptions.

This does not mean that reason is worthless or unreliable in every respect. It simply means that it is not infallible. If human reason is limited, it cannot automatically be made the ultimate standard for determining what can or cannot be known about God.

This is where the question of revelation becomes crucial. If God exists and wants to make himself known, he can reveal truths that human beings could not have discovered on their own. Reason is not thereby set aside. On the contrary, it has the task of examining whether the claimed revelation is trustworthy.

This is also the approach we find in Scripture. Paul reasoned with his listeners from the Scriptures, and the Jews in Berea were commended because they examined the Scriptures daily to see whether what they were being told was true. (Acts 17:2, 11) Faith, then, is not presented as an alternative to thought and investigation.

The decisive question is therefore not: Should we use reason or believe in revelation? Rather, the question is: Has God given humanity a revelation that we have good reason to believe?

Can We Know That God Exists?

The central question of agnosticism is whether human beings can know at all that God exists. Here the Bible gives a clear answer. It teaches that God has not left humanity without evidence of his existence.

Paul writes:

“For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Godhead.” (Rom. 1:20, Interlinear Bible)

According to Paul, we can reason from what we can see to something we cannot see directly. The existence of the universe points beyond itself. Creation gives us a basis for recognizing that there is a Creator whose power extends beyond the created order.

The same thought is found in the book of Psalms:

“The heavens are recording the glory of God, and the expanse proclaim His handiwork.” (Ps. 19:1, Interlinear Bible)

The Bible does not claim that human beings can learn everything about God through creation. By observing the universe alone, for example, we cannot discover all of his purposes or know how he wants us to live. That requires further revelation. But that is very different from saying that we can know nothing about God.

Here an important distinction becomes clear: The fact that our knowledge of God is limited does not mean that such knowledge is impossible.

We already use this kind of reasoning in other areas. We do not need to have seen the cause of something with our own eyes in order to conclude that a cause exists. We can examine the effect and ask which explanation best accounts for it. In the same way, the question of God can be investigated by asking what best explains the existence of the universe, its order, and the characteristics we find within it.

The Bible therefore does not call for blind faith. It points to creation as something that can be examined and from which conclusions can be drawn. But it also goes further. It maintains that the God who can be known through his creation has also made himself known through revelation.

The claim of agnosticism, therefore, cannot simply be taken for granted. If God has both left evidence of his existence in creation and revealed himself to humanity, the question must be investigated before we can conclude that God cannot be known.

Huxley’s Demand for Proof

Huxley’s negative principle was:

“Do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”

As a starting point, this is a reasonable principle. We should not call something certain if we do not have sufficient grounds for doing so. But the principle raises another question: What is required before something can reasonably be regarded as established?

In many areas, our knowledge is not based on absolute certainty but on evidence, inference, and the explanation that best fits the available facts. This is true in science as well. A conclusion does not have to be mathematically proven before there can be good reasons to accept it as true.

The same applies to the question of God’s existence. If we require God to be proved in the same way as a mathematical proposition or directly observed like a physical object, we have already chosen a standard that may not be appropriate to what we are investigating. If God is the cause of the physical universe, we cannot simply expect him to be part of the universe that natural science investigates.

The relevant question, therefore, is not merely whether God’s existence can be proved with absolute certainty, but whether there are sufficient grounds for concluding that God exists.

Here Huxley’s own principle can actually be applied to agnosticism itself. If an agnostic claims that we cannot know whether God exists, that claim must also be supported. It is not enough to point out that we do not know everything about God or cannot see him directly. One must show why the evidence and arguments pointing to his existence do not provide a basis for knowledge.

Agnosticism, therefore, cannot merely place demands on belief in God. Its own claims about the limits of human knowledge must also be open to examination.

Herbert Spencer and the Unknowable God

Another important representative of agnosticism was the English philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820–1903). Spencer believed that the universe points to an underlying power. He did not deny that there is a fundamental reality or first cause behind what we observe. But he maintained that the true nature of this power is inscrutable to human beings.

At this point, Spencer’s argument contains an important truth. If God is the eternal cause of the universe, we should expect his nature to far exceed our full understanding. A finite human being cannot be expected to comprehend an unlimited God completely.

The Bible expresses a similar thought. The psalmist writes concerning God’s knowledge:

“Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is set on high; I am not able to reach it.” (Ps. 139:6, Interlinear Bible)

But we must be careful not to move from one claim to an entirely different one. There is a great difference between saying:

We cannot know everything about God.
We cannot know anything about God.

The first follows naturally from the difference between God and human beings. The second does not follow from the first.

We see the same thing in other areas. The fact that we do not know everything about something does not mean that we cannot know anything about it. Limited knowledge can still be true knowledge.

This becomes even clearer if God can reveal himself. If our knowledge of God depended entirely on the human ability to reach him, our limitations would impose a decisive boundary. But if God is able to make himself known, our knowledge depends not only on how far human beings can reach toward God, but also on what God has chosen to make known to humanity.

It is therefore not enough to point out that God exceeds our full understanding. The decisive question is whether he has made anything about himself known.

The fact that God cannot be known completely does not mean that he cannot be known at all.

Is Agnosticism a Satisfactory Answer?

There is something understandable about the agnostic position. If a person does not believe there are sufficient grounds for saying that God exists, it may seem more honest to acknowledge uncertainty than to profess a conviction that cannot be supported.

But agnosticism does not resolve the question of God itself. It primarily describes a limit on what a person believes can be known. That limit must therefore also be examined. Do we really have sufficient reason to conclude that God’s existence cannot be known?

As we have seen, human reason is limited, but that does not make it worthless. We can examine what we see around us, reason from cause and effect, and ask what best explains the existence of the universe. The Bible maintains that creation gives human beings reason to recognize God’s existence. But it does not stop there. It also maintains that God himself has made himself known.

If that claim is true, it changes the question fundamentally. We are no longer limited to asking whether human beings can reach God on their own. We must also ask whether God has reached out to humanity.

It is therefore reasonable to examine Scripture on its own terms—not by accepting its claims without question, but by asking whether what it says about God, humanity, and the world can withstand critical and rational examination. Jesus said:

“The one coming to Me I will in no way cast out.” (John 6:37, Interlinear Bible)

For someone who is uncertain whether God exists, agnosticism therefore does not have to be the final conclusion of the search. It can instead be the starting point for an honest question: If God exists and has made himself known, am I willing to investigate?

Conclusion

Agnosticism begins with an understandable question: Can we really know whether God exists? It is reasonable not to claim more than the evidence warrants. But it does not follow from this that God’s existence is impossible to know.

Human reason is limited, but it enables us to investigate, reason, and draw conclusions. According to the Bible, God has also not left humanity without evidence of himself. Creation points to his existence, and through revelation he has made more about himself known.

We must therefore maintain the important distinction between not being able to know everything about God and not being able to know anything about God. The fact that God exceeds our full understanding does not mean that he is unknowable.

Agnosticism therefore does not have to be the final answer to the question of God. If God exists and has made himself known, the decisive question is not merely how far human reason can reach, but whether we are willing to examine what God has revealed.

Explore More

All Articles About Bible Study