What many people who self-identify as agnostic overlook in this quote is that Huxley "had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble". In other words Huxley did not expect to stumble upon evidence for god, for the simple reason that the god hypothesis is inherently scientifically non-falsifiable. Hence for Huxley there was no room in the concept he was setting forth, for styling yourself "uncertain at this time" and then to use that as a basis to claim open-mindedness -- rather than your status as a freethinker, which already has that base covered.

Thus agnosticism is not a "middle ground" or a waffling inability to make up one's mind about the god question. It is the conviction that the god question, as posed, is inherently unanswerable to begin with.

Given that the god question is unanswerable (a = without, gnosis = knowledge = agnostic), then it is on the belief side a serious problem also, as there's no gnosis to be had to substantiate any god beliefs as reasonable (a = without, theism = belief in god = atheism), so not only do you lack knowledge, you lack belief as well. Two sides of the same coin really.

I would not agree with that assessment that it is "two sides of the same coin." An atheist will insist just as strongly that god does not exist as a Christian will insist that he does, and neither will concede that they do not know. An agnostic accepts the fact that s/he does not know, even though they may have pretty strong convictions, and, they are still open to hearing logic arguments. Science is not about absolutes, science is the journey toward truth . . . . . not claiming that you have arrived at some absolute truth.

@THHA -- I am unquestionably an atheist in my own thinking. That is, I do not accept the existence of anything outside the realm of the measurable world in which we all exist. However, I do not have nor do I purport to have adequate evidence to support an assertion that there is no realm of the supernatural or any beings living there. Because of this, I, an atheist, do not make the assertion, but that in no way makes me any less an atheist. I am not confused or uncertain about my position.

I can state to someone that I do not believe in gods of any kind. I hold no beliefs beyond the mundane that we all use to navigate life without cognitive overload. So, I am an atheist. I am an evidentialist. I am agnostic. I am a skeptic. All those terms live nicely together without the slightest conflict.

@THHA
"Huxley did not expect to stumble upon evidence for god, for the simple reason that the god hypothesis is inherently scientifically non-falsifiable"

And that is an assumption, based on what?

God is unknown and unknowable, not the same thing of course. This is just assumed.

Well, as an atheist I don't assume that. It might be reasonable to assume that any God could make itself in known. Certainly religions claim miracles, saviours and all that. But as an atheist I simply say, there is no proof of any God. Show me proof, I'll revisit it. I'm not making any assumptions about knowability and I don't have to.

The agnostic view is very problematic to me. And it's always God singular that agnostics refer to. But to the agnostic Apollo is also a God they have to be agnostic about. And all the other Gods too. Why not? You can't prove Apollo doesn't exist.

You can't prove Apollo does exist. This is no different from the original argument.

I don’t think there is a collective creed, but surely personal ones.

I find that true as well. I'll accept "religious affiliation" but it is SO not a religion.

@strgazr63 I find it idiotic that believers in gods think you have to be worshiping anyone. Then you have songs by Dylan saying we all have to worship somebody.

@DenoPenno ,
i think dylan meant whether we like it or not or whether we do it outwardly or not. basically we're all dependent on somebody to stay alive.