As long as science has existed it has yet to prove the existence of God or a supreme collaborator who has orchestrated this symphony we call life, or the existence of life. It has not even been able to reinforce the assumption of such an existence. Auguste Comte said he was not an atheist because, "that was to take theology seriously". Darwin has shown from his theories that the possibility of order in nature was not purposive, other than to adapt, survive, and evolve in an ever-changing environment. Science and scientific evidence has demolished the thoughtful world based on pure faith as to the existence of God, in a once traditional world in which theological and religious beliefs have thrived and prospered. The demystification of religion has forced many to rethink, once societal inherited beliefs and philosophies, and take a more objective and grounded perspective on the concepts of faith and fantasy when juxtaposed to science.
This makes the resilience and prosperity of modern theology, somewhat of a remarkable feat when matched with the acumen and technology of modern science, thought, and perspective.
As an agnostic my perspective is not just a suspension of judgment as to my beliefs, but rather a practical and intellectual justification for the disagreement with theology and perhaps its disregard, as to its importance in my life. The literal definition of agnostic is primitive knowing or the lack of knowledge, perhaps uncertainty to be held onto until the existence of such proof is brought to light to prove the existence of something intangible.
Modern agnosticism's genesis is not based on reactionary arguments against dogmatism, with regard to theology, but more based on our limitation of knowledge in the face of scientific and reasonable fact. Agnosticism, in my eye, within the context of religion, is based...