Being in awe of existence is natural and appropriate for everyone who can think. Trying to make rules for that miracle seems as futile as predicting the detailed future. Yet many religions have tried to do so, and many followers believe them.
Yet if something is inherently unknowable, trying to understand it is simply impossible. In religion’s own terms, attempting to constrain destiny is blasphemous. But there are always preachers and fanatics who know they can do so and want everyone else to believe they are right.
That is where “agnostic” becomes a special loaded term. If you tell me you can pull a large oak tree out of the ground with your bare hands, or lasso the moon, I am not “agnostic” to say I don’t think you can do it. I would simply be ignorant and foolish if I gave you the benefit of the doubt. If you tell me you can predict the detailed future, without proof, I should not give you a nickel. But let me say (for the sake of harmony) that “I do not share nor reject your inner visions” _ and I am labeled “agnostic.” It implies I would agree if only I would agree.
I prefer to accept intellectual limits. I cannot know my future. I cannot know the outcome of the universe. I cannot know what it all means. And I’m okay with those limits. After all, I’m stuck in a pretty limited body for a pretty limited stretch of objective time.
I don’t reject the religious impulse _I think religions can have moral value. But I will never and can never know it all.