Being agnostic is not a neither here nor there position. I think it is the truest position based on one simple insight: that transcendent realities are unknowable. Coming from the word “gnosis” meaning knowledge, an agnostic is someone who literally does not know.

Agnosticism is not without its deficiencies though. There may be more to being a believer than just the comfort of having a myth to cosy up to. Belief might be more essential than that. If there is a transcendent realm, one with immanent import yet unknowable to us in any direct way, then perhaps the great myths of religious antiquity and belief systems in general are a way in which such transcendency becomes relevant. This would make “mythos” as important to humans as “logos”. Or put another way, it would render belief as essential as knowledge.

The fact that verifiable knowledge of transcendence can’t be had doesn’t mean that having belief is useless. Belief might do a worthwhile job with respect to relating to unknowable realms of existence. Incomplete knowledge doesn’t have to inhibit worthwhile action. It is possible to treat, cure even, a medical condition without having knowledge of its causes. Conversely it is possible to know a cause of a condition but be unable to cure it. Knowledge and practice are often at odds.

Although transcendence is unknowable I think it is more likely that it does exist than not. Why wouldn’t it? It is one thing to argue it is unknowable, another to argue that is doesn’t exist. Atheism is a step of reasoning too far. To say there cannot be external realms of reality, such as a divine creator, is to say that all reality happens to be consistent with the very particular kinds of sentient apparatus humans happen to have. Unlikely. There could be many realities that sentience is not amenable to. There could be an infinite number of dimensions inconceivable to us in every way but existing just the same. It could be that religious belief with its stories and its morality is a way of accessing some relevant aspect of transcendent reality without having direct knowledge of it, without ever being able to.

An agnosticism which rules out any religious validity may miss out on something crucial required for achieving psychological well-being. There may be toxic ways and spiritually healthy ways of doing that. I think that religious methods this far produce too many ill effects. They are so flawed intellectually as to cause as many problems as they solve. Like chemotherapy for cancer doing unintended harm to the body they harm the psyche and the social fabric. There may be less damaging ways to approach transcendency such as an active agnosticism which accepts that the ultimate questions of ontology can’t be answered but which still believes that some method for engaging the possibility of transcendence is important and achievable.

In conclusion, agnosticism shouldn’t lead to a spiritual void. Practice that helps access the probable yet unknowable realms of transcendency which impact on life is the thing. As with most issues which effect humanity it is maximum intelligence that is required. An optimum solution is needed. The solutions of traditional religion are partial but ultimately limiting.