I'm a scientist by heart: I believe that while the existence of God, however defined (or any metaphysic question, for that matter), is a tough one, it might not be completely inaccessible to science. There is a big amount of circumstancial evidence (and we also found the neutrino, didn't we?). Some quick googling did not turn up a name for this philosophical stance, although it surely falls under "Sceptic". (But that term would be very unspecific, since it might imply I'm a sceptic on any question.)

Anyone to drop me a term?

  • 1
    The existence of God is not only not solvable by science, it is not solvable by any empirical observations at all. Suppose you were sitting in your house, wondering if God exists, and a man suddenly appeared before you and said he was God. To prove it, he transports your house to the moon and makes you immune to the hazards so you can walk outside in your pajamas and look around. Would you think (1) this is God, (2) this is some hi-tech alien messing with me, or (3) this is a dream? Which you believe depends entirely on your presuppositions. He could never prove he was God. Jul 24, 2021 at 19:48
  • 3
    "I believe that while the existence of God, however defined… , is a tough one, it might not be completely inaccessible to science." If you don't consistently use the same definition, then you could be talking about anything, effectively rendering the word meaningless. "God" is a name, not a claim.
    – Sandejo
    Jul 25, 2021 at 1:59
  • 3
    @DavidGudeman gotta disagree with that pretty heavily. There are plenty of empirical observations that would be heavy evidence, in a scientific sense, for the existence of a specific god. For example, they've run experiments on the efficacy of prayer in medical treatment. They found that prayer performed equally with placebo across all religions, but if instead they found that eg Muslim prayer was substantially more effective than any other kind, that would be solid scientific evidence that "God exists, and Muslims are right"
    – TKoL
    Jul 25, 2021 at 17:03
  • 1
    @TKoL, it would be evidence that whatever Muslims were doing is helpful, not that their beliefs about what they are doing is correct. Whenever there is any evidence that faith healing works, atheists (correctly) bring up the placebo effect. There is always another explanation. Jul 25, 2021 at 20:04
  • As I said, experiments could be made (the most daring would be the selfdestruction of mankind - if that works, that rules out many Gods ;-) Jul 25, 2021 at 21:34

2 Answers 2


"Weak agnosticism" is as good a term as any, see Wikipedia. You might also think of yourself as a "scientific" or "rationalist agnostic", although such phrases are a little ambiguous. "Scientific weak agnostic" seems a bit of a mouthful, but at least it appears to qualify your intended position.

However it does rule out some definitions of God, such as that of pantheism where the entire Universe is identified with God. The definition may not be verifiable, but the God defined by it certainly is!

  • 2
    A definition can't be verifiable - words can mean whatever we want. That's why we can define a God like that in the first place!
    – TKoL
    Jul 28, 2021 at 15:18

"it is impossible, or at least impossible at the present time, to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned." - Bertrand Russell.

See his essay What Is An Agnostic? for more.

I am a different kind of agnostic, as a Buddhist. The sutras describe Buddha teaching Maha Brahma, the Creator in Hinduism. But Buddha's point is whatever beings exist and however powerful they are, they cannot help you with the core matters of your life, and with attaining liberation from suffering - only attaining awakening can do that, which no other can do for you. Seeing gods as irrelevant whether they exist or not is also agnosticism.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .