Reasons to Declare "I Just Don't Know..."

Here's my response to the editorial by Eduardo Porter, "Campaigns Like These Make It Hard to Find a Reason to Believe", published today (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/opinion/14fri3.html?th&emc=th):



By failing to consider the perspective of the agnostic, Porter nearly re-creates Mitt Romney's omission on a smaller scale.

Declared agnostics clearly have on their side the combination of rationality and honesty. Most agnostics don't declare themselves, though: Pascal's wager-type situations occur too often in daily life, not only when running for office. There are plenty of agnostic Presidents in our history (more in memoirs than as a publicly stated view), and I daresay there are more than a few in Jerusalem, too.

If it came down to the Wager itself, we'd be on the losing side, whichever side we chose. The truly devout would never accept us who only professed belief for motives of gain. So we're with the atheists. Why don't they acknowledge us?

The world would be a better place if more of us faced the facts, accepted the plurality of humanity's religious beliefs, and got on with making this colossal living experiment a success.
— chinshihtang, Taos

It's not so much that I need to declare that I don't know (what's the big deal, anyway?--I don't), it just seemed like there was a pretty large animal in the room that hadn't been named.