I'm grumpy & feel like arguing, so here's an unpopular take:

People say, "I used to be an atheist, but now I'm agnostic," as though that demonstrates some sort of advance in wisdom. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. All it indicates is the lingering residue of religious culture.

Here's the reasoning: I could postulate the existence of any number of entities that are immaterial or "supernatural," that don't leave any empirically detectable trace. Conceptually, the class of such entities is infinite. Immaterial invisible elephants floating behind me? Sure!

If I told you there were immaterial invisible elephants floating behind me at all times, would you be "agnostic" about their existence? I mean, by definition, you cannot prove they don't exist, since "proof" requires empirical evidence. By the agnostic's own criteria ...

... they must be agnostic about the elephants too. Indeed, they must be agnostic about all the infinite possible entities of this sort -- ghosts, demons, spirits, what have you. But ... are they? Do agnostics really approach that infinite class agnostically?

I would say, as a philosophical pragmatist, that in practice we are NOT agnostic about such things. In our actual lives, we feel entirely fine assuming such things don't exist until/unless they leave some trace, some mark, some evidence of their presence.

Indeed, as a philosophical pragmatist, I view "not leaving any trace" and "not existing" as more or less the same thing. A thing that leaves no trace cannot *matter*, and mattering (to put it crudely) is what organizes our senses & worldviews.

But anyway, to wind back around, I'd just ask agnostics: are you agnostic about all supernatural/immaterial/numinous/otherworldly forces & entities? Are you agnostic about the invisible elephants? And if so, how does that manifest in your thinking & actions ...

... in a way that is distinguishable from simply not believing in them?

Oh, I should add that I don't actually care about this much. Not like I'm keen on convincing people or whatever. Everyone are welcome to believe whatever brings them comfort & whatever makes them more likely to behave with compassion in this stupid world.

(Just in case you were thinking I was one of those Dawkins/Harris types. Very much am not!)

(And I apologize unreservedly for "everyone are" a couple tweets ago. )

OK, this has been fun! I'm gonna go walk the dog now. Just a final thought. My sense is that modern humans could easily let go of the cruft of ancient superstitions if they felt there were *somewhere to go from there*. The problem is ...

... we've got this very common belief that if the universe is "natural," i.e., runs on natural laws and is composed of material (energy, really), then there's no room in it for meaning. It's cold, indifferent, and nihilism or libertinism are the only possible responses.

If we want to believe humans have some special dignity, or that "love" is real, or etc. etc., we have to drag some supernatural back in -- "souls" or whatnot. We have to choose between these old, anachronistic systems of meaning ... or have no meaning.

It's that -- the fear of a world/life with no meaning -- that causes even people who don't buy the Christian God to say stuff like, "I'm spiritual, not religious." Like, "ok, I'll give God up, but I'm keeping souls & spirits! I'm keeping meaning!"

To me, this is the central problem of modernity: to find new ways to think about & systematize meaning that are commensurate with scientific naturalism. I don't think it's impossible! There's a perfectly credible way to conceptualize "love" whereby it's TRUE that I love my wife!

Indeed, my MA thesis was about "ethical naturalism," grappling with just this stuff. That topic is way too big for Twitter though, so I'm gonna go enjoy the +. </fin>