An agnostic is a person who believes that knowing the world is impossible in principle. The laws of nature, as well as the horizons of being, are obscured by our worldview, accepted by scientific and philosophical concepts, and therefore the world and people seem to exist on their own, independently of each other. With this approach, science and religion are perceived only as an element of culture, a necessary attribute of civilization, and not as a technology of self-improvement, which is inherent in other philosophical trends.
Therefore, asking: “Agnostic - who is this?”, We should perceive people of such mentality as skeptics who have chosen absolute doubt as a way of life, a social habit. This worldview helps them survive in a world of universal faith and the unconditional acceptance of scientific truth.
In search of an answer to the question “Agnostic - who is this?” for some reason I remember the cult film “Watch Out for the Car”. Remember the conversation in the car: some believe that there is no god. Others believe that there is a god. Both that, and another are unprovable. That's about how agnostics think. The opposite of such thinking is Gnosticism. Proponents of this teaching believe that everything in our world, including human actions, comes down to certain laws. There are no accidents, and all events occur with 100 percent probability. Another thing is that we cannot know one or another of the laws of nature, but this is only a matter of time and patience. However, in my opinion, Gnostics and agnostics are similar in one thing: they consider a limited number of things and phenomena as “starting points”, material from which they repulse and build their theory. For a Gnostic, this is a point, a line, a space. For an agnostic - his own attitude, an individual idea of things. In other words, all philosophers are similar in one thing: you need to take something (a kind of Aristotelian prime mover) for faith, and then prove the right to your point of view.
Arguing on the topic “Agnostic - who is this?”, One cannot but touch upon the problem of atheism. If in religion we are talking about the categorical projection of the world through the essence of the higher Absolute, then the atheist has a problem: what exactly to take on faith. Scientific truths or laws of nature do not count. According to their ideas, these are just tools of cognition. To form axioms (like the above point and space), you also need starting points, and you also need to come to that. And not necessarily through skepticism. Most likely, again, through faith. No wonder Albert Einstein towards the end of his life became a deeply religious person. In addition, doubt also has a suspicious nature: who will say now, what is the difference between universal denial and one's own opinion about the nature of things? Of course, subject to the rejection of specific views by the philosophical or scientific community.
Therefore, answering the question posed: “Agnostic - who is this?”, It is necessary to understand that the answer lies, oddly enough, in the plane of politics.
Firstly, because the doubt in God and science is underlined by the free choice of the “third party”, which is associated with a liberal outlook on the world and an individual assessment of what is happening based on one’s personal interests. In other words, agnosticism, despite its ancient Greek origin, has become a bourgeois concept and clearly fits into the rhythm of Protestant values.
And secondly, agnostics live in a world of absolute free will, which can conditionally be considered their god. But free will is a Catholic concept underlying the late medieval and bourgeois law, the foundations of which were formed by Napoleon and Hegel. The conclusion is the same - a person is only responsible for himself and bears personal responsibility for his actions. Therefore, he is free in his doubts in relation to others.