The laziness of agnosticism and the Middle Way 

Once again I have to commend Eric Bahrt’s perceptiveness on the issue of theism vs atheism. Those who have a predilection for the Middle Way will applaud his affinity for agnosticism as a middle ground between them.
Unfortunately, the middle ground isn’t always right. Sometimes one of the extremes is right. In the ancient controversy between the proponents of a flat Earth and the proponents of a spherical Earth, the truth didn’t turn out to be a compromise in which the Earth was half flat and half spherical. The spherical guys turned out to be right on all counts.
Agnosticism suffers the fate of most intermediate positions: it takes flak from both sides. Believers accuse agnostics of being spineless, wishy-washy jellyfish; atheists accuse them of being closet atheists with no balls. Either way, they look like wimps. And if agnostics settle into a complacent position that says, “We don’t know squat, so let’s just shut up and revel in our ignorance”, they deserve the flak.
What we need is an open, dynamic agnosticism that says, “We know very little, but we’re going to keep looking.” Right now the trailblazers in this endeavour are not the theologians, nor the metaphysicians, nor the religious folks – but the scientists.
It’s a big universe out there, folks, and it may have multiple dimensions. All we know right now is a little bit of our small corner of it, and that’s only in one dimension. Sort of makes you feel humble, doesn’t it?
Ye Olde Theologian