Demand for proportional evidence

What it is: Many agnostic formulations defend that claims about God need sufficiently strong reasons before being accepted as knowledge.

How the position understands it: Conviction should accompany the quality of evidence, and not only tradition, authority, or subjective desire.

Basis and context: This principle dialogues with evidentialism, critique of credulity, and modern scientific culture.

Debates and variations: Religious and pragmatist currents contend that not every relevant belief depends on the same type of proof.

Supportive

Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

agnosticism,carl-sagan,skepticism,evidence

A defense of skepticism and critical examination of extraordinary claims.

Reference: Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World.
Content: Sagan popularizes the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and values critical investigation.
Use in debate: It is widely used to justify epistemic caution and revisable openness.

T. H. Huxley, Agnosticism

agnosticism,huxley,definition,epistemology

The classic text that popularized the modern term.

Reference: T. H. Huxley, essays on agnosticism.
Content: Huxley describes agnosticism as a method of not affirming as certain what cannot be adequately demonstrated.
Use in debate: It is the most important modern reference for the historical definition of the term.

W. K. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief

agnosticism,clifford,evidence,ethics-of-belief

An influential essay on responsibility in believing.

Reference: W. K. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief.
Content: Clifford argues that it is wrong to believe with conviction without sufficient evidence.
Use in debate: It is a central source for the agnostic demand for proportionate evidence.

Contrary

William James, The Will to Believe

pragmatism,william-james,evidence,against

A pragmatist reply to strict evidentialism.

Reference: William James, The Will to Believe.
Content: James argues that certain existential options may legitimately be embraced before conclusive proof when the decision is forced and vital.
Use in debate: It is often used to challenge the evidentialism associated with agnosticism.