If the evidence for an Abrahamic god is confined to a book of fairy tales then what is the logical basis for agnosticism?
"what is the logical basis for agnosticism?"
... Evidence
The theist is the person who takes allegory to be history, thereby entirely missing the symbolic values portrayed.
The atheist is the person who takes allegory to be a lie, thereby equally missing the symbolic content.
The agnostic is the person who can’t decide which of these two paths is the better way to miss the point.
“The decorative language of the fairy tales served an important function: disguising the rebellious subtext of the stories and sliding them past the court censors.”
[en.wikipedia.org]
They were never intended to be allegory. They were always seriously believed. It was only later that some liberal religious figures considered them to be allegory.
@Krish55
Conscious intent is not particularly relevant. Storytelling has a biological basis, and an evolutionary function. What humans intend makes little difference. The symbolic values are present in the stories regardless of what the teller perceives, or the story would be forgotten. When stories are preserved and passed to subsequent generations, it is because they have proven adaptive - just as any biological trait.
@skado True, but that doesn't support your original claim about these stories being allegory. They contain allegory and that's the best way to understand them. But that doesn't mean that they are allegory. Intent is relevant to that latter determination.
I may use a BMW as a tractor, but that doesn't mean that it is a tractor...
Thanks everyone for your thoughts and insight.
If only one could prove or disprove agnosticism.
Agnosticism is the default condition; a newborn has no knowledge of either an Abrahamic god or fairy tales.
Because I say so, which is as valid as anything else I've read here.