There are different types of agnostic beliefs and they can have several different degrees of meaning. For the purposes of this discussion, we will take the basic view that agnosticism means having the philosophical view that the existence of a spiritual world or realm where God exists are unknown and unknowable given the capabilities of the human condition. This presumes the notion that, outside of the things that are obvious such as 'the ball is round', humans cannot have complete certainty because all of our knowledge is based on our understanding and interpretation of prevailing evidence, therefore, we can never assert an absolute truth about anything that is not already true by definition. This thinking holds that the extent of our knowing something is limited because we can only know something beyond us by interpreting assembled evidence, and if the evidence is not there, then we cannot really know.
Agnosticism holds traits similar to those used in scientific method, in that both the agnostic and the scientist require evidence to support their beliefs. The difference between the two is that scientific method begins with the development of a theory and then seeks to discover evidence that will prove out the theory as true. The entire premise of scientific method is to suppose a possible truth and then work to support or invalidate that theory through discovery. Contrary to this method, it does not allow for the possibility of a truth without prior evidence of its existence, so there are no theories to be proven or dis-proven. In this way, there is no exercise of discovery or search for meaning yet to be discovered. There is nothing beyond what is factually known or already proven. By its very nature, this precludes the realm of possibility.
Agnostics are non-committal to the concept or possible existence of a higher being because there is no direct evidence that can be presented to support belief in such an existence, therefore it cannot be certain. There is doubt because there is no way to prove the existence of God or a higher realm, which means that it does not exist. On the other hand, if suddenly the evidence to prove the existence of God were to be discovered, then the belief in God would be acceptable. There can only be belief in what is certain and anything else is merely a tentative belief based upon assumption. This belief does not reject outright the existence of God, it only holds that there must be proof before that belief can be valid.
Agnosticism is the direct opposite of the spiritual human. It does not allow for belief in things or circumstances without the evidence to prove out that belief, and in doing so, it seems to give itself the ability to take the easier path when it comes to formulating belief. It can hedge its bet because it can say that just because something doesn't have absolute evidence doesn't mean that it can't be proven at a later time, and this possibility classifies agnosticism as a floating belief system that really maintains no belief of its own, but follows whatever direction it happens to be blown in by the prevailing evidence of the day. In this sense, it risks nothing.
Agnosticism precludes a realm where the magic of spirituality can exist. It does not allow for the completion of the human condition in regard to faith and inspiration or the discovery of the spiritual nature without evidence. When the individual places himself in such a constraining thought process, it eliminates the ability to promote sensory awareness of the nuances around him. When an individual places himself in the position of not believing anything beyond his own reason without concrete proof, it shuts down a portion of ourselves that we need in order to develop, grow and expand our ability to understand who it is that we are and what our place in the spiritual universe is. Without this aspect of our humanity, our spiritual nature withers and fades away.
The real problem with this thought process is the question of what the consequences are of maintaining this skeptical nature in our lives. The dilemma is that we can become trapped within this thought structure that, by its very nature, limits our potential to interact with God and the universe around us. It forces us into the very thought structure that separates the mind from the body as has been discussed in Socrates. When we rely solely upon the mental process without input from sensory and emotional abilities, we short circuit our spiritual capabilities and make it impossible for us to grow spiritually. In this manner, it becomes a self fulfilling practice that insists upon clinical method and proof in order to believe in something, and it is this very method that precludes the possibility of belief in what may be possible.
People who choose this path cannot easily connect with their spiritual nature because this process, by its nature and practice does not facilitate such interaction. This path may provide temporary satisfaction for some, but it is a realm of limited possibility in terms of spiritual growth and the discovery of the mysteries of the universe.