It's just what I predicted, isn't it? Even if you face the facts you'll find a way to tell yourself they're not there and ridicule everything that you cannot explain. But it's ok, it's a natural reaction. That's what I meant it sometimes requires the same blind willpower that religious fanatics have. Possibilities are possibilities, scientific thinking implies you'd have to consider them. If you can't prove or disproof something, then it just can't be considered a fact, you don't know.
There are lots and lots of things science cannot explain YET. There are other things it might be wrong about, like it has been in the past. There are certain schools of science that could even begin to formulate some theories to explain certain things - quantum psychics perhaps.
Another widely accepted theory that could relate to the subject is Jung's:
My thesis then, is as follows: in addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.
But of course, that one be one interpretation of it.
Once again:
Agnosticism is the view that the
truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any
deity, but also other religious and
metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable
You gotta remember the UNKNOWN or UNKNOWABLE part. There is no certainty implied.
Agnostic atheismAgnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because
they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.