There seem to be a few agnostics here and as a former agnostic myself that's not a problem to me. In fact, there are some agnostics who are certainly Anglican friendly: i) The satirist, Ian Hislop. His attitude seems to be, don't criticise Anglican Christianity, its quite attractive and there could well be something in it. ii) (Lord) Melvyn Bragg, father of a priest and author of The Book of Books. He likes our church and is very critical of Dr Dawkins. iii) Sir Martin (now Lord) Rees, formerly Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, a distinguished scientist and a regular attender at Sunday evensong, somewhat to the discomfort of sneering atheists. iv) Sir Diarmaid MacCulloch; v) Ralph Vaughan Williams, an atheist who became an agnostic and contributed so much to our church. We are lucky to have such friends.
And I am happy to be added to your list – some of whom are almost as distinguished as me. As to Professor Dawkins, I suppose my agnosticism is similar to his, in that for all practical purposes it is atheism, and I sympathise with what I take to be the motivation of his campaigning – his distress at the religious attacks on science – but otherwise I would decline to be in his company: he seems to me to lack humility. As to my Anglicanfriendliness, it won't much please many here, since I am unable to admire what is most essential: the grace to be found through its sacraments, the truth in its liturgy, the commitment of its witness to God. My admiration comes from seeing in the Church of England all that is best about Englishness, stripped of all that is worst. I'm sorry if this sounds like wishy-washiness, but I concur with the atheist Christina Patterson, when she said of the Church of England: I like the fact that it is neither envious (of more flamboyant, more attention-seeking and more successful-at-proselytising religions) nor boastful. I like the fact that it is not arrogant or rude. I like the fact that it does not insist on its own way, but is genuinely tolerant of other religious beliefs and none. I like the fact that it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but quietly presents an ethical framework of kindness. I like the fact that it believes in the values of the New Testament, and of St Paul's description of love, which I've just paraphrased, but also believes that it is more important to embody them than to quote them. I like the fact that it doesn't speak like a child, think like a child, or reason like a child. I like the fact that it is mature enough to recognise doubt. I like the fact that it is calm. I like the fact that it recognises that the religious impulse is here to stay, and that the more you try to crush it, the stronger it will be, and that all human beings, irrespective of their beliefs, have yearnings for the transcendent.
Yes, I quoted Christina Patterson here here the other day. Shortly afterwards she did another article saying she had cancer. I e-mailed her asking if she's like me to remember her in my prayers. She replied, "yes, please do".
I find comfort in Christian heritage... and I love all the prayers found in the Collects and otherwise; the utter inspiration of all the Saints of God, especially with the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all that is associated with her; the rituals of holy oil, holy water, crossing one's self, icons and statues; the Sacraments and their comfort and consolation... I could go on with how wonderful I feel participating in Mass. Even amongst all my doubts and uncertainties, I find comfort and the presence of God in the Daily Office. Now that is nothing short of a miracle!
That's just how I feel. And I find it sad that elsewhere in this forum I've come under attack because of my doubts and uncertainties.