Agnosticism And The Balance Of Evidence

The agnostic suspends judgement as to whether there is a God: she thinks that there is no good evidence that there is God and no good evidence that there isn't. The agnostic faces the challenge of Russell's teapot: that, just as the hypothesis that there is a cosmic teapot is not supported by any evidence and therefore there is evidence that it is false, so too the hypothesis that there is a God is not supported by evidence and therefore there is evidence that it is false. Does this challenge show that the agnostic is irrational? What relevant difference is there between the cosmic teapot hypothesis and the God hypothesis? This paper defends the agnostic's position.