Nope. Agnosticism is not a default state; stop pretending that it is.

Whenever we are making an inquiry about nature, the universe, and life itself, some people would argue from the point of their respective faith, their religion. This is expected. They would argue from their scripture for their God or Gods. These arguments, however, quickly fall flat within a few minutes. Within a few minutes, people who are pretending to believe in God/Gods admit that their religious claims are a matter of faith and nothing else, as they are all self-contradictory, contradictory with each other, and contradictory to the nature of the universe. They admit that their beliefs are not ontological, only cultural. After this happens, what remains? What is the default state that we are left with? Is it agnosticism? I am going to argue that it is not. 

But first, I need to explain a few things to properly engage with this article, so you don't get confused and can get on with the context.

I absolutely imply that the inquiry mentioned in the first paragraph and the entire discussion after that is under the purview of logic. If you are going to insist that certain things are beyond logic/reasoning, you can continue to read, but the entire point of what I am saying will be lost upon you. And if this is the case, before you adjust your glasses and think you are engaging in this discussion, let me stop you right here. You aren't. You can pretend, as you may pretend many things, including maybe the entire scripture of your religion to be the literal truth, whichever version of that religion/religious text/truth your mind is currently projecting at a particular moment. As I have said many times before, you cannot assert that there are “some things” which are beyond logic and understanding (never mind the science) because you are making this assertion using logic and reasoning and not escaping it. What you can and cannot assert without logic is nothing. We are not discussing nothingness here.

I hope that it is clear by now that this conversation follows logic, otherwise you are not engaging. You cannot agree or disagree. You are not allowed to have any opinion on this because you are not in the workflow. To make it clearer, imagine that the discussion is on the formatting of a storage drive - NTFS, exFat, Fat32, and not whether Rahul Gandhi should resign from politics. Imagine a discussion is on the pharmacokinetics of a particular compound and not whether we should buy cryptocurrency. 

Coming back to where I left. In a serious discussion, religion and religious beliefs are the first thing to go. No one would insist that thunder is caused by a literal god in heaven whose name is Indra, and it happens when he gets angry or something. No one would insist that the origin of the Ganges River is literally from the hair of a God called Shiva, whose color is definitely blue/dark blue/indigo, who sits on a particular mountain. People of all religions will admit that these are metaphors. Everything written in the Quran and the Bible is not a literal truth. After this happens, people quickly invoke agnosticism. And many will cling to this agnosticism to their dear life. They think it's a safe position, a neutral one, much better than religious dogmas. They insist upon it heavily, believing it to be a default state. It is not.
 
Agnosticism, what it really is, is indulging in your faith, now stripped of religious fervor. Humans are born without faith. They acquire it, or they invent it. Of course, everyone essentially invents it because it is different for everyone, and it is personal. Stripped of religion, God is now a deity, a conscious entity or energy (however you choose to decorate it). But if we continue to follow the logic, this God falls apart in the next few minutes of discussion. And yet, it continues to exist in the context of a purely a debate, for the sake of an argument. But because this argument is now stripped of logic as well, it cannot be argued as a default state. Let me explain what I mean.

Agnosticism treats the existence of this deity as a 50/50 unknown probability. Which would have made sense if the hypothesis had sustained as a logically valid concept. But the God-hypothesis does not hold. For how and why, read my blog named “We and our God.” https://abouthimandus.blogspot.com/, and also, https://magicalatheists.blogspot.com/. I would not like to repeat myself here. Befiely, there is no burden of proof on anyone. There is no evidence required to validate or invalidate the hypothesis. That is the reason why science has no bearing on this. It is unfalsifiable. 

The agnostic position, therefore, is a claim on a claim. And a claim whose proposition is that a claim is a valid claim because a claim can be made. This cannot be a default state; this is trolling. People troll for fun. In this case, trolling can have a variety of reasons - from rationalizing personal internal belief systems to malicious intent to socio-economic or political reasons. Trolling does involve playing dumb; playing dumb will get you through your agenda for sure, but do not argue this as the nature of reality. It is not just "lack of evidence" for the divine. Invoking a deity is not a "missing" piece of the puzzle, but a category error that lies entirely outside the logical framework of inquiry. If we concede the God-hypothesis is a valid "unknown," we must logically concede the same status to every mythological, supernatural, or unfalsifiable claim ever imagined.