A common strategy in philosophical debate is to limit the alternative positions available in order to increase the appeal of one’s own position. Unfortunately, this has too often been true in debates regarding the justification of religious faith. Both defenders and critics of religious faith have tried to rule out agnosticism as a viable alternative in order to support their own arguments for or against religious faith. Unfortunately, this strategy only encourages what is already the problematic polarization of religious discourse. My goal in writing this paper is to lessen this polarization by making space for agnosticism between atheism and religious faith. I do this by critiquing two arguments against agnosticism, one offered by Richard Dawkins, a vociferous critic of religious faith, and the other offered by William James, a passionate defender of religious faith. While Dawkins and James would seem to have little in common, interestingly both attempt to strengthen their arguments by criticizing agnosticism, more specifically the agnosticism of T. H. Huxley. Dawkins and other new atheists, such as Sam Harris, Victor Stenger, and the late Christopher Hitchens, are notable not only for their strident rhetorical attacks on religious fundamentalists but also for their criticism of religious moderates and agnostics.1 In the process, they draw implicitly on a normative account of the justification of belief with roots in Huxley’s agnosticism and W. K. Clifford’s ethics of belief. Given this connection, it is perhaps ironic that Dawkins attempts to strengthen his case for atheism by arguing that Huxley’s agnosticism regarding religious belief is untenable. William James’s defense of religious faith in “The Will to Believe” is also a response to Huxley. Like Dawkins, but for very different reasons, James argues that agnosticism is untenable. Huxley’s and Clifford’s admonition that we suspend belief when we have inadequate evidence is not an alternative because religious faith presents us with a forced option—i.e., we must decide either for it or against it.