I would also like to understand the claim (a) that a question (Q) was a very important question to be asked and (b) that Q cannot be answered.
Another question: If one claims a question (Q1) cannot be answered, is not one also claiming that the question (Q2) "Can Q1 be answered?" also cannot be answered?
I presume that an agnostic position gives a dogmatic answer of No to the Question, "Does a God exist who demands that humans know of his existence?" My understanding of Thomism is that, with some qualifications, it asserts a God of this sort, and one 'who' makes knowledge of 'himself' available." That is no agnostic can be agnostic to all (or even most) questions of the form, "Does _this_ kind of God exist?" Can any agnostic on this list claim with a straight face, "I cannot know that the God of the Southern Baptists does not exist."
Carrol
P.S. Reference someone's quotation from Lenin. I think that in Russia in 1910 -- perhaps in most of Europe in 1910 -- Lenin was correct in the judgment quoted. I don't think that that judgment is correct at the present time in the industrialized world. (Given the secularized tradition in Japan, perhaps it would be a correct judgment there at the present time.)
Carrol