This sums it up for me (from Wiki):
Apathetic agnosticism (also called pragmatic agnosticism) claims that any amount of debate can neither prove, nor disprove, the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.
fair enough description.
some of this gets into the matter of theodicy though, or basically trying to answer why, assuming He exists, is all-powerful, ..., that hardly anything is done.
there are possible reasons, for example:
this life is merely a test, with those who pass the test being rewarded, and those who fail being condemned;
the physical and material well-being of humans is largely insignificant in the greater plan, and so intervention is only really used in cases to move the plan forwards (*2);
during the fall of man, authority over the goings-on on Earth were mostly handed over to Satan, thus the present situation (*1);
the present situation is needed for free-will to exist (with too much intervention, free-will would cease to exist);
*1: whether or not this was a literal or historical event can be considered a subject of debate. though, non-literal does not necessarily mean not-true.
(a lot of this stuff potentially exists outside of the normal timeline).
*2: also, part of why he is not a supernatural vending machine: he gives in accordance with the divine plan, and anything which is not part of the plan goes unanswered (miracles then go to those who exist in a role to move the plan forwards, and for everyone else, no such luck). this doesn't necessarily means supernatural events signify good purpose: hoaxes and demons are also common (IOW: the person is faking it, or a demon is the one doing it).
contrary to popular belief (assuming they exist), demons are not necessarily scared off by religious symbols or imagery, and may also make use of it to their own ends.
most often though, what appear as supernatural events are actually hoaxes, like self-proclaimed religious leaders / prophets / ... essentially using stage-magic (or, if one is more skeptical, all of them are).
another issue regarding religious experiences is that many / most of them are likely hallucinations or delusions rather than an actual experience.
well, and the issue that stress / sickness / ... are cases where a person is most likely to experience both types of phenomena, making a problem for anecdotal accounts of religious experiences. (nevermind people who use LSD or shrooms thinking that these experiences count as valid religious experiences, rather than drug-induced hallucinations...).
a more neutral answer would be:
"assuming they exist, they don't get involved in the fate of humans, and would thus be of little practical interest..."
like, otherwise, people spend lots of time debating philosophical stuff as well, even when most of this stuff has little real impact, really, on anything...
granted, some things within science and engineering have philosophical origins, but this is not to say necessarily that they had much practical application at the time, or would not have been rediscovered simply by the situation demanding it.
most often though, people will analyze and debate things, because they can, and whether they matter, or even exist, is of lesser importance...