First let me explain what I mean by philosophical agnosticism: I am defining philosophical agnosticism as the belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists. This is the form of agnosticism that was advocated by the philosopher Immanuel Kant.
This is opposed to what I would call popular agnosticism, in which the holder of the belief says that they do not know whether there is a God.
There are two major problems with philosophical agnosticism, however, and I will briefly explain them both here.
The Contradiction
The belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists is more often stated in the form: "God is unknowable" - therefore we cannot know if he possesses the attribute of existence.
But the statement "God is unknowable" is itself a contradiction, because it tries to state a known fact about something that it claims is unknowable. It is similar to saying that "nothing can be known about God", but in saying this, we are making a claim about some known attribute about God - namely that it is unknowable. But as soon as we say that this statement is true, then it must be false!
For if this statement is true, then someone is known about God, therefore the statement must be false. So if this statement is claimed to be true, it turns out be false, and if it claims to be false, then there is no problem to be begin with. Thus the statement that "God is unknowable" cannot be true. Therefore, a belief in philosophical agnosticism is absurd, because it claims to have knowledge of the unknowable.
God Revealing Himself
For the purposes of this argument, I will concede that we cannot of ourselves learn anything about God, because we are limited to this world, and God, if he exists, is outside the world. Thus, of ourselves, we could not know whether God really exists.
However, this belief rules out the possibility that God would reveal himself to us. It rules out by definition that God could actually relate to us, and reveal himself. Now this seems to be quite an arbitrary assumption about the characteristics of God. I do not see why God could not (if it suited his purposes) make knowledge of his existence so obvious to everyone that they would believe that he was real. He could write it in the clouds in the sky, speak with a loud booming voice from the heavens etc. and make his presence known. If God exists, then this is at least an intellectual possibility.
But philosophical agnosticism does not allow for this eventuality, and so the kind of God that it says we can't know about, does not exist anyway. Our God did reveal himself: through creation, through history, through Jesus, and in our lives today.
So philosophical agnosticism falls short of being a reasonable belief system to hold. It is self-defeating in that it is a contradiction, and even if that were not a problem, it cannot adequately explain the Christian view of God in any case.jetaudio plus v 6.0.4
This is opposed to what I would call popular agnosticism, in which the holder of the belief says that they do not know whether there is a God.
There are two major problems with philosophical agnosticism, however, and I will briefly explain them both here.
The Contradiction
The belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists is more often stated in the form: "God is unknowable" - therefore we cannot know if he possesses the attribute of existence.
But the statement "God is unknowable" is itself a contradiction, because it tries to state a known fact about something that it claims is unknowable. It is similar to saying that "nothing can be known about God", but in saying this, we are making a claim about some known attribute about God - namely that it is unknowable. But as soon as we say that this statement is true, then it must be false!
For if this statement is true, then someone is known about God, therefore the statement must be false. So if this statement is claimed to be true, it turns out be false, and if it claims to be false, then there is no problem to be begin with. Thus the statement that "God is unknowable" cannot be true. Therefore, a belief in philosophical agnosticism is absurd, because it claims to have knowledge of the unknowable.
God Revealing Himself
For the purposes of this argument, I will concede that we cannot of ourselves learn anything about God, because we are limited to this world, and God, if he exists, is outside the world. Thus, of ourselves, we could not know whether God really exists.
However, this belief rules out the possibility that God would reveal himself to us. It rules out by definition that God could actually relate to us, and reveal himself. Now this seems to be quite an arbitrary assumption about the characteristics of God. I do not see why God could not (if it suited his purposes) make knowledge of his existence so obvious to everyone that they would believe that he was real. He could write it in the clouds in the sky, speak with a loud booming voice from the heavens etc. and make his presence known. If God exists, then this is at least an intellectual possibility.
But philosophical agnosticism does not allow for this eventuality, and so the kind of God that it says we can't know about, does not exist anyway. Our God did reveal himself: through creation, through history, through Jesus, and in our lives today.
So philosophical agnosticism falls short of being a reasonable belief system to hold. It is self-defeating in that it is a contradiction, and even if that were not a problem, it cannot adequately explain the Christian view of God in any case.jetaudio plus v 6.0.4
Comments
This may be psychologically persuasive to some, but it is still, nonetheless, fallascious. Your contradiction isn't very well argued, and needs a lot of thought. To believe 100% that there is, or is not, a God, is absurb considering we have no absolute proof.jetaudio plus v 6.0.4
You are confusing belief and knowledge. Belief can be true or false. Only knowledge is "100%." The author's premise is correct. The statement, "God is unknowable" is absurb because the statement itself is a truth assertion about God. Variations of this argument have been used in philosophy to demonstrate the plausibility of knowledge.jetaudio plus v 6.0.4
*absurdjetaudio plus v 6.0.4
"Nobody knows that God exists/does not exist" is not the equivalent of "God is unknowable". The leap from the first statement to the second was made without evidence to help your claim. Elaborate.jetaudio plus v 6.0.4
Faith is the necessary presupposition for ALL knowledge, and yet it's taken for granted and not considered that way. To be more specific, in order for us to believe that we know something, we are implicitly believing in the reliability of our own cognitive processes, self-awareness as it relates to reality, and all our sense perceptions. Most people, however, take these things for granted completely (such as Descartes), and simply assume the absolute veracity of these things. As a result, what we arrive at is the fact the all worldviews have certain presuppositions which they do not nor can prove in the same way that they prove all consequences of those presuppositions. This basically leaves us in the position where philosophically we can know God to the same extent that we know even ourselves based on the presuppositions of the source of knowledge.jetaudio plus v 6.0.4