We can go further by claiming that no absolute truth can be known, and that nothing metaphysical can be proven. — Coldlight

You can, but then you're arguing for global skepticism, not agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.

According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, "agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist" — Coldlight

Yours and Rowe's definitions seem to be slightly at odds: you say that agnosticism can mean the belief that whether or not God exists is unknown or unknowable, while Rowe's definitions seems to limit it to the latter, phrasing it as a matter of the capabilities of human reasoning faculties.

If Rowe's definition is to be accepted, that prompts the question as to what to call those who believe that whether or not God exists is in principle knowable, but is in practice currently unknown (to quote Jodie Foster's character from Contact: "there's no data either way").

We can go further by claiming that no absolute truth can be known, and that nothing metaphysical can be proven. I think that this view is wrong because it puts agnosticism itself as an absolute truth, as something we can know with certainty. — Coldlight

First off, this doesn't show that agnosticism as defined by Rowe is self-defeating, it shows that your expansion upon agnosticism, as the belief that no absolute truth can be known with certainty is self-defeating.

But despite that fact, your argument still doesn't work out. You can believe that the above is true without thinking that fact is absolutely certain.

Using God's existence as an example, it cannot be widely known because it's not something you can prove by using empirical evidence. It's not like scientists are going to discover God, they're not looking for him anyway. That's outside of their expertise.

But then again, why do we not question why agnosticism isn't agnostic about itself?

But despite that fact, your argument still doesn't work out. You can believe that the above is true without thinking that fact is absolutely certain. — Mr Bee

I never said that a fact stated as absolute with certainly is to be believed without thinking. I think that we can rationally try to find and test those absolute truths using our reason as agnosticism fails to truly prove that our reason is incapable of doing so.

Some other comments have already alluded to this, but theological agnosticism does not entail metaphysical agnosticism. It may be worth mentioning that theological agnosticism also does not entail atheism. I can be a theological skeptic in the sense that I don't think the existence of God can be demonstrated with evidence, and yet I might still be persuaded that belief in God is practical, reasonable or perhaps preferable.

If Rowe's definition is to be accepted, that prompts the question as to what to call those who believe that whether or not God exists is in principle knowable, but is in practice currently unknown (to quote Jodie Foster's character from Contact: "there's no data either way").

Delusional.

You can, but then you're arguing for global skepticism, not agnosticism. — Michael

This.

The agnostic is not arguing for any kind of epistemic nihilism.

I never said that a fact stated as absolute with certainly is to be believed without thinking. — Coldlight

I never said you did. I was saying that a fact can be believed without being absolutely certain with regard to its truth. In fact I'd say most of our beliefs, apart from introspective beliefs (such as the cogito and our own direct experience), are like this. I don't know with certainty if there is an external world, that I'm not a brain in a vat, but my money is definitely on that being true, that I know for certain. For what little we do absolutely know, that can work as an argument against the metaphysical agnosticism you're talking about, but again I should note that it doesn't apply to agnosticism as normally defined in religious discussion.

In fact I'd say most of our beliefs, apart from introspective beliefs (such as the cogito and our own direct experience), are like this. — Mr Bee

Based on what?

What is it arguing for then?

Either that the individual who claims to be an agnostic fails to find arguments both for and against the existence of God convincing or that God's existence can't be known.

We can go further by claiming that no absolute truth can be known, and that nothing metaphysical can be proven. I think that this view is wrong because it puts agnosticism itself as an absolute truth, as something we can know with certainty. — Coldlight

Let's break this down. First, The question "can any absolute truth be known" has been at the heart of philosophy from the beginning. Maybe that's what separates philosophy from theology. I believe it cannot - not because our brains aren't big enough. More like they're too big. That's not typically what I call "agnosticism."

Second - "nothing metaphysical can be proven." I also believe this is true because metaphysics does not address matters of fact which are true or false. It addresses ways of seeing the world which are more or less useful. The purpose of metaphysics is for us to get together and discuss which of these ways we are going to use in what situation.

Hi, I'm new to the forum :)

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.

According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, "agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist"
(Wikipedia)

We can go further by claiming that no absolute truth can be known, and that nothing metaphysical can be proven. I think that this view is wrong because it puts agnosticism itself as an absolute truth, as something we can know with certainty.

If there are absolute truths that can be discovered, then agnostic view of human reason is also wrong.

Any ideas?
--Coldlight

Agnosticism/Skepticism (as well as other positions such as Nihilism) has answers that easily counter your arguments, but it is likely that either you or someone with a position similar to your own would need a little more background information in order to understand it. You first have to understand the concept of what it means if no religion/ideology/position/etc. not being the 'truth' but only partial truth or partially true. We as human being are fallible and therefore do not have access to the 'truth' (if your an agnostic/skeptic/nihilist), but it is reasonable that we have access to some 'truth'.

If you can swallow the idea of us not having access to the truth (ie letting doubt of us having the truth to replace what you consider to be the truth), then you might be able to understand what they are talking about. Right now you think this doubt of the truth is in a way the same thing as believing in a truth, which unfortunately for you it isn't. It is plausible for non-humans (or non-limited sentient beings) have access to a 'truth' or 'truths' which we can not understand, so your idea of there not being any 'truths' is not an accurate depiction of agnosticism/skepticism. Agnostics and skeptics are aware we only have access to partial truths or what is true so therefore they do not bother trying to say that they have access to the truth but only access to partial truths.

Another way to put it, the world is much, much, much more complicated than we can understand so it is pretty much a given that any 'truths' we try to find will be distorted versions of what the actual 'truth' is. Hopefully this clears up things for you. :D

You can, but then you're arguing for global skepticism, not agnosticism. — Michael

(Y)

If you can swallow the idea of us not having access to the truth (ie letting doubt of us having the truth to replace what you consider to be the truth), then you might be able to understand what they are talking about. Right now you think this doubt of the truth is in a way the same thing as believing in a truth, which unfortunately for you it isn't. — dclements

Well, why do you not doubt your own doubts? Our reason is limited, but to what extend is it limited? It doesn't follow that the reason is limited therefore we have very little access to any truth.

Another way to put it, the world is much, much, much more complicated than we can understand so it is pretty much a given that any 'truths' we try to find will be distorted versions of what the actual 'truth' is. Hopefully this clears up things for you. — dclements

How do you support the claim that the world is much more complicated than we can understand? I'm not speaking about empirical data, but about the abilities of the reason and epistemology.

Another way to put it, the world is much, much, much more complicated than we can understand so it is pretty much a given that any 'truths' we try to find will be distorted versions of what the actual 'truth' is. Hopefully this clears up things for you. — dclements

It seems like you are presenting yourself as a messenger from above bringing the light of truth to the benighted unwashed masses. I will tell you that many people on this website consider themselves to be knowledgeable students of philosophy with a good understanding of philosophical principles. Some of them are even correct.

Let's break this down. First, The question "can any absolute truth be known" has been at the heart of philosophy from the beginning. Maybe that's what separates philosophy from theology. I believe it cannot - not because our brains aren't big enough. More like they're too big. That's not typically what I call "agnosticism." — T Clark

Why can't it be known?

Second - "nothing metaphysical can be proven." I also believe this is true because metaphysics does not address matters of fact which are true or false. It addresses ways of seeing the world which are more or less useful. The purpose of metaphysics is for us to get together and discuss which of these ways we are going to use in what situation. — T Clark

No, metaphysics do not only address the ways in which we can see the world. I completely disagree with your definition. The purpose of metaphysics is to examine the fundamental nature of reality, how is that not the matter of the fact?

If someone asks a question ''Does God exist?'' - the answer is either yes or no, there is no third option. It is a question about the fundamental reality.

A number of people have attempted to point out that you're jumping from agnosticism in a narrow sense to comments about a wholesale epistemic skepticism, but you seem to not really be acknowledging this.

But then again, why do we not question why agnosticism isn't agnostic about itself? — Coldlight

Why can it not be said that we cannot imagine any way, and that no way has ever been shown, and that it certainly seems to be impossible in principle, that God's existence could ever be proven by logic? That would seem to be fair characterization and a consistent expression of agnosticism.

Using God's existence as an example, it cannot be widely known because it's not something you can prove by using empirical evidence. It's not like scientists are going to discover God, they're not looking for him anyway. That's outside of their expertise. — Coldlight

I disagree: there have been many empirical arguments which purported to demonstrate the existence of God. The entire body of literature on the arguments from design, arguments from fine-tuning, natural theology, intelligent design creationism, and biblical archeology all, in some form or another, seek to provide evidence for the existence of God and (in cases) the veracity of the Bible. But, this is rather off-topic.

But then again, why do we not question why agnosticism isn't agnostic about itself?

The question is whether agnosticism says the existence of God is unknown or unknowable: your OP posited somewhat different definitions along those lines. That was the point my reply addressed.

Based on what? — Coldlight

Give me any belief that you have apart from those about your experiences and your existence. Do you know that any of these beliefs are true with absolute certainty?

Any philosophical position regarding any question is settled based on some perception of what we think of as reality, because if we lack any belief or conception we cant judge any question because
the question does not have meaning at all, which was pointed out by witgenshtein when he was talking
about languages. So, your position could be phrased as: agnosticism is not about whether we believe/take something to be true or false, but rather as a sort of uncertainty about what do we consider to knowledge in the first place, because once we are settled about the form of what we are
going to consider/believe to be knowledge the judgement mechanism is given as well. for example in mathematics as soon as you are done with formalising the system the rest is just following the rules of the system.

Why can it not be said that we cannot imagine any way, and that no way has ever been shown, and that it certainly seems to be impossible in principle, that God's existence could ever be proven by logic? That would seem to be fair characterization and a consistent expression of agnosticism. — John

The statement - ''God's existence can never be proven by logic'' is a logical conclusion. I'm not saying that the answer to the question of whether God exists or not is crystal clear. I'm asking why is it clear to some that we just cannot answer it.

I disagree: there have been many empirical arguments which purported to demonstrate the existence of God. The entire body of literature on the arguments from design, arguments from fine-tuning, natural theology, intelligent design creationism, and biblical archeology all, in some form or another, seek to provide evidence for the existence of God and (in cases) the veracity of the Bible. But, this is rather off-topic. — Arkady

All those arguments have to start with philosophy as philosophy, unlike empirical sciences, can define God and look at the most basic nature of existence in a most abstract and general way. Empirical sciences focus on different topics. This is off topic, but I challenge anyone to prove that a scientist can answer a metaphysical question using only empirical data and science. Impossible.

The question is whether agnosticism says the existence of God is unknown or unknowable: your OP posited somewhat different definitions along those lines. That was the point my reply addressed. — Arkady

To be honest, it seems to me that agnostics try to dodge the bullet and don't want to admit that they're claiming that they've found an absolute truth.

I'd welcome the correct definition if anyone has it :)

Presumptions aside:

1) God is unknown. - I'm yet to hear why God is unknown and why that is not just lack of trying on our side. (God is used just as an example here, same could go for the soul or some other immaterial, empirically improvable existence) And if anyone finds it highly unlikely to be able to answer the questions of such sort, isn't it just a cultural influence? Isn't it just ''okay'' to think that we cannot know such things?

2) God's existence is unknowable. - Somehow it is knowable that it is unknowable, I wonder how that is the case. This is not a claim based on empirical evidence.

Define agnosticism then.

I agree with Terrapin. You have kind of ignored the first reply to your OP:

You can, but then you're arguing for global skepticism, not agnosticism. — Michael

Which only relies upon your supplied definition of agnosticism, and so doesn't need to supply its own. It simply doesn't follow that an agnostic about God must be a skeptic about all metaphysical propositions. The reverse holds -- a skeptic about all metaphysical propositions would also be a skeptic about God, but you can surely be an agnostic about God and not a skeptic about everything.

Which only relies upon your supplied definition of agnosticism, and so doesn't need to supply its own. It simply doesn't follow that an agnostic about God must be a skeptic about all metaphysical propositions. The reverse holds -- a skeptic about all metaphysical propositions would also be a skeptic about God, but you can surely be an agnostic about God and not a skeptic about everything. — Moliere

It still doesn't seem to be a valid position to me, to be, for example agnostic about God, rather than saying that I'm not yet sure about the answer, which only shows that I haven't dedicated enough time to properly look for an answer or to develop an argument for/against. If agnosticism was just ''I simply don't know'' type of attitude, then it could be easily dismissed as influenced by the culture, experiences and attitude of the person who makes the ''statement''. Therefore agnostic about God must mean that God's existence is improvable and that proposition has to be proved.

It still doesn't seem to be a valid position to me, to be, for example agnostic about God, rather than saying that I'm not yet sure about the answer, which only shows that I haven't dedicated enough time to properly look for an answer or to develop an argument for/against. If agnosticism was just ''I simply don't know'' type of attitude, then it could be easily dismissed as influenced by the culture, experiences and attitude of the person who makes the ''statement''. Therefore agnostic about God must mean that God's existence is improvable and that proposition has to be proved. — Coldlight

You seem to be missing the point. You can't go from "X is unknowable" to "nothing is knowable". You're suggesting that agnosticism entails global scepticism, but it doesn't.

As an example, I might say that it is impossible to know whether or not my great grandfather had fish and chips on Jan 1st 1945. There's no self-defeating reasoning here.

So as another example, I might say that it is impossible to know whether or not some transcendent creator is responsible for the existence of the universe. There's no self-defeating reasoning here.

here have been many empirical arguments which purported to demonstrate the existence of God. The entire body of literature on the arguments from design, arguments from fine-tuning, natural theology, intelligent design creationism, and biblical archeology all, in some form or another, seek to provide evidence for the existence of God and (in cases) the veracity of the Bible. — Arkady

I take issue with that. They are more like abductive arguments, i.e. arguments to the most likely cause. But an empirical argument would require that you were able to detect 'the first cause' (or whatever) by scientific apparatus or observation; that it would be a phenomenon whose existence could be demonstrated by some actual observation or experimental outcome. 'Empiricism' means 'experienceable' in that sense - that it shows up some way that can be see either by the naked eye, or detected by instruments.

But take, for example, an argument like this: 'that evolution naturally tends towards creating higher levels of intelligence'. I think that would generally not be accepted by evolutionary biologists; although it has happened on Earth, the general belief is that 'were the tape of evolution replayed', that the outcome might be blue-green algae, or cockroaches, or sharks (as indeed it was for long periods of time). So I don't think that evolutionary theory would agree with the apparent teleological nature of such an argument.

So how would such an argument be settled empirically? I would think it could only be if a large number of other life-bearing planets were discovered - which I'm sure you will agree, seems highly unlikely. But then, if all of them showed the emergence of language- and tool-using beings, no matter what form, then you might have an empirical case that evolution tended towards that outcome.

But absent that, many of the 'arguments from design' or teleological arguments of various kinds, could never be settled empirically, even in principle. They're simply based on what seems a likely kind of explanation.