My Fellow Specifically Agnostic Atheists

[Purple Rabbit]

Ok, so now I'm back home with decent internet, two monitors (one of which is 24 inches), and some time, I can respond to your points:

I will do this entirely without a 24 inch monitor.

Adrian, just one question for you to maybe ponder about while in exile from the internet. Do you know absolutely certain that there is no way of obtaining objective knowledge?

As you guessed correctly, the answer is no.

The conclusion from this is straightforward that you have to leave open the possibility that some day it might be possible for humans to obtain objective knowledge. This means you deny the absolute claim of fundamental unknowability that there not ever can be knowledge about god's existence.

Although of course it depends on how you define certainty, whether it is directly related to knowledge (i.e 100% certainty means it is true, and therefore is knowledge) or whether it is a personal level of certainty (in the same group as "I'm pretty sure"). If it is the latter, then I could answer with a tentative yes, and back up my yes with the logical arguments for human fallibility and the non-existence of the knowing of knowledge. If it is the former, then my answer is of course no, since to say otherwise puts me in the realm of claiming objective knowledge, thus forming a contradiction with my original answer.

I was talking about 100% certainty so there is no backdoor out of the above conclusion.

The definition says "is unknown or unknowable". This does not mean that one for of agnosticism says that things are unknown, and another says thing are unknowable.

It does not explicitly rule that out either, meaning that any stricter interpretation, such as yours, is in essence a redefinition of your own making. Strong and weak agnosticism, not terms I invented myself, coin these different varieties.

Strong and weak agnosticism can be seen as different types or "modifiers" of agnosticism as a concept, but you still don't get the main point I am arguing. I am neither a strong agnostic or a weak agnostic, since both "types" leave out fundamental points that give agnosticism its power. Strong agnosticism goes too far, making an absolute statement about the inability to know absolutes (and thereby presenting a weakness for attack). Weak agnosticism doesn't go far enough, simply saying that some truths are "unknown". It's a simple way of pointing out the very very obvious...

Right, they are modifiers and they are possible modifiers of agnosticism. IOW, agnosticism, without the modifiers, does not exclude these meanings. Not the phrasing that Huxley used and not the phrasing you can find in dictionaries and on the internet. So I get your point very clearly, you try to wiggle out under the implication of a poorly defined term you're using. If you try to redefine agnosticism so that these meanings, particularly the 'strong' variant - meaning fundamental unknowability - are excluded you are assuming authority you do not have. And I strongly object to that kind of behaviour.

This clearly shows that 'unknown' and 'unknowable' are not interchangeable terms and hence that it is incorrect to treat them as such. The defintion says "unknown OR unknowable" not "unknown AND unknowable". This means someone deserves the label agnostic according to this definition when he states that X is unknown, but also the person who states that it is unknowable deserves that label. Since these are not he same statements, they are different varieties of agnosticism. And even when you redefine to "unknown AND unknowable" to overcome this problem a person can only be agnostic when according to his believe X is not only unknown but also unknowable. In that case a person who only states that X is unknown, would not be an agnostic.

Indeed, and I claim to follow agnosticism as exactly the "unknown or unknowable" version. If we were to say that pizzashapism is the philosophical view that pizzas are circular OR square, this doesn't automatically mean that pizzshapism has two types, one of the view that "pizzas are circular" and the other of the view that "pizzas are square". The view is fine on it's own, as it is with agnosticism, defined plainly like this.

Non sequitur. It certainly means that person A who views pizzas circular and a person B who views pizzas square are both pizzashapists according to this definition. There is no reason stated in the definition you give that a person is not a pizzashapist if he believes pizzas are circular yet does not believe that pizzas can be square. You are not building an argument here, instead you're undermining your already weak position on this.

The point I tried to make about the words "unknown" and "unknowable" is that they complement each other. If you view something as "unknown", then by definition you don't know anything about it, thus it could be "unknowable", but you don't know if it is since it's unknown. If you view something as "unknowable", it is by definition "unknown" in the first place.

Indeed, they do complement each other for the simple reason that they don't mean the same. This clearly shows an intention to encompass a broader range of possible philosophical positions than just "unknown".

Ergo, my view is that certain truths are unknown or unknowable. Since they are unknown, I cannot say whether they are knowable or not, and thus the "unknowable" term comes in as an "OR" to strengthen the definition.This is the true strength of agnosticism; that unknowability is a possibility, yet due to it's nature we cannot say whether something is "unknowable".

Whether it is a strength or not is not relevant, its definition explicitly does not exclude positions regarding the existence of god that defends unknowability as is testified by the "or unknowable". But really this last sentence of yours shines brilliantly with suggestion of meaning not surfaced before but in reality is an emporer without clothes. Let's assess all parts of it one at a time (all underlining by me):

This is the true strength of agnosticism; that unknowability is a possibility, yet due to it's nature we cannot say whether something is "unknowable".

So do you wanna suggest that (1) I've missed its full meaning so far or (2) that there is hidden meaning besides what is right there in the definition? About (1) I say to you that I made the suggestion of fundamental unknowability being a possible postion within agnosticism to you, not the other way around. A suggestion of type (2) clearly would be a red herring. We are not assessing your definition of agnosticism, we are assessing the common definition of agnosticism.

This is the true strength of agnosticism; that unknowability is a possibility, yet due to it's nature we cannot say whether something is "unknowable".

Indeed that is what I've argued for, fundamental unknowability is a possible (but not necessarily valid) stance for the agnostic.

This is the true strength of agnosticism; that unknowability is a possibility, yet due to it's nature we cannot say whether something is "unknowable".

The "yet" suggests that there is some problem of reconciling "unkwowability" with "unknowable". But anybody can see that a claim of unknowability for X, implies that X is unknowable in that POV. Without contradiction. The words you used suggest a lot but have no real substance.

With the "due to its nature" you finally make visible for the reader what drives you to suggest that agnosticism is not the literal interpretation of the given definition. With that little remark you make clear that you argue for validity of stances within agnosticism instead of possibility of stances given the definition. You add personal preference to the definition of agnoticism. It essentially is your personal take on agnosticism, nothing more, nothing less.

So I reject strong and weak agnosticism, much as I reject strong and weak atheism. I'm an atheist, pure and simple, and an agnostic, pure and simple. I don't believe in gods, and I believe that the truth value of certain things are unknown or unknowable (and as I previously said, I can't say which, thus I must leave them both in).

You are completely free to reject strong and weak agnosticism as a position to take yourself and I can't stress enough that this argument is not about that at all. But your personal position has no effect at all on the possible stances that are within the definition of agnosticism.

Then you are in denial of some historic facts. Skepticism historically has had two basic traditions: Academic Skepticism and Pyrrhonism. The credo of so called Academic Skepticism is that some truths are completely unknowable to people. This branch of skepticism comes from the Platonic Academy which gradually adopted this position after Plato's death. Known is that Cicero and Erasmus (another nasty dutchman) adopted this view.

Red herring. Reaching back into archaic historical definitions to support your point doesn't work in this game. Skepticism as it stands defined by modern philosophy is "suspending judgement". In other words, something remains unknown until further investigation is done.

You clearly misread the source I gave you on Academic Skepticism, the Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy. It doesn't state there at all that Academic Skepticism is some archaic form of skepticism died out long ago. It just treats the position, and rather thoroughly at that, as a possible philosophical stance within skepticism. The historic references I made are just in there to provide some historic context. So don't be a wise guy with that red herring. Take it back on your plate.

[quote]
Yet (1) fundamental unknowability, (2) the subjective nature of knowledge and (3) human infallibility are different things. (1) is a philosophical position, (2) and (3) are specific arguments (the specific arguments you bring forward) in support of fundamental unknowability.

When you subscribe to (1) it is not absolutely neccesary to subscribe to (2) and/or (3) ( for one can have other reasons than (2) or (3) to subscribe to (1). That you might think that (2) or (3) are the only valid arguments for (1) is irrelevant.

Your accusation was that I'd missed the fundamental unknowability position inside agnosticism. I pointed out that I hadn't, and that I'd addressed it earlier. As I explained then, agnosticism covers itself by using the "OR" to negate any absolute position (see above).

The OR-clause does not negate the fundamental unknowability position at all. It's a complete non sequitur. It instead clearly and rather obtrusively paves the way for the absolute claim of fundamental unknowability. To negate the absolute position "but not necessarily unknowable" or something along that line should have been added instead.

I have no idea what you mean when you say that me thinking that (2) and (3) are the only arguments for (1) is irrelevant, because I simply don't. They just happened to be 2 arguments I put forward to show how I had addressed the fundamental unknowability position, and as you stated above, both (2) and (3) are arguments for fundamental unknowability, so what are you arguing about? Methinks we've gone off track somewhere.

I did not say that you indeed thought that only (2) and (3) are arguments for (1), but that it is irrelevant whether you do or not. Since it is irrelevant to this discussion altogether what anyone might think are possible valid reasons for (1). The only hing that counts is that th absolute claim of fundamental unknowability is a possible claim ithin agnosticism as defined in the definition under consideration.

Furthermore, to have "no known way of obtaining objective knowledge" (underlining by me), as you put it when explaining your point about the subjective nature of knowledge, does not necessarily mean that there is a fundamental/absolute barrier to ever obtain objective knowledge. You surely know this difference since you in your explanation of why absolute truth cannot be obtained, stated "This is because we are subjective, and there is no objective way of viewing reality (as of yet) that doesn't succumb to some kind of subjectivity." (underlining by me). This again shows the discrepancy between what you see as valid reasons for agnosticism and fundamental agnosticism which is an absolute statement about such a barrier.

No, as I said before, this is the power of agnosticism with the "OR".

You've only argued for addition of a constraint that's not there in the definition. With "or" the fundamental unknowability is allowed in its literal form. There is no explicit constraint in the definition that rules this out. The "as of yet" clause in your statement means that in that sentence you explicitly limit yourself to what is known now. You intend to rule out absolute statements which is your personal bias towards agnosticism.

There is currently no known way of obtaining objective knowledge, thus it is "unknown". It could be "unknowable" as well, but since we cannot state this without invalidating the claim of "unknown", we must put the OR there to be logically valid. It isn't fundamental agnosticism since we aren't making a positive claim that it is unknowable, we are saying "the possibility is there", which is about as far from an absolute claim as you can get.

Since when is logical validity a thing to consider before categorizing possible positions?

You claim that the OR-clause had to be added to prevent some absolutistic claim. But it does nothing of the sort, it instead paves the way for the absolute cclaim of fundamental unknowability. To rule out such absolutistic claims "but not necessarily unknowable" should have been added.

The conclusion from this is that the fundamental unknowability position that makes an absolute claim is a possible philosophical position to take (though arguebly not a valid position) and that it is not excluded from common and accepted definitions of agnosticism. Moreover, the wording in common and accepted definitions strongly suggests that the fundamental unknowability position is indeed included.

If the "OR" wasn't there I'd agree with you. Luckily, the OR is there for all to see, and I keep it in to maintain the integrity of pure agnosticism without going too over the top (with your strong agnosticism example), or not going far enough (with your weak agnosticism example). For me, the "OR" is the part of agnosticism which holds the most power in the definition. It implies possibility, which is exactly what agnosticism is about. The possibility that this knowledge exists, but that until we know that knowledge, we can't say anything about it!

Again your words lack substance. The "OR" simply is in the definition, your personal interpretation of it is not. It is that simple. You don't like strong agnosticism, well, you're completely entitled to that and I even share that position. But in the end it is your personal constraint you've added to the definition, not what is in the definition itself.