My Fellow Specifically Agnostic Atheists

[Tiberius]

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:

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. 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.

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...

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.

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.

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".

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).

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.

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).

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.

Anyway, I can show you that (2) and (3) are not the only possible arguments to adopt (1). There is indeed another possible argument I can think of that also amounts to fundamental unknowability of god's existence and that is the argument that god deliberately and actively hides knowledge about his existence from us. One might adopt this stance while at the same time refute (2) an (3); i.e. humans can have absolute knowledge about things other than god's existence and knowledge is not subjective in nature.

Indeed, and as I said above I have no problems with this. I wasn't trying to argue that my arguments were the only arguments (I mean, that would be an absolute statement ), I was just pointing out that I'd argued them...

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". 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.

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!