To say that we cannot know anything about God is to say something about God; it is to say that if there is a God, he is unknowable. But in that case, he is not entirely unknowable, for the agnostic certainly thinks that we can know one thing about him: That nothing else can be known about him.” In the end, agnosticism is an illogical position to hold to.
– J. Budziszewski
I believe this statement unintentionally or unknowingly contains a fallacy of equivocation by the use of two different meanings of “know.” One meaning is to know a fact; the other is to know one’s character. Spanish, in fact, has two different verbs for these meanings. The agnostic says, yes, we can know one fact about God, but we cannot know him as an entity. This is not a contradiction.
I think I know what he is trying to say but it is strained… like not really worth saying. The agnostic is really saying that since you can’t be 100% certain that he exists through the senses, there’s no point in the effort to worship or choose a lifestyle centered on belief. It’s an aversion to faith / confidence in anything that can’t be seen or touched etc.
My dad was an agnostic on a good day. Somedays he was an atheist, other days, he had some kind of odd belief that he was God, but he was not mentally ill. Just extremely full of pride.
He used to say that no one could know anything about God. I asked him how he knew that. He stammered. I asked him if he knew what everyone knew. I asked him if I could know something that he didn’t know.
This rather shocked him. I had seen thru his BS to the fallacy in his logic. I finally said to him that he didn’t think HE could know God, but that he had no proof that others could not. He never argued religion with me again.
He died in May 2011. My sister-in-law said he had a surprised look in his face. No doubt about that. He finally learned what he thought he couldn’t know.