andrew.antlechrist.org/philosophy/

George H. Smith’s Rebuttal of Agnosticism

Some people think this argument is fallacious. GIYF.

In Atheism: The Case Against God George H. Smith argues that all agnosticism is a form of atheism (defined here as “lacking a belief in a deity”). His argument against agnostic theism is that it is contradictory to state that a being is inherently or currently unknowable, and yet positively assert a belief in its existence. His argument is as follows:

Smith concisely describes the paradox:

To posit the existence of something which, by its nature, cannot be known to man is to submerge oneself in hopeless contradictions. …When one claims that something is unknowable, can one produce knowledge in support of this claim? If one cannot, one’s assertion is arbitrary and utterly without merit. If one can, one has accomplished the impossible: one has knowledge of the unknowable. …The theist who is called upon to explain the content of his belief—and who then introduces the “unknowable” as a supposed characteristic of the concept itself—is saying, in effect: “I will explain the concept of god by pointing out that it cannot be explained.”

— Smith, George H. 1974. Atheism: The Case Against God, 44.

Lightly adapted from: