Agnosticism today stands as a stark reminder of our limitations in understanding the essence of things, and in particular, God.

Agnosticism: Embracing the Limits of Human Perception

Agnosticism today stands as a stark reminder of our limitations in understanding the essence of things, and in particular, God. The introduction of this philosophical stance emphasizes that our capacity for sensory perception can only partially encompass reality, leaving the so-called absolute knowledge beyond reach. The core idea is centered on denying the possibility of empirical confirmation of religious truths: an experience capable of establishing a deep and direct connection with the Divine requires inner feeling and perception, which cannot be fully achieved through external senses. Thus, agnosticism does not claim to possess positive knowledge; rather, it reflects skepticism and doubt in the possibility of reliably grasping spiritual realities. In conclusion, the foundation of agnosticism lies not so much in denial as in the recognition of the limits of human experience, compelling us to rethink the criteria of true knowledge and to value the inner journey toward understanding the unknown.

Can agnosticism be regarded as a form of knowledge that is the fruit of cognition?

Essentially, agnosticism adopts a skeptical stance regarding the possibility of knowing the truth (in particular, religious truth) rather than representing positive knowledge, which is the result of cognitive achievement. In other words, agnosticism denies the possibility of attaining firm and direct knowledge of the essence of things, including God, and therefore cannot be considered as the product of deep cognition—one that relies on inner experience and direct impact on the soul.

As noted in one of the sources, agnosticism is positioned as the belief that religious knowledge cannot have an empirical, sensory basis:
"It is assumed that religious knowledge cannot be empirical (experiential), i.e., based on a special sense perception. Agnostics argue that the unconditional lies beyond the realm of sensory perception, cannot produce a sensation of itself or leave an impression upon us, and therefore we can neither be convinced of the real existence of the Divine, nor, for that matter, know Him. But the idea of the absence of an experiential basis in religious knowledge is mistaken. Certainly, the Divine cannot be sensed by external senses, but it is possible—and indeed does happen—that the Divine has an impact on a person not only through the external, nature-mediated, but also internally, on the soul, perceived by an inner feeling. It is precisely this benevolent influence of the Divine on the soul that serves as the experiential basis for the knowledge of God." (source: link txt, page: 59).

Thus, the agnostic position is based precisely on the negation of the possibility of reliably knowing the essence, drawing on the limitations of sensory perception. Cognition, as the product of efforts and inner experience, is built on the presence of positive experience that allows one to establish a connection with the object of knowledge. And since agnosticism does not provide such positive experience, but merely notes the limits of our capacities, it cannot be considered a form of knowledge, but rather a reflection of doubts and the restriction of our ability to know.