Geisler on Agnosticism

This post is in response to the comments made in the last one. In Foundations, Geisler states this (my paraphrase):

Agnostocism means literally ‘no knowledge.’ This view as promulgated by Immanuel Kant. It teaches that although we know that reality exists, that reality in itself cannot be known by human reason. We only see reality as it appears to us.

Later, Kant’s followers stated that if we cannot know whether or not our ideas correspond to reality, then all truth must be relative to the individual way our minds interpret reality. Hence, the modern view of truth called relativism (all truth is relative) in due time gave rise to pluralism (all views are true).

Kant's fundamental flaw is his claim to have knowledge of what is unknowable. If it were true that reality cannot be known, no one, including Kant, would know it. If knowledge about reality is impossible for everyone, then it must be impossible for Kant. If reality were actually unknowable, how would Kant know this was true?

Furthermore, in relation to relativism and pluralism, Geisler states,

"It makes no sense to say that relativism or pluralism represents a better way to view reality than a view taht believes in absolutes, unless these views are being compared with some absolute fixed point or standard. Without a fixed point, it only makes sense to say that these views are different from each other and that no one view is any better than another view. Hence, relativists and pluralists cannot logically label a view incompatible with their view as wrong; they can only logically say that the other view is different. Yet the minute they decided they are right and that those who believe in absolutes are wrong, they must logically conclude that some absolute standard exists, even if they do not verbally admit it. Consequently, relativsm and pluralism cannot be true. " (p.47)