Agnosticism

Cris

Cris

In search of Immortality
Valued Senior Member
I suspect I'm going to regret this but, well, it has to be done.

Thomas Henry Huxley is usually credited with inventing the term Agnosticism in the 1870s.

Since then many people have "interpreted" what he intended and put their own meanings to the word. And in common usage (misusage?) it has come to be considered a term that means "I don't know". Some say it is a middle position between theism and atheism, some say it isn't a theological issue at all and is applicable more to epistemology.

There are lots of articles on the web, and perhaps most dissapointing is that wikipedia this time has followed the more popular but less precise interpretation.

Huxley said a great deal and from those dialogs I have extracted what I believe are the key elements of his intention and the real meaning of the term

What he said was -

"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle ...Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

and

"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."

He was a scientist and all he was saying is - it is wrong to make a conclusion unless you have evidence.

It is not a belief system, i.e. a creed, but a method of approaching a problem - seek and show evidence for your claims. Or in other words don't claim to know something until you can show some support for it.

I've seen many times a version that asserts that the term means that a god is unknowable, and such like. I cannot find support for that from Huxley's writings.

So how does this relate to atheism and theism? And can we all agree that this is the authoritative meaning of the term?
 
Its a belief system in that he also assumes that experience/demonstration provides knowledge. Thats a useful assumption. But Huxley says nothing about science either, so I fail to see how you derive from his statements that he does.
 
sam,

Its a belief system in that he also assumes that experience/demonstration provides knowledge. Thats a useful assumption.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and a justified position I think.

But Huxley says nothing about science either, so I fail to see how you derive from his statements that he does.
Click to expand...
That he does, what? I'm not sure what you are objecting to. He was a science professor. It's not an essential point but goes somewhat to the issue of why he created the term. His experimental discpline in the sciences highlighted his concern with those who made claims of certainty when he could see no basis for them.
 
sam,

Now you're reading his mind.
Click to expand...
Oh heck, I'm paraphrasing some of his long writings. It's not critical here whether I am right or wrong to comprehend the result, which stands on its own right. You'll go look it up if you are really interested.
 
You'll go look it up if you are really interested.
Click to expand...

Huxley on agnosticism:

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"—had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. Like Dante,

Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita Mi ritrovai per una selva oscura, but, unlike Dante, I cannot add, Che la diritta via era smarrita.

On the contrary, I had, and have, the firmest conviction that I never left the "verace via"—the straight road; and that this road led nowhere else but into the dark depths of a wild and tangled forest. And though I have found leopards and lions in the path; though I have made abundant acquaintance with the hungry wolf, that "with privy paw devours apace and nothing said," as another great poet says of the ravening beast; and though no friendly spectre has even yet offered his guidance, I was, and am, minded to go straight on, until I either come out on the other side of the wood, or find there is no other side to it, at least, none attainable by me.

This was my situation when I had the good fortune to find a place among the members of that remarkable confraternity of antagonists, long since deceased, but of green and pious memory, the Metaphysical Society. Every variety of philosophical and theological opinion was represented there, and expressed itself with entire openness; most of my colleagues were -ists of one sort or another; and, however kind and friendly they might be, I, the man without a rag of a label to cover himself with, could not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox when, after leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his normally elongated companions. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. To my great satisfaction, the term took; and when the Spectator had stood godfather to it, any suspicion in the minds of respectable people, that a knowledge of its parentage might have awakened was, of course, completely lulled

Read more: http://science.jrank.org/pages/8226/Agnosticism-THOMAS-HUXLEY-COINING-AGNOSTIC.html#ixzz0NNM3AjPh
Click to expand...
 
Huxley said:
...while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble...
Click to expand...

i.e. agnostic in Huxley's sense of the word means a belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.
 
James R said:
i.e. agnostic in Huxley's sense of the word means a belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.
Click to expand...

Yes, he was under the impression that knowledge of God is not possible with experience.
 
james,

i.e. agnostic in Huxley's sense of the word means a belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.
Click to expand...
No, he has not said that concerning the definition of agnosticism. These were extracts from his diaries where he is expressing his thoughts, in this he is saying he can't see there will be a way to establish evidence for a god.

His defintion of agnosticism is - "that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."

He is not asserting that it means a belief that knowledge of gods is impossible. That might have been what he believed but that is not what agnosticism means.

Several times he states that agnosticism is not a belief or creed but a method -

"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle ...Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

In essence - agnosticism as he intended it - don't claim to know something unless you can prove it.

sam,

Yes, he was under the impression that knowledge of God is not possible with experience.
Click to expand...
Almost. Not so much "experience" but just demonstrable evidence, of any kind. As he says elsewhere - just show me a scintilla of evidence.....
 
Last edited:
James R said:
i.e. agnostic in Huxley's sense of the word means a belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.
Click to expand...
He might have thought that - but in terms of defining the minimum for agnosticism, it is merely knowledge on a personal level that needs be considered.
If he held that it was impossible to know, then this would certainly result in the lack of personal knowledge.

At least that's how I see his definition.
 
the difference is that agnostics are born and not made. there is no 'ism' to attach to it because it is not a system. i have been an agnostic from birth, ask me anything yo like.
 
in addition to that, agnostics require proof and a very analytical. deep down inside the agnostic can never accept evolution until something substantial occurs. some even think it is comical, but comical or not it is a viable theory. so there you have it, that should wet your whistles for awhile.
 
John99 said:
the difference is that agnostics are born and not made. there is no 'ism' to attach to it because it is not a system. i have been an agnostic from birth, ask me anything yo like.
Click to expand...

One has to have a concept of God to be agnostic about its existence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top