Agnosticism

The terms agnosticism and agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869. The concept however has long existed, a philosophical and theological view that the existence of deities is either unknown, or inherently unknowable. The term has since come to be used to describe those who take a doubtful or noncommittal stance on the existence of deities as well as various esoteric matters of world religions. The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (no) and gnosis (knowledge). Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.

The singular characteristic of agnosticism is uncertainty or doubt. For this reason, it is a form of scepticism, and faces some of the same philosophical issues. For instance if an agnostic claims that absolute knowledge of truth is not possible, they are in danger of contradicting themselves. For then the statement there are no absolute truths would appear itself to be an absolute truth. An agnostic is on firmer ground if they claim that religious statements or statements about the numinous are not or cannot be satisfactorily justified. If such were the case, one ought to reserve judgment. For instance, an agnostic may claim that religious statements ought to be justified in the same way as scientific statements, possibly by being justified in terms of the scientific method. Since this is adopting an attitude towards the quality of proof required to accept such statements, agnosticism becomes a matter of inclination rather than of logical proof. That is, one need only be willing to accept a different justification of religious statements in order to avoid agnosticism. Perhaps this explains why agnostics do not generally engage in proselytisation.

Some philosophical opinions

Among the most famous agnostics (in the original sense) were Huxley, Charles Darwin, and Bertrand Russell. It has been argued from the works of David Hume, especially Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, that he was an agnostic, but this remains subject to debate.

Huxley

Agnostic views are as old as philosophical skepticism. But the terms "agnostic" and "agnosticism" were applied by Huxley to sum up his thoughts from that time's contemporary developments of metaphysics about the "unconditioned" (Hamilton) and the "unknowable" (Herbert Spencer). It is important, therefore, to discover Huxley's own views on the matter. Though Huxley began to use the term "agnostic" in 1869, his opinions had taken shape some time before that date. In a letter to Charles Kingsley (September 23, 1860) he discussed his views extensively:

"I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter"..

"It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions"..

"That my personality is the surest thing I know may be true. But the attempt to conceive what it is leads me into mere verbal subtleties. I have champed up all that chaff about the ego and the non-ego, noumena and phenomena, and all the rest of it, too often not to know that in attempting even to think of these questions, the human intellect flounders at once out of its depth."..

And again, to the same correspondent, May 6, 1863:

"I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father who loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds—have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them."

Of the origin of the name "agnostic" to cover this attitude, Huxley gave (Coll. Ess. v. pp. 237-239) the following account:

"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. To my great satisfaction the term took."

Huxley's agnosticism is believed to be a natural consequence of the intellectual and philosophical conditions of the 1860s, when clerical intolerance was trying to suppress scientific discoveries which appeared to clash with a literal reading of the Book of Genesis and other established christian doctrines. Agnosticsm should not, however, be confused with deism, pantheism or other science positive forms of theism.

By way of clarification, Huxley states, "In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable" (Huxley, Agnosticism, 1889). A. W. Momerie has noted that this is nothing but a definition of honesty. Huxley's usual definition went beyond mere honesty, however, and he insisted that these metaphysical issues were fundamentally unknowable.

Russell

Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian is considered a classic agnostic text. Based on a speech delivered in 1927, it gives a feel for the way in which agnostics view themselves. The essay sets out briefly Russell’s objections to some of the arguments for the existence of God before discussing his moral objections to Christian teachings. He then calls upon to his listeners to 'stand on their own two feet and look fair and square at the world', with a 'fearless attitude and a free intelligence'.

Logical Positivism

Logical positivists, such as Rudolph Carnap and A. J. Ayer, are sometimes erroneously thought to be agnostic. In a vein similar to Wittgenstein’s famous whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent, they viewed any talk of gods as literally nonsense. For the logical positivists and similar schools of thought, statements about religious or other transcendent experiences could not have a truth value, and were deemed to be without meaning. But this includes all utterances about god, even those that deny knowledge of god is possible. In Language, Truth and Logic Ayer explicitly rejects agnosticism, on the grounds that an agnostic, despite claiming that knowledge of god is not possible, nevertheless holds that statements about god have meaning.

Variations

Atheists and theists uses statements about the world, the theist that 'god exists', the atheist that 'god does not exist'. Agnostics use statements about these statements, 'one cannot know that: god exists'. In this sense agnosticism is about the extent of human knowledge rather than about things in the world.

Perhaps because it attempts to occupy a middle position between theism and atheism, agnosticism has suffered more than most expressions of religious positions from terminological vagaries. The variations on the theme are legend.

Examples come from attempts to associate agnosticism to atheism. The "freethinking" tradition of atheism calls not adopting any position with regard to the existence of god, "weak atheism" (or "negative atheism"). However, one can still draw a distinction between weak atheism and agnosticism by drawing a distinction between belief and knowledge, leading those who believe knowledge of God is not possible to claim agnosticism is about knowledge, while atheism/theism is about belief.

Others have noticed that typically agnostics live as if there were no deities, not as if there might be some, which in their eyes makes agnosticism a brand of atheism.

No-atheists and data collection services [1], [2] display the common use of the term, distinct from atheism in its lack of rejecting the existence of deities. Agnostics are listed alongside secular, non-religious or other such categories.

Other variations include:

empirical agnosticism (aka open agnosticism, weak agnosticism, soft agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence of deities is knowable but the individual has not seen enough evidence or there is evenly-weighted evidence on both sides of the question of the existence of deities.
closed agnosticism (aka strict agnosticism, strong agnosticism, hard agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence of deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence
Apathetic Agnosticism (aka apatheism, ignosticsm)—the view that the question of the existence of deities is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences
model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable, but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. Note that this branch of agnosticism differs from others in that it does not focus upon the question of a deity's existence.

External references

1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. A significant source of this Wikipedia article.

External Links