What Agnosticism Is

WHAT AGNOSTICISM IS. BY W. H. LAMASTER, OP INDIANAPOLIS.

[A review of this article will appear in the next number of the Era by one of the Editors.]

The first human thinker in his ignorance of things around and about him inquired of the whence and the whither. Men are bom ignorant even of their own individual existence. They emerge as it were out of a world of ignorance and enter through gradual

processes of evolution into another of more or less knowledge. Whatever though may be their cravings or their ambitions to know, .there must ever lie before and above them a still higher and a grander and a more elevated plane of knowledge. Men therefore being natural born agnostics, they must by reason of their own particular environments and limitations be forever restrained from acquiring even that amount of knowledge they might desire. With finite minds, as well as with everything else finite, there are always certain well-defined boundary lines to which they may go, but no further. Nature has no pets upon which it may be seen bestowing an unlimited amount of knowledge. Its bounties whatever they may be are given, even if plentifully, with a saving hand. That men may acquire more wisdom and knowledge does not necessarily make them any less agnostics. A Spencer, a Huxley or a Darwin may be great philosophers and scientists, and still there

is much even in their particular studies they do not know, and so therefore they are in spite of themselves agnostics. The word agnostic is derived from the Greek one agnostos, and when translated into the English language means "unknown," "not knowing," "ignorant of." Gnosis with the Greeks signified knowl-

WHAT AGNOSTICISM IS. 101

edge, and so agnostos, having a privative "a," would consequently mean a want of knowledge. Hence an agnostic as contradistinguished from a Greek gnostic —one who knows— one who does is not know. Agnosticism as an applied theory or doctrine may therefore be said to be one which neither asserts nor denies the existence of the infinite, the absolute. Or, it may be defined as a "theory of the unknowable which assumes its most definite form in the denial of the possibility of any knowledge of God." And so the agnostic may be said to be one who does not claim or profess to know of the existence of a supreme being called God. Again, an agnostic may be said to be "one who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind natural phenomena is unknown, and (so far as can now be judged) unknowable, and especially that a first cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing." And so the word agnostic might very well stand as the antithesis of the one gnostic, and might therefore be used to designate him who regards phenomena of all kinds as the result of unknown or unknowable causes. Prof. Huxley, the inventor of the English word "agnosticism," says of it that it is not a negative creed, nor even a creed of any kind, "except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle which much ethical as intellectual;" and is as

he adds that "this principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he iscertain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty." It is upon such points as this one that the Christian and the agnostic come to the forks in their religious road. To state the proposition more tersely we will say that while Christianity is willing to rest on "faith" alone in arriving at any one or more objective religious truths, agnosticism demands something more—it demands evidence of the highest character before accepting as very truth any kind of a religious belief or dogma. Hence we find Christianity standing for a bare and empty faith and agnosticism for the strongest and the most indisputable of testimony. And so it must be admitted that as between the Christian and the agnostic there is an impassable gulf.

And again, Christianity resting as it does on a belief in the supernatural, agnosticism is founded only upon the natural; while the one is dependent upon what is called a divine revelation, the other relies on vision.So therefore as between Christianity and agnosticism there must forever remain that degree of antagonism which can never be obliterated or destroyed. The fundamental conception then of Christianity being a belief in the supernatural, if it be a logical one, we might very naturally expect to find in it its own verity. What evidence have we though of any such verity ? Now it is to be conceded that it is among the possibilities of

the human mind not only to conceive but also to believe; and yet it is not to be denied that there are also certain boundary lines within which it may both conceive and believe, and beyond them it can not go. That being true might we not inquire, how is the

human mind — it being finite — either to have a conception or a The human mind we know to be limited, belief about things infinite? and consequently, as Sir William Hamilton says, it "can know only the limited, and the conditionally limited." Therefore as concerning things of the infinite (admitting there be an infinite) the human mind can have neither a conception nor a belief of any kind whatever. Christianity being founded upon a belief in an infinite God, in order that it should rest in the most perfect safety from any and allagnostic attacks, it must be able to present that belief in such a garb and such a one only as may be seen and realized as a veritable truth by the finite human mind; and so it might be well to inquire: How is that to be done? It will not be denied that human beliefs, as well as everything else about the human mind, are relative. And if that be true, how is finite man to have any conception of, much less any real foundation whatever for, a belief in the existence of an infinite God? Mr. Herbert Spencer says that "the Infinite, the Absolute, to be known at all must be classed," and adds, for it even "to be positively thought of, it must be thought of as such or such—as of this or that kind;"and he then inquires, "Can it be like in kind to anything of which we have sensible experience?" and wisely answers, "Obviously not." We must therefore admit then if there

WHAT AGNOSTICISM IS. 103

is an infinite God that we as finite beings can know nothing whatever of His existence. Again, Mr. Spencer says, "It is manifest that, even ifwe could be conscious of the absolute, we could not possibly know that it is the absolute; and, as we can be conscious of an object as such, only by knowing it to be what it is, this is equivalent to an admission that we cannot be conscious of the absolute at all," and so he concludes, as he should do, that what we ignorantly call the Infinite, the Absolute, is but a term expressing no object of thought whatever. It is therefore upon this question —the one involving the existence of an infinite God —that Christianity and agnosticism are first seen to diverge. Christianity relying upon what it is pleased to call a divine revelation, says there is an infinite God; while agnosticism, having no other guide but reason, says, "I don't know." Hence upon the one hand we find the Christian professing to have a knowledge of the first and the final causes of the universe, and particularly of this world and of the beings in it; while upon the other is to be found the agnostic confessing his ignorance of all

such things. Webster has the following definition of agnosticism, and one, too, which agnostics themselves, so far as I know, are willing to accept, viz. That it is "that doctrine which, professing ignorance, :

neither asserts nor denies; specifically in theology, the doctrine that the existence of a personal deity can be neither asserted nor denied, neither proved nor disproved, because of the necessary limits of the human mind (maintained by Hamilton and Mansel) or because of the insufficiency of the evidence furnished by psychical and physical data to warrant a positive conclusion (as taught by Spencer and his school) opposed alike to dogmatic skepticism and to dogmatic theism." To assert, as does the theist, that there is an infinite God, is but saying that he is able to know that there is such a being.

Bare and empty assertions of the existence of any being or thing, and without some sort of evidence in support of them, are neither pardonable nor even excusable in any one. Therefore, the theist, whether he be a Christian or any one else, if he says there is an infinite God he should be able to establish such declaration with

evidence the most trustworthy and indisputable. Now, can he do it? and if so, what is going to be the character of his proof? The Christian relies on faith and that alone for his belief in the existence of an infinite God, and if asked to define what faith is, he answers that it is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." This all may meet the requirements of theology, but philosophy demands something more logical and reasonable in order to satisfy it of the existence of any being either finite or infinite. Agnosticism being unwilling to accept faith as an infallible guide in reaching anything like a reasonable belief in the existence of an infinite God, it must not be expected that it is going to step beyond the knowable in its search after the first or final causes of things; neither will it claim even the right to know the unknowable either in what is called the supernatural or natural order of things. The agnostic is therefore satisfied whatever may be the objective point in his investigations, whether pertaining to the natural or the supernatural, to keep within the boundary lines of his own mental powers and capacities. The Christian may claim the right, as he often does, to turn on his "search light" of faith, and to explore even the invisible and the unknowable, but the agnostic never does. Catholic theology at least teaches that "a God understood would be no God at all," and yet it would, it seems, apprehend one as being not only personal and intelligent but also self-existent; still whatever, though Christian theology, whether Catholic or Protestant, may teach concerning the existence of the Infinite, the Absolute, it does not hold or maintain that it may be "perfectly known;" and so it might be after all that Prof. Huxley was not very far wrong in asserting as he once did that "with scientific theology, agnosticism has no quarrel." We read in the Christian scriptures themselves, "Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?" And again, that "no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end." Agnosticism must therefore be acknowledged to have existed, if not as a formulated doctrine, at least as a practical idea among men throughout all past ages.

WHAT AGNOSTICISM IS. 105

Agnosticism has not only characterized modern thought but also the highest and the grandest of ancient as well. The first of the Greek philosophers, commencing with the physicists under Thales, the mathematicians under Anaximander and Pythagoras, and the eleatics under Xenophanes and Zeno, while confining themselves in their inquiries to speculations concerning the natural order of things, were practically agnostics. In fact it was left to the last of those schools to lay the foundations of that skeptical philosophy, which afterwards so revolutionized Greek thought, by boldly proclaiming their ignorance of the first and final causes of things; and while Anaxagoras was the first of the Greek philosophers to announce his belief in a Supreme Intelligence as the primal cause, he was nevertheless willing to acknowledge that there still remained much of it all that he did not know. It might here be well to note that as Democritus affirmed the

Anaxagorian doctrine of a "Personal Prime Principle" he has been justly styled the real founder of both ancient and modem agnosticism. Others though, since him, like Bacon, Huxley and Spencer* have builded anew on the foundation he had laid and have reared a more imposing agnostic structure than it was ever in the power of his mind to conceive. As man is a finite being, and limited in knowledge as well as he is in everjrthing else, there will ever be something of which he can know nothing whatever. It must therefore be the infinite being, if any at all, who is able to understand and to know all things. The finite one being circumscribed and limited, his knowledge must necessarily be also circumscribed and limited, and therefore he is, his desires and his ambitions to the contrary notwithstanding to know all things, an agnostic. While again, the very fact of men's power to increase in knowledge and wisdom is evidence sufl[icient even of itself to prove that there is also a power within them, if exerted, to know something they do not know. They are thus compelled, whatever may be their professions to the contrary, in the most practical sense to be agnostics. Agnosticism being the antithesis of Christianity it must therefore stand for that philosophy and that only which inspires men to inquire into and to investigate the hitherto unknown even in the-

ology. Hence it might be denominated that branch of philosophy which will accept nothing as true, and particularly that pertaining to religious creeds and beliefs, not in harmony with men's reason and observation. Again, agnosticism, unlike Christianity, claims to have no knowledge of what is called the unseen world or the future state of mankind, and yet it is always willing to inquire and to know if possible what is and what is not in the beyond of this life for all men. Whatever though may be the extent of its inquiries, they must be along scientific lines; and whatever maybe the amount of its knowledge, it must be gained through such channels and such only as the best philosophy may devise. Agnosticism will take nothing as true without some reasonable proof, even if it should be labeled a "thus saith the Lord." With what is called divine revelation agnosticism has nothing whatever to do except it be to attack after the most scientific methods the weakness of its very foundation stone. It must, there-

fore, as it does, dispute every claim that Christianity makes in favor of the doctrine of the divinity of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. Neither does it stop with these scriptures, but others, whether they be those of the Vedas or the Zend-Avesta, the Koran or the Book of Mormon, it weighs and measures in the scales of science, and one and all of them it pronounces to be the productions of finite men instead of an infinite God. And yet whatever may be the antagonism of agnosticism to any form of so-called revealed religion it still is ever ready to accept religious truth wherever it may be found. It is therefore religious

truth, and it alone, it seeks to find, and whether it be locked up in creeds, or in dogmas, or floating as it were on the breeze of free human thought, after finding it, it utilizes it for man's good and for man's glory. To sum up: agnosticism inquires, explores and investigates the unknown, and having for its objective point the highest truth, it will accept nothing whatever as truth unless there is that amount

of evidence which will justify its certainty. It puts no reliance whatever in any blind religious faith; but reaches out and lays hold on that religious belief, if any at all, which reason upholds. Neither will it accept any religious doctrine or belief as either logical or

WHAT AGNOSTICISM IS. 107

true unless it meets every demand of both science and philosophy. I will only add that true religion wherever found, and whether

it be theone of Brahma or Buddha, Mohammed!or Christ, will suffer no injury from agnosticism. The philosophy of inquiry, or even one of skepticism, never has and never will destroy a religious truth. That being so, the Church of Christ instead of— as it is often seen doing — denouncing the agnostic, should welcome him as a harbinger of a grander and a more holy religion. It is indeed he who, above all others, is pointing to a new and better way.