_001.jpg)
“We cannot swing up a rope that is attached to our own
belt.”
--William Ernest Hocking
--William Ernest Hocking
The issue of Agnosticism is of integral importance to any
theological discussion, because agnosticism complacently coexists with the
broad spectrum of religions, rather than assuming a separate or opposing
theological position. Thomas Henry Huxley, the originator of the term in
the year 1869 CE,[1] clearly stated,
“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, follow your reason as
far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in
matters of the intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not
demonstrated or demonstrable.”[2]
The word itself, as Huxley appears to have intended it, does
not define a set of religious beliefs, but rather demands a rational approach
to all knowledge, including that claimed of religion. The word
‘Agnosticism,’ however, has since become one of the most misapplied terms in
metaphysics, having enjoyed a diversity of applications.
At varying times this term has been applied to a variety of
individuals or subgroups, differing greatly in degrees of piety and sincerity
of religious purpose. On one extreme there are the sincere seekers who
have not yet encountered substantiated truth in the religions of their
exposure. Most often, however, the religiously unmotivated utilize the
term to excuse personal disinterest, attempting thereby to legitimize escapism
from the responsibility of serious investigation into religious evidences.
The modern definition of ‘Agnostic,’ as found in the Oxford
Dictionary of Current English, is not strictly faithful to Huxley’s explanation
of the term; however, it does represent the most common modern understanding
and usage of the word, which is that an Agnostic is a “person who believes that
the existence of God is not provable.”[3]
By this definition, the Agnostic view of God can be variously applied to such
hypothetical entities as gravity, entropy, absolute zero, black holes, mental
telepathy, headaches, hunger, the sex drive, and the human soul – entities
which cannot be seen with the eye or held with the hand, but which nonetheless
appear to be real and evident. Clearly, not being able to see or hold
some specific thing does not necessarily negate its existence. The
religious argue that the existence of God is one such reality, whereas the
Agnostic defends the right to such belief, just so long as proof is not
claimed.
As an aside, the philosophy that nothing can be proven absolutely appears
to take origin from Pyrrho of Elis, a Greek court philosopher to Alexander the
Great, commonly acknowledged to be the ‘father of skepticism.’ Although a
certain degree of skepticism is healthy, protective even, the extreme position
adopted by Pyrrho of Elis is somewhat problematic. Why? Because the
confirmed Pyrrhonist logically stimulates the skeptic of skepticism (i.e. the
normally thinking person) to question, “You claim that nothing can be known
with certainty…how, then, can you be so sure?” The enemies of logic can
create a great deal of confusion by such compilation of paradox and
philosophical compost. One great danger is to seduce an abandonment of
logic, in favor of decision by desire. Another danger is to allow
immersion in intellectual contortionism to stifle common sense.
Humanity should recognize that if common sense prevails,
stubborn detractors begin to look a tad daft when the apple has fallen on their
heads a few too many times. After a point, those with the common sense to
accept vanishingly small confidence intervals (or ‘P’ values, as they are known
in the field of statistical analysis) begin to hope for bigger, higher, and
harder apples to either convince the academically defiant Pyrrhonists or
simply remove them from the equation.
So, by common sense (and common experience), most people
accept whatever theories appear most reasonable, whether proven in an absolute
sense or not. Hence most people accept the theories of gravity, entropy,
absolute zero, black holes, the hunger drive, an author’s headache and a
reader’s eyestrain -- and well they should. These things make
sense. In the opinion of those of religion, all mankind should also
accept the existence of God and of the human spirit, for the overwhelming evidence
witnessed in the many miracles of creation support the reality of The Creator
to the point where the confidence level approaches infinity and the ‘P’ value
diminishes to something smaller and more elusive than the last digit of Pi.
With regard to T. H. Huxley’s invention of the term
‘agnostic,’ he was quoted a having explained,
“Every variety of philosophical and theological opinion was
represented there (the Metaphysical Society), and expressed itself with entire
openness; most of my colleagues were –istsof 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.’”[4]
According to the above, individuals who identify with the
label of ‘Agnostic’ should recognize that the term is a modern invention which
arose from one individual’s identity crisis in a circle of
metaphysicians. The one who coined this term identifies himself as a man
without a label, analogous to a fox without a tail -- both of which imply the
self-perception of a certain degree of personal inadequacy. What part of
this man’s pride did he leave behind in the jaws of a spring-loaded religious
enigma? Fairly obviously, Huxley, like many prominent metaphysicians and
theologians throughout history, was unable to find a doctrinal pigeonhole to
suit his concept of God.
Regardless of the above considerations, even if a person
were to argue that Huxley did nothing more than attach a label to a previously
un-named but ancient theology, the two word question “So what?” jumps the
synapses of consciousness once again. Labeling a theology does not imply
validation or, more importantly, value. If there were value to the
concept, a person would suspect that it would have been voiced earlier -- like
1800 years earlier and in the teachings of a prophet like Jesus. Yet the
prophets, Christ Jesus included, seemed to have a very different message, the
point of which was the reward of faith in the absence of absolute
proof, despite the inability to view the reality of God with one’s
own eyes.
Copyright © 2007 Laurence B. Brown; used by permission.
The above excerpt is taken from Dr. Brown’s forthcoming
book, MisGod’ed, which is expected to be published along with its sequel, God’ed.
Both books can be viewed on Dr. Brown’s website, www.Leveltruth.com. Dr. Brown can
be contacted at BrownL38@yahoo.com
Footnotes:
[1] Meagher,
Paul Kevin et al. Vol. 1, p. 77.
[2] Huxley,
Thomas Henry. Agnosticism. 1889.
[3] Thompson,
Della. p. 16.
[4] Huxley,
T. H. Collected Essays. v. Agnosticism.
No comments:
Post a Comment