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?

I agree, but I'm still not an agnostic.

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. 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. 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.

Now you're reading his mind.

sam,


Now you're reading his mind. 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.

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

...while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble...

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

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

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. 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. Almost. Not so much "experience" but just demonstrable evidence, of any kind. As he says elsewhere - just show me a scintilla of evidence.....

Huxley again

A set of collected essays from him. Reveals a lot about those times and the depths of his feelings and his defence of agnosticsm against many vitriolic attacks by the Church.

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn.html

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

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.

One has to have a concept of God to be agnostic about its existence.

of course.

but what does that mean?

:bugeye:

So you cannot be born an agnostic, John.

a concept?

you mean i have the intellectual capacity to understand it? i think i do.

a concept?

you mean i have the intellectual capacity to understand it? i think i do.

Are you a newly born ?

:wallbang:

i dont know what you mean. i dont think you understand what an agnostic is though.

Too much ad-hominen. Let's just stay on topic please.

Cris, John is clearly playing dumb and is refusing to answer in any intelligent manner.

First he says that agnostics are born that way, i.e. at the moment of birth the baby is already agnostic.
Then he continues to say that "agnostics require proof and a very analytical".
Not to mention that he agreed that:
- agnosticism requires a concept of God,
- he doesn't know whether or not babies already have a concept of God at birth.

The OP is imposing too much into the definition of agnosticism. Agnosticism is simply the belief that man cannot arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not God exists.
1. Theism - Conclusion that God exists.
2. Atheism - Conclusion that God does not exist.
3A. Miscellaneous inconclusion.
3B. Agnosticism - No man can arrive at a conclusion about the matter.

Furthermore, the OP incorporates severe linguistic flaws in its statement. It is impossible for anybody to take authority over deeming evidence for all. One can only say "nobody has produced evidence that I find acceptable". However, it is a linguistic trap to define a term in regards to a completely subjective matter. One can deem himself agnostic if he finds that man is incapable of producing evidence that he finds acceptable. It is important to remember that all justification is subject to approval of the individual. Whereas one might deem material to be acceptable justification, another might not.

john99,


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. Do you agree with the Huxley definition or do you have a different definition, and if so why is it different to Huxley's?

lixluke,


The OP is imposing too much into the definition of agnosticism. Agnosticism is simply the belief that man cannot arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not God exists.Not according to the man who invented the term and has clearly stated exactly what it means as listed in the OP.

As to you what you assert, Huxley said nothing of the kind, and especially that it is NOT a belief system, but a method.

john99,

Do you agree with the Huxley definition or do you have a different definition, and if so why is it different to Huxley's?

i do agree with it. i dont mind "Agnostic" but i dont see the reason to add "ism" to it. Say like Commun'ISM', now there the 'ism' is warranted because it is a system, a long arduous system with rules and formalities and people breathing down your neck and telling you how to live. of course i refer to actual real world examples of it and not the watered down definition which has never existed due to the nature of humans to incorporate a hierarchy and we are also naturally competitive.

getting back on point, i sad agnostic from birth to convey the reality that it is my nature. so in that sense i would have to conclude i was born like that. i do think that an atheist needs to make a conscious effort to be an atheist and there is the distinction. so basically you dont learn to be an agnostic and that was th point i was trying to make.

John,

Yes OK, I understand your point.

I do observe that many people have a natural tendency towards certain attitudes. Those that easily believ anything they are told, and others who are super critical and cynical towards everything. There are those who are extremely analytical and accept virtually nothing without signficant proofs, and others who simply don't care.

Most of these attitudes we inherit and others are developed through experience and practice. These natural tendencies usually allow some people to do well in say the sciences (analystical minded), or the arts (emotionally oriented), etc.

I would not say someone could be naturally atheistic or theistic as these are considered opinions based on intellectual comprehension, a child would not be able to absorb these concepts easily if at all.

As to agnosticsm as Huxley defines it; as a tendency towards requiring evidence before making a concluion then yes I woul tend to agree that for many this might well stem from a natural tendency to be analytical and critical. But as regards to its specific application towards gods then this would again require a more adult intellectual comprehension.

sam,

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.

So what do you call a person who is neither convinced there is a god nor there is no god at all, just doubting both ways ? . ;) .

mike47,


So what do you call a person who is neither convinced there is a god nor there is no god at all, just doubting both ways ? . Why call them anything? There is no rule that says everyone must be labelled.

If they have no tendency to say that they believe a god probably exists then they would not be theist. Others would argue that means they are atheist (lack of theistic belief). But I would not hold with that. Until they say that they feel that gods probably do not exist then I would not label them.

However, if their reasoning is of the form, after due dilligence to investigaion, that they do not see any any credible evidence to support either case for the existence or non existence of gods then I would label them agnostic.

Alternatively, if they are seriously considering specific theist claims and find them absurd and incredible then I would say they are atheist in that context, i.e. disbelief in theistic claims.

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

Yes, he coined the term. But that doesn't mean there has been no progress in understanding since then or that the first pass at putting it into words was the best or even definitive.


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

I would disagree that his interpretation is the "real" meaning. He isn't god handing out commandments you know.


"Agnosticism ...do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

and

"...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."

While wordy I don't see how this is so divergent from "I don't know?" Perhaps you would prefer "I'm uncertain?"


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 think you are making an unnecessary distinction here. After all, atheism isn't a belief system either. It isn't even a creed.


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?

The arguments that god is inherently unknowable and therefor certainty is impossible seem a valid extension to me.

One has to have a concept of God to be agnostic about its existence.

No, and in fact part of being an agnostic is lacking that since a valid concept implies some knowledge of the subject.

Its just like an atheist needs no concept of god to think the theist is full of it.

The concept of God so to speak is the most importat thing there reallyexists becuse it isn't disproven andwe always need to be able to understand why it is a societial factor.

Cris,

Not to muddy the waters, but I view theism, atheism and agnosticism a little different. I think it could be two parts based on two questions.

1) do you believe in god (theism or lack of belief atheism)
2) can you prove there is a god or can you prove there is not a god.

For me the first is no, atheist.
The second however for me requires being agnostic.

Although, nobody can prove something does not exist, atheist would argue that we don't have the responsibility to prove something does not exist, it just allows me to discuss my position with theists. Simply because at some point the second question is asked.

So I am an atheist/agnostic due to the above.

No, and in fact part of being an agnostic is lacking that since a valid concept implies some knowledge of the subject.

Its just like an atheist needs no concept of god to think the theist is full of it.
A concept can exist without it being linked to an actual subject.

If someon believes in God if someone trusts in him

If someone doesnt believe ad god does trust in him do others who knows is he going to get criticism from others who do yes therefre it is a issue just for that but the fact that a freaking god who is not there well this god a nt there so he'll have problems finding out whyother believe and never can understand them. he say thei birth they have no god but he has never dsproven theism. he will confont it - probably. this leads agnosticism as one of the stronger stances. n one who really sings that is an atheist has much recognition as of the ones who say nothing. god is a tochy concept and even the atheists never answer te arguement from design OR the arguements about other existances of go from the existences we all are aware ofor undrstand. he would say to disprove hs ideas and we would fumble unware of what disageement or possibility ther is which exists

If someon believes in God if someone trusts in him

If someone doesnt believe ad god does trust in him do others who knows is he going to get criticism from others who do yes therefre it is a issue just for that but the fact that a freaking god who is not there well this god a nt there so he'll have problems finding out whyother believe and never can understand them. he say thei birth they have no god but he has never dsproven theism. he will confont it - probably. this leads agnosticism as one of the stronger stances. n one who really sings that is an atheist has much recognition as of the ones who say nothing. god is a tochy concept and even the atheists never answer te arguement from design OR the arguements about other existances of go from the existences we all are aware ofor undrstand. he would say to disprove hs ideas and we would fumble unware of what disageement or possibility ther is which exists

I'm sorry, come again. :shrug:

hahaha. I said that theism is relevant as is agnosticism and atheism. Albeith that the atheist recieves less attention. That the agnostic position is stronger

I can understand Cris' oritional position though I disagree with it in that I am an agnostic and see reaon for their being belief in god or gods which is most probably why many ARE agnostic.

swarm,


Yes, he coined the term. But that doesn't mean there has been no progress in understanding since then or that the first pass at putting it into words was the best or even definitive.Perhaps, but the current idea that it means that gods are unknowable is effectively unrecognizable from Huxley's original. He created the term at the height of the Darwin evolution storm and the bitter fights with the clergy.


I would disagree that his interpretation is the "real" meaning. He isn't god handing out commandments you know.I don't see it as "interpretation", but a term he created specifically to deal with real debate issues. From his writings one can see his exasperation at the the clergy for asserting they were absolutely correct and at the same time offerring not a single scrap of evidence, that he very strongly felt was very wrong. It was the first real major challenge to the acceptance that "faith" was valid as a method for determining truth.


While wordy I don't see how this is so divergent from "I don't know?" Perhaps you would prefer "I'm uncertain?"It is neither, it is not a matter of degree but of methodology, i.e. "let the facts speak for themselves". If there are none then expressions of certainty or uncertainty have no meaning.


I think you are making an unnecessary distinction here. After all, atheism isn't a belief system either. It isn't even a creed.It was critical to Huxley's position, i.e. how does one determine the basis for certainty, what method is used? Well, evidence of course. Without that then the issue becomes one of faith, whether theist or atheist.


The arguments that god is inherently unknowable and therefor certainty is impossible seem a valid extension to me. But that wasn't the critical issue he was attempting to define, that is perhaps supplementary but not central.

Cris,

Not to muddy the waters, but I view theism, atheism and agnosticism a little different. I think it could be two parts based on two questions.

1) do you believe in god (theism or lack of belief atheism)
2) can you prove there is a god or can you prove there is not a god.

For me the first is no, atheist.
The second however for me requires being agnostic.

Although, nobody can prove something does not exist, atheist would argue that we don't have the responsibility to prove something does not exist, it just allows me to discuss my position with theists. Simply because at some point the second question is asked.

So I am an atheist/agnostic due to the above.
I see it as a matter of beliefs and NOT proof at all . :) .

I see it as a matter of beliefs and NOT proof at all . :) .

Certainly to question 1. Do you believe in god.

So can you prove god exists or does not exist ?
Do you know that a god exists or does not exist ?

Claims of knowledge then lead to a request for proof.

A concept can exist without it being linked to an actual subject.

A valid concept of something which supposedly exists can't/

A valid concept of something which supposedly exists can't/

What?

Perhaps, but the current idea that it means that gods are unknowable is effectively unrecognizable from Huxley's original.

I don't agree. I cannot fathom that Huxley would claim something unknown without exploring why it is unknown. Because if it is unknown merely from a lack of effort on his part, then he is not an agnostic, he is merely lazy.

No he is not only lacking evidence now, he is lacking any reason to believe evidence will be forth coming as well, in spite of being favorable disposed towards them.

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.
Letter to Charles Kingsley May 6, 1863

I can't agree that he is merely saying that as an agnostic he just represents the certainty of his data and conclusions honestly. Instead he is ether implicitly or explicitly denying the possibility of supportable gnosis on either side. There is no need to coin a term for "I'll be finding out later."


his exasperation at the the clergy for asserting they were absolutely correct and at the same time offerring not a single scrap of evidence, that he very strongly felt was very wrong.

A tradition carried on to this day by such people as LG and Lori. But while I share his exasperation, he doesn't seem the type to let righteous indignation form the basis of his position. Rather he seems to have found himself in a position where not only was there not a shred of evidence; there was no reason to expect that this situation would be changing.


It is neither, it is not a matter of degree but of methodology, i.e. "let the facts speak for themselves".

Facts, unfortunately, never speak for themselves and all to often in these matters failing to assert your position is take as acceptance.

"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)"

He seem clearly to be advocating open inquiry and holding yourself uncertain until there is reason to be certain, be it for or against, based on the fruits of your inquiry.


If there are none then expressions of certainty or uncertainty have no meaning.

You seen to be implying that that uncertainty is asserting certainty concerning a position.

If I have no facts concerning something I am uncertain about it. I don't know.


But that wasn't the critical issue he was attempting to define, that is perhaps supplementary but not central.

Not central for him is just fine. Like atheists, agnostics tend to each have their own emphasis.

To widen the field a bit:

Russell's 1947 pamphlet, Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? (subtitled A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas), he ruminates on the problem of what to call himself:

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

In his 1953 essay, What Is An Agnostic? Russell states:

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.
[all quotes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism]