Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-05-25
WHAT DO WE KNOW :?
The Argument of the Agnostic and
Its Effect on Religion.
FALLACY UPON WHICH IT RESTS.
The Lesson Of This Philosophy is That We
Only Apprehend God.
TO COMPREHEND HIM Is IMPOSSIBLE

A second difficulty which arises along the
line Of the argument for God centers about
the fact of the Limitation OF human thought.
Its name in philosophy is agnosticism.
Agnosticism is refusal to affirm the
supernatural. 1t is an assertion that that Is
true which can be demonstrated. Its teach
ers are science and logic, and it listens to no
others. There may be a great deal OF truth
outside the boundary of demonstration, but we
can have no knowledge of it. We can have no
more Communication with it than we can
with the inhabitants of the planet Mars.
We can know only the demonstrable.
The natural inferences from the agnostic
position are that miracles never happen,
prayer is never answered, revelation is never
made nor inspiration ever given, God is
unknowa:le. Agnosticism pushes forward
single word as battering-ram against the
walls of religious faith. The word is ''tes-
timony." The agnostic is ready to assent to
anything which presents itself with the Gre
dentials of adequate testimony. The infer
ences from the agnostic position will each
OF them need separate consideration. We
are concerned at present with only one of
them, the last-the assertion that God is un-
movable
The agnostie position itself, however, it
may be well to notice in passing, rests upon
the uncertain foundation of fallacy. The
fallacy lies in the ambiguous use of the
verb "to know" It is as if one were to
affirm that cold is driven away by heat,
which is per ectly true. And then to argue
from that affirmation that therefore If any
body has cold it will be driven away by
heat. The word knowledge" like the
word "cold, " has more than one meaning.
TWO KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE.
And if the verb ito know" means
the kind of knowledge which has its source
In science and in logic, then the position of
agnosticism is perfectly unassailable, but
it is also perfectly unnecessary. 1t Is a
truism. 1t asserts that we can know by
demonstration only that which is capable
OF demonstration, which is self-evident. If,
however. the verb "to know" means any
knowledge of which we are possessed with
out the help of science or of logic; if it
means such truth as personality or such q
fact as duty, then the assertion is not true.
Those truths we know, and yet demonstra-
tion does not touch them. We do know the
undemonstrable.
We are concerned, however, at present,
affirmation that God is unknowable. This
affirmation is based upon the limitation of
the human minds. We can know only that
which is thinkable; but thought has its
limits, beyond which all is unthinkable and
therefore unknowable: and God is beyond
the limit God is unknowable. Let us ex-
anime the foundations OF this argument.
There are certain assertions which the
mind makes about God. 1t afirms that
there is First Cause, to which it gives the
name of God, and that this First Cause is
infinite, absolute, intelligent, selfdetermin-
ing personal and righteous. Most of these
asseiti have already been examined and
maintained. Two only among them, that
God is infinite and that God is absolute, re-
mains to be considered.
INFINITY OF THE FIRST CAUSE.
We arrive at the truth of Gods infnity.
not along the path of creation, but along
the path of thought. The First Cause must
be either finite or infinite. If it is finite
then it must have limits to its powers If
it has but a limited power, then in regions
beyond the limits must be existence which
is uncaused. But this contradicts the idea
of cause, and is impossible. The First
Cause must, therefore, be infinite.
The First Cause is also absolute. To be
absolute is to be perfectly independent If
the First Cause is not absolute it must be
dependent for its existence upon something
else. But in that case that upon which the
First Cause depended for its existence would
be the cause of the First Cause. But that
is impossible. The First Cause, accordingly
must be absolute. Here now is the asser-
tion which the mind, partly by intuition,
partly by induction, necessarily makes about
the First Cause: That the First Cause,
l., IL Id = T-G- !
Absolute (this is the affirmation OF our in
tuition), and is intelligent, selfdetermln-
ing, personal and righteous (this we have
found to be the affirmation of reason.)
RELATIONS OF THE ATTRIBUTES.
All this seems easy enough. We are not
yet aware of any particular Limitations in
our thinking. All this we know about God
Suppose now we take these facts about God
and think them out, especially In their re-
latlons each to the other. We cannot take
a single step into an understanding of what
these assertions about God really mean with
out getting our feet Into a metaphysical
snare and tangle from which there seems to
be no extrication. The only way to get out
seems to be to take knife and cut the net
That is, to give the whole matter up, and
confess that after all we are hopelessly ig-
norant, and God is indeed uuknowable.
The First Cause, We say, is absolute. Can
a cause be absolute? The absolute, we re-
member, cannot exist in dependence. Can
there be cause without an effect? Must
not cause be dependent tor its very ex-
istence as a cause upon the producing of an
effect? No other condition is possible. But
this contradicts the assertion that the First
Cause is absolute. The First Cause. ac-
cordingly, is both absolute and not absolute.
And if we try to escape from this dilemma
by maintaining that the First Cause existed
in absoluteness from eternity and then at some
in time passed into a state of
relativeness by producing an effect, then at
once9 as Dean Mansel and Mr.. Herbert |
Spencer together with one voice remind us,
we run against the assertion that the First |
Cause is infinite. Now, to be infinite means |
the inclusion Of all possible modes of ex-
istence. That excludes the possibility of |
change. But, if the infinite passed from |
non-causal existence into causal existence,
then the infinite changed, which is impos-
sible. Or take it from the side OF the effect.
This effect which the First Cause produced
must either have existence before, in which
case it could not have been caused and could
not have become an effect, or else it must
have come newly into being, in which case
which is impossible, for to the infinite moth
ing can be added. The First Cause, there
fore, is both infinite and not infinite.
so WITH EACH ATTRIBUTE.
The same reasoning might be used in dis
proof of the assertions that the First Cause
possesses intelligence, will, personality and
conscience. See where We are, then. II
there is any dependence to be put upon in
tuition, if the truth which we must affirm
rs the conditions of our thinking are true,
then there must be First Cause, and the First
Cause must be infinite and absolute. And
II any dependence is to be put upon the