New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-07-04
COMMENT AND OPINION.
AGNOSTICISM AND MATERIALISM.
Mr.. FIsKE'S TESTIMONY REGARDING Mr..
SPENCER,S PHILOSOPHY.

TO the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: In q late paper on the subject Of agnosticism
find the following definition quoted from the new OK
ford Dictionary OF the English Language: I" An az
nostic who holds that the existence OF thing
beyond and behind natural phenomena is unknown land
far be Judged, unknowable, and especially
that first cause and an unseen world are subjects
Of which know nothing" II correspondent,
the president of the brooklyn Ethical Association had
made careful study of this definition before writing
his late authoritative correction Of my supposed
statements concerning the philosophy Of Mr..
Spencer. he might have found in II wholesome cor
econ Of his supposed corrections in several important
particulars He might for example have discovered
that Affirmative side to such an agnoSticsm comes
dangerously near TO being contradiction In terms as
had tried 20 explain in the letter to which he was re
plying. lie might also have discovered that the ques
ton OF the supernatural is not only cgmatcly but
necessarily involved In the discussion. inasmuch the
supernatural is the very subject upon which the az
nostic pretends to be ignorant. How then could we
discuss his pretensons without Dquring into the ex-
tent Of knowledge in that dirocon II might, too,
have occurred 10 him that for the Brooklyn Ethical As
ISOLATION to adopt the proposed new term would In
itself Ne to abandon her present position TO 60 over To
the other side; since in order to be agnostic and
metagnostic at one and the same time, IL would be
necessary TO deny any knowledge of the supernatural
and at the same time to affirm it. But. since no man
In the proper OF his wits can do anything OF tho
kind IL seems to follow that for agnosc TO favor
Affirmative side 10 that doctrine would be TO cease
to be agnostic. But having abandoned his erroneous
position what is there to be done than TO drop the
use OF the term by which nc designated it7
But evidently the proposition TO adopt the term
was predlcated on quite different definition On
this point my critic explains by quoting one OF tho
questions to which tho papers read at the symposium
wcre replies, assuming that the word agnosticism
correctly represents the cvolutionsts negative views
Of comprchcndng ultimate astrological facts. IS not
some other word required 10 express the affirmative
attitude Of the evolution philosophy in regard TO the
apprehension Of the infinite and absolute, and the ca
pacity Of the human Intellect 10 deal with the practical
problems OF religion and lifc7- In relation TO which
am led inquire in what respect does the cvoutonst
differ from other people the subject Of the RELATIVELY
Of knowledge and the mpossibity OF compromising
ultimate astrological facts For. II by RELATIVELY is
meant the incomplecncss Of knowledge. and II 10
believe in the necessary incompleteness OF human
knowledge and in the impossbilIty Of grping ultimate
astrological facts is to be agnostc, then agnosticisn
Is nothing
But the true attitude OF the agnostic Is better rep
resented by critic when he asks with the prophet.
"who by searching can find ont God. who can know
the almighty 10 pcrfcction1' But instead Of az
cepting the passage in its true intent and meaning the
agnostlc with whom II is cherished and muchquoted
Scripture makes II his excuse for refusing 10 know any
thing because 1t is impossible for him to know all abont
God lie holds that tho existence Of anything behind
or beyond natural phenomena Is unknown not because
he has succeeded better than other men in Kidding
his mind Of the belief but because he thinks there Is
no scientific evidence IN ITS support.
In my first letter IL my cndcavor 10 show how
the position of acnosciSm as above defined. and as
conceive II be held by Mr. spencer and his school l.
shaken 10 IT. centre by argument which has been
repeatedly preached. though by means fully dc
volo nv NJ Ike from "A
Of tho cumulative principle Of the dynamic series u
the correlation Of forces the impossty Of any me
chanical explanation Of the operations II the human
mind The argument Is not directed ostcnsbly against
apnostlcsm, but against macrialism, npon which. &c
cor,iing ~ the above definition. aSnostlcSm rest,.
For II there IL existence behind and beyond natural
phenomena, then the only r-maIung explanation Of
them must be in the operation Of mechanical laws.
Mr. Fiskc applies the argument only To the operations
Of the mind showing the inapplcabllty OF mechanical
laws their explanation lie recognizes as mental OPP
eratons and applies his argument only 10 what goc
on within the mind itself point IN which he f. at one
with the mcaph, slclans. Int widely q, variance with
the facts Of nature. as disclosed 10 by hi,
cument from the correlation Of forces. when carried
out 10 its ultimate conclusion Right rs far n II
goes II recognizes only part Of what II really proves
Professor Herbert in his " Realistic Assumptions Of
Modern Science Examined" has made q similar though
far moro glaring mistake when. from the course
orately Developed he fails recognize In II the dis
uncon Of materialIsm which Mr. Fiskc clearly
md arrives only at the lame conclusion that physical
science. being unable 10 explain mental operations.
should hcncefOrth ignore them refuse 10 recognize their
existence. And then constantly insisting upon the
cntro SulccnCy II physca laws 90 tie explanation OF
physical facts. he proceeds with his argument. as II
materalsm remained unaffected by II and intact;
II It might be false point and true nt another;
as II might fail in explaining thought. and succeed
in explaining sction-as Il action could be explained
apart from thought closer attention 20 the doctrine
Of correlation would have convinced Professor Herbert
that IL Is a complete explanation Of outer
than Of inner facts. that IL more explains our ac
lions than thoughts. and that while IT teaches the
universally Of law It also marks III, limit o. law,
showing that while throughout physical nature It
walls everywhere, 1t has but limited application any
where.
Your correspondent. the president Of the Brooklyn
Ethical Association, thinks. however, that whca |
apply the argument of Mr. Fshe TO Mr.. Spcnccr'' me
chancal theory Of the mind, and seem 81 myself 10
find an lrreconcilabe conflict between them it is be
cause fail 10 comprehend the true position Of either
of those great thinkers and he IS also sure that the
assumption on my part that the philosophy Of Mr.
spencer IS avOwedly matcriastic has been repeatedly
denied exposed by Mr.. spencer and his recognized
interpreters In reply 20 which II IS proper Ia remind
YOUR CORE p0ndcn that have not charged Mr. Spencer
with avow1ng the maerallStlc character Of his phoso
phy but n What he means l. that it, maeriallstc
character has been denied and exposed, am quito
aware OF the truth Of the first part Of the prop)sio'
II has certainly been denied but II II has been cX
uosed IL by that Is meant that IL has been rcfuted
IL must be upon the sIpposton that Mr. spencer ana
his followers have 1t In their power to rcfc an mas
putnblc truth Mr. Spencer has denied and attempted
10 refnie the charge In passage at the close oil MS
First Principles The denial may possibly DC regarded
as successfully achieved. but such rcfuaton from
philosopher Of Mr. spcnccrs supposed colossal powers
is something 10 be astonishcd at. For be 1t Tcmcm
bercd he Is not speaking here In any casual way OF
a matter which may be decided either pro or con WIN
equally favorable results to his system o, Is a''"s
his best to relieve IL from imputafion whch IL uh
rcfuted is fatal b. It, The sy stem which he s striving
10 vindicate is one which. his followers fondy
,mootnc has revout Ionzcd the thinking Of the world