New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-06-13
SELECTIONS FROM THE NAIL
AGNoSTIC OR METAGNosTICP

To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir: curious feature Of the attempt lately made
In the Brooklyn Ethical Association to introduce the
word metagnostic a substitute for the simple term
agnosc is that for that association 10 adopt the term
would be TO abandon their present position and go
over to the other side. To such move see no valid
objection, provided it be made in good faith, and
openly avowed on the contrary, there seems to DC
every reason in the world why IL should be done
But II that be the intention, why adopt new term
when the purpose would be as well served by merely
dropping the old The term agnostic was first
adopted by Professor Huxley, expression OF I'M
belief Of Christian doctrines Of which Christians pro
TESS to know the truth He did not deny the doctrines
but disclaimed and denied any knowledge Of their
truth. Probably the term chosen in view OF the
fact stated by DR.. Alexander Wilder, that the early
Christians were called gnostics. Professor Huxley win
that downrightness which is Characteristic OF MS
which deserves condemnation, is convinced that the
whole ground is covered by the Affirmative gnostic'
and It's negative agnostic: that II the Christian doc
trfnes of the spiritual nature OF man and Its coroi-
lares known the agnostic has ground to stand
upon while II they are not known his creed is In
full force and there is no 10 be said on the sub
lect. Either those doctrines arc known, or they are
not known and there is nothing 10 be gained by
parleying or by playing fast and loose with either
position.
But Professor Huxley has grown wiser than when
is at least frank, and that at the expense OF
his own position He no longer questions the scien-
tifc standing Of the spiritual theory, but in late
review article, entitled Science and the Bishops,
he takes couple of English bishops to task for In
dlscreety concealng the untenabeness of the super
natural in the presence Of modern scientific discovery
There is no ground for such concession, says Pro
lessor Huxley to the bishops, but on the contrary,
the belief which you in such haste TO disavow In
wit he
is scientifically speaking, as impregnabe as the OPP
posite; and the Christian has as good right, so far
as science is concerned, 10 place behind natural phe-
a spiritual controlling and directing the
order and manner Of their occurrence, has his OPP
ponent, to attibute them to the unaded operation OF
natural laws He may, therefore, without let or
hindrance from science, and without thought OF
nterrupng the order of nature, believe In miracles,
providences, and answers to prayer.
As straws show which way the wind blows, per
haps this new move may be sign that agnostics
finding that they know than they had sus-
pected and that they wish 10 be on hand IN
season with a new word to express the pleas
ing fact, with only a gentle reminder IN IL
Of their former state of constructive ignorance For
disguise it may, the agnostic is only consruc-
lively ignorant Of truths of which he we'll as every
body else is perfectly aware and his plea of ig-
noramus Is little than a cOvaldly attempt to
shrk Just responsibility for his knowledge under the
pretence that he has scientific evidence in its sup
port. But Professor Huxley now tells the would
agnOstic bishops that scientific evidence exists
against the supernatural and the ethical agnostcs Of
Brooklyn are beginning TO that that position must
Lc abandoned They might have learned this years ago
from Mr.. Fiske, who has several times done his best
10 show them how the correlation Of forces, which
Mr. spencer takes TO be the mainstay OF materaUsm Is
its sure destruction. But both Mr.. Fiske and Pro
fessor Huxley might have carried the argument
IfftIa furfI by uaQcQUacy
lcaI laws to the explanation Of mental operations
proves the necessity OF a soul 20 account for tlem
They might have shown that is, that not only does
science not deny the spiritual theory, but that u
af1rms il in The most positive manner. Fh}slcal
science is not neutral ground between the conendhs
hosts equally favorable 10 each, but a HNhS "lthss
for the truth OF the spiritual nature OF man and OF te
spiritual origin OF the universe lhis pam -" -, '7
OF the correlation OF forces j. not Only ialal 10 ma
terialism a. Mr.. Flske has so often and 80 VaInB
tried u convince not only agnosucs out Ie9iosial3,
bat whenever Mr.. Fiske ana professor liuAleN WIN
carry il out 10 its legitimate conclusion IL VIII also
make an end Of agnosucism by iaylis 5oHu IOs "a
ton for spiritual cauSatiOn IN the knowledge Oh tIo
laws of physical nature, which being clearly under
stood brings Us 10 the comnonsense position OF haat,
that phenomena have two aspects IN Whlch u"y NAV
be viewed, the mechanical and the lntsInglbe,. III
only one OF which they explained by the operation
Of mechanical laws, and In the other only by Una
agency Of mind
TO understand this position Of Kant 10 understand
the doctrine Of the mechanical series OF anteceden1
of forces and TO detect the falacy Of Mr. Spencers
audacious attempt TO interpret every order OF pie
of matter motion and force" and OF his pretence Of
necessary deduction from the law Of correlation that
the phenomena of consciousness are material phe-
nOmena, as il Will also contribute TO clear under
standing of Mr. Fiskes refutatiOn Of these scientific
hereses, il will also throw good deal OF ght on
the scientnc value OF a system which, according 10
one of It's adherents, has been wrought into mar
mOniOus and perfect system OF thought IN all OF It's
logical hearings and Implications but under which
two Of IFS greatest advocates reasoning from the same
princplcthe correlation Of fOrcesreach opposite con
illusions regarding a question which lies at the very
foundation Of its existence Perhaps, too II would
enable evolutionary agnostics 10 determine whether
we Ought adopt evolution Mr.. Spencers terms or
on Mr. Flskes, on the supposIfon that psychlcal
phenomena can, or that they cannot be Interpreted IN
terms of matter. motion and force one Of these
philosophers must be right, but so must the other DO
wrong. There is no metagnOsticism here. on one
side the other there is agnOstcsm enough 20 appal
a philosopher: FOR II Mr. Spencer is rcht MS system
stands and material evolution triumphs, but
he is wrong his system, maeria!ism, asnosilcsm and
all falls to the ground.
The question then, which cOnfrOnts the evOutiOnst,
whether in or ont Of the Brooklyn Ethical Association.
is not how the harsh features Of agnOscism can be
toned down by the use OF mider term. but rather.
how they hold 70 system at all whose founder
has been in effect convicted by his most distinguished
and hOnOred disciple Of eXpOunding IL upon strange
misunderstanding of a fundamental law Of science
And the might not be so bad il Mr.. Fiske had
pointed any way Of escape from the difficulty, but
this he has failed 70 do and the question suggests
itself whether something stronger than paatves viii
not be needed to system which do no better
Newborn June 9, 1880 s. H. WILDER.