The sun., 1903-03-22

III any man think, says St. Paul, "tha,
he knows anything. he knoweth nothing
yet as he ought to know There we bays
st. Paul declaring that any true KNOWLEDGE
we can have-the knowledge that we ali
ought to have-is q consciousness Of know.
ing nothing. But he did not thereby pro.
claim himself an agnostic, anxious to con.
vert all men to agnosticism He only e,.
| pressed the sense Of the imperfection o,
human knowledge, and his desire that All
| men humbly 30 felt its imperfection a. No,
| to be unduly proud of II, which they ara
very apt to be. and, indeed, generally IN.
| more apt the more imperfect IL is Ac.
oordingly. his remarkable and profound
| declaration was Immediately preceded bv
| the words we know that we all have know.
ledge. knowledge pufeth up, but love
edifieth.'
What. then, Is the precise relation o.
agnosticism (scepticism) to the doctrine
OF nesciencef This question is thus
answered In the book before US: The
relation is not unfrequently one OF identity
with what Is called the doctrine OF nes-
cience, the designation often meaning
merely the agnostic, or soeptical doctrine
of nescience-such a doctrine as under.
takes to show that what all except agnos-
tics (sceptics) supposed to be knowledge.
(science) is really ignorance (nescience)-
unsupported and unverined belief. a blind
faith produced by non-rational causes
Humes doctrine Of nescienoe, for example,
Is often called a doctrine OF universal
nescience, and 1t is so. but only In the sense
that It IL plainly identical with universal
scepticism, absolute agnosticism. Then,
again, the doctrine Of nescience propounded
by Auguste Comte and Huxley, which,
while protesting to prove man 8 necessary
ignorance Of all that lies beyond the sphere
Of sense-perception, admits a possible
knowledge Of all that lies within it. ia at
once . doctrine Of partial nescience and
form Of partial agnosticism or scepticism
for the reason that it is an agnostic or
sceptical doctrine OF nescience. Prof.
Flint goes on to show, however, that
doctrine Of nescience has no exclusive or
special connection with agnosticism or
scepticism. The most extreme gnosti.
cism, the most unoompromising dogmatism,
implies doctrine OF nescience no less than
does the most thorough agnosticism, the
most resolute soepticism. A doctrine Of
nescience. may, In q word, be either gnostc
or sSnostic, or neither gnostic nor agnostic.
And IL should be observed that, in en-.
deavoring to reach a true doctrine o,
neecience. we should prosecute our inveeti.
cations unbiased by q desire that it should
be either the one or the other. or the one
more thsn the other In itself, doctrine
Of nescience 10 simply a reasoned answer
to the question. What are the limits beyond
which. and the conditions. failing to COM
ply with which, the mind Of man neces.
sarily wanders in ignorance and error'
In other words, 1t Is an essential part, or
necessary complement Of, the theory Of
knowledge"
Again, agnosticism 10 not necessarily
atheism. although atheism is often agnos.
ticism. A theist or q Christian may be an
agnostic; an atheist may not be an agnostio.
A man who believes that God can be known.
but not that an external world can be known.
is as much an agnostic as a man who be-
lieves that an external world can be known,
but not that God can be known. An atheist
may deny that there Is a God. and in this
case his atheism Is dogmatic. not agnostic,
or. he may refuse to acknowledge that there
u . God. simply on the ground that he
perceives no evidence for His existnoe.
and finds the arguments that hsv0 been
advanced In proof Of 1t invalid; and, In this
case his atheism Ii critical, not agnostic.
In our authors opinion. 1t always shows
want Of clearness Of mind, and sometimes
uncharitableness Of heart, to treat agnos-
ticism as equivalent to atheism. There is.
however. an agnoetic atheism, or atheistc
agnosticism, and the combination Of atheism
with agnosticism which may be so named
Is not an uncommon one.
Once more, the positivism OF Augusts
Comte should not be identified with agnos-
ticisim In all that It afiirms. indeed. positive
ism Ii the contrary Of agnosticism, the lmi-
tation and exclusion Of agnosticism. II is
the concession that all phenomena are
movable. and. 30 far. are non-agnoetic,
When positivism denies, however, that We
can know anything beyond what 1t calls
experience and phenomena. the denial
seems clearly to require for its vindication
q theory Of knowledge, which. ifthe denial
he legitimate. must be Of an agnostic kind
Another view OF agnosticism which
Prof. Flint would reject is that propounded
by Mr.. Leslie stephen in his .Agnostics
Apology" Mr.. Stephen says The word
agnosticism seems TO imply a fairly accu-
rate representation Of q form Of creed
already common snd~dsily spreading. The
agno.tic Ia one who asserts-what no oi"
denies there are limits TO the sphere
OF human intelligence. He asserts. further.
what many thsologiAns have expressly
maintained. that those limits are such as
To exclude ~ leas, what I.ewes oalls 'm.tsln'
piroal knowlsdse. But hs goes further
and asserts. In opposition io theologlan-.
that theology lice within thls forb,dt"n
sphere our author objects that, ~ iaf
froin the word asno-'icism implying -
Mr. stephsn asserts, q fairly aocuia'"
~ q creed which s,ers hat
theology fails without the SPHERE of kn"s.'
sdxe. u has no .pssaal reference shs'"'r'
Ia ,h~olosy IL d.notss merely a theory
u knoslsdse, and a. may apply 4" sn' -
every spii.Tv ~ oono.a Ahls .iisttrOs
I,u, u no mute impli.s ,hsDlosy Ia l- 10
yoad the limits ~ human lHirlls.no. tlah
phi .lolosy os Iss,si,olosy 'An ssn"s''
lasy In s,,hsi tlslsi of ga sil,slsi li'i'
$50 ,Lsaloslasl ~ ssll - snli -lls'',u,
.xn.sllas .Ad Ia ssli ,Ls fo'ai"i si,"si'' '
~ n,snii..iiy ga sb1-s ~ lansuaF s.
!. ....la IL. A. .,sll tl.s L.llsf a.. lUH it"A