The sun., 1903-03-22

opinion, the tsrm h then only accurately
and appropriately employed when II u
regarded as equivalent for what has bsen
variously called philosophical, or theo-
reticai. or metaphysical soepticism. or
simply scepticism. 1T is the theory OF
the nature and limits of human intelligeRce
which questions either the certainty OF all
knowledge and the veracity Of every men,
tai power, or the certainty OF some par
4 ticular kind Of knowledge. and the veracity
! of some particular mental power or powers.
| The limitation Of the word to the sphere
OF religion 10 quite unjustifable. There Is
| no reason for calling a man an agnostic
merely because he is an atheist, or POSI-
twist, or a materialist. The name is ap-
propriate, indeed. to one whose refusal
to believe in the existence OF God ana OF
! spiritual things is based on the ground that
the human mind IN inherently and con-
stitutionally incapable OF knowing whether
there are a God and spiritual things or
not But there Is no kind Of truth which
may not be rejected on the ground that the
human mind is inherently and constitu-
tiohally incapable OF ascertaining whether
or not there Is such truth The weakness
Of the human mind is plea which may be
brought forward In any region Of inquiry:
and the plea ia the same whatever be the
region in which II Is brought forward.
Things, however, which have the same
nature should have the same name. Hence.
wherever assent Is withheld because Of the
alleged inoompetency Of the mind to ascer-
tain the truth, the name agnosticism is
applicable.
The rejection Of any one kind Of truth
on that ground IL as much agnosticism a.
the rejection OF any other kind. What Is
essential and invariable in agnosticism is
the reason on which II supports itself, the
attitude assumed toward truth and knowl-
edge What IL non-essential and variable
in It are the objects or propositions to which
II refers. Some, indeed, have represented
the sceptcism which may appropriately
be called agnosticism as disbelief Of the
attainability Of truth. Others contend that
IL should be confined to doubt Of such at
tainability. For reasons set forth at length
in this book the author holds that it may be
either doubt or disbelief. Not, however,
either merely doubt or disbelief. but the
doubt or disbelief which rests on the sup
position that what are really powers Of
the human mind are untrustworthy: that
what are actually normal perceptions.
natural or even necessary laws and legiti-
mate processes, are not to Be depended
on. sOrdinary doubt and ordinary dis
belief have their reasons In the objects or
propositions examined by the mind. not In
distrust OF the mind itself. They imply
nothing more than the conviction Of the
absence OF evidence for. or the existence Of
evidence against. the particular position
in dispute. Agnosticism. on the other
hand challenges evidence. and refuses to
be convinced by it, on the deeper and SUBJ
incapable Of deriving truth or certainty
strongest claims to be regarded as evil
dence."
III.
In another chapter Il is pointed out that
many representations Of agnosticism which
are in circulation are erroneous. For in
stance agnosticism has been understood
to mean simply truth sea rching. free
thought. thorough and honest inquiry.
Thus Huxley has said: .Agnosticism
in fact is not a creed. but a method. the
essence OF which lies in the rigorous ap-
puCHuOu vi q bhkic PrhOiPic' Ahot PIN
ciple is OF great antiquity; 1t u as old a.
Socrates; as old as the writer who said.
Try all things, hold fast that which IL good:
Il il the foundation Of the Reformation. !
which simply illustrated the axiom that !
every man should be able to give q reason |
for the faith that is in him; IL Is the great |
principle OF Descartes; 1t is the funda- |
mental axiom Of modern science. Posi- |
lively the principle may be expressed as
follows: In matters Of the intellect. fol- |
low 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 demon
strable. That I take to be the agnostic |
faith, which IL Q man keep whole and un- |
defled he shall not be ashamed to look |
the universe In the face. whatever the |
future may have In store for him. Our |
author insists that what Ia here described !
as the "agnostic faith h simply honesty !
in investigation. The excellence Of that 4
quality Of mind Is. Of course, unquestion- |
able, and the obligatoriness Of exercising /
il ought TO he self-evident. whatever be |
the subject Of investigation. 1T may be
more dificult TO practise it-more diff |
ficult TO apply what Prof. Huxley calls
it's 'principle'-in philosophy and theology |
than 10 physical science. but II " none the |
less binding Is 1t reasonable. however.
tn represent agnosticism as synonymous
with intellectual honestly IL II equitable
to attribute to II or to any other lem that
virtue as exclusively its own, its dinerentisi
aualities' The mere fscs that inquirers
of all kinds lay claim TO intellectual honesty
seems TO me sufficient 10 warrant our an-
swering these quest ions In the negative-
A. 20 the .assertion that agnosticism 10
not a creed. IL must he admitted that HuI-
leys own agnos'ioi.m MAS not exclusive
of or,s-d or dogma. lie inveotsd the term
agnostie ,o distinguish himself from the
Adh~renis of q variety of isms. philc-ophi.
cal and theological, expressly because,
in his own words, 'thsy we're quite SURE
thai they had . ssstain 'saosis' had. mors
90 l.rs .uo..sfuily. solved the prol,lssn
of eKlsisn. while I ~as quite sure ! had
b0. and had . pf.iiy strong osnyictios
thai tho pfolslsm sss n-olubls proi
PINT sul,,niis that any man gulis saIs ~
sll that tnusi, shsisses is lnlshi linSslns