The sun., 1903-03-22

that 'agnogtic' b name derived from Z
nickname, title OF honor assumed IN an
tfthesis to designation Of oontemptf ID
not the legitimacy Of the origin Of name
20 derived. and the right to use . title %
assumed far from APPARENT Our author
thinks that the terms atheist 'theist,
.psntheist. = 'materialist.' and 'idealist,
are terms much more serviceable and much
less Objectionable than -freethinker' is,
or than 'agnostio' must be. understood
as antithetic TO the -gnostic' OF church
history. SO understood. "agnostic' I'M
plies that all except agnostics are pre-
tenders to knowledge which they do not
possess, while II does not give the least
indication a. TO what knowledge they them
selves profess to possess, Just as 'free-
thinker implies that those who do not
think q he does, who 90 calls himself. is a
servile thinker. while 1t gives no indication
Of wherein the freedom assumed diners
from the servility alleged. Our author
contends that, 30 understood. tha term
'agnostio" could not fairly diferentiate
Huxley from any Of his colleagues In the
Metaphysical Society. None Of them would
have admitted that he was a gnostic, or
decline to maintain that he was antignostic
Nobody can be expected to acknowledge
that he Ii a pretender to knowledge which
he does not possess, as every one would do
who called himself, or allowed himself.
to be called. q gnostic. "The use OF 0nos
in onosticism and oonosicism to mean not
onosis or knowledge, but the illusion OF It,
or fdise claim 10 Il, Is essentially unfair. No
one will consent to bear the name Of gnostic
or admit that he holds a gnostic creed In
that sense" On the other hand, sthe the
in Meism, atheism and pantheism. alike
really signifying heos or tiod-and the
mdterid In moteridiism, and the idea In
id'dtism. being both used in their ordinary
and accepted sense. the adherents Of any
OF these isms will allow that they belong
to that lam, and profess their readiness to
maintain what IL distinctive in it's creed
Why. asks Prof. Flint, did Huxley not
give to the terms which he invented their
proper signification7 Obviously, because
they would not then have meant what
he wished them to mean. By processing
himself an agnostic. Huxley did not desire
or pretend to attribute to himself ignorance
OF any kind Of knowledge. OF ability TO
acquire any kind Of knowledge. In advo-
eating the claims OF what he termed agnos-
. theory Of universal nescience, or Of any
kind Of nescience which could be dispelled.
The terms agnostic and agnosticism natur-
ally mean in themselves what he did not
mean by them, but even the very oppo-
site OF what he meant by them. Prof.
Flint considers -know-nothingism to be q
fair enough rendering Of the meaning OF
the word agnosticism. although 1t utterly
misrepresents Huxley's idea Of what the
word should denote. Our author further
suggests that HuxIey's account Of the in
vention Of the terms under review seems
to recognize q right on the part Of the ag-
nostic to reject only metaphysics and
theology. The possibility or legitimacy
OF treating agnoetically the deliveranoes
OF sense and the processes and conclusions
OF science Ia not contemplated. THAT is
a defect. The genus must include all the
species. The term agnosticism. like the
term scepticism, cannot with propriety
be limited to any particular class or classes
OF the theories which question or reject
what claims TO be knowledge. II a man
be merely q metaphysical or theological.
or a metaphysical and theological agnostic.
he is. Of course, wholly entitled to describe
himself a. what he Is. but not to deny to
others the right to be and to designate
themselves scientific agnostics. or to as
sumo that scientific agnosticism, in the
sense Of soepticism as to the certainty OF
science. Ia less legitimate and rational than
the agnosticism which he himself professes
The conclusion reached d is that the words
agnostic and agnost icism have not owe d
their favorable recept ion In Gre at Britain
and the United States ntirely to their in
lrinsic merit. They have owed 1t in some
degree to their being rather imposing and
seductive words, which carry with them
IN air OF kaming and profundity. The
man who calls himself an agnost ic claims
by implicatio ion 20 be no common man. but
A philosopher. and even a philosopher so
deep and subtle as to entitlc him TO dt spise
he great mass OF ordinary philosophy and
Of ordinary conviction. Not a few. how
'ver, Of those who call the m~e lv, = agnost les
have, plainly. no other claim than that
hey do 80 call the mselves, to Ire deemed
or to have thought at all on
70 abstruse a subject as the condit ions ard
capabilities OF cognition. OF course. Prof
Flint would not insinuate that this con-
,ide rat ion has had any innuenoe on the
4 ade ~ Of agnost icism, but We are reminded
hat Agnostioism. like other CAUSES and
systems. has adhe N nts Of very difY. n nj
qualities. II s probable enough. too. that
considerable number Of persons were
Elsd 20 received tn. name Of agnostic, In
he hope that they would. In cons quonce.
sot be called atheists, or. AZ kssi. from the |
wish TO he able to apply to themselves an
,ther designation than one which they
cit TO he unjust and opprobrious. In |
Prof. Fiint's opinion. their hop- has no, |
Isei. realisd. -Tle result of an atheist |
aiiing himseH an agnos,Ic Ic almost newt |
lbly s that other people call him an az. |
,os, " atheist, and so h. has t~o hard names |
brown si him insi' ad ~ on. ~ to the |
Sisl. most orainly q man Who n u~rly |
IN asno~'Io 10 sniiisd 10 pro,ss, sgainst |
bs nJus,hs ~ IL ing spohn ~ as an !,
atheist I'm ibr o,h.r hand, " . man h.
rally an s,Is lsi ~ IA. ordinary ns anlns
u the torn. is has no rlkh Ia claim to Ia /
b ksfs<d ~ m-riy sn sSnasae' ~ |
,.,s ins forward svah . claim. 10 nsos.
'arily .p.aas And ecahfns ,i~ ssTy srroI
,ssins' shis'h h pfuts sas, Ia sn. tls oaa-
uplsn ~ sSn.silelsm sih sihs l.n
Ice, tho efiiis'isia ~ tho sofd -Asnn-ilr'
'issuld --sm "a roinr i"st.s, hyIsrIonlo.i, |
hoy sss 1s,alnand of il.s sals.,ss ia,issi,