Huxley (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Friday, July 12, 2013, 13:34 (4153 days ago) @ 3DJ

3DJ (quoting dhw): "It is true that the inventor of the term "agnosticism", T.H. Huxley, intended it to mean the impossibility of knowing whether God exists or not."-2. Agnosticism-Absolutely not true.-Welcome to the forum, and many thanks for these enlightening quotes from Huxley. As you will have gathered from this section of my "brief guide", my main concern was to respond to Dawkins' attack on agnosticism, and not to delve into Huxley's own thinking, but it's very interesting to read his thoughts on the subject.-The above definition is the one still used in virtually all my reference books, e.g.: 
agnostic: one who holds that the existence of anything beyond material phenomena, e.g. of a First Cause, or of noumena, cannot be known (Shorter Oxford)
agnostic: a person who holds that knowledge of a Supreme Being, ultimate cause, etc. is impossible (Collins).
 
As I've tried to make clear, though, I don't like this definition, which epistemologically speaking would make us all agnostics, and I prefer to think of myself as someone who cannot decide whether God (or any other version of a "first cause") exists or not. It's clear from your quotes that Huxley himself was not satisfied with it either, and I've found a website (askville.amazon.com) which explains the discrepancy you've highlighted: -"Huxley got the term "gnostic" from the early Christian Gnostics, whom he said, "professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant", and created the word 'agnostic', with the prefix giving the new word the opposite meaning of the core word, which means, "knowing". This is close to the meaning that most modern day people associate with the word. It is used to mean a person who is not certain whether God exists or gods exist. It is subtly different from the original meaning in that the term started out to mean that knowledge of the cause and origin of existence is not only an uncertainty, but an impossibility, whether you're considering that the origin may be God, science, or something else entirely.-Throughout his life, during which the word 'agnostic' caught on and became commonly used, Huxley tweaked his term, and adjusted its meaning." -You ask whether I "just re-produce the a-theists' redefinitions". I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'd like to think that the conclusion of my response to Dawkins is very much in the spirit of Huxley: "Agnostics do not impose theories on what they do not understand, and they do not hope that their prejudgments will be proved right."-I'd be very interested to know where you yourself stand on the issue of a "first cause". Meanwhile, once again, many thanks for this very instructive insight into Huxley's views.