Huxley (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Saturday, July 13, 2013, 12:28 (4152 days ago) @ David Turell

3DJ: I just call myself an Agnostic, and totally base my definition of "Agnostic" on Huxley's definition. It is a position of no belief, due to lack of evidence, and not compatible with Athe-ism (belief Gods don't exist) or Theism (belief Gods exist).-DAVID: As resident theist, your definition of Agnostic is what I believe dhw has taught me. But he will answer. I kid him about his picket fence, but I understand the difference from middle ground that you are describing. -And my answer is a resounding cheer. In the five and a half years of discussions on this forum, I have had to explain the above distinctions over and over again. Thank you also for the lesson in how the term has been corrupted, though my own objection to the dictionary definition is that it makes EVERYONE an agnostic.
 
However, I'm happy with David's kidding me about my picket fence, and we have a lot of fun with this metaphor. I understand why theists believe and atheists disbelieve, but every explanation offered for the existence of life and consciousness runs into the same problem of origins, which can only be solved by a massive and irrational leap of faith which I cannot take. That is why "fence-sitter" is fine with me. I would, however, qualify your "due to lack of evidence" as "due to lack of evidence that convinces me", and with all the emphasis I can muster would stress the subjectivity of belief. -For this reason, I don't like the 1884 quote: "...a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." I would vigorously oppose the subjective view that science is the only gateway to "truth" (whatever that may be). Similarly, while applauding Huxley's scorn for "bigotry and scoffing doubt" (1859 ... the year Origin was published!), I would also urge respect for at least some of the non-scientific experiences and arguments that enable people to take their subjective leap. Non-belief for me carries with it an acute awareness that one of the explanatory hypotheses in which I do not believe must have elements of "truth" in it, and my ignorance does not entitle me to assume that materialism holds all the answers. This tallies with one of the quotes in your first post ("there are many topics about which I know nothing; and which, so far as I can see, are out of reach of my faculties"), so I'm only using these quotes to set out my own views, not to start a discussion on Huxley's, as I know far too little about him. Again, I'd be interested to know the limits of your own tolerance.