Huxley (Agnosticism)
by 3DJ 
, Thursday, July 11, 2013, 14:49 (3941 days ago)
"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.-"1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.- 2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not."-"Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow 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 demonstrable"-"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions."-"The extent of the region of the uncertain, the number of the problems the investigation of which ends in a verdict of not proven, will vary according to the knowledge and the intellectual habits of the individual Agnostic. I do not very much care to speak of anything as "unknowable." What I am sure about is that there are many topics about which I know nothing; and which, so far as I can see, are out of reach of my faculties. But whether these things are knowable by any one else is exactly one of those matters which is beyond my knowledge, though I may have a tolerably strong opinion as to the probabilities of the case."
Huxley
by David Turell , Thursday, July 11, 2013, 15:05 (3941 days ago) @ 3DJ
"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. > > "1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. > > > 2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not." > > "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow 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 demonstrable" > > "This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions." > > "The extent of the region of the uncertain, the number of the problems the investigation of which ends in a verdict of not proven, will vary according to the knowledge and the intellectual habits of the individual Agnostic. I do not very much care to speak of anything as "unknowable." What I am sure about is that there are many topics about which I know nothing; and which, so far as I can see, are out of reach of my faculties. But whether these things are knowable by any one else is exactly one of those matters which is beyond my knowledge, though I may have a tolerably strong opinion as to the probabilities of the case."-Welcome 3DJ: This certainly fits the dhw I know.
Huxley
by 3DJ , Friday, July 12, 2013, 08:07 (3940 days ago) @ David Turell
Thanks David. Does dhw just reproduce the a-theists' redefinitions?
Huxley
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.
Huxley
by 3DJ , Friday, July 12, 2013, 15:47 (3940 days ago) @ dhw
Those dictionary definitions, are based on the a-theist redefinition movement. In the 1970s, you can find the likes of George H Smith butchering the definition of Agnosticism, making it relate only to knowledge, making it compatible with Theism, and not a position of no belief. Then, based on that butchery, claiming non-Theists have no sufficient label, as the word Atheist, most commonly meant Athe-ist (what he later calls strong atheism). He then pushes redefining the word Atheist, to mean a-theist, instead. Along with redefining Atheism, came his numerous pointless adjectives, that are now needed to describe individual a-theists positions properly. the a-theist labelling system is a convoluted, incomplete, illogical, mess.-A-theists have had to constantly redefine Agnosticism, as well, to try and claim it isn't a position of belief. The only reason the unknown and unknowable definitions have made it into dictionaries, is because a-theists have written so much about it, making some dictionaries accept it as common usage. Most people, out in the world, still seem to consider Agnosticism the "fence sitter", or middle position.-Huxley's definition was always basically a one word label for religious scepticism, and directed at the evidence stage before belief. This is 10 years before coining the term "Agnostic"...-"I warn you solemnly against both of these evils. Despise both bigotry and scoffing doubt, and regard those who encourage you in either, whether they wear the tonsure of a priest, or the peruke of a Voltaire, as your worst enemies. And if you seek a preservative against these snares, I say, strive earnestly to learn something, not only of the results, but of the methods of science, and then apply those methods to all statements which offer themselves for your belief. If they will not stand that test, they are nought, let them come with what authority they may.", 1959-...basically the same thing as 15 years after coining the term...-"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.", 1984-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).
Huxley
by David Turell , Friday, July 12, 2013, 18:31 (3940 days ago) @ 3DJ
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).-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. I believe there is enough soft evidence out there for me to reach a conclusion about the presence of an uncaused first cause, but I am unwilling to accept the anthropomorphized version of God the religions like to present.