This Word....This word, which has in the twentieth century come to signify little more than passive disbelief, was invented by Thomas Henry Huxley at Cambridge in the 1860s. According to Charles Blinderman, Professor Emeritus at Clark University, "The word seems to have been invented by him towards the end of the '60s, at an early meeting of the Metaphysical Society. He did not use the term until post-1870." Huxley, Darwin's great advocate, coined the term, he says, because everyone else was an "-ist" of one kind or another, and he had no label to apply to his own beliefs. He meant to distinguish himself from those whose faith provided answers to the most profound questions:
Does God exist? How can we know Him? (Why isn't He revealed more unambiguously in the scriptures?) Why would He create evil, and why would He allow the good to suffer and the wicked to flourish? Does He intervene miraculously in this world?
He found that he could not answer those questions. Furthermore, he came to believe that no one could, without resorting to a knowledge (or gnosis) which goes beyond reason. Huxley, we must remember, was one of the first scientists to think of science as his profession; before the Victorian period, most scientific data was collected by vicars with time on their hands. As a professional scientist, Huxley insisted on reason and the empirical method as the only properly scientific way of knowing this world. For him faith meant believing what is literally incredible (i.e., unreasonable), and thus was impossible for a scientist. In dealing logically with the unknown, one may infer only phenomena like those he already understands. At first he believed that any faith involved bad logic (see Jean-Paul Sartre on "Bad Faith"), but later retreated from this position. Other agnostics (like Leslie Stephen, George Eliot, and W.K. Clifford) have been very willing to take up this position, however. Huxley always insisted that there was no such thing as organized Agnosticism, that as far as he was concerned the term described only his own beliefs. But to a large extent this child outgrew its parent.
The distinguishing characteristic of Victorian unbelief was the degree to which it became an alternative to traditional religion, and when men like Leslie Stephen and W.K. Clifford began calling themselves Agnostics, Agnosticism achieved the kind of success which Comte had tried to create for Positivism (which Huxley had dismissed as "Catholicism minus Christianity"). For the first time, men and women who could not accept the dogmas required by religions could avail themselves of a body of logical argument. By 1884, they even had their own journal, the Agnostic Annual.
Those who attacked Huxley and agnosticism tended to ignore the careful distinctions which he made, lumping agnostics in with atheists, materialists, and other "infidels." Taken in addition to the very traditional and conservative morals of the first Agnostics, who were careful to comport themselves like model middle-class Victorians, the distinctions are important to an explanation of the movement's influence. Where the atheist says that God does not exist, the agnostic says that reason can never be used to prove the existence of a being who transcends reason, and whether or not He exists, He does not intervene in human affairs, making speculation about His existence moot. We are on our own.
Twentieth-century thinkers, especially existentialists, have used agnosticism as a jumping-off point for their own philosophies, and the imprecision with which the term is used these days is a measure of its success. Much of that success is due to Huxley's creation of the name. "Agnosticism" has a cachet which neither "rational nonbelief" nor any other phrase could approximate.
source Victorian Reference.
No one would have remembered the good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
Margaret Thatcher
There may be Gods, but they care not what men do
Henry David Thoreau
Every sensible man, every honourable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror
Francois Marie Arouet "Voltaire"
All religions have been made by men.
Napoleon Bonaparte
The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.
Charles Robert Darwin
I was born a heretic. I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires
Susan B. Anthony, U.S. reformer and suffragist
Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.
Dan Barker, author and former evangelist
I turned to speak to God, About the world's despair; But to make bad matters worse, I found God wasn't there.
Robert Frost
I don't believe in God. My god is patriotism. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life
Andrew Carnegie
It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him.
Arthur C. Clarke
If there is a God, he is a malign thug
Samuel Clemens author "Mark Twain"
God is inconceivable, immortality is unbelievable, but duty is peremptory and absolute
George Eliot
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity
John Adams, U.S. President
Religion is the daughter of hope and fear, explaining to ignorance the nature of the unknowable.
Ambrose Bierce
Religion is all bunk.
Thomas Edison
Faith is a euphemism for prejudice and religion is a euphemism for superstition.
Paul Keller
I turned to speak to God, About the world's despair; But to make bad matters worse, I found God wasn't there.
Robert Frost
That's the problem with believing in a supernatural being. Trying to determine what he wants.
Councillor Troi, ST:TNG
Revelation indeed had no weight with me.
Benjamin Franklin
A tack points heavenward when it causes the most mischief. It has many human imitations
Texas Siftings
The Agnostics
A common freethinker category consists of agnostics. Thomas Huxley coined the term agnostic in the late 19th century. It is formed from two Greek words: the root gnosis meaning "knowledge" and the prefix a meaning "without." Agnostics are those who say, with regard to a given subject, "we are without knowledge concerning it."
Huxley put his concept this way—"Positively, the principle (of agnosticism) 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."
An agnostic, therefore, neither affirms nor denies the existence of God. Today’s agnostics will simply say that, despite all the arguments pro and con, one does not know, and perhaps cannot know whether or not there is a God. Thus the person claims the right, in the middle of strong social authority that there is a God, to conclude that one cannot decide whether or not that claim is true.
Agnostics do not acknowledge the presence or the reality of the supernatural, and so while their mental and scientific commitment is to agnosticism and open inquiry, in reality their way of life is hard to differentiate from atheism.
source Huxley, Thomas Henry, "Agnosticism," Science and the Christian Tradition. London: Macmillan & Co., 1894. Reprinted in Gordon Stein, An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1980, pp. 42-45.
Agnosticism
The terms agnosticism and agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869. The concept however has long existed: the philosophical and theological view that the existence of God, gods or deities is either unknown, or inherently unknowable. The term is also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well and other matters of religions. The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (no) and gnosis (knowledge). Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.
The singular characteristic of agnosticism is uncertainty or doubt. For this reason it is a form of scepticism focusing on religious statements, and so faces some of the same philosophical issues. For instance if an agnostic claims that absolute knowledge of truth is not possible and does not restrict the scope of this claim, they are in danger of contradicting themselves. For then the statement there are no absolute truths would appear itself to be an absolute truth. An agnostic is on firmer ground if they claim that religious statements or statements about the numinous are not or cannot be satisfactorily justified. If such were the case, it would be reasonable to reserve judgment. For instance, an agnostic might demand that religious statements be justified in the same way as scientific statements, perhaps in terms of the scientific method. Since this is adopting an attitude towards the quality of proof required to accept such statements, agnosticism becomes a matter of inclination rather than of logical proof. That is, one need only be willing to accept a different justification of religious statements in order to avoid agnosticism. Perhaps this explains why agnostics do not generally engage in proselytization.
source Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia.
Definition of Agnostic:
Agnosticism is a concept, not a religion. It is a belief related to the existence or non-existence of God.
An agnostic is a person who feels that God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved, on the basis of current evidence. Agnostics note that some theologians and philosophers have tried to prove, for millennia, that God exists. Others have attempted to prove that God does not exist. Neither side has convincingly succeeded at their task.
Are they Theists? No, because Agnostics do not believe in a God, or a Goddess, or in multiple Gods, or multiple Goddesses or in a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses.
However, some Agnostics consider themselves to be Atheists. That is because the term "Atheist" has two slightly different meanings:
A person who positively believes that no God(s) or Goddess(es) exists. E. Haldeman-Julius suggests that "The atheist perceives that history, in every branch of science, in the plainly observable realities of life and in the processes of common sense there is no place for the picture of a God; the idea doesn't fit in with a calmly reasoned and realistic view of life. The atheist, therefore denies the assumptions of theism because they are mere assumptions and are not proved; whereas the contrary evidences, against the idea of theism, are overwhelming." 1 This is the definition of Atheism used by most Christians, other Theists, and dictionaries of the English language.
A person who has no belief in a God or Goddess. Just as a newborn has no concept of a deity, some adults also have no such belief. The term "Atheist" is derived from the Greek words "a" which means "without" and "Theos" which means "God." A person can be a non-Theist by simply lacking a belief in God without actively denying God's existence. This is the definition of Atheism used by many Atheists. They use the term "strong Atheist" to refer to a person who denies the existence of one or more deities.
Some Agnostics feel that their beliefs match the second definition, and thus consider themselves to be both Atheist and an Agnostic. Such confusion is common in the field of religion. We have found 17 definitions for the term "Witch," eight for "cult," and six for the "Pagan." -- all different. A lack of clear, unambiguous definitions for religious terms is responsible for a great deal of confusion and hatred. It makes dialog between Agnostics and Theists very difficult.
An agnostic usually holds the question of the existence of God open, pending the arrival of more evidence. They are willing to change their belief if some solid evidence or logical proof is found in the future. However, some have taken the position that there is no logical way in which the existence or the non-existence of a deity can be proven.
Agnostics make lousy suicide bombers
By Paul Lewis
Globe and Mail UpdateOpinion polls in recent years reveal that as few as 2 per cent of Canadians and .5 per cent of Americans describe themselves as agnostics, a remarkable fact when you consider that no living person actually knows whether God exists or the soul is immortal.
Given the large number of people who take their faith seriously, it would be rude to point this out, except for all of the damage being done in the name of religion around the world.
Those of us who regard questions about religion as distractions from the urgent issues of this life are repeatedly startled and dismayed by the willingness of zealots - be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jewish - to kill and die for their faith.
Like the characters in the Monty Python sketch, we wish we didn't have to expect the Spanish Inquisition in its varied, global and multicultural manifestations. Yet daily reports from Israel, the United States and throughout the Muslim world suggest that people convinced that they are doing God's will are doing the worst possible things.
These days, when God seems to be speaking directly to the devout, the voice is too often heard as recommending intolerance, aggression or terrorism, as divine and human rules against murder and other crimes are everywhere set aside in the name of God.
Whether they call it a jihad or crusade, warriors and leaders who believe their cause is divinely inspired are more likely to take extreme measures. Agnostics know better, or, rather, we know that we know less.
Willing to accept that questions concerning life after death and the existence of supernatural, mythological characters like God, angels and demons cannot be answered, we spend no time asking them. Because of this, we tend to focus on mundane, secular matters of life on this planet, this precious sphere, the Earth.
For these reasons, agnostics make the worst suicide bombers. Indeed, it's almost impossible to imagine an agnostic deciding to give up his or her life to harm people because those people hold different religious beliefs. But also for these reasons agnostics rarely bring their thoughtfully inconclusive perspective into public discourse, and this is unfortunate because the need to oppose the influence of outdated religious ideology has never been greater.
Agnostics are perfectly positioned to point out, for instance, that the wrong Mel made the hyper-serious, divisive movie The Passion of the Christ - wrong because Mel Brooks would have brought a better spirit to the subject.
We can also take note of the way conservative politicians, including U.S. President George W. Bush, use pious rhetoric to advance policies that seem remote from the values of a moral teacher who urged people to turn the other cheek and give all they have to the poor.
Agnostics can use that most visible of all billboards, the automobile bumper, to convey their alternative views: Disorganize Religion; If God Calls, Hang Up; One World at a Time; Take Nothing on Faith; Agnostics Make the Worst Suicide Bombers.
If pious folk feel free to import religious references into speeches about everything from the commencement of an offensive war to the inauguration of a town alderman, from the killing of innocent civilians to assaults on woman's rights, agnostics should join the fray.
As an agnostic, I can see the other side of this, too. Of course, religion can be a force for good for individuals and society. Of course, many people of faith do good work every day of their lives. Of course, secular ideologies can also be destructive. But it is worth noting that people who entertain no doubt about their religious views (that is, those lacking even a twinge of agnosticism) are more likely to be rigid, arrogant and dangerous.
In his play Endgame, Samuel Beckett tells a joke about a man who orders a pair of trousers from a tailor. Much to the man's frustration, it takes the tailor three months to do the work. When the man protests that it took God only six days to make the world, the tailor replies, "But my dear sir, look at the world and look at my trousers!"
In the current context of piety run amok, we need to look at this world as the only one we've got.
Absurdities of the Bible
by Clarence DarrowWhy am I an agnostic? Because I don't believe some of the things that other people say they believe. Where do you get your religion, anyway? I won't bother to discuss just what religion is, but I think a fair definition of religion could take account of two things, at least, immortality and God, and that both of them are based on some book, so practically all of it is a book.
As I have neither the time nor the learning to discuss every religious book on earth, and as I live in Chicago, I am interested in the Christian religion. So I will discuss the book that deals with the Christian religion. Is the Bible the work of anything but man? Of course, there is no such book as the Bible. The Bible to made up of 66 books, some of them written by various authors at various times, covering a period of about 1,000 years -- all the literature that they could find over a period longer than the time that has elapsed since the discovery of America down to the present time.
Is the Bible anything but a human book? Of course those who are believers take both sides of it. If there is anything that troubles them, "We don't believe this." Anything that doesn't trouble them they do believe.
What about its accounts of the origin of the world? What about its account of the first man and the first woman? Adam was the first, made about less than 6,000 years ago. Well, of course, every scientist knows that human beings have been on the earth at least a half-million years, probably more. Adam got lonesome and they made a companion for him. That was a good day's work -- or a day's work, anyhow.
From Rib to Woman
They took a simple way to take one of Adam's ribs and cut it out and make it into a woman, Now, is that story a fact or a myth? How many preachers would say it was a myth? None! There are some people who still occupy Christian pulpits who say it is, but they used to send them to the stake for that.
If it isn't true then, what is? How much did they know about science in those days, how much did they know about the heavens and the earth? The earth was flat, or did God write that down, or did the old Hebrew write it down because he didn't know any better and nobody else then knew any better?
What was the heavens? The sun was made to light the day and the moon to light the night. The sun was pulled out in the day time and taken in at night and the moon was pulled across after the sun was taken out. I don't know what they did in the dark of the moon. They must have done something.
The stars, all there is about the stars, "the stars he made also." They were just "also." Did the person who wrote that know anything whatever about astronomy? Not a thing. They believed they were just little things up in the heavens, in the firmament, just a little way above the earth, about the size of a diamond in an alderman's shirt stud. They always believed it until astronomers came along and told them something different.
Adam and Eve were put in a garden where everything was lovely and there were no weeds to hoe down. They were allowed to stay there on one condition, and that is that they didn't eat of the tree of knowledge. That has been the condition of the Christian church from then until now. They haven't eaten as yet, as a rule they do not.
They were expelled from the garden, Eve was tempted by the snake who presumably spoke to her in Hebrew. And she fell for it and of course Adam fell for it, and then they were driven out. How many believe that story today?
If the Christian church doesn't believe it why doesn't it say so? You do not find them saying that. If they do not believe it here and there, someone says it. That is, he says it at great danger to his immortal soul, to say nothing of his good standing in his church.
The snake was cursed to go on his belly after that. How he went before, the story doesn't say. And Adam was cursed to work. That is why we have to work. That is, some of us -- not I.
And Eve and all of her daughters to the end of time were condemned to bring forth children in pain and agony. Lovely God, isn't it? Lovely?
Can't Believe Story
If that story was necessary to keep me out of hell and put me in heaven -- necessary for my life -- I wouldn't believe it because I couldn't believe it.
I do not think any God could have done it and I wouldn't worship a God who would. It is contrary to every sense of justice that we know anything about.
God had a great deal of trouble with the earth after he made it. People were building a tower -- the Tower of Babylon -- so that they could go up and peek over.
God didn't want them to do that and so confounded their tongues. A man would call up for a pall of mortar and they would send him up a tub of suds, or something like that. They couldn't understand each other.
Is that true? How did they happen to right it? They found there were various languages; and that is the origin of the languages. Everybody knows better today.
Is that story true? Did God write it? He must have known; he must have been all-knowing then as he is all-knowing now.
I do not need to mention them. You remember that joyride that Balaam was taking on the ass. That was the only means of locomotion they had besides walking. It is the only one pretty near that they have now. Balaam wanted to get along too fast and he was beating the ass and the ass turned around and asked him what he was doing it for. In Hebrew, of course. It must have been in Hebrew for Balaam was a Jew.
And Joshua Said to the Sun, "Stand Still."
Is that true or is it a story?
And Joshua; you remember about Joshua.
He was a great general. Very righteous and he was killing a lot of people and he hadn't quite finished the job and so he turned to the mountain top and said to the sun, "Stand still till I finish this job," and it stood still.
Is that one of the true ones or one of the foolish ones?
There are several things that that does. It shows how little they knew about the earth and day and night. Of course, they thought that if the sun stood still it wouldn't be pulled along any further and the night wouldn't come on. We know that if it had stood still from that day to this it wouldn't have affected the day or night; that is affected by the revolution of the earth on its axis.
Is it true? Am I wicked because I know it cannot possibly be true? Have you got to get rid of all your knowledge and all your common sense to save your soul?
Wait until I am a little older; maybe I can then. But my friend says that he doesn't believe those stories. They are figurative.
Are they figurative? Then what about the New Testament? Why does he believe these stories?
Here was a child born of a virgin. What evidence is there?
'Twas the Fashion
What evidence? Do you suppose you could get any positive evidence that would make anyone believe that story today or anybody, no matter who it was?
Child, born of a virgin! There were at least four miraculous births recorded in the Testament. There was Sarah's child, there was Samson, there was John the Baptist, and there was Jesus. Miraculous births were rather a fashionable thing in those days, especially in Rome, where most of the theology was laid out.
Caesar had a miraculous birth, Cicero, Alexander from Macedonia -- nobody was in style or great unless he had a miraculous birth. It was a land of miracles.
What evidence is there of it? How much evidence would it require for intelligent people to believe such a story? It wouldn't be possible to bring evidence anywhere in this civilized land today, right under your own noses. Nobody would believe it anyway, and yet some people say that you must believe that without a scintilla of evidence of any sort.
Jesus had brothers and sisters older than Himself. His genealogy by Matthew is traced to his father, Joseph, in the first chapter of Matthew. Read that. What did he do?
Well, now, probably some of his teachings were good. We have heard about the Sermon on the Mount. There isn't a single word contained in the Sermon on the Mount that isn't contained in what is called the Sacred Book of the Jews, long before He lived -- not one single thing.
Jesus was an excellent student of Jewish theology, as anybody can tell by reading the Gospels; every bit of it was taken from their books of authority, and He simply said what He had heard of for years and years.
But let's look at some things charged to Him. He walked on the water. Now how does that sound? Do you suppose Jesus walked on the water? Joe Smith tried it when he established the Mormon religion. What evidence have you of that?
He found some of His disciples fishing and they hadn't gotten a bite all day. Jesus said, "Cast your nets down there," and they drew them in full of fish. The East Indians couldn't do better than that. What evidence is there of it?
He was at a performance where there were 5,000 people and they were out of food, and He asked them how much they had; five loaves and three fishes, or three fishes and five loaves, or something like that, and He made the five loaves and three fishes feed all the multitude and they picked up I don't know how many barrels afterward. Think of that.
How does that commend itself to intelligent people, coming from a land of myth and fable as all Asia was, a land of myth and fable and ignorance in the main, and before anybody knew anything about science? And yet that must be believed -- and is -- to save us from our sins.
What are these sins? What has the human race done that was so bad, except to eat of the tree of knowledge? Does anybody need to save man from his sins in a miraculous way? It is an absurd piece of theology which they themselves say that you must accept on faith because your reason won't lead you to it. You can't do it that way.
We Must Develop Reason
I know the weakness of human reason, other people's reason. I know the weakness of it, but it is all we have, and the only safety of man is to cultivate it and extend his knowledge so that he will be sure to understand life and as many of the mysteries of the universe as he can possibly solve.
Jesus practiced medicine without medicine. Now think of this one. He was travelling along the road and somebody came and told Him there was a sick man in the house and he wanted Him to cure him. How did He do it? Well, there were a lot of hogs out in the front yard and He drove the devils out of a man and cured him, but He drove them into the hogs and they jumped into the sea. Is that a myth or is it true?
If that is true, if you have got to believe that story in order to have your soul saved, you are bound to get rid of your intelligence to save the soul that perhaps doesn't exist at all. You can't believe a thing just because you want to believe it and you can't believe it on very poor evidence, You may believe it because your grandfather told you it was true, but you have got to have some such details.
Did He raise a dead man to life? Why, tens of thousands of dead men and women have been raised to life according to all the stories and all the traditions. Was this the only case? All Europe is filled with miracles of that sort, the Catholic church performing miracles almost to the present time. Does anybody believe it if they use their senses? I say, No. It is impossible to believe it if you use your senses.
Now take the soul. People in this world instinctively like to keep on living. They want to meet their friends again, and all of that. They cling to life. Schopenhauer called it the will to live. I call it the momentum of a going machine. Anything that is going keeps on going for a certain length of time. It is all momentum. What evidence is there that we are alive after we are dead?
But that wasn't the theory of theology. The theory of theology -- and it is a part of a creed of practically every Christian church today -- is that you die and go down into the earth and you are dead, and when Gabriel comes back to blow his horn, the dust is gathered together and, lo and behold, you appear the same old fellow again and live here on earth!
How many believe it? And yet that is the only idea of immortality that there is, and it is in every creed today, I believe.
Matter Indestructible
And everything that is in the body and in the man goes into something else, turns into the crucible of nature, goes to make trees and grass and weeds and fruit, and is eaten by all kinds of life, and in that way goes on and on.
Of course, in a sense, nobody dies. The matter that is in me will exist in another form when I am dead. The force that is in me will live in some other kind of force when I am dead. But I will be gone.
That isn't the kind of immortality people want. They want to know that they can recognize Mary Jane in heaven. Don't they? They want to see their brothers and their sisters and their friends in heaven. It isn't possible. We know where our life began; we know where it ends.
We know where every individual life on earth began. It began in a single cell, in the body of our mother, who had some 10,000 of those cells. It was fertilized by a spermatozoon from the body of our father, who had a million of them, any one of which, under certain circumstances, would fertilize a cell.
They multiplied and divided until a child was born. And in old age or accident or disease, they fall apart and the man is done.
Agnostic Because I Must Reason
Can you imagine an eternity with one end cut off? Something that began but never ended? We began our immortality at a certain time, when the cell and the spermatozoon conspired to form a human being. We began then. If I am not the product of a spermatozoon and a cell, and if those cells which are unfertilized produce life, and those spermatozoa that fertilized no life were still alive, then I must have 10,000 brothers and sisters on my mother's side and a million on my father's. It is utterly absurd.
Now I am not a revivalist. In fact, I am not interested. I am asked to say why I am an agnostic. I am an agnostic because I trust my reason. It may not be the greatest that ever existed. I am inclined to admit that it isn't. But it is the best I have. That is a mighty sight better than some other people's at that. I am an agnostic because no man living can form any picture of any God, and you can't believe in an object unless you can form a picture of it. You way believe in the force, but not in the object.
If there is any God in the universe I don't know it. Some people say they know it instinctively. Well, the errors and foolish things that men have known instinctively are so many we can't talk about them.
As a rule, the less a person knows, the surer he is, and he gets it by instinct, and it can't be disputed, for I don't know what is going on in another man's mind. I have no such instinct.
Let me give you just one more idea of a miracle of this Jesus story which has run down through the ages and is not at all the sole property of the Christian.
You remember, when Jesus was born in a manger according to the story, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. And they were led by a star.
Now the closest star to the earth is more than a billion miles away. Think of the star leading three moth-eaten camels to a manger! Can you imagine a star standing over any house?
Can you imagine a star standing over the earth even? What will they say, if they had time? That was a miracle. It came down to the earth.
Well, if any star came that near the earth or anywhere near the earth, it would immediately disarrange the whole solar system. Anybody who can believe those old myths and tables isn't governed by reason.
Little Blue Book No. 1637
Edited by E. Haldeman-JuliusWhat is an Agnostic?
by Bertrand RussellWhat Is an agnostic?
An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.
Are agnostics atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.
Since you deny `God's Law', what authority do you accept as a guide to conduct?
An Agnostic does not accept any `authority' in the sense in which religious people do. He holds that a man should think out questions of conduct for himself. Of course, he will seek to profit by the wisdom of others, but he will have to select for himself the people he is to consider wise, and he will not regard even what they say as unquestionable. He will observe that what passes as `God's law' varies from time to time. The Bible says both that a woman must not marry her deceased husband's brother, and that, in certain circumstances, she must do so. If you have the misfortune to be a childless widow with an unmarried brother-in-law, it is logically impossible for you to avoid disobeying `God's law'.
How do you know what is good and what is evil? What does an agnostic consider a sin?
The Agnostic is not quite so certain as some Christians are as to what is good and what is evil. He does not hold, as most Christians in the past held, that people who disagree with the government on abstruse points of theology ought to suffer a painful death. He is against persecution, and rather chary of moral condemnation.
As for `sin', he thinks it not a useful notion. He admits, of course, that some kinds of conduct are desirable and some undesirable, but he holds that the punishment of undesirable kinds is only to be commended when it is deterrent or reformatory, not when it is inflicted because it is thought a good thing on its own account that the wicked should suffer. It was this belief in vindictive punishment that made men accept Hell. This is part of the harm done by the notion of `sin'.
Does an agnostic do whatever he pleases?
In one sense, no; in another sense, everyone does whatever he pleases. Suppose, for example, you hate someone so much that you would like to murder him. Why do you not do so? You may reply: "Because religion tells me that murder is a sin." But as a statistical fact, agnostics are not more prone to murder than other people, in fact, rather less so. They have the same motives for abstaining from murder as other people have. Far and away the most powerful of these motives is the fear of punishment. In lawless conditions, such as a gold rush, all sorts of people will commit crimes, although in ordinary circumstances they would have been law-abiding. There is not only actual legal punishment; there is the discomfort of dreading discovery, and the loneliness of knowing that, to avoid being hated, you must wear a mask with even your closest intimates. And there is also what may be called "conscience": If you ever contemplated a murder, you would dread the horrible memory of your victim's last moments or lifeless corpse. All this, it is true, depends upon your living in a law-abiding community, but there are abundant secular reasons for creating and preserving such a community.
I said that there is another sense in which every man does as he pleases. No one but a fool indulges every impulse, but what holds a desire in check is always some other desire. A man's anti-social wishes may be restrained by a wish to please God, but they may also be restrained by a wish to please his friends, or to win the respect of his community, or to be able to contemplate himself without disgust. But if he has no such wishes, the mere abstract concepts of morality will not keep him straight.
How does an agnostic regard the Bible?
An agnostic regards the Bible exactly as enlightened clerics regard it. He does not think that it is divinely inspired; he thinks its early history legendary, and no more exactly true than that in Homer; he thinks its moral teaching sometimes good, but sometimes very bad. For example: Samuel ordered Saul, in a war, to kill not only every man, woman, and child of the enemy, but also all the sheep and cattle. Saul, however, let the sheep and the cattle live, and for this we are told to condemn him. I have never been able to admire Elisha for cursing the children who laughed at him, or to believe (what the Bible asserts) that a benevolent Deity would send two she-bears to kill the children.
How does an agnostic regard Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Holy Trinity?
Since an agnostic does not believe in God, he cannot think that Jesus was God. Most agnostics admire the life and moral teachings of Jesus as told in the Gospels, but not necessarily more than those of certain other men. Some would place him on a level with Buddha, some with Socrates and some with Abraham Lincoln. Nor do they think that what He said is not open to question, since they do not accept any authority as absolute.
They regard the Virgin Birth as a doctrine taken over from pagan mythology, where such births were not uncommon. (Zoroaster was said to have been born of a virgin; Ishtar, the Babylonian goddess, is called the Holy Virgin.) They cannot give credence to it, or to the doctrine of the Trinity, since neither is possible without belief in God.
Can an agnostic be a Christian?
The word "Christian" has had various different meanings at different times. Throughout most of the centuries since the time of Christ, it has meant a person who believed God and immortality and held that Christ was God. But Unitarians call themselves Christians, although they do not believe in the divinity of Christ, and many people nowadays use the word "God" in a much less precise sense than that which it used to bear. Many people who say they believe in God no longer mean a person, or a trinity of persons, but only a vague tendency or power or purpose immanent in evolution. Others, going still further, mean by "Christianity" merely a system of ethics which, since they are ignorant of history, they imagine to be characteristic of Christians only.
When, in a recent book, I said that what the world needs is "love, Christian love, or compassion," many people thought this showed some changes in my views, although in fact, I might have said the same thing at any time. If you mean by a "Christian" a man who loves his neighbour, who has wide sympathy with suffering, and who ardently desires a world freed from the cruelties and abominations which at present disfigure it, then, certainly, you will be justified in calling me a Christian. And, in this sense, I think you will find more "Christians" among agnostics than among the orthodox. But, for my part, I cannot accept such a definition. Apart from other objections to it, it seems rude to Jews, Buddhists, Mohammedans, and other non-Christians, who, so far as history shows, have been at least as apt as Christians to practice the virtues which some modern Christians arrogantly claim as distinctive of their own religion.
I think also that all who called themselves Christians in an earlier time, and a great majority of those who do so at the present day, would consider that belief in God and immortality is essential to a Christian. On these grounds, I should not call myself a Christian, and I should say that an agnostic cannot be a Christian. But, if the word "Christianity" comes to be generally used to mean merely a kind of morality, then it will certainly be possible for an agnostic to be a Christian.
Does an agnostic deny that man has a soul?
This question has no precise meaning unless we are given a definition of the word "soul." I suppose what is meant is, roughly, something nonmaterial which persists throughout a person's life and even, for those who believe in immortality, throughout all future time. If this is what is meant, an agnostic is not likely to believe that man has a soul. But I must hasten to add that this does not mean that an agnostic must be a materialist. Many agnostics (including myself) are quite as doubtful of the body as they are of the soul, but this is a long story taking one into difficult metaphysics. Mind and matter alike, I should say, are only convenient symbols in discourse, not actually existing things.
Does an agnostic believe in a hereafter, in Heaven or Hell?
The question whether people survive death is one as to which evidence is possible. Psychical research and spiritualism are thought by many to supply such evidence. An agnostic, as such, does not take a view about survival unless he thinks that there is evidence one way or the other. For my part, I do not think there is any good reason to believe that we survive death, but I am open to conviction if adequate evidence should appear.
Heaven and hell are a different matter. Belief in hell is bound up with the belief that the vindictive punishment of sin is a good thing, quite independently of any reformative or deterrent effect that it may have. Hardly an agnostic believes this. As for heaven, there might conceivably someday be evidence of its existence through spiritualism, but most agnostics do not think that there is such evidence, and therefore do not believe in heaven.
Are you never afraid of God's judgment in denying Him?
Most certainly not. I also deny Zeus and Jupiter and Odin and Brahma, but this causes me no qualms. I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence.
How do agnostics explain the beauty and harmony of nature?
I do not understand where this "beauty" and "harmony" are supposed to be found. Throughout the animal kingdom, animals ruthlessly prey upon each other. Most of them are either cruelly killed by other animals or slowly die of hunger. For my part, I am unable to see any great beauty or harmony in the tapeworm. Let it not be said that this creature is sent as a punishment for our sins, for it is more prevalent among animals than among humans. I suppose the questioner is thinking of such things as the beauty of the starry heavens. But one should remember that stars every now and again explode and reduce everything in their neighbourhood to a vague mist. Beauty, in any case, is subjective and exists only in the eye of the beholder.
How do agnostics explain miracles and other revelations of God's omnipotence?
Agnostics do not think that there is any evidence of "miracles" in the sense of happenings contrary to natural law. We know that faith healing occurs and is in no sense miraculous. At Lourdes, certain diseases can be cured and others cannot. Those that can be cured at Lourdes can probably be cured by any doctor in whom the patient has faith. As for the records of other miracles, such as Joshua commanding the sun to stand still, the agnostic dismisses them as legends and points to the fact that all religions are plentifully supplied with such legends. There is just as much miraculous evidence for the Greek gods in Homer as for the Christian God in the Bible.
There have been base and cruel passions, which religion opposes. If you abandon religious principles, could mankind exist?
The existence of base and cruel passions is undeniable, but I find no evidence in history that religion has opposed these passions. On the contrary, it has sanctified them, and enabled people to indulge them without remorse. Cruel persecutions have been commoner in Christendom than anywhere else. What appears to justify persecution is dogmatic belief. Kindliness and tolerance only prevail in proportion as dogmatic belief decays. In our day, a new dogmatic religion, namely, communism, has arisen. To this, as to other systems of dogma, the agnostic is opposed. The persecuting character of present day communism is exactly like the persecuting character of Christianity in earlier centuries. In so far as Christianity has become less persecuting, this is mainly due to the work of freethinkers who have made dogmatists rather less dogmatic. If they were as dogmatic now as in former times, they would still think it right to burn heretics at the stake. The spirit of tolerance which some modern Christians regard as essentially Christian is, in fact, a product of the temper which allows doubt and is suspicious of absolute certainties. I think that anybody who surveys past history in an impartial manner will be driven to the conclusion that religion has caused more suffering than it has prevented.
Copyright © 2003 - 2005 K2Lministry.com All Rights reserved
