AN AGNOSTIC’S APOLOGY,”

B y LESLIE STEPHEN.

S U P P L E M E N T TO “ W A T T S 'S L I T E R A R Y G U ID E ,” J U N E , 1S93.

T h e sensational tracts which pictured “ Infidels ” as Hinging Bibles into the fire with an accompanying volley of imprecations have rather fallen out of fashion. Persons who take some little interest in the manners and customs of the tribe of unbelievers, now usually prefer to glean their casual information through the medium of articles in religious magazines, or popular books of Christian evidence, or sermons by a controversial curate. Curates’ sermons, and orthodox books and articles, however, all suffer from the disadvantage of being second-hand descriptions of unbelief. Sometimes, too, they are a trifle one-sided. As an agreeable change, and as promising more direct and accurate explanations, would it not be better to consult the writings of a professed Agnostic such as Mr. Leslie Stephen ? If the reader thinks yes, we invite him to follow us in a review of that distinguished author’s volume of essays, published under the title of

“ AN AGNOSTIC’S APOLOGY.” *

And first, what is an Agnostic ? He is one, says Mr. Stephen, “ who asserts—-what no one denies—that there are limits to the sphere of human intelligence,” and that beyond those limits lies the region of theology. In contradistinction, the theologian, who may be called the Gnostic, holds that we can attain truths not capable of verification, and not needing verification, by actual experience. He holds, further, that a knowledge of those truths is essential to the highest interests of mankind, and enables us in some sort to solve the dark riddle of the universe.” God is the harmony of all the evils and perplexities of existence, says the theologian, and God is knowablc by man. How intimately knowable, indeed, is illustrated by the irreverent familiarity with which divines are prepared to expose the relations between the three persons of the Trinity. They have been known to define the nature of God Almighty “ with an accuracy from which modest naturalists would shrink in describing the genesis of a black beetle.” Yet these very men, who reason so glibly on the physiology and anatomy of the Trinity, are loud in their declaration of the insufficiency of the mere unassisted reason to attain to a true knowledge of God. Cardinal Newman confessed that, apart from the light shed by the Catholic Church, men might rationally find their way into Atheism. So that all to whom the alleged divine revelation has not displayed itself do right to refrain from a confession of belief in God, and “ Agnosticism is the only reasonable faith for at least three-quarters of the race.” And what advantage does the believer in revelation enjoy over the unbeliever ? Has he a more luminous and satisfactory conception of the scheme by which the universe is regulated ? Take, for example, the question of free-will. By the Gnostic “ free-will is made responsible for all the moral evil in the world. God made man perfect, but he gave his creature free-will.” Free-will is the absence of a determinate law which human thought and action may follow, and according to which they may be calculated and foretold. Our fate is left to chance. “ We know” (i.e., theologians say they know) “ that there is a great First Cause; but we add that there are at this moment in the world some twelve hundred million little first causes which may damn or save themselves as they please.” The question, however, arises, Is damnation or salvation entirely a matter of personal choice? “ Look at the children growing up amid moral poison ; see the brothel and the public-house turning out harlots and drunkards by the thousand ; at the brutalised elders preaching cruelty and shamelessness by example ; and deny, if you can, that lust and brutality are generated as certainly as scrofula and typhus. Nobody dares to deny it.” What then ? Will God punish these victims of unwholesome environment ? He cannot punish vice without chastising the vicious, and it is agreed that, in the case cited, they cannot help their viciousness. How is the presence of so much evil to be accounted for? If from the exercise of free-will, then this human free-will is powerful enough to “ defeat all God’s good purposes,” and “ God is no longer omnipotent.” If it is replied that the evil is only apparent, and not real, for all things are o f God and from God, and are but manifestations of himself, how, then, can he complain of our wrongdoing ? We are bidden to go to a divinely-revealed Christianity for a solution of all such difficulties. Let us ask the Christian a test question : How many out of every ten beings born into this world will go to hell ? If the majority are destined to eternal misery, is this consistent with God’s love? If the question is left doubtful, in what degree is the Christian wiser than the Agnostic ? There have, indeed, been Christian philosophers, like Bishop Butler, who boldly met the difficulty by saying that, if the God of the Bible does things which seem unjust, it is only what we might expect from the God of nature, who also does things which may appear to us harsh and terrible. If we put the dark problem aside and say it is a mystery, what aid has revelation afforded us ? “ If evil predominates here, we have no reason to suppose that good predominates elsewhere,” in another world after death. And if we conclude that, on the whole, good and happiness preponderate, we reach the conclusion, not by the help of revelation, but by an examination of the facts of experience—facts which are as open to the Agnostic as to the Christian. In the “ systematic interrogation of experience” lies our hope of discovering reliable and helpful truths. From supernatural messages no verifiable fact has yet been extracted for human benefit. To the Gnostic theologian we Agnostics say that, until revelation succeeds in unveiling more truth than can be reached by reason, “ we shall be content to admit openly, what you whisper under your breath or hide in technical jargon, that the ancient secret is a secret s t i ll; that man knows nothing of the Infinite and Absolute; and that, knowing nothing, he had better not be dogmatic about his ignorance.”

As so many pious people assume that faith is a virtue and scepticism a mental vice, it is worth while to inquire carefully,

WHAT IS SCEPTICISM ?

* Sm ith , E ld e r , & C o . 3S0 p p . ; 10s. 6d.

Now, “ in regard to the great bulk of ordinary beliefs, the so-called sceptics are just as much believers as their