Skip to main content
Read page text
page 1
_ ttbe 1tterar}2' ~utbe AND RATIONALIST REVIEW. [ESTABLISHED 1885.] No. 26. (NEW SERIES.) AUGUST I, 1898. MONTHI.Y; TwoPEN E . Contents. ATHEI SM AND AGNOSTICISM. By Charles Watts THE NATURE OF THINGS. By Charles E. Hoopcr "GET THEE BEHIND ME, ApOLOGY!" By F. J. Could A REACTIONARY BOOK AN ATTRACTIVE E SSAYIST THE FATAL RAINBOW: The Polychrome RiNe . AN INDICTMENT OF THE NINETEENTH CENTU RY PROGRESS AND PROVIDENCE SIGNS AND WARNINGS SONNETS RANDOM JOTTINGS. CHATS- XIII. With Mr. J. A. Hobson, M.A. MRS. LvNN LINTON RATIONALI SM IN THE MAGAZINES QUARTERLY AND MONTHLY MAGAZINES SHORT NOTICES I'AGE "3 "4 115 115 116 117 118 119 119 120 120 121 12 3 12 3 124 124 --= ------==-==== atbetsm anb tlonosttctsm. MUCH discussion has taken place within the last ~ew years as to the precise meaning of the terms Atheism and Agnosticism. Many persons- and these .not always of the illiterate and ignorant class- have an Idea that they both mean pretty much the same thing, .and that ~hatever difference there may be between them IS . of s~ slight and trivial a character that it is hardly worth. dlscu~smg ; at any rate, it is thought by some th~t the IOventlOn of a new word was quite unnecessary, seemg that the old one .had done duty so long, and conveyed a tolerably clear Id.ea as to its meaning. It becomes, th erefore, almost a necess~ty for those who· choose to design~te .themsel~es Agnostics to explain their position, and. to vl~dlcate thel~ use of t~e ord so as to set themselves nght wIth the publIc, and aVOId being called by a name to which they ?bj.ect, upon the ground that it does not clearly ex~ress theIr views. The term Agnostic is comparat.lvely new; but, of course, that is not a sufficient reason why It sh~uld not b~ empl~yed, for in these days new words are contm~ally hemg com~d, because they are found to be necessary 10 ord.er to . describe new discoveries in science, fresh developments m phIlosophy, and consequently to better explain the modern fo~ms of .' which they represent. It need not be said, we optnlon h' h . fi I C' h e that the phase of thought w IC IS t y set .ort presum , ..' f .. b the use of the word AgnosticIsm IS not 0 recent. orlgm, Yd doubt at one time it would have been described as an no ., b th f h h Atl'tt!isrn; but in these days preCIsIOn, 0 0 t oug t d · pression is expected on the part of those who an ex, . h h . r 't r r or speak to the publIc- ence t e necessity .or WTl e .0, , • • f O'nl'ng new words. To tius we see no serious o ten Cl · I d ' b . . provided such words are not mls ea 109 or o JectJOn, h " . .. ffi h . less As neither of t ese Isms arms t e meantng·. I d d h I . of a God It has been cone u e t at t ley are eXistence ' ., b f I . both identical in th eil significatIOn; ut a care u exa~lma- . f hat is really represented by the two terms w1l1 be tlOn 0 w ., I found to demonstrate that this IS not t le case.. . An Atheist is one who not only does not hehev~ 111 GO?, but whose system of phi!osophy exch.:des s~ch a beIng. It IS h 'udicious AtheIst may not assert 111 so many words thrue tth e rle is no God' but ftom the whole of his teaching t at e . . '. b d M that is the legItimate 1l1ference to e rawn. oreover, as a rule, he professes no desire to escape from thi s conclusion; in fact, in some cas es, it is to him a source of pride. He considers that the universe is exp li cabl e in the absence of God, and his philosophy of nature is, to him, quite complete without a d eity. H e is willin g to admit that there is a region of the unknown, and possibly of the unknowable, but that too is included in hi s philosophy, which is to the fullest extent, and in th e strict es t sense, Godless. He does not admit that, in practically denying th existence of God, he is guilty of the same fault whi h he charges upon the Theist- that of attempting to bring su h a being into human conception; tha t is, of holding that th infinite can be comprehended by th e fmite. God, as portrayed by philosophical believers, is e ternal in duration and infinite in extent-terms which no human mind Can gra sp; they are really unthinkable. The positive assertion that such a being exists is deemed by the Atheist as a reckless piece of dogmatism, because it is not susceptible of proof, and it cannot be even cl early thought of. In a word, th e terms convey no definite idea, and hence the words used are meaningless. No definition of them is possible but a negative one, which tells, not what th ey are, hut what th ey are not-e.g., infinite, ?lot finite; eternal, without beginning or end. Such is the attitude of the Theist. But how much more philosophical is the attitude of th e Atheist if he positively denies (as many do) the ex istence of a God? Is it any less reasonable to deny than it is to a sse rt where the thing referred to cannot be conceived of, and the terms used to describe it convey no id ea to a thinkin g mind? It is upon this point that the Agnostic claims to diffe r from the Atheist. According to Agnosticis m, there is unquestionably a region which no human mind can pe netrate. It is not only unknown, but, to us, unknowable; and of such region we can properly predicate nothing, because of it nothing can be known, or even clea rly thought. An Agnostic is content to push his inquiries in th e field of th e knowable, and to leave useless speculations regarding that which no one can know to those who have no better use for th eir time. He considers that to either assert or to de ny an}'thing concerning this region is both unphilosophical and unwise, to say nothing of its being utterly useless. The dogmatism both of the Theist and the Atheist the Agnostic eschews, seeing that both are tacitly claiming to have some sort of a conception of the inconceivable and thoughts of the unthinkable. The reason of man is finite, and eve rything that relates to the infinite lies beyond his reach, and quite outside of his capacity to d ea l with; and, therefor e, can be a matter neither for assertion nor d enial, for belief nor disbelief. The Agnostic looks upon all controversy as to the alleged existence of God as worse than lJ se less, because on both sides words mllst be employed which can convey to us no meaning. It will be seen that in this articl e our objec t has not been to favour either Atheism or Agnosticism, but rather to i~dicate what the tw~ terms represent, and whe re in they differ. The reader Will thus be able to d ecide for himself which is the more logical position. The Atheist can see no reason. for b elieving in any God whatever; on ~he cOI~trary, to him th e e xi stence of such a be ing see ms Imposslbl ~ . The Agnostic beli eves, with Tyndall, that" th e power which the universe manifests to us is utte rly in scrutable," and, consequently, he professes neith er beli ef nor disbelief with regard to its natur e or its attribut es . To him it is unimportant by what name it is known; th e thing itself- that is, the power in the universe- can never becom e an object of human thought. CI!ART.ES \V ATTS.

Page Text

View plaintext

_

ttbe

1tterar}2' ~utbe

AND RATIONALIST REVIEW.

[ESTABLISHED 1885.]

No. 26. (NEW SERIES.)

AUGUST I, 1898.

MONTHI.Y; TwoPEN E .

Contents.

ATHEI SM AND AGNOSTICISM. By Charles Watts THE NATURE OF THINGS. By Charles E. Hoopcr "GET THEE BEHIND ME, ApOLOGY!" By F. J. Could A REACTIONARY BOOK AN ATTRACTIVE E SSAYIST THE FATAL RAINBOW: The Polychrome RiNe . AN INDICTMENT OF THE NINETEENTH CENTU RY PROGRESS AND PROVIDENCE SIGNS AND WARNINGS SONNETS RANDOM JOTTINGS. CHATS- XIII. With Mr. J. A. Hobson, M.A. MRS. LvNN LINTON RATIONALI SM IN THE MAGAZINES QUARTERLY AND MONTHLY MAGAZINES SHORT NOTICES

I'AGE

"3 "4 115 115 116 117 118 119 119 120 120 121 12 3 12 3 124 124

--=

------==-====

atbetsm anb tlonosttctsm.

MUCH discussion has taken place within the last ~ew years as to the precise meaning of the terms Atheism and Agnosticism. Many persons- and these .not always of the illiterate and ignorant class- have an Idea that they both mean pretty much the same thing, .and that ~hatever difference there may be between them IS . of s~ slight and trivial a character that it is hardly worth. dlscu~smg ; at any rate, it is thought by some th~t the IOventlOn of a new word was quite unnecessary, seemg that the old one .had done duty so long, and conveyed a tolerably clear Id.ea as to its meaning. It becomes, th erefore, almost a necess~ty for those who· choose to design~te .themsel~es Agnostics to explain their position, and. to vl~dlcate thel~ use of t~e ord so as to set themselves nght wIth the publIc, and aVOId being called by a name to which they ?bj.ect, upon the ground that it does not clearly ex~ress theIr views.

The term Agnostic is comparat.lvely new; but, of course, that is not a sufficient reason why It sh~uld not b~ empl~yed, for in these days new words are contm~ally hemg com~d, because they are found to be necessary 10 ord.er to . describe new discoveries in science, fresh developments m phIlosophy, and consequently to better explain the modern fo~ms of

.' which they represent. It need not be said, we optnlon h' h . fi I C' h e that the phase of thought w IC IS t y set .ort presum , ..' f .. b the use of the word AgnosticIsm IS not 0 recent. orlgm,

Yd doubt at one time it would have been described as an no ., b th f h h Atl'tt!isrn; but in these days preCIsIOn, 0 0 t oug t d · pression is expected on the part of those who an ex, . h h . r 't r r or speak to the publIc- ence t e necessity .or WTl e .0, , • •

f O'nl'ng new words. To tius we see no serious o ten Cl · I d '

b . . provided such words are not mls ea 109 or o JectJOn, h " . .. ffi h . less As neither of t ese Isms arms t e meantng·. I d d h I . of a God It has been cone u e t at t ley are eXistence ' ., b f I . both identical in th eil significatIOn; ut a care u exa~lma-

. f hat is really represented by the two terms w1l1 be tlOn 0 w ., I found to demonstrate that this IS not t le case.. .

An Atheist is one who not only does not hehev~ 111 GO?, but whose system of phi!osophy exch.:des s~ch a beIng. It IS

h 'udicious AtheIst may not assert 111 so many words thrue tth e rle is no God' but ftom the whole of his teaching t at e . . '. b d M that is the legItimate 1l1ference to e rawn. oreover,

as a rule, he professes no desire to escape from thi s conclusion; in fact, in some cas es, it is to him a source of pride. He considers that the universe is exp li cabl e in the absence of God, and his philosophy of nature is, to him, quite complete without a d eity. H e is willin g to admit that there is a region of the unknown, and possibly of the unknowable, but that too is included in hi s philosophy, which is to the fullest extent, and in th e strict es t sense, Godless. He does not admit that, in practically denying th existence of God, he is guilty of the same fault whi h he charges upon the Theist- that of attempting to bring su h a being into human conception; tha t is, of holding that th infinite can be comprehended by th e fmite. God, as portrayed by philosophical believers, is e ternal in duration and infinite in extent-terms which no human mind Can gra sp; they are really unthinkable. The positive assertion that such a being exists is deemed by the Atheist as a reckless piece of dogmatism, because it is not susceptible of proof, and it cannot be even cl early thought of. In a word, th e terms convey no definite idea, and hence the words used are meaningless. No definition of them is possible but a negative one, which tells, not what th ey are, hut what th ey are not-e.g., infinite, ?lot finite; eternal, without beginning or end. Such is the attitude of the Theist. But how much more philosophical is the attitude of th e Atheist if he positively denies (as many do) the ex istence of a God? Is it any less reasonable to deny than it is to a sse rt where the thing referred to cannot be conceived of, and the terms used to describe it convey no id ea to a thinkin g mind?

It is upon this point that the Agnostic claims to diffe r from the Atheist. According to Agnosticis m, there is unquestionably a region which no human mind can pe netrate. It is not only unknown, but, to us, unknowable; and of such region we can properly predicate nothing, because of it nothing can be known, or even clea rly thought. An Agnostic is content to push his inquiries in th e field of th e knowable, and to leave useless speculations regarding that which no one can know to those who have no better use for th eir time. He considers that to either assert or to de ny an}'thing concerning this region is both unphilosophical and unwise, to say nothing of its being utterly useless. The dogmatism both of the Theist and the Atheist the Agnostic eschews, seeing that both are tacitly claiming to have some sort of a conception of the inconceivable and thoughts of the unthinkable. The reason of man is finite, and eve rything that relates to the infinite lies beyond his reach, and quite outside of his capacity to d ea l with; and, therefor e, can be a matter neither for assertion nor d enial, for belief nor disbelief. The Agnostic looks upon all controversy as to the alleged existence of God as worse than lJ se less, because on both sides words mllst be employed which can convey to us no meaning.

It will be seen that in this articl e our objec t has not been to favour either Atheism or Agnosticism, but rather to i~dicate what the tw~ terms represent, and whe re in they differ. The reader Will thus be able to d ecide for himself which is the more logical position. The Atheist can see no reason. for b elieving in any God whatever; on ~he cOI~trary, to him th e e xi stence of such a be ing see ms Imposslbl ~ . The Agnostic beli eves, with Tyndall, that" th e power which the universe manifests to us is utte rly in scrutable," and, consequently, he professes neith er beli ef nor disbelief with regard to its natur e or its attribut es . To him it is unimportant by what name it is known; th e thing itself- that is, the power in the universe- can never becom e an object of human thought. CI!ART.ES \V ATTS.

read next page

My Bookmarks

Buy this Book
Skip to main content