Agnosticism
David_G
agnosticism, I found this by chance on the Web this morning:
The Origin of the Word 'Agnostic'
by Bill Young
There is little doubt that Thomas Henry Huxley invented the word
agnostic in the Spring of 1869. However, there is conflicting evidence
about when this was and what it originally meant.
According to R. H. Hutton, as published in the New English Dictionary,
Huxley first used the word agnostic at a party at James Knowles's house
on Clapham Common prior to the formation of the Metaphysical Society.
Hutton also said, "He [Huxley] took it from St. Paul's mention of the
altar to 'the Unknown God'." (New English Dictionary edited by James A.
H. Murray. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1888, p. 86.)
Huxley, on the other hand, wrote in "Agnosticism" published in The
Nineteenth Century in February 1889 that he invented it as a label for
himself at the Metaphysical Society, although he didn't say when. He
also said, "It [agnostic] came into my head as suggestively antithetic
to the 'gnostic' of Church history, who professed to know so much about
the very things of which I was ignorant...." (Huxley, Thomas Henry.
"Agnosticism" The Nineteenth Century. February, 1889, p. 183.)
Apparently the word Agnostics was first used in print in an article:
"The Theological Statute at Oxford" in The Spectator, May 29, 1869 (p.
642). This article, probably written by R. H. Hutton, who was editor of
The Spectator at the time, did not mention Huxley or say anything about
who the "Agnostics" were. However, this date is of interest because the
first formal meeting of the Metaphysical Society was not until June 2, 1869.
There had been an organizational meeting of the Metaphysical Society at
Willis' Rooms on Wednesday, April 21, 1869 that both Huxley and Hutton
attended according to Alan Willard Brown's The Metaphysical Society:
Victorian Minds in Crisis, 1869-1880 (p. 25). Brown, in his report of
the meeting, did not mention the word agnostic being introduced.
Nevertheless, it may have been that meeting that Huxley was recalling in
his 1889 article. In any event, Huxley did not use agnostic or
agnosticism in any of the three lectures that he presented at the
Metaphysical Society, so, although these words may have been used in
discussion, they were not used in writing by Huxley as far as has been
able to be determined.
The first time that Agnostic and Agnosticism appeared in print with any
meaning given to it was apparently in the January 29, 1870 issue of The
Spectator (p. 135f). It had an article, entitled "Pope Huxley," that
said: "In theory he [Huxley] is a great and even severe Agnostic-who
goes about exhorting all men to know how little they know, on pain of
loss of intellectual sincerity if they once consciously confound a
conjecture with a certainty." The article spoke of Huxley's
"Agnosticism," and said that he "is labouring to preach to us all the
gospel of suspense of judgment on all questions, intellectual and moral,
on which we have not adequate data for a positive opinion." This
article was probably also written by R. H. Hutton. His role in
popularizing and changing the meanings of agnostic and agnosticism is
a story unto itself. However, it should be noted in passing that in
"Pope Huxley" Hutton seemed to understand these words to mean just about
what Huxley was to mean by them when he wrote about them later on in 1889.
Huxley apparently had the opportunity to contribute his understanding of
agnostic and agnosticism to the New English Dictionary on Historical
Principles in 1880, but he did not do so. (C. T. Onions "Agnostic" The
Times Literary Supplement. 6 Sept. 1947. p. 451.) In fact, Huxley seems
to have used the word agnostic in print only one time prior to 1883.
That was in 1879 in his book Hume with Helps to the Study of Berkeley.
where he identified Socrates as "the first agnostic" (p. viii in the
Preface). Also, in the same book, Huxley spoke of Hume in connection
with Locke and Kant, "as the protagonist of that more modern way of
thinking, which has been called 'agnosticism,' from its profession of an
incapacity to discover the indispensable conditions of either positive
or negative knowledge, in many propositions, respecting which, not only
the vulgar, but philosophers of the more sanguine sort, revel in the
luxury of unqualified assurance" (p.70-71).
In 1883, when writing to Charles A. Watts, publisher of the Agnostic
Annual , Huxley said, "Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented
the word 'Agnostic' to denote people who, like myself, confess
themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters,
about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox,
dogmatise with utmost confidence...." (p. 9). Huxley alluded to the
role of the Spectator in popularising both "Agnostic" and
"Agnosticism" and he said of the word "Agnostic," "it is my trademark."
However, he had not written to nor responded to any of the articles
about agnosticism in the Spectator and he did not use either agnostic or
agnosticism in any of his other published writings until 1889, as far as
I have been able to find, so he must have been using his "trademark"
informally.
Finally, in 1889 Huxley had three articles published in The Nineteenth
Century that included "Agnosticism" in their titles. These articles
were "Agnosticism" in February, "Agnosticism: A Rejoinder" in April, and
"Agnosticism and Christianity" in June. In these articles he described
rather completely what he had in mind by the use of agnostic and
agnosticism as a method and not a creed.
The ways that he used the terms himself were quite different from most
of the ways that these terms have come to be used. However, a discussion
of the content of these three articles and the meanings that Huxley gave
to Agnosticism is beyond the scope of this paper, except as indicated
above, having to do with the origin of the word agnostic itself.
ah
>
> [...]
>
> ....incapacity to discover....
>
> [...]
>
> "...dogmatise...."
>
> [...]
The only stop signs in a person's mind are the ones they construct (or allow to
stay constructed).
--
ah
/\_/|
=0-0=
\'I'|
|<|,,\_
|[>,,/,\
|[|,\_,,)
((J(=__/
meow
Jan Il
"ah" <splif...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:liTqe.7975$lb5.5669@trnddc04...
> David_G wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> ....incapacity to discover....
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> "...dogmatise...."
>>
>> [...]
>
> The only stop signs in a person's mind are the ones they construct (or
> allow to
> stay constructed).
Aye.....and their mind and ears grow cold and indifferent to the words of
others, and the heart soon follows. People who become their own God soon
find they're in their own world.
Jan :)
Gene Gallagher
not the term, to Socrates: "On immortality he was not so definite; he
pleads for it tenaciously in the Phaedo but in the Apoology he says,
"Were I to make any claim to be wiser than others, it would be because
I do not think that I have any sufficient knowledge of the other world,
when in fact I have none." In the Cratylus he applies the same
agnositicism to the gods: "Of the gods we know nothing." He advised his
followers not to dispute of such matters; like Confucius, he asked them
did they know human affairs so well that they were ready to meddle with
those of heaven? The best thing to do, he felt, was to acknowledge our
ignorance, and meanwhile to obey the oracle at Delphi, which when aked
how one should worship the gods, answered, "According to the law of
your country."
Socrates was condemned in 399 BC on the charges that he did not
recognize the gods that the state recognized and that he was a
corruptor of youth.
Giuseppe Bilotta
> Reverting baclk toi our discussions
Ah, that's the David we know ;)
--
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta
"Da grande lotterò per la pace"
"A me me la compra il mio babbo"
(Altan)
("When I grow up, I will fight for peace"
"I'll have my daddy buy it for me")
DE
> Reverting baclk toi our discussions over the years about atheist and
> agnosticism, I found this by chance on the Web this morning:
(Article content below; starting "conversation" here) ...
David,
I do not understand whose position you are arguing; it surely does
not seem to be your own, wherein you have said (in the past) that you
believe "agnostic" to be properly equivalent to "aetheist".
Everything you quoted here seems to support _my_ contention that they
are very different things: Aetheism being a _belief_ in there being
no G-d, while agnosticism is "the gospel of suspense of judgment on
all questions, intellectual and moral, on which we have not adequate
data for a positive opinion" [Hutton's words] or "people who ...
confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of
matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and
heterodox, dogmatise with utmost confidence..." [Huxley's own words].
Even given Hutton's re-interpretation in some ways, the article also
points out " in 'Pope Huxley' Hutton seemed to understand these words
to mean just about what Huxley was to mean by them when he wrote about
them later on in 1889."
The fact that Huxley wrote possibly _once_ using the words in another
context -- when he was just at the point of initially forming his
ideas, doesn't mean that his first crude definition should hold
forever; rather, it makes more sense (IMO) to use the definitions he,
himself, promoted as he clarified his own ideas, especially in private
writings.
In any case, I see nothing here to support your contention that the
term can be used interchangeably with "aetheist", which is a belief
wherein one feels sure that one _has_ the "answer", that there is no G-d.
Next round?
-- DE
ah
Pardon?
ah
> David_G wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
> [rebuttal beyond my ken of the below proposition,
> which was already beyond my ken]
>
> Next round?
Uh, so . . . what's Mike Tyson gana do, now?
>
>>
>> The Origin of the Word 'Agnostic'
>> by Bill Young
>>
>> [ppoposition beyond my ken]
Peter
news:42ac5bf3$0$6493$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
> David_G wrote:
> > Reverting baclk toi our discussions over the years about atheist and
> > agnosticism, I found this by chance on the Web this morning:
>
> (Article content below; starting "conversation" here) ...
>
>
> In any case, I see nothing here to support your contention that the
> term can be used interchangeably with "aetheist", which is a belief
> wherein one feels sure that one _has_ the "answer", that there is no G-d.
>
>
> Next round?
>
IIRC I went round the horn with David on this issue years ago, when I made a
snide remark that agnostics profess the only truly honest tenet concerning
religion. They admit they do not know.
--
Peter
Jan Il
> Jan Il wrote:
>> "ah" <splif...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:liTqe.7975$lb5.5669@trnddc04...
>>> David_G wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> ....incapacity to discover....
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> "...dogmatise...."
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> The only stop signs in a person's mind are the ones they construct (or
>>> allow to
>>> stay constructed).
>>
>> Aye.....and their mind and ears grow cold and indifferent to the words of
>> others, and the heart soon follows. People who become their own God soon
>> find they're in their own world.
>
> Pardon?
OK...I forgive you.
Jan :)
ah
> "ah" <splif...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Iq_qe.3616$9a1.3336@trnddc01...
>> Jan Il wrote:
>>> "ah" <splif...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:liTqe.7975$lb5.5669@trnddc04...
>>>> David_G wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> ....incapacity to discover....
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> "...dogmatise...."
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> The only stop signs in a person's mind are the ones they construct (or
>>>> allow to
>>>> stay constructed).
>>>
>>> Aye.....and their mind and ears grow cold and indifferent to the words of
>>> others, and the heart soon follows. People who become their own God soon
>>> find they're in their own world.
>>
>> Pardon?
>
> OK...I forgive you.
Wow. I didn't know I could thread so many needles in so little time!
