AGNOSTICISM

AGNOSTICISM

Every notion that any man, dead, living, or unborn, might form of the Universe will necessarily prove wrong.  – J. B. Campbell

In all cultures human beings have speculated upon or proclaimed as revealed truths aspects of a world that are beyond direct perceptual evidence. They have spoken of a world that transcends everything we normally know about the world around us. There are of course elements in the physical world that we do not, indeed can’t see or hear, smell or taste or touch. Such, for instance, are molecules and microbes, ultraviolet radiation and the earth’s core. But we have become aware of many such entities through the modes and instruments of science and our capacity for mathematical probing.

But some have maintained that there are entities which, by definition, can’t be spotted or uncovered, recognized and grasped by eye and ear, nose and tongue and tactile digits. In their view, these are not just ideas or pictures created by imagination  and fantasy but real entities and experiences not constrained by space and time, nor constituted by matter and energy. They are beyond what we call Nature.

There have been three reactions to this. The first is to grant the existence of supernatural or transcendental entities. This accep-tance may result from a variety of factors: respect  for the source, deep personal spiritual experience one has had, or simply because trust in a transcendental reality brings comfort and security, hope and confidence, as well as meaning and purpose to existence.

The second reaction to claims of transcendental reality is to dismiss them right away as pre-scientific poetry at best and funny  fantasies of an other-worldly realm at worst. But believers con-tend that those who, for whatever reason, reject the existence of anything beyond the palpable and the calculable can’t get even an inkling of it even if they tried. Not believing in the Beyond is like rejecting à priori that Jupiter has any moon or muddy water microbes, or that humans can never fly over land and sea. With that mindset, even peering through telescopes and microscopes will at best display only blurred images, and reports of plane flights will sound as fake news.

Between the extremes of unquestioningly believing in gnosis (transcendental reality) and rejecting its existence altogether (no-gnosis) is a stance which would rather not get into a debate on the matter. In this view, the controversy can never be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. People holding this neutral position are called agnostics.

The term agnosticism was introduced into English in 1869 by the biologist and pro-science writer Thomas Henry Huxley. Huxley explained how he arrived at his position: “When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last.”

Huxley thought there are no scientific grounds for either believing or for not believing in transcendental truths. He went so far as to say that he found the assertions of unbelievers to be more offensive than the claims of believers because “heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.” What he meant by this was that it is impossible to provide logical or empirical evidence for the non-existence of something of which we know nothing. If someone says that there appears every night a protective cover on our home as soon as we fall asleep, and that this cover disappears the moment anyone wakes up, it is simply not possible to confirm or refute this.

The agnostic position admits that our logical capacities, powerful as they are, can’t be applied in all contexts. This recognition may be taken as a sign of humility in that it refuses to denounce the believer as wrong, illogical or unreasonable. It simply holds that on certain matters we simply can’t choose between two obviously contrary propositions on logical grounds alone.

Agnostics have been criticized as being wishy-washy, coward-ly, and as reflecting an inability to take a firm stance on any belief. Some have called agnostics wimps. William James described them as holding the view that “to yield to our fear of being in error is wiser than to yield to our hope that it may be true.”

Some have defined agnostics as saying: “I don’t know and you don’t either.” In truth the intelligent agnostic merely says, “I am unable to know what you seem to know so definitely and so clearly, and are often eager to thrust on others.”

Another argument against agnostics is that, like all unbelie-vers, they lack the faculty required to taste the transcendental. How can the blind behold the blue of the sky or the stone deaf be sensitive to a symphony? If this were so, agnostics could reply, it is not their fault but the decision of the Creator, so they are not to be condemned for this.

 Many criticisms of agnosticism arise from the perception that an agnostic is neutral in the matter of God-belief, unwilling, incapable or afraid of deciding about God about Whose existence so many are  certain and many others have serious doubts. This view is based on a few misunderstandings.

Agnosticism results from serious reflection on the question of gnosis (of which God is one element). Agnostics are among the honest searchers who find it impossible to accept a definite yes or no answer to this question. It is not a matter of betting on a Pascal-wager for one’s future safety. It is an epistemic impasse and spiritual frustration at not finding an answer to some of the most profound puzzles that the human mind has always faced.

Second, unlike many who have found definite answers to ultimate questions, agnostics respect others for their positions while admitting their own inability, not unwillingness, to concur with them.

Finally, contrary to popular belief, agnosticism is not rejection of God and gnosis, but non-acceptance of the myriad views on God presented by religions, thinkers, and mystics. The agnostic simply says, “Hold on to your beliefs and use them to your own advantage and for the benefit of others, but I will manage my life without the gnosis of received wisdom.”

Thus, agnosticism is neither theism nor atheism, and it goes way beyond God-belief. It is not a rejection of religion or science, but the admission of the finiteness of the human mind in grasping alleged realities beyond the senses and reason. It echoes John Dryden’s pithy exclamation, “But how can finite grasp infinity?”

The philosophy of agnosticism, though not the word, is not new. In ancient Greece Protagoras wrote: “Concerning gods I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not.” This was enough, if we are to believe Diogenes Laërtius, to send him in exile from Athens.

Centuries before that, a Vedic sage-poet, reflecting on how the Universe might have emerged, concluded in his Nāsadīya Sukta, with these words: Who really knows, and who can swear, How creation arose, when or where! Even gods came after creation’s day, Who really knows, who can truly say When and how did creation start? Did He do it? Or did He not? Only He up there knows, maybe; Or perhaps, not even He.