(The following are excerpts from an article entitled ‘What is Agnosticism?’ by Robin Schumacher of CARM.org)
Agnosticism comes from two Greek words (a, “no”; gnosis, “knowledge”). It literally means “no-knowledge,” the opposite of a Gnostic. Thus, an agnostic is someone who claims not to know. As applied to knowledge of God, there are two basic kinds of agnostics, those who claim that the existence and nature of God are not known, and those who hold God to be unknowable. Since the first type does not eliminate all religious knowledge, attention here will center on the second. Over 100 years before Huxley (1825-1895), the writings of David Hume (1711-1776) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) laid down the philosophical basis of agnosticism. Much of modern philosophy takes for granted the general validity of the types of arguments they set forth. [Huxley, Hume, and Kant were famous philosophers that popularized ‘agnosticism’.] (Norman Geisler)
Thomas Henry Huxley was an English biologist who was nicknamed “Darwin’s Bulldog” for his staunch support of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Huxley is also credited with coining the term “agnostic.” Following in his footsteps, his grandson Julian Huxley wrote the following about when a person should assume a position of agnosticism:
“I believe that one should be agnostic when belief one way or the other is [1] mere idle speculation, incapable of verification; [2] when belief is held merely to gratify desires, however deep-seated, and not because it is forced on us by evidence; and [3] when belief may be taken by others to be more firmly grounded than it really is, and so come to encourage false hopes or wrong attitudes of mind.”
Huxley felt that, “All our life long we are oscillating between conviction and caution, faith and agnosticism, belief and suspension of belief.”
A formal definition of Huxley’s “agnostic” term today is: “a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.”
From this description, it can be said that an agnostic’s position is one where he says he does not know if God exists.
The Bible tells us that we must accept by faith that God exists. Hebrews 11:6 says that without faith “it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” God is spirit (John 4:24) so He cannot be seen or touched. Unless God chooses to reveal Himself, He is invisible to our senses (Romans 1:20). The Bible declares that the existence of God can be clearly seen in the universe (Psalm 19:1-4), sensed in nature (Romans 1:18-22), and confirmed in our own hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11). (not KJV here)
Agnostics are unwilling to make a decision either for or against God’s existence. It is the ultimate “straddling the fence” position. Theists believe that God exists. Atheists believe that God does not exist. Agnostics believe that we should not believe or disbelieve in God’s existence, because it is impossible to know either way. (GotQuestions.org)
Agnosticism typically takes one of two forms – hard and soft. The hard agnostic says that a person can’t know anything for sure. However, this is a self-defeating position as the hard agnostic says he knows for sure that he can’t know anything for sure. Hard agnosticism simply has no container that can keep its universal solvent, and therefore it becomes an untenable position to hold and must be discarded.
In contrast to hard agnosticism, the soft agnostic says he/she doesn’t know anything for sure. At issue is not the lack of human ability for knowing a particular truth, but rather the agnostic struggles with how a truth claim can be verified or shown to be true. It is the ancient pursuit of what in philosophy is called epistemology – how do we know, and how do we know that we know? When the issue of determining the existence of the Christian God is added to the mix, things get even stickier.
But perhaps that doesn’t need to be the case. What if a person truly follows and applies Julian Huxley’s criteria for determining when to be agnostic about a particular truth claim? What would be the end result when Huxley’s measures are applied to the claims of the New Testament, and specifically its account of Jesus Christ?
Huxley’s first condition is that a belief cannot be mere idle speculation or be incapable of verification. This first standard seems reasonable, but as pure conjecture or hearsay it should not be a basis for committing oneself to a belief. The second condition appears logical also, and is sometimes termed the principle of falsification, which was used by philosophers such as Anthony Flew in his initial writings on religion.
The writers of the New Testament never state that their beliefs were based on hearsay, or were events that could not be authenticated. Quite the opposite, as apostles such as Peter say, 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
The disciples recorded occurrences that happened in actual space/time, saw these events with their own eyes, and recorded Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection so that others would know the truth of what happened.
In terms of falsification, the apostle Paul gave the enemies of Christianity a single truth claim that, if proven untrue, would crumble and destroy Christianity in an instant: 1 Cor 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
That, Paul says, is how Christianity can be falsified: find the body of that Jewish carpenter and the Christian faith is undone.
How can modern day people know that Paul and the other apostles were telling the truth? The apostles answer that question through their grave markers. All except John were martyred for their testimony. People may be deceived and die for a lie, but no one dies for what he knows is a lie. All the apostles had to do to save their lives was recant their testimony and say they didn’t see Jesus alive, but none did. Greater evidence for believability cannot be had.
Moving on from Huxley’s first criterion brings the discussion to his second and third standards, which are nearly identical in nature. Huxley says that a belief should be discarded if the sole purpose is to satisfy some psychological desire, and if the belief is not well-grounded from a reality perspective, thus producing false hopes in its target. This benchmark measure for a belief is certainly rational, as the only reason to believe anything is because that particular ‘thing’ (truth claim) is true.
Oftentimes, the psychiatrist Sigmund Freud is quoted to show how religion fails such a test. Speaking of religious beliefs, Freud said: “They are illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind. We call belief an illusion when a wish-fulfillment is a prominent factor in its motivation, and in doing so we disregard its relation to reality, just as the illusion itself sets no store by verification.”
However, Freud’s criteria do nothing to prove or disprove God, as his sword cuts in both directions. Could it not be true that atheists have wishes and urges of their own? Perhaps it’s a wish that a God who will call them to account one day for their actions does not exist. Such a desire can be very motivating and drive a person to hold an atheistic position. So in reality, Freud’s words have no power whatsoever to determine if the truth claims of Christianity are valid or not.
Freud’ thoughts aside, how does the New Testament stand up against Huxley’s second and third standards? As it does with Huxley’s first measure, the New Testament does extremely well.
First, from a legal/historical perspective, no document from antiquity comes even close to the New Testament where passing the general criteria for judging the validity of a historical work is concerned. The New Testament passes the bibliographical test (manuscript reliability and early dating), internal evidence test (multiple key testimonies all of which match), and the external evidence test (outside evidence that corroborates the document’s testimony) with flying colors.
Second, as many have said, the New Testament is not written like a lie. The New Testament writers would not have invented accounts, such as Jesus being buried by a member of the Sanhedrin, women being the first witnesses of Christ’s resurrection, and other such things.
Rather, what is found is a strong commitment to accuracy no matter where the evidence led them. Such dedication is seen in the pen of Luke: Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Lastly, as has already been pointed out, the New Testament writers died for their testimony. As theologian and professor Peter Kreeft points out: “Why would the apostles lie? . . . If they lied, what was their motive . . .? What they got out of it was misunderstanding, rejection, persecution, torture, and martyrdom. Hardly a list of perks!”
The treatment Kreeft lists certainly is not desirable from a psychological perspective, and would produce no false hopes in the disciples as they would obviously know their claims were false if they were lying. Adding this to arguments above, we see that the New Testament accounts overcome Huxley’s second and third hurdles for being agnostic.
In the end, a person who claims to be agnostic about Christianity, but uses Julian Huxley’s own criteria for determining whether one should be agnostic, will have to seriously reconsider his position. With the hard agnostic position being ruled out as self-defeating, and the soft agnostic position being challenged by the compelling evidence of the New Testament, the more reasonable conclusion for the agnostic to reach once everything has been examined seems to be that Christianity is true.
