« Ch.IV. Q.21. A Priori and A Posteriori | Main | Ch.IV. Q. 23. Common Consent »

July 26, 2005

Ch.IV. Q.22. Agnosticism

THE very possibility of Theism is denied by Agnosticism; which is, in effect, the modern equivalent of ancient scepticism. It consists in a denial of the trustworthiness of certain cognitive faculties. Theologically it signifies a denial of human ability to know God.1

2. The testimony of consciousness is the ultimate court of appeal in determining what knowledge is. According to its testimony the cognitive faculties are bound together, and so related in exercise that the validity of one depends absolutely upon that of the others. We cannot discriminate and deny the trustworthiness of the mind in one department, without undermining every mental operation and impugning the trustworthiness of consciousness itself. Yet it is on the testimony of consciousness that sceptics must depend for their rejection of knowledge; and such dependence is inconsistent with the rejection of its testimony in any department of consciousness.2

3. But Agnosticism evolves an abstract definition of knowledge which is not borne out by conscious experience.3 It is alleged that knowledge must be absolute, concerned with things in themselves and apart from their relations to our minds. Such knowledge is obviously impossible, for things appear to us only through relative and phenomenal aspects. Such a contention militates against all knowledge whatsoever. Knowledge is of necessity relative. We cannot know what is unrelated to our cognizing mind.4

4. Consciousness, however, gives knowledge as its primary datum, and we cannot get back of consciousness to criticise its testimony. The possibility of any knowledge depends upon trust in consciousness and the cognitive faculties. We cannot, indeed, prove psychologically that the subjective ideas of our minds truly represent objective reality.5 But neither can we prove that they do not, without assuming the trustworthiness of the very faculties under criticism.6

5. It is not maintained that we know things exhaustively. We know them partially, and only so far as they come into relations with our minds.7 The point maintained is that, so far as such relations are experienced, our knowledge is what consciousness declares it to be—real. And this holds good whether the knowledge is directly empirical or by legitimate inference. It is only when our minds have violated the laws by which they are normally governed that we may suspect the validity of what we seem to know.8 Moreover, although the assistance of grace may enhance our cognitive faculties, it neither subverts the laws of human cognition nor weakens their validity.9

6. Theological Agnosticism also makes use of an abstract and false definition of the Infinite, as the indeterminate and unrelated and equivalent to mental vacuity. The fallacy of this appears when we contrast such a notion with the notion God. The Infinite is obviously determinate if real. The Infinite is not the negation of determinate limitations or of relations, but is the opposite of the finite. It is that which has no external limitations, and which has all the grounds of its determination within itself. It may be related to other things; but, unlike the finite, does not depend upon such relations for its being and nature.10

7. Accepting the trustworthiness of his mental faculties, the Christian theist acknowledges the validity of all implicates which the mind is constrained to discern in the data of experience, when not tampered with. Among these implicates are causation, design, moral government, and the like; and they tend to confirm the common assumption of all sorts and conditions of men that God exists, and possesses certain attributes upon which no limitations can be imposed that are external to the Divine Being itself. To reject the validity of this knowledge, thus verified, requires our use of an a priori philosophy which deprives that very philosophy of valid foundation. The mind must be exercised according to its observed laws or be rejected altogether. Scepticism cannot be demonstrated to be false, but its truth is equally undemonstrable and fatal to its own rationality.

8. The objection that Theism is anthropomorphic is without force. So far as anthropomorphism is fallacious it consists in measuring the Supreme Being by the limitations of human nature. No intelligent theist makes this blunder. He simply recognizes that certain attributes, possessed by men in finite forms and measures, must be possessed somehow by the Creator; for otherwise the Creator could neither have designed the universe nor have brought it into being. It is not necessary that the possession of these attributes should involve finite limitations in God, for their form is determined wholly by what God is in Himself—infinite.11


1 Flint, Agnosticism; Calderwood, Philos. of Infin.; Fisher, Grounds of Belief, pp. 72-88; Iverach, Is God Knowable; Porter, in Present Day Tracts, viii.; Didon, Science Without God, Disc. vii. 1; Bruce, Apologetics, Bk. I., ch. vii. The Agnostic classics are Hamilton's Works; Mansel, Limits of Religious Thought; and Spencer, First Principles, Pt. I.

2 Calderwood, pp. 22-24.

3 Flint, pp. 34-35; Calderwood, ch. iv.

4 Martineau, Religion, Bk. I., ch. iv., pp. 113-123; Fisher, pp. 82-83.

5 Martineau, Bk. I., ch. iv., § 3, pp. 127-128.

6 Martineau, Bk. I., ch. i., ii.; Flint, pp. 336 et seq.

7 Flint, pp. 578-585; Fisher, p. 87; Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual, § 57; Calderwood, pp. 145-148, 218-233.

8 Flint, pp. 348-355.

9 Cf. Q. v. 5. Calderwood, ch. x., discusses the teaching of Scripture that God is knowable; by all men (Rom. i. 18-21; Isa. lii. 10; Psa. xix. 1-4), and especially by grace (Gen. xxxii. 30; Exod. xxxiii. 11; Deut. iii. 24; John i. 14; xvii 3; Acts. xvii. 23-30; I. Cor. xiii. 9, 10, 12; xv. 34; Ephes. iii. 17-19; Col. i. 10; I. John iv. 6-8).

10 Calderwood, pp. 76-98; Martineau, I., xii., xiii.

11 Row, Theism, pp. 35-44.

Posted by Debra Bullock at July 26, 2005 07:03 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://disseminary.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/463

Comments