SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: epicure who wrote (38403)11/23/2001 8:37:48 AM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 82486
 
Science and Religion
Museum of Geology
The Builder vol. 17 (January 1859)

[35] At the close of the first course of Lectures to Working Men this session, delivered by Professor Huxley, F.R.S. ("On Objects of Interest in the Collection of Fossils"), the lecturer made some observations on the subject at the head of this article, and it has been urged by several of his hearers that the publication of these remarks in our columns would be useful......

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now, gentlemen, the proper subjects of this course are ended. My duties towards you, as an officer of this institution, cease; but I am glad to have the opportunity, on my own responsibility, of saying a few words on a subject which, judging from the letters I have received, interests you as much as it does me. At the same time, I am most desirous not to be misunderstood; and, therefore, instead of taking up this subject in the lecture which immediately followed the letters to which I refer, I have allowed myself a longer interval for reflection; and, contrary to my wont, I have written down in full, and will read, what I have to say.

The whole history of the gradual discovery of the significance of such apparently unimportant indications of formerly existing life, as those which I have been describing to you to-night, is fraught with instruction. It is one of the most striking of the many justifications which might be found, of the methods, not only of geological, but of all other sciences; and it helps as much as any of these, to teach us what implicit and absolute faith we may place in the conclusions of the human intellect, when that intellect is rightly guided.

In fact, this is the moral of all science; and the great and peculiar benefit which a fair course of scientific study confers, even on those who do not follow it as a profession, is that it compels such a firm and entire faith in our mental processes, so far as their range extends, that it teaches us what this range is, and enables us to distinguish between the natural and the artificial limitations of man's powers.


And let me bid you remember hat this faith does not rest upon mere testimony, however respectable, however solemnly supported. The works of science are her witness. Her age of inspiration and of miracles is not over, but beginning, and its duration will be coeval with that of the intellect of man. Nor is access to her deepest secrets restricted to a race or to a priesthood. Every man can, if he pleases, apply to the sources of all scientific knowledge directly, and verify for himself the conclusions of others. In science, faith is based solely on the assent of the intellect; and the most complete submission to ascertained truth is wholly voluntary, because it is accompanied by perfect freedom, nay, by every encouragement, to test and try that truth to the uttermost.

I have said that our faith in the results of the right working of the human mind rests on no mere testimony. But there is One that bears witness to it, and He the Highest. For, the winning of every new law by reasoning from ascertained facts; the verification by the event, of every scientific prediction is, if this world be governed by providential order, the direct testimony of that Providence to the sufficiency of the faculties with which man is endowed, to unravel, so far as is necessary for his welfare, the mysteries by which he is surrounded. Donati's comet lately blazing in the heavens above us at its appointed time; the first quiver which betrayed to the anxious watcher of the telegraphic needle on the other side of the Atlantic, that an electric current would follow, even under such strange conditions, the laws which man's wit and industry had discovered; the bone which, laid bare by Cuvier's chisel, justified his trust in the law of organic correlation which he had discovered; all these, and hundreds of other like cases which I might cite, are to my mind so many signs and wonders, whereby the Divine Governor signifies his approbation of the trust of poor and weak humanity, in the guide which he has given it.

The present state of civilized nations and their past history bear witness on the same side. So far as any nation recognises, or has recognised, the great truth, that every dictum, every belief, must be tested and tried to the uttermost, and swept ruthlessly away if it be not in accordance with right reason, so far is that nation prosperous and healthy; and so far as a nation has allowed itself to be hood-winked and fettered, and the free application of its intellect, as the criterion of all truth, restricted, so far is it sinking and rotten within.

There is one restriction, and only one, so far as I know, placed upon our supreme arbiter. It is, that it shall be actuated by an uncompromising and unswerving love of truth. With that, the human intellect is the nearest impersonification of the Divine; without that, it is, in my apprehension, the worst of conceivable devils.

Such being my inmost and deepest belief on these matters, the friend, if I may so call him, who was good enough to write me the letter an extract from which I am about to read, will readily anticipate what answer I am about to give him. I can but regret that it should be so directly opposed in appearance to his own views, but he has asked me to speak out, and I will do so. After all, there is perhaps less difference between us in reality than in seeming.

Referring to a previous letter, he says,–"One or two imagined that you, in your own theory, advocated the idea that a lower animal might, by development or progression, pass, in time, into one of a higher organization; and they would apply this through the whole animal kingdom up to the human race, in opposition to the first pair being brought into existence by the direct power of our Creator."

The one or two are nearly, but not quite, right. What I said was this: that the bringing into existence of an animal, at once, is a thing which is, in the nature of the case, capable of neither proof nor disproof, and is, therefore, no subject for science, which concerns herself only with matters capable of proof or disproof. And I went on to say, that if the appearance of the successive populations of the globe had followed laws at all similar to those by which the rest of the universe is governed, I could not conceive but that these successive races must have proceeded from one another in the way of progressive modification.

And that is my hypothesis, and I do include man in the same category as the rest of the animal world. But you will recollect, that I begged you particularly to understand that I regarded this notion of mine simply as a hypothesis, reasoned out from general principles, and wholly devoid of evidence amounting to proof.

Well, if you see good to reject this hypothesis, if you think that my reasonings from the principles I started with are fallacious, or that those principles themselves are erroneous, reject it by all means; and if you can show me, on these grounds , that you are right, I will reject it also as speedily as possible, and thank you for the refutation. Why should I cumber myself with the burden of an untruth?

But you all know right well that such are not the grounds on which hypotheses of this kind are objected to. The real reason is, that such doctrines are supposed to be antagonistic to religion, or rather, to be opposed to certain traditions handed down to us with our religious beliefs, from a venerable and remote antiquity.

Now let me tell you quite frankly, that I almost think it beneath the dignity of my calling, as a man of science, to listen to such objections as these. If it be really true that science is opposed to religion, all I can say is, so much the worse for religion. If science is really opposed to traditions, the sooner the traditions vanish and are no more seen or heard of, the better. For science, and the methods of science, are the masters of the world.

But it is not true. If you have seen occasion to put any faith in what I tell you, believe me now when I say, that of all the miserable superstitions which have ever tended to vex and enslave mankind, this notion of the antagonism of science and religion is the most mischievous.

True science and true religion are twin-sisters, and the separation of either from the other is sure to prove the death of both. Science prospers exactly in proportion as it is religious; and religion flourishes in exact proportion to the scientific depth and firmness of its basis.

The great deeds of philosophers have been less the fruit of their intellect, than of the direction of that intellect by an eminently religious tone of mind. Truth has yielded herself rather to their patience, their love, their single-heartedness, and their self-denial, than to their logical acumen.


And all the reformations in religion–all the steps by which the creeds you hold have been brought to that comparative purity and truth in which you justly glory–have been due essentially to the growth of the scientific spirit, to the ever-increasing confidence of the intellect in itself–and its incessantly repeated refusals to bow down blindly to what it had discovered to be mere idols, any more.

It is above all things needful for you, working men, to note these truths. For with the limited time, and the limited means for study at your disposal, you run the risk of flying to one of two extremes–bigoted orthodoxy, or conceited scepticism.

[36] The more earnest and deep-thinking of you are not always able to distinguish the eternal truths of religion from the temporary and often disfiguring investiture which has grown round them, as, at this Christmas time, we see the ivy and the mistletoe overgrowing the oak; and when science comes, and would tear away these mummy-wrappings, and show you the form within in all its beauty, you–too often urged by those who call themselves your teachers–raise a cry of sacrilege, as if the holy of holies itself were defiled.

And, on the other hand, the quicker-witted and less serious spirits are apt to rush from a like misconception into the opposite error. They imagine that because no honest man can, for one moment, reconcile the plain teachings of geology with the statements contained in the book of Genesis; because no astronomer believes that the sun and moon have stood still at the bidding of a Jewish commander-in-chief; because, in short, whenever and on whatever pretext science and authority have come into conflict, authority has always been signally worsted, and will be till the end of time; because of these things, they imagine they may disown all the Ten Commandments, and treat with foolish ridicule the book which the true man of science will ever hold in the highest respect, as containing the noblest and the clearest exposition of human rights and human duties extant.

I warn you solemnly against both of these evils. Despise both bigotry and scoffing doubt, and regard those who encourage you in either, whether they wear the tonsure of a priest, or the peruke of a Voltaire, as your worst enemies. And if you seek a preservative against these snares, I say, strive earnestly to learn something, not only of the results, but of the methods of science, and then apply those methods to all statements which offer themselves for your belief. If they will not stand that test, they are nought, let them come with what authority they may.

aleph0.clarku.edu



To: epicure who wrote (38403)11/23/2001 9:13:16 AM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 82486
 
Thomas Henry Huxley – A Reminiscence1
by Wilfred Ward
The Nineteenth Century (1896)

He often resented being identified with simple destruction in matters of religious faith, and disclaimed all sympathy with the scoffing spirit. His opposition to theology had not meant, he said, opposition to religion. I remember his showing me Boehm's bust of himself, and expressing strongly his dislike of its expression. 'It is almost Voltairian,' he said. 'You should not destroy until you are in a position to build up something to replace what you have destroyed,' was another saying of his: 'Descartes saw that, and advocated a morale par provision, a system to act upon (pending the conclusion of his philosophical inquiries)–a system which included adhering to the religion in which he had been brought up.' Huxley's application of this principle was very intelligible in his protests against dogmatic infidelity.4 But it used to seem to me, as I once told him, to be forgotten in his extremely polemical tone, which unquestionably did often lead others to abandon even a provisional adherence to any religious system. But I believe his failure to take this into consideration to have been partly due to the exclusively scientific cast of his mind. The cause of scientific discovery was paramount to all else; and whatever even appeared to impede it he assailed ruthlessly. Moreover he wrote for experts, or at least for careful students. In point of fact, readers include the impressionable and unintellectual as well as the intellectual; and an anti-Christian rhetoric may, for such readers, destroy religious belief wholesale, including positions which the writer himself, to say the least, considered quite tenable to the end. He said to me once, in 1894, 'Faulty and incorrect as is the Christian definition of Theism, it is nearer the truth than the creed of some agnostics who conceive of no unifying principle in the world.' He proceeded to defend eloquently the argument from design, refer[283]ing me to his volume of Darwiniana, to show that he had admitted in print that it could not be disproved by the evolution theory.5 This position, which entirely tallies with his statement that only a 'very great fool' would deny in his heart a God conceived as Spinoza conceives Him,6 was distinctly short of the degree of agnosticism currently attributed to him by those who read him hastily and blended their own logic with his rhetoric. Such an attitude towards destructive thought, coupled with Descartes' maxim, was perhaps the explanation of his recognising a value and real sacredness in current religious forms which the aggressive irreligionists of France ostentatiously despise.

aleph0.clarku.edu



To: epicure who wrote (38403)11/23/2001 9:18:19 AM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 82486
 
July 6, 1878
[To John Morley]

My dear Morley–Very many thanks for Diderot. I have made a plung into the first volume and found it very interesting. I wish you had put a portrait of him as a frontispiece. I have seen one–a wonderful face, something like Goethe's.

I am picking at Hume at odd times. It seems to me that I had better make an analysis and criticism of the "Inquiry," the backbone of the essay–as it touches all the problems which interest us most just now. I have already sketched out a chapter on Miracles, which will, I hope, be very edifying in consequence of its entire agreement with the orthodox arguments against Hume's a priori reasonings against miracles.

Hume wasn't half a sceptic after all. And so long as he got deep enough to worry Orthodoxy, he did not care to go to the bottom of things.

He failed to see the importance of suggestions already made both by Locke and Berkeley.–Ever yours very faithfully,

T. H. Huxley.

aleph0.clarku.edu



To: epicure who wrote (38403)11/23/2001 9:23:49 AM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 82486
 
Agnosticism: A Symposium
The Agnostic Annual (1884)

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 the utmost confidence; and it has been a source of some amusement to me to watch the gradual acceptance of the term and its correlate, "Agnosticism" (I think the Spectator first adopted and popularised both), until now Agnostics are assuming the position of a recognised sect, and Agnosticism is honoured by especial obloquy on the part of the orthodox. Thus it will be seen that I have a sort of patent right in "Agnostic" (it is my trade mark); and I am entitled to say that I can state authentically what was originally meant by Agnosticism. What other people may understand by it, by this time, I do not know. If a General Council of the Church Agnostic were held, very likely I should be condemned as a heretic. But I speak only for myself in endeavoring to answer these questions.

1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.

2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.

3. I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions. On trial of any so-called miracle the verdict of science is "Not proven." But true Agnosticism will not forget that [6] existence, motion, and law-abiding operation in nature are more stupendous miracles than any recounted by the mythologies, and that there may be things, not only in the heavens and earth, but beyond the intelligible universe, which "are not dreamt of in our philosophy." The theological "gnosis" would have us believe that the world is a conjuror's house; the anti-theological "gnosis" talks as if it were a "dirt-pie" made by the two blind children, Law and Force. Agnosticism simply says that we know nothing of what may be beyond phenomena.

aleph0.clarku.edu



To: epicure who wrote (38403)11/23/2001 9:33:03 AM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 82486
 
Agnosticism (1889)
Collected Essays V

The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews tells [244] us that "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen." In the authorised version, "substance" stands for "assurance," and "evidence" for "proving." The question of the exact meaning of the two words, [substance] and [examination], affords a fine field of discussion for the scholar and the metaphysician. But I fancy we shall be not far from the mark if we take the writer to have had in his mind the profound psychological truth, that men constantly feel certain about things for which they strongly hope, but have no evidence, in the legal or logical sense of the word; and he calls this feeling "faith." I may have the most absolute faith that a friend has not committed the crime of which he is accused. In the early days of English history, if my friend could have obtained a few more compurgators of a like robust faith, he would have been acquitted. At the present day, if I tendered myself as a witness on that score, the judge would tell me to stand down, and the youngest barrister would smile at my simplicity. Miserable indeed is the man who has not such faith in some of his fellow-men–only less miserable than the man who allows himself to forget that such faith is not, strictly speaking, evidence; and when his faith is disappointed, as will happen now and again, turns Timon and blames the universe for his own blunders. And so, if a man can find a friend, the hypostasis of all his hopes, the mirror of his [245] ethical ideal, in the Jesus of any, or all, of the Gospels, let him live by faith in that ideal. Who shall or can forbid him? But let him not delude himself with the notion that his faith is evidence of the objective reality of that in which he trusts. Such evidence is to be obtained only by the use of the methods of science, as applied to history and to literature, and it amounts at present to very little.

It appears that Mr. Gladstone some time ago asked Mr. Laing if he could draw up a short summary of the negative creed; a body of negative propositions, which have so far been adopted on the negative side as to be what the Apostles' and other accepted creeds are on the positive; and Mr. Laing at once kindly obliged Mr. Gladstone with the desired articles–eight of them.

If any one had preferred this request to me, I should have replied that, if he referred to agnostics, they have no creed; and, by the nature of the case, cannot have any. Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, "Try all things, hold fast by that which is good" it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able [246] to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

aleph0.clarku.edu



To: epicure who wrote (38403)11/23/2001 9:38:50 AM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 82486
 
Agnosticism and Christianity [1899]
Collected Essays V

Relatively to myself, I am quite sure that the region of uncertainty–the nebulous country in which words play the part of realities [312]–is far more extensive than I could wish. Materialism and Idealism; Theism and Atheism; the doctrine of the soul and its mortality or immortality–appear in the history of philosophy like the shades of Scandinavian heroes, eternally slaying one another and eternally coming to life again in a metaphysical "Nifelheim." It is getting on for twenty-five centuries, at least, since mankind began seriously to give their minds to these topics. Generation after generation, philosophy has been doomed to roll the stone uphill; and, just as all the world swore it was at the top, down it has rolled to the bottom again. All this is written in innumerable books; and he who will toil through them will discover that the stone is just where it was when the work began. Hume saw this; Kant saw it; since their time, more and more eyes have been cleansed of the films which prevented them from seeing it; until now the weight and number of those who refuse to be the prey of verbal mystifications has begun to tell in practical life.

It was inevitable that a conflict should arise between Agnosticism and Theology; or rather, I ought to say, between Agnosticism and Ecclesiasticism. For Theology, the science, is one thing; and Ecclesiasticism, the championship of a foregone conclusion3 as to the truth of a particular [313] form of Theology, is another. With scientific Theology, Agnosticism has no quarrel. On the contrary, the Agnostic, knowing too well the influence of prejudice and idiosyncrasy, even on those who desire most earnestly to be impartial, can wish for nothing more urgently than that the scientific theologian should not only be at perfect liberty to thresh out the matter in his own fashion; but that he should, if he can, find flaws in the Agnostic position; and, even if demonstration is not to be had, that he should put, in their full force, the grounds of the conclusions he thinks probable. The scientific theologian admits the Agnostic principle, however widely his results may differ from those reached by the majority of Agnostics.

aleph0.clarku.edu