Posted by Matt Berry on June 17, 1998 at 16:39:11:
In Reply to: Scientific Pantheism: "God of nature" vs. "God is nature" posted by Matt Berry on June 16, 1998 at 16:38:44:
Although this is now the case with regard to a discussion of agnosticism, the word wasn't coined to mean this. Huxley's
biography is very illuminating on this issue. The word "scientist" wasn't popular in Huxley's day. What he meant by "agnostic"
is essentially what we mean by "scientist". An agnostic, to Huxley, wasn't really a person who stopped making inquiries into
the higher questions because the knowledge couldn't be found. An agnostic was a person who was willing to seek knowledge
through scientific means rather than resort to faith to make so called claims of knowledge. In this sense, I think modern
freethinkers would all proudly call themselves agnostic.
Of course, ultimately, you're right. (And I did read your earlier post before I made my post.)
If we carry this discussion too far, then I have to defer to the more exact definition, and that being the one you presented above. How can I argue with the man who invented the term? So, I've got my white flag in hand and am waving it already ... but the surrender is conditional.
I think you agree that, over coffee, Merriam-Webster usually represents the ordinary use of the word "ag.nos.tic" ...
The original definition however, as you mentioned, is ...
T.H. Huxley's Religious and Non-religious Agnosticism
1) "follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration"
and
2) "In matters of intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."
... this is covered today by our use of the word, "Science."
Huxley's "agnosticism" is also in line with Socrates' and Gautama's method ... but in ordinary conversation, if I say that I am "agnostic" few people (except perhaps yourself) will understand that an affinity with the Socratic and original Buddhistic method is being expressed.
"Epicurean" is pretty much in the same position of Huxley's "agnostic". The definition of "Epicurean" can mean "Epicurus-like," but few people associate the word with his disciplined methodology, but associate "Epicurean" with "Epicure" ... gourmet, soft luxury, etc. So in popular conversation I would never say, "I'm an Epicurean" in order to suggest that I take sensory experience at face value, apply reason, and refuse to go beyond the limits of reason. I think that the original word, "agnostic," has fallen by the wayside in a similar manner.
Similarly, I may be very much attracted to the simplicity of the original Buddha, Gautama ... (strictly: avoiding supernatural speculation but searching for a positive orientation to reality) and by that means I could say that I am a "Religious Agnostic," but few in ordinary conversation would understand the connection ... in fact, most upon walking away would think that I have no religious inclinations whatsoever. And with the same problem, few would understand if I said, "I am Buddhist," for that matter, since the word has now been appropriated by those who attempt to sell a "supernatural beyond" -- no doubt through the required purchase of a dozen cassette tapes.
And I don't think you disagree that, popularly, agnosticism represents this Merriam-Webster-like impossibility of belief. I have a blind confidence that the gentleman who made the original post to this thread had the popular definition in mind ... since that is how the word is usually used nowadays. (Also, answered nowadays with, "What's the matter can't you make up your mind?" -- which is another misperception, but which has already encroached upon the usage of the word.)
So of course you're right, but the need for effective communication demands that I use "agnostic" in the modern sense, in the same manner that I use "epicurean" in the modern sense.