Part 4 (1/2)

it may be the highest 'good gift from above' as yet given to man.

My present object, then, like that of Socrates, is not to impart any philosophical system, or even positive knowledge, but a frame of mind, what I may term, pure agnosticism, as distinguished from what is commonly so called.

FOOTNOTES:

[34] The first edition, which was published in 1878, was rapidly exhausted, but, as my object in publis.h.i.+ng was solely that of soliciting criticism for my own benefit, I arranged with the publishers not to issue any further edition. The work has therefore been out of print for many years.

[This 'arrangement' was however not actually made, or at least was unknown to the present publis.h.i.+ng firm of Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Thus a new edition of the book was published in 1892, to the author's surprise.--ED.]

[35] [Or rather it was intended that it should appear under the pseudonym of 'Metaphysicus.'--ED.]

[36] [Words in square brackets have been added by me. But I have not introduced the brackets when I have simply inserted single unimportant words obviously necessary for the sense.--ED.]

[37] [See p. 29, quotation from Preface of 'Physicus.' The state of mind expressed in the above Note is a return to the earlier frame of mind of the Burney Essay, e.g. p. 20. That essay was full of the thought that Christian evidences are very manifold and largely 'extra-scientific.'--ED.]

-- 2. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND PURPOSE OF THIS TREATISE.

[To understand George Romanes' mind close attention must be paid to the following section. Also to the fact, not explicitly noticed by him, that he uses the word 'reason' (see p. 112) in a sense closely resembling that in which Mr. Kidd has recently used it in his _Social Evolution_.

He uses it, that is, in a restricted sense as equivalent to _the process of scientific ratiocination_. His main position is therefore this: Scientific ratiocination cannot find adequate grounds for belief in G.o.d.

But the pure agnostic must recognize that G.o.d may have revealed Himself by other means than that of scientific ratiocination. As religion is for the whole man, so all human faculties may be required to seek after G.o.d and find Him--emotions and experiences of an extra-'rational' kind. The 'pure agnostic' must be prepared to welcome evidence of all sorts.--ED.]

It is desirable to be clear at the outset as to the meaning which I shall throughout attach to certain terms and phrases.

_Theism._

It will frequently be said, 'on the theory of Theism,' 'supposing Theism true,' &c. By such phrase my meaning will always be equivalent to--'supposing, for the sake of argument, that the nearest approach which the human mind can make to a true notion of the _ens realissimum_, is that of an inconceivably magnified image of itself at its best.'

_Christianity._

Similarly, when it is said, 'supposing Christianity true,' what will be meant is--'supposing for the sake of argument, that the Christian system as a whole, from its earliest dawn in Judaism, to the phase of its development at the present time, is the highest revelation of Himself which a personal Deity has vouchsafed to mankind.' This I intend to signify an att.i.tude of pure agnosticism as regards any particular dogma of Christianity--even that of the Incarnation.

Should it be said that by holding in suspense any distinctive dogma of Christianity, I am not considering Christianity at all, I reply, Not so; I am not writing a theological, but a philosophical treatise, and shall consider Christianity merely as one of many religions, though, of course, the latest, &c. Thus considered, Christianity takes its place as the highest manifestation of evolution in this department of the human mind; but I am not concerned even with so important an ecclesiastical dogma as that of the Incarnation of G.o.d in Christ. As far as this treatise has to go, that dogma may or may not be true. The important question for us is, Has G.o.d spoken through the medium of our religious instincts? And although this will necessarily involve the question whether or how far in the case of Christianity there is objective evidence of His having spoken by the mouth of holy men [of the Old Testament] which have been since the world began, such will be the case only because it is a question of objective evidence whether or how far the religious instincts of these men, or this race of men, have been so much superior to those of other men, or races of men, as to have enabled them to predict future events of a religious character. And whether or not in these latter days G.o.d has spoken by His own Son is not a question for us, further than to investigate the higher cla.s.s of religious phenomena which unquestionably have been present in the advent and person of Jesus. The question whether Jesus was the Son of G.o.d, is, logically speaking, a question of ontology, which, _qua_ pure agnostics, we are logically forbidden to touch.

But elsewhere I ought to show that, from my point of view as to the fundamental question being whether G.o.d has spoken at all through the religious instincts of mankind, it may very well be that Christ was not G.o.d, and yet that He gave the highest revelation of G.o.d. If the 'first Man' was allegorical, why not the 'second'? It is, indeed, an historical fact that the 'second Man' existed, but so likewise may the 'first.'

And, as regards the 'personal claims' of Christ, all that He said is not incompatible with His having been Gabriel, and His Holy Ghost, Michael[38]. Or He may have been a man deceived as to His own personality, and yet the vehicle of highest inspiration.

_Religion._

By the term 'religion,' I shall mean any theory of personal agency in the universe, belief in which is strong enough in any degree to influence conduct. No term has been used more loosely of late years, or in a greater variety of meanings. Of course anybody may use it in any sense he pleases, provided he defines exactly in what sense he does so.

The above seems to be most in accordance with traditional usage.

_Agnosticism 'pure' and 'impure'._

The modern and highly convenient term 'Agnosticism,' is used in two very different senses. By its originator, Professor Huxley, it was coined to signify an att.i.tude of reasoned ignorance touching everything that lies beyond the sphere of sense-perception--a professed inability to found valid belief on any other basis. It is in this its original sense--and also, in my opinion, its only philosophically justifiable sense--that I shall understand the term. But the other, and perhaps more popular sense in which the word is now employed, is as the correlative of Mr. H.

Spencer's doctrine of the Unknowable.