Basic HTML Version
22
Hume has been called the father of modern agnosticism. He did not deny the existence of God,
but asserted that we have no true knowledge of His attributes. All our ideas of Him are, and can
only be, anthropomorphic. We cannot be sure that there is any reality corresponding to the
attributes we ascribe to Him. His agnosticism resulted from the general principle that all
knowledge is based on experience. It was especially Kant, however, who stimulated agnostic
thought by his searching inquiry into the limits of the human understanding and reason. He
affirmed that the theoretical reason knows only phenomena and is necessarily ignorant of that
which underlies these phenomena, — the thing in itself. From this it followed, of course, that it
is impossible for us to have any theoretical knowledge of God. But Lotze already pointed out
that phenomena, whether physical or mental, are always connected with some substance lying
back of them, and that in knowing the phenomena we also know the underlying substance, of
which they are manifestations. The Scotch philosopher, Sir William Hamilton, while not in entire
agreement with Kant, yet shared the intellectual agnosticism of the latter. He asserts that the
human mind knows only that which is conditioned and exists in various relations, and that,
since the Absolute and Infinite is entirely unrelated, that is exists in no relations, we can obtain
no knowledge of it. But while he denies that the Infinite can be known by us, he does not deny
its existence. Says he, “Through faith we apprehend what is beyond our knowledge.” His views
were shared in substance by Mansel, and were popularized by him. To him also it seemed
utterly impossible to conceive of an infinite Being, though he also professed faith in its
existence. The reasoning of these two men did not carry conviction, since it was felt that the
Absolute or Infinite does not necessarily exist outside of all relations, but can enter into various
relations; and that the fact that we know things only in their relations does not mean that the
knowledge so acquired is merely a relative or unreal knowledge.
Comte, the father of Positivism, was also agnostic in religion. According to him man can know
nothing but physical phenomena and their laws. His senses are the sources of all true thinking,
and he can know nothing except the phenomena which they apprehend and the relations in
which these stand to each other. Mental phenomena can be reduced to material phenomena,
and in science man cannot get beyond these. Even the phenomena of immediate consciousness
are excluded, and further, everything that lies behind the phenomena. Theological speculation
represents thought in its infancy. No positive affirmation can be made respecting the existence
of God, and therefore both theism and atheism stand condemned. In later life Comte felt the
need of some religion and introduced the so-called “religion of Humanity.” Even more than
Comte, Herbert Spencer is recognized as the great exponent of modern scientific agnosticism.
He was influenced very much by Hamilton’s doctrine of the relativity of knowledge and by
Mansel’s conception of the Absolute, and in the light of these worked out his doctrine of the
Unknowable, which was his designation of whatever may be absolute, first or ultimate in the
order of the universe, including God. He proceeds on the assumption that there is some reality