Show AGNOSTICISM The Marquis of Qucciisbervy Define sIts s-Its Meaning Had Monsignor Capel asked the question Is there an almighty a divine power instead in-stead of asking the question la there a God Ian Englishman as the is Irat an agnostic and one who has actuailylpsthls seat in the British House of Lords not because be-cause I had ever said there is no God but because it was said that I hd said so would not thu bo taking up the cudgels against the uionsjgnor ia defense and in I monsgor 1il explanation of tho true gnosc position in I this matter did I not presume that it is implied i asking this question la there a IQod that tketSgno OQgbasa lith8rp ri no divine almighty inscrutable power which to tho orthodox mind would amount to the same thing as saying There is no God But the agnostic has said nothing of the kind He may object to the word God Ho does so in fact when he perceives how many different impressions tho word conveys in its attempted definition of an unknown power Not because he denies the existence of some almighty inscrutable power but because he objects to the giving a name I such as God is to that whibhhe believes to ho uadefiuable ay unthinkable of by man And ins doing this ho couveysthe wrong impression im-pression the orthodox mind viz tHat he I is denying tho possibility of n existence of I any such power that may be unknown Tho question then really between the orthodox thinker and the agnostic i not ji question of the denial of the possible existence of an inscrutable in-scrutable power but a squabble over the I right of attempting to define it Mgr Capel quotes Cardinal Newman He says Let men define what they dispute I about The agnostic agrees with the I cardinal and says i is useless to dispute I over what can not bo defined which is surely one and the same thing I am not disputing with the monsignor as to the I existence of an inscrutable power I believe in > it myself But I use the word inscrutable To the agnostic it is at present I pre-sent still so What I dispute with the I monsignor is his attempted definition of this I unknown force or power He speaks of it as him as a beipg who is a person who is selfexisting who is the author of all life i and is therefore the first cause Why not call i her or it To myself a first cause is unthinkable We are standing inI I eternal time which surely means no end no beginning I there neverwas beginning how is a first cause which the monsignor defines as God thinkable TlTere appears tome to-me no place or need for ita first cause in the universe I also dispute with the monsignor i mon-signor or those that think withhim intheir j t attempt probably from mistaken viqws of i what they think people who call themselves agnostics do think and of thus insinuating he stigma upon us of a denial of a power I hey are pleased to call God I have saul all these things before in public both on tho ilatform and in writing The consequence was that tho peers of Scotland affirmed that I had denied the existence of God and with i i out even being allowed to explain what 11 I have hero endeavored to explain 1 was ejected from my seat as a representative I > eer of Scotland thing that has never I happened before For although the sixteen i i representative peers of Scotland are elected among themselves every fresh parliament such a thing as the Scotch l > eern peer once electedto be afterwards rejected has never before happened I mention this to show that I lake a special interest ius hesnbject ofiMonsignor Capels lecture of last night I and that as an agnostic and a fellowconntry lan of the able lecturer and even to a certain cer-tain extent as a martyr to the cause of i I agnosticism I have some right and interest 1 m seeing that the agnostic position is not i i misrepresented in this matter while I am gong go-ng around in the neighborhood Yours j Chronicle toithfully Queensberry in San Francisco j I |