OCR Text |
Show : i Agnosticism and Deism Explained Agnosticism, in Its Principles and Last Analysis, Identical With Those of Anarchy. Editor Intermountain Catholic: Please explain what is meant by agnostic. ag-nostic. Are agnostics and infidels the same? Why are anarchists sometimes classed a's agnostics? An early reply will oblige, A DOUBTEU. Salt Lake City, July 30. The question that has agitated the human mind frojn time immemorial is that of future existence. Touching this all important question are certain affirmations af-firmations which, when denied, have given rise to many a long drawn out debate. The contest as to the existence exist-ence of God ante-dates all the records of pre-historio times. "The fool saying say-ing in his heart there is no God" brings us up almost to the root of the human family. It is certainly pre-historic and beyond the sacred record. We have no historical evidence of the then state of the human family. All debates, reduced to their last analysis, have been about the little words yes and no. The last century, remarkable both for the discoveries made in the domain of science and the great and profound minds it produced, strikes a medium between the yes . and no of all past ages. It Avill not answer yea, yes, or nay. nay, but says: "I know not" whether a Supreme Being exists or whether the soul is destined for immortality. im-mortality. This "I know not" neither asserts Or denies, but stands on neutral ground. He is not an atheist nor a deist. What then? He is an agnostic. Apart from revelation, the human family takes its place in one or other of these dis tinct categories. A deist believes in the existence of a personal God,- but denies de-nies revelation, also that there is a divine di-vine providence ruling the destinies of men and nations. The rudest savage as well as some of the greatest scholars and most profound pro-found philosophers are classed as deists. de-ists. The atheist must necessarily be subsequent to the-deist, as there could be no denial without first having an affirmation. af-firmation. The agnostic, not finding the arguments in favor of the existence of God sufficiently convincing for his mind, lives in doubt and uncertainty. For the agnostic the existence of God and immorality of the soul are doubtful doubt-ful propositions. They admit that the belief is coeval and co-extensive with the history of the human family; nay, more, that it is the foundation of consoling con-soling hope which leads man's thoughts upwards, developes aspirations that are enobling and conducive to real happiness. hap-piness. John Fiske, who died recently, was a pronounced agnostic. He was recognized recog-nized as one of the leading minds in the world of thought. He has left a number of works on philosophy, evolution, evolu-tion, the unseen world, etc. At Harvard Har-vard university, in 1900, he lectured on "Everlasting. Life." As an agnostic, I his admissions are interesting. Neither affirming or denying the ancient faith, he said "the belief in a future life, in a world unseen by mortal eyes, is not only co-eval with the beginnings of the human race, but is also co-extensive I with it in all its subsequent stages of development. It is. in short, one of the , differential attributes of humanity." He did not discourage this belief of the human race, nor like men of. small minds and pretending to a knowledge of the sciences did he term it a superstition. su-perstition. He would not, because he knew not whether it was true or false, deprive the human family of the con solations wnicn spring ironi Deiier in immortality. In the lecture referred to. he said: "The faith in immortal life is the great poetic achievement of the human mind: it is all-pervasive, it is concerned withjevery moment and every aspect of your existence as moral individuals, and it is the one thing that makes thjs world habitable for beings constructed like ourselves. . . . The destruction of this sublime poetic conception con-ception would be like depriving a. planet plan-et of its atmosphere; it would leave nothing but a moral desert aa cold and dead as the savage surface of the moon." To be consistent with his avowed agnosticism, Mr. Fiske failed to draw from the universal belief of the race its logical conclusion, namely, the soul : is immortal. Hence, he terms it "a. subiime poetic conception," which may be a delusion. But if possibly it is a delusion, why j appeal to it to curb the passions, to i obey the laws and practice justice and j honesty? On this ground rests the most cogent argument of the anarch- j ist. No hereafter, no moral responsi- ' bility. therefore no reason for one de- ! nying himself what the appetite craves. Why obey the law, say anarchists, if by following the bent of their Inclina- i ; tions they succeed in escaping the penl- ' tentiary? The agnostic would natural- ! ly shrink from the teachings of an- , archy. Why? Because of his environments, environ-ments, liaised under the influence of i Christian principles, surrounded by i Christian teaching, he naturally 1m- . bibes its spirit not from the conclu- ! sions which logically follonv from his j teaching. His profession is higher than his principles. In the social order are two classes of j agnostics. The one is refined, has am- I pie means to supply all his demand, and is imbued with certain moral prin- I ciples begotten of Christianity. To j such persons the ravings of anarchy. ; disobedience to law. or any manner of j j disorder tending to disrupt society, j j would be highly offensive. Standing j I on the high plain of law and order, he ', 1 does not see how, from the fart that I the future is uncertain, others with the i same creed should invade his sacred . 1 rights. But the toiling masses who are ; I hungry and naked, reason diffei-ently. . Their reasoning, too, is derived from ! I agnostic principles. If the future Is ! doubtful, then rewards and punish- ! ments are myths, and why sacrifice the present life which is a living reality for uncertain rewards. "The brain." wrote Kropotkin, a leading anarchist, j "released from religious terror, ask itself why should any morality be ob- ! ligatory? He denies both obligation and moral sanction." j Agnostics would naturally shrink ( i from and abhor the anarchists' theories, theo-ries, but do they not flow logically from their theories of evolution. The agnostic's agnos-tic's highest conception of man is that he is evolved. The anarchists, adopt- j ing this theory as their premises, argue ! logically that if man Is evolved, he has I no spiritual soul distinct from the body. ! f Hence the conclusion of Bakounine. a 'I noted anarchist, that "it is a funda- i mental and decisive truth that the f social world, humanity, is nothing else 'I than the supreme development, the I highest manifestation of antmallty." I But this "supreme development or ;) highest manifestation of animality" is not concerned about the unseen world. Its motto is. "Live and be happy, for tomorrow we may die." g But how will the great bulk of ag- nosties. who do not enjoy the goods of f this life, and at best are merely eking out an existence, share in the happiness happi-ness of this life? There are a great many agnostics who do not concern themselves about evolution, or any of the sciences. They want happiness-such happiness-such happiness as the passions seek, and which can be obtained only by wealth. This they do not possess. Even Mr. Fiske's "sublime poetic conception of Immortality" is dead. The anarchists anarch-ists tell how the discontent, unhappy, impoverished members of the human family may obtain redress. The socialists so-cialists give their views. All are ag nostics, and whilst, like Huxley. Spencer Spen-cer and Fiske. they may not deny Immortality, Im-mortality, acknowledging that " they know nothing about it, yet in the midst of the realities of life, controlled by the senses, and a slave to the passions, an uncertain future and doubtful hope is, not enough to offset the baneful teach-" ing of anarchy. The great mistake of the age is to confine agnosticism to a few learned persons. It permeates all branches of .society, and it is its subtle Influence that is rendering mankind restless and widening the chasm tht separates the poor from the rich. j |