Most of today's dictionaries define agnosticism as a position of uncertainty. Based on this definition, agnostics are expected to be on the fence or not take any position on an issue. I used to accept this until I started reading the writings of the founder of agnosticism, who is Thomas Huxley. One statement that led me to question today's understanding of agnosticism is the following,

Agnosticism has no creed–in the sense of a statement or conclusions either positive or negative, which the agnostic must hold. It is the method [into] the cause of belief, which[sic] marks the true agnostic, not the results of the intellectual operation conducted according to that method. (1)

Huxley's explanation describes agnosticism as being a method which is very different than the definition today. In this article, I want to dive into what agnosticism really is, and also show that Agnostics can claim to know.

The Making of Agnosticism

You can not fully understand agnosticism until you also understand ‘dogmatism’. The simple reason is because Huxley created agnosticism to be a position against dogmatism. Dogmatism is basically unwarranted certainty; it involves someone treating opinions or beliefs as truth and holding them in an unquestionable and/or close-minded way.

Here's Huxley in his own words:

I invented the word "Agnostic" to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence...

Here's another statement where Huxley explains what led up to his agnosticism:

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

In both of Huxley's explanations, we see that his making of agnosticism was in reaction to the dogmatism or unwarranted confidence that he encountered in his day.

From here on, I will make my case for why agnostics can claim to know things, including taking a position on God's existence.

Agnosticism as a method, and not a position against knowledge

Let's start with a series of Huxley's explanations that show that agnosticism was not meant to be anti-knowledge:

Statement #1

agnosticism has no creed–in the sense of a statement or conclusions either positive or negative, which the agnostic must hold. It is the method [into] the cause of belief, which[sic] marks the true agnostic, not the results of the intellectual operation conducted according to that method.

Statement #2

I further say that Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism.

From both statements we can gather that agnosticism is not based on a view, but rather it's a method or principle. Statement #2 goes further in that it gives conditions for agnostics to be able to claim knowledge or have certainty (i.e. “if they can produce evidence…”). It's reasonable to say that if Huxley was against having knowledge then he would not have a condition or requirement for certainty. He would have said that nothing justifies certainty, not even "evidence which logically justifies certainty". But he clearly has a condition in place for agnostics to have certainty or knowledge.

Addressing Huxley's explanations for Agnosticism as a position of ignorance or not knowing

There are several statements where Huxley describes agnosticism as a position of ignorance and here's just a sample:

Statement #3

I invented the word "Agnostic" to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence;"

Statement #4

The theological "gnosis" would have us believe that the world is a conjuror's house; the anti-theological "gnosis" talks as if it were a "dirt-pie" made by the two blind children, Law and Force. Agnosticism simply says that we know nothing of what may be beyond phenomena.

Statement #5

“Still speaking for myself, I add, that though Agnosticism is not, and cannot be, a creed, except in so far as its general principle is concerned; yet that the application of that principle results in [311] the denial of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty.

Many would take statements 3 thru 5 to be consistent with today’s definition of agnosticism, and if considered in isolation, I would agree with that. However, Huxley made other statements that I referenced earlier (statements 1 and 2) that show a different picture. Is there an inconsistency here between agnosticism being a method/standard for certainty and not being a viewpoint or position vs. Huxley saying that agnostics have ignorance or "don't know"?

In my view, there is an inconsistency but it's not where you think, and I'll explain why. The key to understand here is why Huxley took a position of ignorance. For starters, statement #5 shows that applying the agnostic standard (refer to statement #2 above) leads to the position of not knowing or suspending judgement. So we can say the reason behind Huxley claiming ignorance on theological/metaphysical matters was a result of applying the agnostic method or principle. He saw no logic nor evidence for such matters and just basically claimed ignorance or no knowledge to be able to make any claims.

But then I also questioned, what if other agnostics apply his agnostic standard and come up with a different conclusion? Let’s say that an agnostic eventually finds evidence for some matter that deals with theology and metaphysics? Would Huxley say that all agnostics have to reach the same conclusion all the time on every matter?

Fortunately, Huxley did address this. The following statement shows that agnostics did not have to reach the same conclusions:

Statement #7

The extent of the region of the uncertain, the number of the problems the investigation of which ends in a verdict of not proven, will vary according to the knowledge and the intellectual habits of the individual Agnostic. I do not very much care to speak of anything as "unknowable.“ What I am sure about is that there are many topics about which I know nothing; and which, so far as I can see, are out of reach of my faculties. But whether these things are knowable by any one else is exactly one of those matters which is beyond my knowledge, though I may have a tolerably strong opinion as to the probabilities of the case.

If agnosticism was only about not knowing then all agnostics would reach the conclusion of "not proven" or not known. But in the last statement, Huxley clear says that the conclusions of agnostics could vary.

But then this opens up one other inconsistency where at one point Huxley says the applying the agnostic method would lead to suspension of judgement or not knowing (statements 3 and 5), and at another point saying the conclusions would vary (statement #7). So which is it?

I believe this is an inconsistency in his view. Keep in mind that all statements, except statement #7, were published before the year 1899. Statement #7 was from one of his later statements on agnosticism published in 1899 (refer to the bibliography below). I believe that Huxley was actively developing his thoughts on agnosticism, and early on he thought that there was only one valid conclusion that could be reached from applying the agnostic principle towards theological matters. Much later on, he changed from that position, perhaps after realizing that other agnostics could reach different conclusions from applying the same principle. You might call that a contradiction, but I also see it as Huxley correcting himself. We do afterall see people reaching different conclusions from applying the same method. We see it in science today. So despite his change in position, it still leaves agnosticism as a coherent concept that is based on an epistemic method or principle (refer to statement #2 above).

Today's agnosticism is based on a limited understanding of Huxley's views.
While today's agnosticism is a position against all knowledge claims, Huxley's agnosticism was only meant to be against unwarranted knowledge claims (or dogma).

......................................................
Stay tuned for my next article where I will answer key questions on agnosticism in light of this article.
Questions to be covered:

1. What's the point of agnosticism?
2. The implications of agnosticism being a method?
3. Can agnosticism be applied beyond the topic of God's existence?

Still finishing post...