The Many Faces, and Causes, of Unbelief - Apologetics Press

More documents

Recommendations

Info

are monkeys” (see Leonard Huxley, 1900, 1:205). He was passionate about referring to Charles Darwin as the “Newton of biology” (see Blinderman, 1957, p. 174), and did not hesitate to affirm that, so far as he was concerned, I really believe that the alternative is either Darwinism or nothing, for I do not know of any rational conception or theory of the organic universe which has any scientific position at all besides Mr. Darwin’s.... Whatever may be the objections to his views, certainly all other theories are out of court (1896, p. 467). Huxley worked diligently to convince those around him that agnosticism was a respectable philosophical position, and that it was quite impossible to know whether or not God existed. Yet he simultaneously advocated the position that it was quite possible to deny some theistic claims with certainty. He “knew,” for example, that the Bible was not God’s Word, and openly ridiculed anyone who believed it to be so. He heaped scathing rebukes upon those who believed in what he termed “the myths of Genesis,” and he stated categorically that “my sole point is to get people who persist in regarding them as statements of fact to understand that they are fools” (see Leonard Huxley, 1900, 2:429). That Huxley had in mind antagonistic views toward Judeo- Christian theism when he claimed to be “agnostic” has been made clear by those who would have no reason to be biased against him. For example, under the heading of “agnosticism,” the authors of the British-produced Encyclopaedia Britannica wrote: Agnosticism both as a term and as a philosophical position gained currency through its espousal by Thomas Huxley, who seems to have coined the word “agnostic” (as opposed to “gnostic”) in 1869 to designate one who repudiated traditional Judeo-Christian theism and yet disclaimed doctrinaire atheism, transcending both in order to leave such questions as the existence of God in abeyance.... But Huxley’s own elaboration on the term makes it clear that this very biblical interpretation of man’s relation to God -17
was the intended polemic target of agnosticism. The suspension of judgment on ultimate questions for which it called was thought to invalidate Christian beliefs about “things hoped for” and “things not seen....” Huxley himself certainly rejected as outright false—rather than as not known to be true or false— many widely popular views about God, his providence, and man’s posthumous destiny... (1997a, 1: 151; 1997b, 26:569, emp. added). Rather than courageously embrace and defend atheism, Huxley opted to feign ignorance with his “I don’t know, you don’t know, nobody knows, and nobody can know” position. This cowardly compromise did not endear him to those who were quite willing to champion the more radical stance of apodictically affirming that God does not exist. In their discussion of agnosticism under the section on “religious and spiritual belief systems,” the editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica noted that Huxley and his associates were attacked both by enthusiastic Christian polemicists and by Friedrich Engels, the co-worker of Karl Marx, as “shame-faced atheists,” a description that is perfectly applicable to many of those who nowadays adopt the more comfortable label (1997b, 26:569, emp. added). The fact is, the agnostic is far from indifferent. He takes his agnosticism extremely seriously when he affirms that nothing outside of the material world can be known or proved. But agnosticism is built upon a self-defeating premise. English philosopher Herbert Spencer (also a close personal friend of Charles Darwin, the man from whom Darwin borrowed his now-popular phrase, “survival of the fittest,” and popularly regarded as one of the foremost apostles of agnosticism in his day) advocated the position that just as no bird ever has been able to fly out of the heavens, so no man ever has been able to penetrate with his finite mind the veil that hides the mind of the Infinite. This inability on the part of the finite (mankind), he concluded, prevented any knowledge of the Infinite (God) reaching the finite. -18
Page 2 and 3: APOLOGETICS PRESS
Page 4: CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPT
Page 7 and 8: For example, when Joshua—who had
Page 9 and 10: the truth, but they will not. The s
Page 11 and 12: obliged to acknowledge that it was
Page 14 and 15: 2 THE MANY FACES OF UNBELIEF Throug
Page 16 and 17: Impossible task, that—since one w
Page 18 and 19: Neither of these tasks is simple (n
Page 20 and 21: foundation, not in divine guidance,
Page 24 and 25: Such a premise is flawed internally
Page 26 and 27: The development, over the past four
Page 28 and 29: Thus, in the end the skeptic does n
Page 30 and 31: le plethora of men and women who ma
Page 32 and 33: include “Hell” and “Some Mist
Page 34 and 35: In fact, in the late 1970s, while I
Page 36 and 37: future state of rewards and punishm
Page 38 and 39: tion to function on its own; some b
Page 40 and 41: Deism...refers to what can be calle
Page 42 and 43: a God strong enough to create the w
Page 44 and 45: ecomes indistinguishable from evil.
Page 46 and 47: Ryerson who allegedly was able to
Page 48 and 49: ...Every action, under certain circ
Page 50 and 51: tes 12:7). The writer of the book o
Page 52 and 53: the Lord struck him, because he did
Page 54 and 55: ook, Apologetics in the New Age: A
Page 56 and 57: at ease. Yes, it is! Therefore, in
Page 58 and 59: What should be the response of Chri
Page 60 and 61: principle of causality. In its pict
Page 62: a better world, but is limited by t
Page 65 and 66: every citizen enjoys. Or contemplat
Page 67 and 68: since that time that it has very gr
Page 69 and 70: cuse. Man’s failure to see this g
Page 71 and 72: With reference to men the use is pr
Page 73 and 74:
in philosophy and science. Life has
Page 75 and 76:
Indeed, it may “not be irrelevant
Page 77 and 78:
The shock received by the inexperie
Page 79 and 80:
there have been those from politics
Page 81 and 82:
from the only God ye seek not?,”
Page 83 and 84:
This is the first age, I think, in
Page 85 and 86:
tle John brought the book of Revela
Page 87 and 88:
self, but the fact that “[i]t is
Page 89 and 90:
As this section on immorality as a
Page 91 and 92:
Democratic Way of Life, a formal st
Page 93 and 94:
But science is no synonym for spiri
Page 95 and 96:
ate student asked: “Hundreds of t
Page 97 and 98:
ather bluntly: “In contrast to th
Page 99 and 100:
a joy to tell him that he does not
Page 101 and 102:
is Steven Weinberg, author of Dream
Page 103 and 104:
At Noel’s funeral, the minister b
Page 105 and 106:
Again, time and space would fail me
Page 107 and 108:
sin? No, they were no worse sinners
Page 109 and 110:
Just as suffering is real, so are t
Page 111 and 112:
The corruptions, or shortcomings, o
Page 113 and 114:
UNJUST ACTS COMMITTED BY BELIEVERS
Page 115 and 116:
million-dollar reward to anyone car
Page 117 and 118:
ted. For example, when law-enforcem
Page 119 and 120:
tain actions are sanctioned by God
Page 121 and 122:
of unbelief. I suppose that some wo
Page 124 and 125:
4 CONCLUSION Every person familiar
Page 126 and 127:
This latter observation needs a lit
Page 128 and 129:
REFERENCES Abelson, Phillip (1964),
Page 130 and 131:
Durant, Will (1980), “We Are in t
Page 132 and 133:
Huxley, Thomas Henry (1896), Darwin
Page 134 and 135:
Raymo, Chet (1998), Skeptics and Tr
Page 136:
Watkin, Edward I. (1936), Theism, A
show all

The Many Faces, and Causes, of Unbelief - Apologetics Press

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?