Loading summary
Transcript2 lines
- [00:01]
A
Welcome to Breakpoint, a daily look at an ever changing culture through the lens of unchanging truth. For the Colson Center, I'm John Stonestreet. In 1869, at a meeting in the Metaphysical Society in London, English biologist and anthropologist Thomas Huxley coined the term agnostic to describe those who, like himself, were neither theist nor atheist, claiming instead for himself intellectual humility. Huxley claimed to know that anything unknowable to science could not be real knowledge, since it could not be empirically verified. That included the existence of God, the ultimate nature of reality, anything immaterial. The word agnostic is constructed from Greek, beginning with the ah, which means without or not, and gnostos, or gnosis, which refers to what is known or knowledge. Huxley contrasts it agnostic with gnostic, a related word that means secret, mystical, or spiritual knowledge. In other words, for the agnostic, truth about life, God, and supernatural realities are simply unknowable. An assumption that's built into the word agnostic is that the only way to know is through empirical evidence. In other words, agnosticism is a kinder and gentler version of positivism. That's the idea that only what is empirically verifiable or logically necessary can qualify as knowledge. Anything not empirically verifiable or logically necessary is unknowable and according to Huxley, ultimately meaningless. Now, of course, the assumption that science is the only route to real knowledge is a statement that itself cannot be proven scientifically. So by the agnostic's own standards, science cannot be the only way to know things because science cannot prove that science is the only way to know things. So Greeks might say, oh, the irony. In fact, the agnostic assumption is not only incoherent, it's also false, because there are clearly other ways of knowing beyond empirical science. We know things by experience, by moral and philosophical reasoning, by aesthetics, among others. And so Huxley's agnosticism pushed much of human life and experience into the realm of the unknowable, and therefore the meaningless. Huxley's claim that certainty is only possible by empirical evidence also fails because, well, science itself has been subject to constant reappraisal, and rightly so. The scientific certainties of past eras often become the discarded theories of the next. And of course, that Huxley reserved the right to decide what qualifies as knowledge certainly undermined his claim to intellectual humility. And of course, it's likely that he believed things not testable by empirical evidence. In the end, agnosticism becomes just a light version of atheism. While not denying the existence of God outright. Agnosticism claims that knowledge about God, including whether or not he exists, is simply impossible. It also claims, in effect, that if God does exist, he does not and cannot communicate any knowledge of about himself or the world to us. Not only would his existence then be for all practical purposes irrelevant, but that's an awful lot of knowledge about God that agnostics claim to have, while at the same time claiming that knowledge about God is impossible. Theists propose another source of knowledge, specifically divine revelation. As Francis Schaeffer said, God is there and he is not silent. Ironically, in the century and a half since Huxley claimed that science is the only thing that provides knowledge, science itself has uncovered more and more evidence for God from the world that he made. From the finely tuned molecular machines in every cell to the world seemingly built for humans. The evidence points to purpose and design in the universe. And if there is a design, that implies that there is also a designer. It's also worth noting that science itself developed out of theistic assumptions, specifically biblical teaching. After all, God is rational and he created an orderly universe and he created human beings in his image. Then we're able to study the universe. Without those assumptions. There's no reason to assume the world is knowable or that humans are able to know. It's the theistic assumption, not the agnostic assumption, that gives us science. So by rejecting God, scientists undercut the foundations of their work, and that just scratches the surface for why it is certainly reasonable to believe that God exists and that he's made Himself known both in His Word and His world. Agnosticism is another example of how humans suppress the truth, rejecting what may be known about God. But for those with eyes to see, the evidence is there. For the Colson Center, I'm John stonestreet with Breakpoint. Today's Breakpoint was co authored with Dr. Glenn Sunshine. If you're a fan of Breakpoint, leave us a review wherever you download your podcast. And for more resources or to share this commentary with others, go to breakpoint.org
- [05:05]
B
In a culture that tries to redefine what it means to be human, the church can lead the way in restoring a God given understanding of human identity. The Colson Center's mission is to equip Christians for this work, but we need your support when you make a gift to our ministry by May 8, we'll send you a copy of Dr. Carl Truman's new book, the Desecration of Man, as a thank you. This timely book examines our culture's transgression of human identity and and how Christians can lead the way toward restoration. Make your gift by May 8 at colsoncenter.org April that's colsoncenter.org April.