✝ Catholic Treasury Network
Home ›Tracts›Apologetics›Agnosticism and Rationalism
T.J. WalsheApologeticsChapter 5

Agnosticism and Rationalism

Chapter V.—Agnosticism and Rationalism

I.—Agnosticism in General.

(A) Definition:

Agnosticism is the system according to which human reason has knowledge only of phenomena. All beyond phenomena is unknowable.

“Thou canst not prove the Nameless, O my son, Nor canst thou prove the world thou movest in, Thou canst not prove that thou art body alone, Thou canst not prove that thou art spirit alone, Nor canst thou prove that thou art both in one; Nor canst thou prove thou art immortal, no, Nor yet that thou art mortal—nay, my son, Thou canst not prove that I, who speak with thee Am not thyself in converse with thyself, For nothing worthy proving can be proven, Nor yet disproven: wherefore thou be wise, Cleave ever to the sunnier side of doubt, Cling to Faith beyond the forms of Faith!”

— Tennyson, The Ancient Sage.

John Stuart Mill regarded the existence of the world as dubious. Herbert Spencer admitted the existence of an external world on account of the resistance of bodies: the world is symbolically knowable, but its real nature is not knowable.

The origin of the name is given by the late Professor Huxley—one of the ablest of the Agnostic School:

“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; a 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 act 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 that 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… . So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of ‘agnostic.’ It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the ‘gnostic’ of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant… . Agnosticism is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle… . Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect follow your reason as far as it will take you without regard to any other considerations. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.” (Essays on some Controverted Questions, pp. 354, 355, 357, 358. Macmillan & Co., 1892).

(B) Foundation of Agnosticism.

The fundamental principle of Agnosticism is the denial of the ontological and transcendental value of the primary ideas and primary principles of reason. By transcendental value is meant (as has been shown) the power primary notions and principles possess of guiding human reason to the knowledge of a transcendent Cause.

(C) Consequences of Agnosticism in Religious Philosophy.

Negative: (a) Existence of God unknowable.

(b) No possibility of miraculous intervention.

(c) Even if Revelation existed it would be only symbolic or metaphorical.

Positive: (a) The religious sense, immanent in human nature, is the source of all religion.

(b) This religious sense is gradually evolved.

II.—Empirical Agnosticism. (Hume, Mill, Spencer, Huxley, Comte, Ribot, W. James, etc.)

1° General Philosophy.

An idea (e.g., of dog) is only a confused image of the imagination to which a common name (dog) has been given. This is the teaching of extreme Nominalism. Condillac inferred that “science is well-constituted language.” Hence ideas represent only sensible phenomena.

Judgment is an association of two images. The exercise of reason results in an empirical conclusion drawn from sensible images.

Substance is merely a name for a collection of external phenomena bound together by an unknown law.

Personality is experience of internal phenomena, and is best defined as “consciousness of oneself.”

Causality is the mere succession of antecedent and consequent: there is no influx from the one to the other.

2° Religious Philosophy.

(A) Negative side.

(a) First Cause unknowable. Human notions have only a phenomenal value, and cannot be applied to God. If so applied, antinomies ensue. The following are the antinomies which appealed to Spencer:

(1) Divine simplicity and Divine consciousness are opposed, inasmuch as consciousness implies duality of subject and object.

(2) Divine immutability and Divine liberty are not compatible, because a free act adds something contingent and mutable.

(3) Infinite Power and Goodness seem opposed to the permission of evil.

(4) Infinite justice and infinite mercy cannot be reconciled.

All hypotheses (Atheism, Pantheism, Theism) concerning the nature of the Absolute involve contradictions.

Answer: As indicated previously, Kant’s and Spencer’s antinomies are the result of ascribing human perfections to the Deity in their univocal, and not in their analogous sense.

(b) Miraculous intervention impossible.

(c) Revelation only symbolical and metaphorical.

(B) Positive Side.

(a) Herbert Spencer: All forms of religion are struggles of the human spirit to acquire representations of the unknowable. The conceptions are only symbolic, but they satisfy the religious sense. In the development of the religious sense, the moral element prevails over propitiatory rites. Religion becomes an indefinite consciousness of the Absolute.

(b) Comte. Religion is moral and social life. Science and philosophy are not sufficient to preserve the social bond. Hence the utility of religion. Certain truths of Christianity should be preserved, such as the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. God in this system of Comteism is humanity itself, and the immortality of the soul is impersonal—a life in the memory of the living. The chief precept of this positivist religion—the religion of humanity—is “live for others” (Altruism from autrui). In this religion the positivist trinity is venerated:

  1. Great Being—humanity.
  2. Great Temple—the earth.
  3. Great Medium—space.

(c) Empirical psychologism of Ribot and others. Religious phenomena are the unconscious projection of human affections and desires towards an imagined object. There is no distinction between true and false mysticism, between the type of St. Theresa and that of Madame de Guyon.

(d) William James.

The fundamental characteristic of religion is the spirit of prayer and confidence whereby man thinks he has association with the Supreme Being. Later comes evolution of dogma. The value of religious experience should be judged from its results (pragmatism). Holiness is sometimes immoderate, but generally helps development of morality, which neither science nor sociology can effect. Dogmas cannot be proved, but they are useful in overcoming egoism. The existence of a personal God, of a particular Providence, cannot be proved, but if they are useful, they are practically true.

III.—Idealistic Agnosticism. (Kant, Renouvier, Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Sabatier, etc.)

1° General Philosophy.

The aphorism of Locke will be remembered: “Nihil in intellectu nisi prius fuerit in sensu,” to which Leibnitz replied: “Est intellectus ipse.” Kant was on the side of Leibnitz in his contention that necessary truths do not come from experience. Kant distinguished an analytic judgment which affirms the existence of an essential and obvious property (“every triangle has three sides”) from a synthetic judgment which declares the existence of an attribute which does not actually belong to a notion, but which our minds are led by some kind of evidence to attribute to it. He subdivided synthetic judgments into two kinds:

Synthetic a posteriori derived from experience, e.g., men are mortal.

Synthetic a priori of which the justification is a mental category, e.g., every quality exists in some substance; every contingent being has an efficient cause.

Kant’s categories—two for sensation (time and space), twelve for the understanding under four general heads (quantity, quality, relation, modality), and three great generalisations of reason (Soul, Universe, God) laid the foundation for subjectivism. The law of Causality, for example, is only a mental category applied to experience, and consequently has no objective value. But the categories bind phenomena together, and constitute a science of phenomena subjectively necessary and universal. According to Kant (and herein he was right in his conclusion though his premises were false) Empiricism inasmuch as it fails to explain the existence of necessary truths should be rejected. It may be well to remind the student that Catholic philosophy defends the existence of necessary truths, not because of subjective categories, but because the mind sees their necessity and universality intuitively.

2° Religious Philosophy.

(A) Negative Side.

(a) No speculative proof of the existence of God can be given, because primary principles (e.g., principle of Causality) have no ontological value.

(b) Neither miracle nor revelation is possible.

(c) Dogmas cannot have a transcendental value, because they are expressed in accordance with human ideas which are not transcendental.

(B) Positive Side.

Practical reason affirms the existence of God by an act of natural faith. This faith attains to certitude, subjectively sufficient but objectively insufficient, of God the Rewarder who will crown virtue with happiness.

The Trinity signifies, not three persons, but three attributes of God.

The Incarnation is the manifestation of perfect moral life in Christ, who was only a just man.

Redemption through the death of Christ is only a sublime example of moral fortitude.

Original sin is nothing more than the conflict between spirit and flesh.

Sacraments are only symbols of moral ideas.

Kant’s Philosophy is the source of the agnosticism of (a) many liberal Protestants such as Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Harnack, and (b) of Modernists like Le Roy, Tyrrell and Loisy.

(a) Liberal Protestants.

Schleiermacher: “Revelation cannot be made credible by external signs; men are moved to faith by internal experience alone” (Der Christliche Glaube).

Ritschl: “Religion consists in the religious sense. Dogmas do not reveal God, but our sentiments of faith, hope and love towards God” (Theologie und Metaphysik).

Harnack: “Christianity is a higher form of natural religion. The essence of Christianity lies in the Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man” (Dogmengeschichte).

Sabatier (Auguste): “Revelation is progressive knowledge of God in the consciousness of each individual. Knowledge of God comes from internal emotion of adoration. From this emotion springs prayer. From emotion of fear comes conception of Divine Justice, from emotion of love the idea of Divine goodness and paternity. Hence dogmas represent emotions, they symbolically express religious experience. Certain simple doctrines are immutable such as the Fatherhood of God. Other dogmas change (a) by desuetude, such as belief in eternity of punishment; (b) by intussusception, i.e., development of new meaning, e.g., Trinity; (c) by renovation of old or creation of new conception, e.g., justification by faith” (Les Religions d’Autorité et la Religion de l’Esprit).

(b) Modernists.

Modernism was treated philosophically by E. Le Roy (Dogme et Critique), spiritually and mystically by Fr. Tyrrell (Christianity at the Cross-roads, etc.), historically by Abbé Loisy (Autour d’un Petit Livre, etc.).

Le Roy: “Existence of God cannot be proved because the principle of Causality is only a relation between phenomena. Religious experience gives assurance of God’s existence. A miracle is an effect of lively faith. Dogmas, from the speculative standpoint, cannot have a positive sense, because the ideas they express have no ontological or transcendent value. Dogmas have a negative sense, and from the practical standpoint a positive sense. For instance ‘God is a Person’ means negatively that God is not corporeal nor a mere idea, and means positively: act towards God as if He were a Person. The resurrection of Christ signifies only His spiritual influence after death.”

Tyrrell: “Religion is the internal experience of God’s presence and of His paternity. This experience is universal; hence revelation and faith are identical. The experience is expressed at first imaginatively. Christ is described by St. Peter as the Messiah, by St. Paul as the Second Adam, by St. John as the Word, by the first faithful as the Son of God. The experience is expressed later intellectually. The Nicene Council approved the formula: ‘Word substantial with the Father.’ These formulas are not absolutely true. The Church has erred in regard to dogmatic formulas. The primary rule of faith is conscience. New ideas in religion are condemned at first, but adopted later.”

Schell: In Germany, Schell taught that the authority of the Church must be accepted by the learned with restrictions.

Loisy: (Modernist Exegist). Loisy regards the New Testament as a human document, and explains away all supernatural features in allegorical and psychological interpretation. The non-intervention of God in history is an axiom with Modernists. “L’historien,” says M. Loisy, “n’a pas à s’inspirer de l’agnosticisme pour écarter Dieu de l’histoire; il ne l’y rencontre jamais” (Simples Réflexions, p. 211).

Erit enim tempus cum sanam doctrinam non sustinebunt, sed ad sua desideria coacervabunt sibi magistros prurientes auribus, et a veritate quidem auditum avertent, ad fabulas autem convertentur (2 Tim. iv. 3).

The basic principle of Agnosticism, the principle which denies the ontological and transcendental value of primary notions and principles has already been refuted. In England, Sensism and Hegelianism are on the decline. Pragmatism (negation of all philosophy!) has a dubious following. There seems to be a growing appreciation of the sanity and cogency of Scholastic Philosophy, especially as interpreted by the luminous teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. Quod felix faustumque sit! It will be sufficient to indicate briefly some of the chief difficulties which Agnosticism involves.

Critique.

I.—Against empirical Agnosticism.

(a) Intelligible things per se—objects of primary notions—cannot be expressed in sensible images. A sensible image represents only phenomena in juxtaposition. Empiricists regard substance as a collection of phenomena. An orange to them is colour, fragrance, weight, shape, taste, etc., all these accidents being bound together by some unknown law. Causality to the empiricist is a mere succession of events, whereas causality imports the idea of effective production.

(b) The necessity and universality of the first principles of reason are not accounted for by empiricism. If, for example, the principle of causality is only a law of experience, its universality and necessity cannot be explained.

(c) The conviction of the objective value of human judgments becomes an insoluble difficulty. Illusion is something accidental, whereas this conviction is universal.

(d) The illative value of syllogistic reasoning disappears to the empiricist. John Stuart Mill’s criticism of the syllogism is well known:

All men are mortal, John is a man, Therefore John is mortal.

The conclusion, according to Mill, is already contained in the major premiss.

In reply it is necessary to point out that the major proposition is universal, and therefore beyond the power of empiricism to formulate. Again, though individual instances are implicitly contained in a general proposition, the explicit statement of an implicit truth is a gain in knowledge.

(e) The foundation of Induction, i.e., the statement of a truth of universal application derived from individual instances is beyond the reach of empiricism. The principle of Induction is founded on the necessary principle of Reason of Being: “The same cause in the same circumstances produces the same effect,” otherwise the variation of effect would be without a reason of being (raison d’être). But as empiricism denies all necessary principles, Induction becomes impossible.

(f) The trustworthiness of memory is a truth necessarily accepted prior to experience. Any attempt to prove the trustworthiness of memory involves the assumption of the truth to be proved. Mill handsomely acknowledged that the necessity of this assumption gives a destructive blow to empiricism.

II.—Against Idealistic Agnosticism.

Three insoluble difficulties:

(a) The universal opinion of the objective validity of primary notions and principles of reason.

(b) The necessity of recourse to judgments synthetic a priori which, since they are neither wholly a priori nor wholly from experience, are blind judgments.

(c) Arbitrariness of the application of Kantian categories. If amongst phenomena we are led to apply the category of Substance rather than the category of Causality, the reason is because our intellect apprehends in these phenomena substance rather than causality, and thus the subjective category is useless.

Rationalism

The foregoing errors have their root in Rationalism.

I.—Definition of Rationalism.

Rationalism is the teaching according to which human reason is the only judge of what is true or false, of what is good or evil. The essence of Rationalism is the claim that reason is autonomous. Hence there is no need of supernatural truth; nothing should be called true which is not evidently or demonstrably so. Historically, Rationalism is a development of the Lutheran principle of private judgment.

II.—Foundation of Rationalism.

Naturalism, i.e., the system which denies the existence of supernatural life and truth is the foundation of Rationalism. Naturalism denies the possibility of elevation of human nature to the supernatural order; Rationalism is the application of this doctrine to human reason; Liberalism in religion is the application of the same doctrine to the human will.

III.—Consequences of Naturalism.

From the standpoint of the intellect Rationalism is opposed to Christian Faith. From the standpoint of the will, Liberalism is opposed to Christian Obedience. From the standpoint of human sympathy and affection, Humanitarianism or Altruism is opposed to Christian charity. From the standpoint of lower faculties, sensualism is opposed to Christian self-denial, and finally from the standpoint of collective humanity, Socialism is opposed to the Kingdom of God in society.

Hence the fruits of Naturalism are as follows:—

These fruits are opposed to those of the Supernatural Order:

A few Catholic writers—Semi-Rationalists—(Günther, Hermes, Frohschammer) have attempted to reconcile Rationalism with Catholic Faith. They held that Supernatural Mysteries can, after revelation, be proved by reason. Another attempt to reconcile the irreconcileable was made by F. de Lamennais who confounded Supernatural Faith with the traditional faith of the human race.

IV.—Spirit of Rationalism.

Frequently in rationalistic writings may be read commendation and advocacy of sincerity in the investigation of truth, advocacy of development of the natural religious sense, and even an admission of the truth of Christian mysteries if naturally interpreted. Whilst no judgment is passed on individual writers, the essential principle of their system is impious—the principle that human reason is so independent that even God cannot impose faith upon it. This is the spirit of infidelity and rebellion—the “pride of life” as St. John names it (1 John ii. 16.).

“Corruptio optimi pessima!” Rationalism is the corruption of charity and of religious Faith under the guise of broad-minded tolerance and the reconcilement of varying forms of religious belief.

V.—Different forms of Rationalism.

Some writers deny even the existence of the supernatural order; others deny its cognoscibility; others again deny the intervention of God in human affairs. The following chart comprises these varying systems:

The treatise on the existence of Revelation confutes the error of Deism.