Customer Reviews

Agnosticism and Christianity and Other Essays (Great Mind Series)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The topic of Agnosticism consumes a relatively minor part of this book. It is interesting to read Huxley's exposition on Darwin's theory of evolution and how he makes the case for why it is more plausible than any other theory. While some of what he says would require modification in light of modern evolutionary thought, most of his arguments (using data from anthropology, archaeology, biology, embryology, genetics, geology, etc.) are still valid. Other essays include discussions on epistemology especially with regard to supernaturalism and claims of miracles. Only in the last several pages does Huxley elaborate on the origin and meaning of Agnosticism. In fact, he seems almost reluctant to descend into the discussion. He indulges the reader nevertheless and does a stupendous job of stating the case. A pleasant read on a rainy day.

The chapters in this book mainly come from Huxley's much larger "Science and the Christian Tradition". If you can get a hold of this book I highly recommend reading it; it takes the reader much farther than "Agnosticism and Christianity". If you cannot find the larger, then read this book. Huxley very matter of factly lays out why the bible cannot be taken as an authoritative source on its own.

There are a few gems of agnostic wisdom in this book, which concisely state Huxley's case for affirming his agnostic views - that he is without full or final proof or substantiation of the Bible, or of Jesus. For this, the book needs to be read and commended. One could only wish, however, that Huxley spared the ponderously ornate style of English prose that was the habit of the day. This is a good read, but not always an easy read, and certainly if it has engaging moments it also has its tedious ones as well. If Huxley too easily dismisses or reduces religious faith to matter of proof, he at least wisely points out that we must distinguish what faith and facts are.

One of the paradoxes in the life of Thomas Henry Huxley was his ability to demand that science and reason must be uppermost in ordering and bettering the lot of man yet at the same time he could leave an opening for faith and hope, the same qualities that he bashed in the hands of others.

In "The Method of Scientific Investigation," Huxley outlines with infinite precision the requirements for scientists to present a hypothesis and then establish a series of interlocking steps the totality of which prove that the hypothesis is sound. He attacks the misconception that men of science are somehow detached from the lot of common man in their respective thought processes. While the learned scientist uses fancy terms like inductive and deductive reasoning, which the layman may term common sense, both engage in basically the same acts of reasoning. Further, while the layman may draw an inference from a limited pool of evidence whereas the scientist requires a much larger sample size, there is no inherent incongruity between the two.

Early in his career, Huxley tended to focus on the value of the physical sciences. The notion of a more subliminal sense of man in harmony with nature had not yet been central in his thought. In "On the Physical Basis of Life," Huxley reduces all living matter on earth to its constituent parts of protoplasm. Regardless of species, all life shared a common link. Even here, however, Huxley was beginning to generate the controversy that would later rise to a vicious crescendo. There were many who objected to being linked to a lowly crustacean. Even otherwise learned men of science had a difficult time assimilating such an ego-shattering notion.

The concept of a paradoxical melding of science to faith appears initially in "A Liberal Education." Here, Huxley insists that brute nature is the best teacher for all areas of life. Regardless of the discipline involved, Nature teaches faster and more effectively than a phalanx of human professors might. Punishment and reward are meted out with devastating finality and with no verbal comment. When Huxley writes that it is possible to mitigate the harshness of the lessons that a brute Nature might impose, the result would be one who has become one with that Nature. Huxley is skimpy on the details of this transformation possibly because he was thinking of a theoretical paradigm that had no counterpart in reality. Further, to produce a man who is the product of a Darwinian weeding out of those who can pass Nature's unbending rules of conduct from those who cannot might also produce an automaton that is no less than robot-like in its world view. Huxley had been hammered numerous times on this very point by those who wished to discredit his position on the supremacy of reason so it is likely that he would toss in a deliberately ill-defined bone of contention to produce a nineteenth century Renaissance man that all could look to with approval.

Huxley's mixture of science and humanity is seen again in "Science and Culture." The contrast between the two is stark. Huxley praises the virtues of the Josiah Mason School of Science as the very breeding ground for the qualities needed to assure the continuing pre-eminence of England at a time when it might have been forgivable to see the sun set on the Union Jack. This Huxley was determined to prevent. His opposition was less the theological barbs of the Church of England than the entrenched Latinate culture of the post-Renaissance. Even in Huxley's day, much of England's learned elite he saw as mired in the obsolete erudition of the Roman focus on art and literature. To be erudite was to know more of Cicero than Archimedes. If England were to remain competitive as a world power, Cicero would have to take a back seat to the Greek mathematician. Yet, as in "A Liberal Education," Huxley could not irrevocably extirpate the entire continuum of classic education of the liberal arts. He closes with the paradoxical comment that somewhere in science there must be a place for liberals like Cicero.

Thus, for Huxley, the notion of a paradox remains just that. It was truly impossible for him to rationalize to any degree of convincing certitude that though reason and pure logic must be in the ascendant, there could yet be a place in science, in industry, and in life for those with a literary bent. He did not resolve this dilemma but his insistence on the power of science to better the common lot of man rings as true today as in his time.

Huxley is one of my favorite authors. I haven't read this book but I have read Science and Christian Tradition from which most of these essays are derived. Stephen J. Gould said of Huxley, "Great and passionate writing does not only appear in novels. As a prose stylist, a few nineteenth-century scientists [Playfair, Lyell, and Huxley in particular] rank with the finest Victorian fiction writers." I couldn't agree more.