Agnosticism

← Encyclopedia

Agnosticism is the position that the existence and nature of the divine lie beyond what can be known — not denied, as the atheist denies, but held to be inaccessible to evidence and proof. The word names a stance toward knowledge itself before it names any stance toward God. Its whole weight falls on a verb: not there is no god, but this cannot be settled. It is an answer given in the register of epistemology to a question usually asked in the register of faith, and the mismatch of registers is the point.

Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the word “agnostic” in 1869 — from The Ridpath Library of Universal Literature (1899). Internet Archive Book Images, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

The 1869 coinage

The term was minted in 1869 by the English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, in the circle of London thinkers that became the Metaphysical Society — a forum that gathered believers, doubters, and idealists of every stripe to argue out the deep questions face to face. By Huxley’s own account, every other member arrived already labeled: each carried a creed, an -ism, a position with a name. He alone felt himself without a tag, a fox among the hounds, and so he made one. The early Church had its gnostics — those who professed to know the unseen things, the origin of the cosmos and the soul’s fate and the descent of spirit into matter (the saving knowledge that the historical Gnostics took for the very engine of salvation). Huxley took their name, prefixed the Greek alpha of negation, and called himself the one who did not know and held that such matters could not be settled. By his retrospective account in the essay Agnosticism (1889), the word came into his head as suggestively antithetic to the gnostic of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which he was ignorant.

Huxley photographed around 1874, a few years after he minted the term in the circle that became the Metaphysical Society. Elliott & Fry, National Portrait Gallery, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

The coinage is therefore an exact inversion of gnosis: where the Gnostic claimed a knowing that saved, Huxley claimed a principled not-knowing, and made of it a discipline. The grammar is deliberate and the debt is acknowledged in the very shape of the word. A later tradition has sometimes traced the term instead to the Athenian altar inscribed to an unknown god that the apostle Paul invokes at the Areopagus (Acts 17:23) — agnostos theos, the same root — but Huxley’s reference was to the Gnostics, not to that altar. The Areopagus echo is a felicitous accident of vocabulary, not the source.

The Areopagus (Mars Hill) at Athens, where Paul invokes the altar “to an unknown god” — a vocabulary echoed by, but not the source of, Huxley’s coinage. W. H. Bartlett and J. Couson, 1847, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

A method, not a creed

That discipline, in Huxley’s telling, was less a doctrine than a rule of method. Agnosticism, he insisted, is not and cannot be a creed except in respect of its single governing principle: in matters of the intellect, follow reason as far as it will go, and decline to pretend that conclusions are certain which are neither demonstrated nor demonstrable. Stated positively it is a command to think; stated negatively it is a refusal to feign. On this account agnosticism is not a soft halfway house between faith and denial but a demand applied evenly to both. A person may not assert the existence of God without warrant, and may not assert the non-existence either; the rule cuts in both directions, and it cuts hardest against whoever claims most. It is, in this sense, less a conclusion about the world than a virtue exercised toward one’s own conclusions — the policing of belief by the evidence that would license it.

Huxley pressed the method as continuous with the working temper of the natural sciences, the same restraint a careful inquirer brings to any claim about the unseen; but he was careful to detach it from any verdict for or against religion. He allowed explicitly that an agnosticism so defined might be held by a religious person, even a Christian — that the rule governs how one believes, not what. The position is a procedure, and a procedure has no native theology. Later writers loosened the word toward simple uncertainty, hesitation, or indifference — the agnostic as the one who has not made up his mind, or cannot be bothered to — a drift Huxley would not have welcomed, since for him the stance was an active and exacting labor, the opposite of a shrug.

The 1889 controversy

The word acquired its sharp public outline in a dispute. At the Church Congress at Manchester in 1888, the Reverend Henry Wace, principal of King’s College London, branded agnostic a cowardly euphemism for infidel — a polite mask, he charged, worn by men who in honesty should call themselves unbelievers. Huxley answered in The Nineteenth Century in February 1889 with the essay Agnosticism, and over that year a running exchange unfolded across the magazine’s pages — Wace replying, Huxley returning in Agnosticism and Christianity, the argument widening into the question of the limits of natural knowledge itself. The essays were gathered in the fifth volume of Huxley’s Collected Essays, Science and Christian Tradition (1894), and reprinted together as Christianity and Agnosticism: A Controversy. It was in the heat of that defense — repudiating the charge of cowardice, refusing the demand that honest doubt resolve itself into denial — that Huxley gave agnosticism its most durable formulation as method rather than profession.

Two distinctions

Two distinctions keep the term from blurring, and most quarrels conducted under its banner turn out to be quarrels over which is meant.

The first separates agnosticism from atheism. The atheist makes a claim about reality: that no god exists. The agnostic makes a claim about knowledge: that the question cannot be answered. The two are not rival answers to one question but answers to two different questions — one ontological, one epistemic — and a single mind may hold both at once (an agnostic atheist disbelieves while granting the matter unprovable) or neither. Confusing them collapses a claim about the world into a claim about the reach of the human nous, and the collapse erases exactly the distinction Huxley built the word to mark.

The second runs within agnosticism itself, between holding the divine merely unknown for now and holding it unknowable in principle — the difference between a verdict that further inquiry might one day overturn and one that rules inquiry out from the start. Huxley’s own version leaned to the methodological: a refusal to assert beyond the evidence, silent on whether the thing in itself can ever be reached. His contemporary Herbert Spencer pressed the stronger form, positing an ultimate Reality — the Unknowable — that experience compels us to affirm yet forbids us to characterize. Huxley borrowed Spencer’s term in the 1860s and then recoiled from what he saw as a worship of the Unknowable, a metaphysical idol smuggled in under cover of humility. The unknown-for-now and the unknowable-in-principle are different countries, and much that travels under the one passport belongs to the other.

Herbert Spencer, who pressed the stronger form of the position by positing an ultimate “Unknowable” — a metaphysical move from which Huxley recoiled. Photograph, before 1903, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

Against the traditions of gnosis

The position bears on the older currents of knowing in a pointed way, for it was framed as the precise negation of their central confidence. The Hermetic, Platonist, and mystical streams are, for the most part, traditions of gnosis in the elder sense — they hold direct acquaintance with the divine to be both possible and the whole point, a knowing that transforms rather than merely informs. The ascent of the soul in Neoplatonism, the contemplative climb that theurgy sought to assist, the reception of revelation as truth given rather than reasoned to, the immediate union the mystics report — each rests on the premise that the highest reality opens itself to a faculty other than discursive proof. Huxley’s word draws a line exactly where those traditions cross it. To the theurgist the divine is reached by an operation the soul performs; to the agnostic, that the soul reaches anything at all is the very claim that cannot be cashed in evidence.

The likeness to other limit-drawing disciplines is instructive precisely because the motives differ. Apophatic theology unsays every predicate of God, and Nicholas of Cusa made a learned ignorance the soul’s nearest approach to a deity beyond all proportion to the mind — but these negate in order to draw closer, treating the darkness as the form God’s presence takes for a finite knower; the unknowing is a mode of communion. Agnosticism negates in order to stand still, treating the darkness as a wall and refusing to read presence into it. The apophatic mystic and the agnostic both confess that God exceeds the concept; they part on whether that excess is an opening or a closure.

Toward the broader question of knowledge, agnosticism is a near relative of empiricism — the insistence that warranted belief answers to evidence and experience — and it keeps natural company with philosophical naturalism, the view that nature is the whole of what there is, though the two are not identical: one can hold the divine unknowable without holding that nothing lies beyond nature, and a naturalist may be a confident atheist rather than an agnostic at all. The reasoned defense of faith, apologetics, took the agnostic challenge as its great modern adversary, since a stance that demands warrant for every claim about the unseen sets the terms of debate on ground the apologist must then contest — the Wace exchange is one early skirmish in a long campaign.

The shape of a negative position

What makes agnosticism distinctive among stances toward the divine is that it is defined by a subtraction. It does not add a thesis about what exists; it withdraws a permission to assert. This gives it a peculiar logical structure. Where the believer affirms and the atheist denies, the agnostic suspends — but the suspension is not a mid-point on a line running from yes to no, as though a half- filled glass of conviction. It is orthogonal to that line altogether, a claim about whether the line can be occupied at all. To plot agnosticism between theism and atheism is to misread its grammar; it stands above both, ruling on the admissibility of the evidence rather than on the verdict.

Two structural questions follow, and the rigor of any particular agnosticism depends on how it answers them. The first is the question of burden: who must furnish warrant, and for what? Huxley’s even-handed rule places the burden on every positive claim, the assertion of God and the denial of God alike, and leaves standing only the refusal to assert. Critics have charged that an unrelenting application of so high a standard would empty the mind of nearly all its ordinary furniture, since little of what anyone believes about the world is strictly demonstrable; the agnostic’s reply is that the standard is meant to bite hardest exactly where the stakes and the obscurity are greatest, and that the ultimate questions are precisely the place where the demand for warrant is most, not least, in order. The second is the scope of the unknowing: does the agnostic suspend on the bare existence of the divine, or also on its nature — granting that something may answer the name while denying that anything can be known of what it is? This second register draws agnosticism back into unexpected company with the negative theologians, who likewise grant the that and deny the what, though they grant the that on grounds the agnostic will not allow.

Reception and afterlife

Within a generation the word had escaped its inventor. Some carried it toward a militant unbelief Huxley never intended: the freethinker William Stewart Ross, writing as “Saladin,” wielded agnostic as a banner against the churches, edging it toward the antitheism Huxley had been at pains to distinguish from his method. Others took it up as a comfortable shelter for the undecided, and the dictionary sense settled into something closer to suspended judgment or polite reticence than to the strenuous intellectual conscience Huxley had described. The Scottish theologian Robert Flint devoted his Croall Lectures to the position, published as Agnosticism (1903), examining and contesting it as the leading unbelief of the age and parsing its many varieties with care — evidence that within thirty years the casual coinage of a man who simply wanted a label for himself had become a recognized province of philosophy of religion.

The twentieth century refined the analysis along the fault lines Huxley’s word had opened. Philosophers separated the psychological agnostic, who happens not to have made up his mind, from the principled agnostic, who holds that no mind could; and they distinguished agnosticism about a proposition from the suspension of judgment as a general epistemic attitude. The verificationist movement pressed a more radical version still — that statements about the transcendent are not merely unknowable but strictly meaningless, neither true nor false because unanswerable to any possible experience — a claim that overshoots Huxley’s, who took the questions to be real questions that simply could not be answered, rather than pseudo-questions disguised as real ones. Across these refinements the durable core has remained the one Huxley fixed in the heat of 1889: that agnosticism is a discipline of assent, a rule about how belief earns its keep, and not a third creed slotted in beside the other two.

Texts and scholarship

The primary documents are Huxley’s own. The coinage and the mature statement of the position both belong to the 1889 essays in The Nineteenth Century — Agnosticism (February) and Agnosticism and Christianity (April), with the intervening rejoinders — collected in the fifth volume of his Collected Essays, Science and Christian Tradition (1894), and reprinted with Henry Wace’s contributions as Christianity and Agnosticism: A Controversy. The standard digital gathering of Huxley’s writings is the Huxley File maintained at Clark University, whose section on agnosticism assembles the essays, the surrounding controversy, and the contemporary replies; its overview of the dispute is at The Huxley File §13, and the text of Agnosticism and Christianity is hosted at the same archive. For the etymology and the early history of the word, the standard reference accounts — including the entry at Britannica — concur in dating the coinage to 1869 and in tracing it, on Huxley’s own testimony, to the Gnostics of Church history rather than to the Areopagus altar. Robert Flint’s Agnosticism (1903) remains the fullest early critical study; the contrast with Herbert Spencer’s posited Unknowable, set out in his First Principles (1862), marks the boundary between agnosticism as a rule of method and agnosticism as a metaphysics of the unreachable. The continuing philosophical literature treats the position chiefly under the analysis of suspension of judgment, the ethics of belief, and the burden of proof in arguments for and against the existence of God.

The verbal kinship between gnosis and its negation is no idle pun. Agnosticism is the modern shadow thrown by an ancient claim to know — the same word, hollowed at the center, turned to face the other way. The traditions of gnosis answered that the highest things are precisely what the prepared soul can come to know, and built the whole machinery of ascent, illumination, and union upon that answer. Huxley took the identical things — the origin of the cosmos, the fate of the soul, the being of God — and answered that here, of all places, the honest mind must hold its hand. Whether the limit he drew is a sober honesty about the reach of reason or a premature foreclosure of an experience reason was never the organ for is the question the older traditions and the word’s inventor answer in opposite directions, from the same root and along the same line.

→ Related: Gnosis · Apologetics · Nous · Gnosticism · Atheism · Knowledge · Reason · Empiricism · Naturalism · Apophatic Theology · Nicholas Of Cusa · Revelation · Mysticism · Neoplatonism · Theurgy