What exactly is the basis for agnosticism? According to at least some of the earliest agnostics, the basis for agnosticism is to go only where the evidence leads and no further. Knowledge can be claimed where evidence justifies it, but not in any other situation — a drastically different situation from how most people seem to behave.
- In matters of the intellect follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration... and do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.
- Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 - 1895), Reflection #142, Aphorisms and Reflections.
Agnosticism is supposed to be a reasonable position; as such, it is imperative that an agnostic's belief be based upon reason as far as is possible. Sometimes this means not actually reaching any conclusions at all — neither affirming nor denying a particular claim when reason, evidence, and logic do not permit it. Even if the claim is appealing on an emotional or psychological level, one must resist temptation and apply consistent standards across the board.
To all of this, Thomas Henry Huxley adds a couple of interesting observations. First, he insists that an agnostic shouldn't "pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." This is surely fair, but is he suggesting that some people are pretending that conclusions are certain despite their not being demonstrated or demonstrable? Perhaps — and perhaps he is correct in this.
It's not that unusual for people to hold belief as if they were certain and undeniable even as critics argue that they have not been demonstrated true by evidence and, in fact, may not be demonstrable in principle at all. Do the believers realize this and not care? Do they mistakenly think that their beliefs have been demonstrated after all, perhaps relying upon standards of evidence or logic that are inferior to those otherwise employed?
Huxley also adds above the idea that regardless of the ultimate outcome of things, no one can feel ashamed so long as they consistently and firmly hold to the agnostic principles he outlines. This comment is, I think, aimed at those who are attracted to an agnostic position but are concerned about what will happen to them if it turns out that the orthodox Christian position is correct. To put it simply, they are afraid of going to hell for not holding the "correct" beliefs.
In response to such concerns, Huxley seems to want to assure people that the consistent application of reason and believing only insofar as evidence or logic dictate could never be something one would have to be ashamed of. Even if it turns out that an agnostic was mistaken for not believing, their methods for forming beliefs was the correct one. In the long run, adoption of a proper methodology does us more good than harm — even if we are sometimes mistaken.
