770 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



agnosticism is and how it has come about, but what will become 

 of it. The agnostic is to content himself with being the precursor 

 of the positivist. In his place, as a sort of navvy leveling the 

 ground and cleansing it of such poor stuff as Christianity, he is a 

 useful creature who deserves patting on the back, on condition 

 that he does not venture beyond his last. But let not these scien- 

 tific Sanballats presume that they are good enough to take part 

 in the building of the Temple — they are mere Samaritans, doomed 

 to die out in proportion as the Religion of Humanity is accepted 

 by mankind. Well, if that is their fate, they have time to be 

 cheerful. But let us hear Mr. Harrison's pronouncement of their 

 doom : 



" Agnosticism is a stage in the evolution of religion, an entirely 

 negative stage, the point reached by physicists, a purely mental 

 conclusion, with no relation to things social at all " (p. 154). I am 

 quite dazed by this declaration. Are there, then, any " conclu- 

 sions " that are not " purely mental " ? Is there " no relation to 

 things social " in " mental conclusions " which affect men's whole 

 conception of life ? Was that prince of agnostics, David Hume, 

 particularly imbued with physical science ? Supposing physical 

 science to be non-existent, would not the agnostic principle, ap- 

 plied by the philologist and the historian, lead to exactly the 

 same results ? Is the modern more or less complete suspension of 

 judgment as to the facts of the history of regal Rome, or the real 

 origin of the Homeric poems, anything but agnosticism in history 

 and in literature ? And if so, how can agnosticism be the " mere 

 negation of the physicist " ? 



" Agnosticism is a stage in the evolution of religion." No two 

 people agree as to what is meant by the term " religion " ; but if it 

 means, as I think it ought to mean, simply the reverence and love 

 for the ethical ideal, and the desire to realize that ideal in life, 

 which every man ought to feel — then I say agnosticism has no 

 more to do with it than it has to do with music or painting. If, 

 on the other hand, Mr. Harrison, like most people, means by " re- 

 ligion" theology, then, in my judgment, agnosticism can be said 

 to be a stage in its evolution, only as death may be said to be the 

 final stage in the evolution of life. 



When agnostic logic is simply one of the canons of thought, agnosticism, as a 

 distinctive faith, will have spontaneously disappeared (p. 155). 



I can but marvel that such sentences as this, and those already 

 quoted, should have proceeded from Mr. Harrison's pen. Does he 

 really mean to suggest that agnostics have a logic peculiar to them- 

 selves ? Will he kindly help me out of my bewilderment when I 

 try to think of " logic " being anything else than the canon (which, 

 I believe, means rule) of thought ? As to agnosticism being a dis- 



