Posted by rpcman on June 16, 1998 at 17:42:40:
In Reply to: Scientific Pantheism: "God of nature" vs. "God is nature" posted by Matt Berry on June 16, 1998 at 16:38:44:
As far as agnosticism is concerned, I'd like to add my two bits. Agnosticism is the only truly defensible argument, of course, ... but it does not seem as practical, or as beneficial as any of the other "Reality" Gods of pantheism or deism. Agnosticism is more of a stopping place for discussion ... whereas S. Pantheism and Deism add poetic expression to our scientific discoveries.
Although this is now the case with regard to a discussion of agnosticism, the word wasn't coined to mean this. Huxley's biography is very illuminating on this issue. The word "scientist" wasn't popular in Huxley's day. What he meant by "agnostic" is essentially what we mean by "scientist". An agnostic, to Huxley, wasn't really a person who stopped making inquiries into the higher questions because the knowledge couldn't be found. An agnostic was a person who was willing to seek knowledge through scientific means rather than resort to faith to make so called claims of knowledge. In this sense, I think modern freethinkers would all proudly call themselves agnostic.
As to Pantheism, I think Emerson ended up being the ultimate example of this belief system.