Thomas Huxley did not mention non-partisanship by name, but it could be seen from his thinking in the following excerpt,
Instead of caving to the pressure of picking a side, he chose truth over sides. He attacked the atheist and theist alike when they were wrong. But he was also attacked by both sides. This unfortunately comes with the territory of being an agnostic, especially a non-partisan one at that.
A non-partisan is someone who tends not to take sides. If they do take a side, then they don't commit to it fully or unquestionably. Speaking from experience, one big reason behind not taking side is that a lot of groups, whether they be secular, religious, political, tend to become like an orthodoxy, and sticking to your side seems to matter more than truth. If I'm pursuing truth, I want the freedom to be able to go against or question my own side, or even support some of the positions of the other side, or come up with my own independent side. When you fully commit to a side, it seems that this freedom of thought is always lacking and you are attacked if you deviate from the group, even if it's for matters involving logic and evidence.
And because of this, the biggest challenge the non-partisan agnostic faces is that others try to put him or her on a side (usually as part of the opposing side, to make it be about sides more than truth). Given popular and cancel culture nowadays, sometimes the motive goes beyond that when it's used to demean you or make you unpopular. Throughout my debating experience as an agnostic, I've been labeled (by others) a Christian, a Conservative, a Liberal, an atheist, a Russian, etc. You would think that some of these labelers would figure out that I can't be all of these things, and that it would be easy to refer to me as the non-partisan (as described above) or the independent that I claim to be. I'm too willing to go all over the place to be pinned down to any one position. To illustrate my point here, I'll share some of the details of a recent online debate I had with two people regarding the Ukraine and Russian conflict. I approached the debate as a non-partisan (as described above) and was basically attacked just for accepting a Russian claim:
AgnosticBoy said:
Responses from Difflugia:
Response from Diogenes
For those interested, the entire debate can be read here, with the most relevant sections (involving some of my posts) starting at post 170.
Hopefully, the challenge of being a non-partisan can be seen here. Certain members don't want anyone to accept anything from the other side (in the case, the Russian side, although it could easily be the Christian side, the Republican side, etc.), even if it is corroborated by logic and evidence. These two members could easily continue trying to paint me as a Russian supporter to try to get me cancelled or viewed as unpopular but thankfully that site allows for diversity of opinions just as we do here.
So what's the agnostic to do? Fully commit to a side even if it's not proven or just become partisan? Certainly not! Being partisan is biased and doesn't get you to the truth. Being partisan leads to more division, unnecessary polarization, fighting, and gridlock, just as we find in American politics! In American politics, you find people caring about their side or political party more than truth and progress. Don't we find the same gridlock and polarization in an even older intellectual war, that is, the war between theists and atheists?!
First, if there is anything or any side the agnostic should commit to, it is with others who can tolerate different viewpoints.
I've encountered a lot of intellectually honest atheists, agnostics, Christians, that appreciate a non-partisan approach. I also believe that agnostics need to unite and create their own voice. As of now, it seems that we are scattered amongst other groups so it's easy for us to feel like a lone wolf.
Second, the non-partisan agnostic should not engage in partisan behavior. If we're going to stand for truth, then let us do so positively, honestly, and without stooping to the levels of partisans (esp. politicians). Instead of engaging in the same tactics that's typical of partisan politicians, I would rather take the higher road or even expose their tactics. When you shine a light on it then it won't dupe as many people and you might even win over some over in the process.
FYI... I tend to edit my articles to make them a better read so don't be surprised if some wording is changed or if there's a different organization in the near future!
- Thomas Huxley. "Agnosticism (1889)", Collected Essays VWhen I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
Instead of caving to the pressure of picking a side, he chose truth over sides. He attacked the atheist and theist alike when they were wrong. But he was also attacked by both sides. This unfortunately comes with the territory of being an agnostic, especially a non-partisan one at that.
A non-partisan is someone who tends not to take sides. If they do take a side, then they don't commit to it fully or unquestionably. Speaking from experience, one big reason behind not taking side is that a lot of groups, whether they be secular, religious, political, tend to become like an orthodoxy, and sticking to your side seems to matter more than truth. If I'm pursuing truth, I want the freedom to be able to go against or question my own side, or even support some of the positions of the other side, or come up with my own independent side. When you fully commit to a side, it seems that this freedom of thought is always lacking and you are attacked if you deviate from the group, even if it's for matters involving logic and evidence.
And because of this, the biggest challenge the non-partisan agnostic faces is that others try to put him or her on a side (usually as part of the opposing side, to make it be about sides more than truth). Given popular and cancel culture nowadays, sometimes the motive goes beyond that when it's used to demean you or make you unpopular. Throughout my debating experience as an agnostic, I've been labeled (by others) a Christian, a Conservative, a Liberal, an atheist, a Russian, etc. You would think that some of these labelers would figure out that I can't be all of these things, and that it would be easy to refer to me as the non-partisan (as described above) or the independent that I claim to be. I'm too willing to go all over the place to be pinned down to any one position. To illustrate my point here, I'll share some of the details of a recent online debate I had with two people regarding the Ukraine and Russian conflict. I approached the debate as a non-partisan (as described above) and was basically attacked just for accepting a Russian claim:
AgnosticBoy said:
A valid point that I hear from Russian officials is that some Ukranians officials/soldiers are positioning themselves amongst civilians. That seems to be true in Mariupol since there are reports of children hiding with Ukranian fighters. If so, then not only is this a wrong on Russia if the civilians die, but it should also the Ukranians should be held accountable.
If you know that Russia will target military targets, then it makes no sense to deliberately position civilians among them, especially children. So at least, in that case, the Ukranians are not helping the situation and are responsible (in addition to Russia) for the killings of civilians.
Edit to add additional information... This was also corroborated by Washington Post journalists according to the article posted in this post.
Responses from Difflugia:
Difflugia post_id=1075725 time=1650842030 user_id=14300 said:That clause is worth a bit of personal reflection.AgnosticBoy post_id=1075707 time=1650834048 user_id=13726 said:A valid point that I hear from Russian officials
Difflugia post_id=1075736 time=1650859659 user_id=14300 said:The Russians are saying that, too.AgnosticBoy post_id=1075734 time=1650852814 user_id=13726 said:To satisfy your standard I'll just say that the Russians are shelling civilian areas to encourage capitulation of Ukranian fighters in those same areas.
Response from Diogenes
Diogenes post_id=1075758 time=1650897549 user_id=14646 said:Listening to Russian officials are we?AgnosticBoy post_id=1075707 time=1650834048 user_id=13726 said:A valid point that I hear from Russian officials is that some Ukranians officials/soldiers are positioning themselves amongst civilians. That seems to be true in Mariupol since there are reports of children hiding with Ukranian fighters. If so, then not only is this a wrong on Russia if the civilians die, but it should also the Ukranians should be held accountable.
...No, your little "I'm not siding with the Russians" doesn't hold. You're repeating Russian propaganda.
For those interested, the entire debate can be read here, with the most relevant sections (involving some of my posts) starting at post 170.
Hopefully, the challenge of being a non-partisan can be seen here. Certain members don't want anyone to accept anything from the other side (in the case, the Russian side, although it could easily be the Christian side, the Republican side, etc.), even if it is corroborated by logic and evidence. These two members could easily continue trying to paint me as a Russian supporter to try to get me cancelled or viewed as unpopular but thankfully that site allows for diversity of opinions just as we do here.
So what's the agnostic to do? Fully commit to a side even if it's not proven or just become partisan? Certainly not! Being partisan is biased and doesn't get you to the truth. Being partisan leads to more division, unnecessary polarization, fighting, and gridlock, just as we find in American politics! In American politics, you find people caring about their side or political party more than truth and progress. Don't we find the same gridlock and polarization in an even older intellectual war, that is, the war between theists and atheists?!
First, if there is anything or any side the agnostic should commit to, it is with others who can tolerate different viewpoints.
I've encountered a lot of intellectually honest atheists, agnostics, Christians, that appreciate a non-partisan approach. I also believe that agnostics need to unite and create their own voice. As of now, it seems that we are scattered amongst other groups so it's easy for us to feel like a lone wolf.
Second, the non-partisan agnostic should not engage in partisan behavior. If we're going to stand for truth, then let us do so positively, honestly, and without stooping to the levels of partisans (esp. politicians). Instead of engaging in the same tactics that's typical of partisan politicians, I would rather take the higher road or even expose their tactics. When you shine a light on it then it won't dupe as many people and you might even win over some over in the process.
FYI... I tend to edit my articles to make them a better read so don't be surprised if some wording is changed or if there's a different organization in the near future!
Last edited:
