The polite abstinence?

Question

Does "the polite abstinence" mean "the limited, mild attack"?If so, it seems to contradict with "(Huxley)bent over backwards to deny..." (I take "bend over backwards" as "take action all out (make best effort)".Context:We have at least quantitatively improved our estimate of onepreviously shrouded term of the Drake Equation. This permits asignificant, if still moderate, easing of our agnosticism about thefinal value yielded by the equation. We must still be agnostic aboutlife on other worlds - but a little bit less agnostic, because we arejust that bit less ignorant. Science can chip away at agnosticism, ina way that Huxley bent over backwards to deny for the special caseof God. I am arguing that, notwithstanding the polite abstinence ofHuxley, Gould and many others, the God question is not inprinciple and forever outside the remit of science. As with thenature of the stars, contra Comte, and as with the likelihood of lifein orbit around them, science can make at least probabilisticinroads into the territory of agnosticism.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

NL888Science can chip away at agnosticism, in a way that Huxley bent over backwards to deny for the special case of ***. I am arguing that, notwithstanding the polite abstinence of Huxley, Gould and many others, the *** question is not in principle and forever outside the remit of science.

bent over backwards = did and said everything possible (also expressed as "went out of his way")
polite abstinence = not speaking on the topic so as to avoid offending anyone

CJ

Fivejedjon · Answer

What in the dictionary definition of 'abstinence' could possibly lead you to believe that it means 'limited, mild attack?

NL888 · Answer

Thanks.
That is: Huxley only talked about (denied) the special cases of *** but refraining from talking about *** in general sense?

CalifJim · Answer

NL888That is: Huxley only talked about (denied) the special cases of *** but refraining from talking about *** in general sense?

Science can chip away at agnosticism, in
a way that Huxley bent over backwards to deny for the special case
of ***. I am arguing that, notwithstanding the polite abstinence of
Huxley, Gould and many others, the *** question is not in
principle and forever outside the remit of science.

Generally, this passage has the following meaning:

Huxley did everything he could possibly do to persuade people that science would not present any evidence that could weaken their belief in ***. But, even if Huxley (and Gould and others) attempted to appease people in this way, by saying that matters of science and matters of religion were two separate areas of thought, I am arguing that the question of the existence of *** is NOT completely separate from science, and that it IS valid to consider such a question scientifically.
______________

(Just as an aside: I think you may be reading texts that are a little too difficult for you. You seem to require a great deal of help on some of these passages. And they are very difficult, and even native speakers have to guess a little, because these works are not always written in the clearest possible prose. But maybe you should try less difficult texts for now. What do you think?

Is this from one of the books by Dawkins, by the way?)

CJ

NL888 · Answer

Yes. Dawkins *** Delusion.  Who would like to answer what  "contra Comte" means?Does it mean "rebellious philosopher"?

Fivejedjon · Answer

In contrast to what Comte wrote.

The polite abstinence?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions