Investigating Agnosticism

Hello there!

Recently, during my internet browsing, I have been finding a few articles critical of agnosticism. They talk about how agnosticism is self-defeating by definition and is a silly, fence-sitting, worthless position to take on the stance of religion. I am going to contend that view in today’s post. It is worth pointing out that these attacks on agnosticism or in fact, staw-men logical fallacies, which will be covered at a later date. I will start by drawing out a few lines in the sand. I am going to define the four main different types of agnosticism.

The first, and weakest agnosticism is the view that there has never been and will never be any proof for god, for evolution, for creation, or anything historical or theological, also known as forever an historical agnostic, or FHA. When talking about this sort agnosticism, I agree that it is a very weak position, and there is no science to back it up. There is nothing going for this agnosticism, and it is just making a bad name for agnostics as a whole. It is more often a made up position by Christians trying to attack some secular position than one taken by seculars themselves.

The second stage of agnosticism is a weak one, and is on about level pegging with the third stage of agnosticism, but I rank this one lower because it is easier for a creationist to attack that level three. This agnosticism states that there is never any way in which science could prove or disprove a god, because supernatural things are outside the realm of science, also known as forever a theistic agnostic, or FTA. This is also a very weak view on religions, because obviously, there is a way in which a god could be proved. You simply observe a true miracle, which has no possible other mechanisms of action, something truly amazing. This would be some interesting evidence for a supernatural deity, but more than one account would be required.

The third stage of agnosticism is still a very weak position that I do not agree with, and it takes the view that there is currently no evidence for god, or a supernatural deity, and that at some day there may come to bear some proof either way on the subject, or currently agnostic, CA. This is a position that I will agree with, but that I do not take up myself. It is a correct view to a sense, and I take up some of the ideas of this agnosticism. But the bits I do agree with from it are better fit into the final stage of agnosticism.

This fourth stage is probably how I would best describe myself. It is a much stronger view on deities, and I think that most of the world’s atheists will technically fall into this group. This agnosticism is of the view that there is currently no proof for a god or deity, (no proof = current disproof in science) and that a god is almost impossible, because of some fundamental boundaries. However, if it comes to pass that there is some proof of a god, then this view will change to suit that observation, otherwise known as agnostic atheism, or AA. This is my world view.
There is almost certain proof against an all-powerful or all-knowing god in today’s world, but if it is proved that there is a god, then I will happily bow down and worship him, once proper evidence comes to bare.

That’s all for agnosticism today, I will leave you with a quote from Kurt Vonnegut, ” Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead.” Kurt Vonnegut, an American Writer of some note.

Advertisements

Is evolution falsifiable?

Hello there,

A common question brought up about evolution, and also a common criticism of evolution, is “Is evolution falsifiable?” In today’s post I will attempt to answer this question with a few examples of how evolution can be falsified, keeping in mind that there are so many more possible ways to disprove evolution that I will not blog about, but may sometime in the future.

I will also first say that this question shows the ignorance that most creationists have of evolution, they want to be able to have one fowl swoop which will disprove the theory, and also one piece of evidence which proves their theory. This is quite impossible because evolution is such a grand theory with so many lines of evidence pointing towards it, that pointing to one fossil or one gene and saying “There, that disproves evolution!” is just not going to be done.

It is also true that the window for disproof of evolution has fully passed, about 150 years ago is when these falsifications were needed, because now we have all this time under our belts of proof of evolution, everything we find pointing to evolution, that any ‘disproof’ of evolution would be disregarded, because of all of the evidence which says that evolution happened. When evolution was first being tested 150 years ago, there were millions of times where evolution could have been disproved, but it wasn’t.

Another and most common possible falsification for evolution is finding the fossil of a species in a strata very different to where it should be, the classic example is ‘horses in the Cambrian.’ and this would raise some serious doubts about evolution. But this fossil would have to be checked for fraud and hoaxing many times over before it would be believed, because Occam’s razor does come in to play.

The biggest disproof of common descent would also be to find a species where you cannot trace its ancestry back up the evolutionary tree back to its roots, a species which does not fit into the grand scheme of evolution, but looks like it comes from its own little side tree of evolution. If one day, on an expedition through uncharted parts of the amazon, we find some animals which do not look anything like any of the species we currently have today, thatmight puncture a hole in the evolutionary theory.

That’s all for today, I will leave you with a quote from Charles Darwin, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” Charles Darwin, an English naturalist of some note.