After having a conversation with my flatmate Phil the other day I became inspired to write a new post.
Phil can be found on twitter http://twitter.com/#!/philendo
We were discussing the concept of being an agnostic. For those who do not know what an agnostic is, it is a someone who does not follow any set faith, but is open to the idea that there is a chance that a god, or first cause might exist. I myself am an agnostic, I find it absurd for an atheist to claim conclusively that there is no such thing as god; that there is not first cause. I would definitely agree however, that any deity portrayed by any religion is unlikely to exist. I can see no reason why any creator of our infinitely expanding universe would care to medal in the lives of humans. And the concept of praying seems nothing more than a comfort concept to please the devout. Any God being omnipotent would know what you wished to convey without you saying it. Furthermore the god would know what you would ask before even you do, and therefore the question arises why bother? Religion is based entirely around superstition, blind faith and the human quest for explanation no matter how absurd and unjustified it is . The argument of having to believe is conclusively in a god is an intangible concept for those who follow the scientific method. Without any evidence there is no case in support for a God. My favourite argument on the matter is this; there is a magical teapot revolving close to the sun. It is so far away that we cannot see it with our telescopes. However, just because disprove the existence of the magical teapot, does not mean that there is a good reason to believe in it in the first place. However, ignore the man made concept of a God based on any religion, and consider it as the first cause. The beginning to our universe, the cause of the big bang. In place of an explanation for the existence of everything, it seems unscientific to me to not leave open the idea of the first cause. That not matter how unlikely, there is a chance that there was and/or is a first cause.
Phil said that agnostics were only agnostic to be scientific about it. He might be right, but being science is about being 100% scientific; that’s just good science.