Hello all. First post, but I won't ask for mercy! I apologize up front if my thoughts appear to be somewhat fragmented, I have been struggling with how to appropriately frame this question. I have been impressed by many threads on this forum, and I apologize if this is a blatant restating of a previous thread.
I am not a scientist or theologian. I studied history in college and my continuing interests have been archaeology and paleontology, but I do not have the background in biology to bring much to the fray in terms of paleontology, as my education in that area is limited to a AP class in High School. My science credits in college were satisfied by taking astronomy courses, which I came to fall in love with, and really opened my eyes to the wonders around us. Now on to my question.
My question is, isn't agnosticism a more intellectually honest position than atheism? I ask this because it seems that atheists make a bold declaration that they can prove a negative (that no higher intelligent power has had a hand in either the universe or the unfolding of life on this planet). Agnosticism at least takes no position either way, seeming to depend on evidence to sway its position one way or the other.
I understand that there are some aspects in religion which are certainly falsifiable: that a deity created the world a mere 6,000 years ago, that the gods dwell on mount Olympus, that the earth is flat and rides on the back of a giant turtle, etc. By stating the world is only 6,000 years old and was therefore created by a certain deity, the argument falls apart when the world is proven to be older, and by extension the existence of that particular deity with those specific characteristics might be considered disproven. That is, unless invoking un-falsifiable assertions like what you all refer to as "goddidit". But to me, saying that perhaps the creator brought the universe into existence 6,000 years ago in an appearance of extremely old age is as logically nonsensical as asserting that you are the only conscious being in the universe, and everything around you is an illusion. You can't really disprove it, but it doesn't necessarily pass the BS test.
However, none of that seems to dismiss the possibility that there is/was a higher power responsible for what *is*. It's as impossible to disprove that a god (or whatever you want to call it) started this whole ball rolling, when we can't seem to get past certain points in history (abiogenesis, big bang, whatever). Also, I have seen that some serious scientists, to include Dawkins, don't discount the possibility that life on this planet may have been started by other intelligent life from out there in the universe; whatever form that life may have taken (hypothetically) may not be addressed. In short, we *don't know* a whole lot, but we don't necessarily dismiss out of hand the possiblity that life here did not originate here from non-living matter. So why would we automatically dismiss the possibility of the "divine"?
So, is atheism as intellectually dishonest as, say, a YEC twisting evidence to fit a flood model? By asserting that god or an intelligent creative force does not exist, doesn't the atheist go beyond the rational and testable and make a definite theological / philosophical / even ideological statement that cannot (at present) be falsified? Is not agnosticism a more appropriate and objective position for an honest person to take?
I appreciate your input.
Edited by Wollysaurus, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
