To Be Agnostic by Clarence Darrow: Week 6, Post 5-

This book starts out by defining what it means to be Agnostic; a person who is Agnostic is a person who believes that one cannot know ultimate or metaphysical truths or even whether there are any. This is someone who basically says I cannot for any reason go out on a limb and say that I believe in God because there is no real hard evidence supporting his existence. On the contrary they also say, well I am not really an atheist either because I cannot disprove a god’s existence because there is not real way to know. Many philosophers and scientists alike are agnostic including; Socrates, Hume, Darwin and Einstein. In general this book states that science is inherently agnostic as it tends to only investigate those claims which can, in theory, be tested and proven. The book goes on to say that when a metaphysical claim is to be made, there is usually no way to test it and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such a thing exists in the world. I agree I think that I am an agnostic because science is hard facts about the world which sometimes points to the contrary of God, but it is hard to imagine such beautifully complex world without some intelligent designer. There is just no way to prove a gods existence.
Andrea Diem-Lane goes on to say that there have been people in the world like Thomas Aquinas, who look at nature for signs of god. As he opined, “how can there be design without a designer?” Interpreting the magnificence of a flower as evidence of a higher being falls short of what is demanded as proof in science. Diem-Lane asks the question, “Does the theory of evolution necessitate an agnostic worldview? Or, can one be a theist and still be an evolutionist?” This question is something that I try to ask myself because I believe in evolution and for me it is hard to be a believer in god if you believe in evolution. To me, there being a god does not make sense if you believe in evolution but there are people who believe in evolution and god simultaneously and being the weak agnostic that I believe that I am, (I am still forming my opinions on what life is all about), I would like to hear their claims as to what makes them think that way.