I began reading Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion this weekend.
So far, I mostly agree with many of his points and I am enjoying the treatise, yet I do have a reaction to his agnosticism rants in chapter two.

He states that many agnosts claim the ability to prove or disprove a god’s existence to be moot, that it reaches beyond the scope of science. Dawkin’s argument is that this should be a temporary form of agnosticism. That science advances and things we find beyond the scope of science quickly move into its realm. He cites the once believed inability to (ever) quantify the components of stars as an example. I do not disagree with this. I also do not disagree that at some point science may be able to provide an answer to a god’s existence within a small margin of error. Yet, I think it most probable larger hurdles will continually appear along that path.

Socrates is alleged to have said something to the effect of “I know that I do not know.” In essence, the more one learns, the more he/she becomes aware of what is unknown. Effectively, the more knowledgeable one is, the more ignorant he/she is as well. This seems aptly true in the world of science. Newton’s revelations about gravity answered many questions about the physical universe, but it created even more quandaries with its “discovery.” I doubt any suspected at the time that new branches of science would need to be created to further comprehend the most basic tenets of gravity. Quantum physics and Astrophysics both deal with a gravity foreign to Newton. His laws are practically useless in regards to the ridiculously enormous and unimaginably minute. Gravity behaves very differently between subatomic particles than it does on the human level and yet again differently between stars and galaxies. So too will it be with the quest for an ethereal creator.

As science continues to delve into the confounding principles of physics, our universe grows stranger, more complex, more alien. The possibilities of what can constitute an omnipotent god change and multiply. Most likely we are unaware of various physical laws that must be considered in making this decision. Perhaps, our entire concept of physics will shift as it has done in ages past. Maybe mankind will be eradicated long before making the necessary discoveries to prove or disprove supernatural creation. The physical world is not the only shaped by evolution. Collective thought, society, and science are as well. This is their strength.

There are no absolutes (foregoing change).
Yes I believe the probability of “no god” outweighs the possibility of “yes god.”
Yet, like Sagan, I reserve judgment until the facts are in.
That it is why when pressed by those that insist on classification, I still call myself “agnost.”