4 Steps to Proving Evolution

This year is the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species on 24 November 1859 and the 200th anniversary of the birth of its author, Charles Darwin on 12 February 1809. Great reason to celebrate I suppose, but we mustn’t leave out those who have yet to accept that we evolved from apes. Clearly the disparity of developed minds amongst the population would suggest that some have not completely evolved out of their homo-erectus ancestry while the rest of us have, however, this is not suffice for our uninformed guests. Fear not, I have the solution.

To our plebeian cousins who understandably have difficulty grasping the concept of evolution follow these quick and easy steps to discover the truth for yourselves.

Step 1: Stand in front of a mirror.
Step 2: Slot your tongue between your upper lip and your front teeth.
Step 3: Keep your lips together and examine yourself.
Step 4: Eureka! You’ve just discovered that we came from monkeys.

With a bit of help of an artist, I might just make this into a tee shirt.

Agnostic

It often irks me how many people, especially those who try to convert others to their faith, have never heard of the word agnostic.  And those who do know the word necessarily brand you as just a free thinker. You would not be wrong to lump agnostics and atheist under a common branch of free thinkers, but unlike free thinkers calling oneself an atheist or an agnostic reflects strongly on one’s own spiritual philosophies.

The word agnostic, first coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, is derived from the Greek word gnosis meaning knowledge. Agnostic literally means without knowledge.

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain “gnosis,”–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of “agnostic.” It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the “gnostic” of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.

Thomas Henry Huxley

In agnostic philosophy, we believe that we are unable to have ultimate knowledge of God, hence all knowledge of God (in the case of theists) or the rejection of the existence of God (in the case of atheists) must be handled as speculation.

The theist will argue that if an agnostic chooses to believe in God she must also know God exists as it makes little sense otherwise. Perhaps that logic can be likened to one who believes she can accomplish a difficult feat; if she believes she can then she must also know she can in order for it to work. A core principle in Neuro-linguistic programming – a euphemism for brain washing.

The atheist will argue that an agnostic should analyse the scientific facts that are available to him and come up with a logical conclusion; that is to say to take a side. Either you’re with us or you’re against us. Ring a bell?

Does God Exist?

Unlike theists and atheists, agnostics clearly distinguish the difference between knowledge and belief of a higher power. Where a theist may say he knows that there is God or an atheist may say he knows there is no God, an agnostic may or may not believe in God but he will certainly not say he knows for certain.

It makes no sense to an agnostic to challenge or prove the authenticity of any particular religion. To an agnostic it becomes rather amusing to observe Jews, Christians and Muslims debate against one another on their own authenticity and each others’ misinterpretations (especially since all three faiths believe in the same God). The Jews think they’re the chosen people, the Christians believe that they have been saved by Jesus dying on the cross for their sins and the Muslims think that the Jews have incurred the wrath of God and the Christians have strayed and that they are truly following the will of God. To which, Bobby Henderson comes up with an equally logical response – the universe is created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster, to which we owe the humble beginnings of the Pastafarian following.

Thomas Huxley describes himself as an ignorant person; an agnostic. That is perhaps the best way to define agnostics – we’re ignorant – unlike the rest of the world who seem to know everything there is to know about God and are absolutely certain they are right. The only problem here is that everyone else also claims to know everything about God and that they are right. So who’s really right? The agnostic prefers to stand aside and let Moses, Jesus and Muhammad settle their differences on their own terms.

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and
the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or,
if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

Bertrand Russell, What Is An Agnostic?

Religious Paradox

In keeping with Fideism thinking, religion does not need to prove that there exists a God. It is indeed the lack of proof that allows the religious person to maintain his beliefs of his faith. If there were proof of the existence of God then we would not need to believe in God. We would simply acknowledge its existence just like how we acknowledge that the Earth revolves around the Sun or that the chemical composition of water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.

But therein lies the paradox of religious beliefs. Because there are several religious beliefs to choose from how does one know that his faith is the true faith? So each religious scholar goes on a rampage to prove that their faith is indeed the true religion of God, but because the nature of religion does not allow you to prove anything about God the scholars have to settle for a different approach – they discredit the other faiths. They actually cite proof from their own holy scriptures that their faith is the true faith and that everyone else is deemed as heretic, of course they’re neglecting that the other person’s religion says the exact same thing about their own faith in their holy scriptures. It is all rather amusing for the agnostic person, but it does pain him sometimes to think that these minds have not yet evolved passed our monkey ancestry.

There are, of course, religious people who tolerate people of other religious beliefs. However, it is the author’s opinion that believing in one religion out rightly condemns those who follow different faiths; it says so in their scriptures. There is no room for religious tolerance within the field of theism and this is why I choose to be an agnostic.

Literary Exhibitionism and Voyeurism

The question that every would-be writer (or blogger, in this case) should ask himself before he undertakes the task of writing is this: “Do I have anything to write about that anyone would care to read?”

Here the answer is quite simple, he should not feel the need to be granted an audience as a narcissist should not care to express vanity to anyone but himself. Writings, especially personal writings, are to writers what Polaroid cameras are to narcissists. Hence, I put it to you that writers are literary narcissists and their readers- voyeurs! This is the unique relationship of a writer and his audience. So long as the egomaniac continues to write, he will be granted an audience by those perverse enough to read it.

Lest my readers begin to think that I am only referring to the blogger and not writers in general, allow me a moment to clarify. The ever so vigilant reader may soon point out that since it is only a blogger who engages in writing about himself, then only he should bare the title as a literary narcissist. Perhaps then the appropriate title that would encapsulate all writers would be a literary egoist or even a literary exhibitionist.

All writers are egoistic to a certain extent. They have to be. Otherwise they would not have committed pen to paper and then publication. In fact, publication is what solidifies my proposition. Publication eradicates the closet-case writer who pens his thoughts in a journal and keeps it hidden from readership. For it is only the egoist who truly believes his work to be worthy of publication.

As for my voyeuristic readers, I hope you will enjoy the rest of your read and perhaps drop a comment. Do come again for another peek.