|
Bertrand Russell summed it up pretty well imo:
´As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods´.
As about the creation vs evolution debate, obviously I go for evolutionism. I am aware heuristic-empirical proofs are never perfect. But judging by the many years anthropologists, geologists, biologists, etc have been rigourously studying the subject submitting proofs after proofs, well, as a stupid human being as I am, I trust their papers much more than I can ever trust any book written a couple thousand of years ago.
|