Leaderboard

'Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable' http://en.wikipedia....iki/Agnosticism Assuming that's what you mean (?) you must also be of the belief that you cannot know whether Zeus is a god and Santa Claus really does deliver presents to children. That my cat really is tortured under the Beech tree at the end of my garden by little pixies. Frankly - the notion of agnosticism is absurd. So is atheism and theism in my view. Atheists spend their life - effectively - harping on about how something doesn't exist because the evidence tells them so. Well, I can't spend my life worrying about whether or not a teapot really does orbit the earth, or whether or not it's turtles all the way down. I abhor the theist view that I will burn in hell if I don't fall to my knees and worship in exactly the same way that an atheist will make me out to be the village idiot (VillagePlank!) because I can't subscribe to their view either. Both are equally as repulsive. But I can't be an agnostic either - since it makes no logical sense. These people will have you believe that you can either be dead or alive, atheist or theist - agnosticism is an attempt to find the middle ground, and it's intellectually lazy - since if you really have the time to contemplate such matters, then, surely, you must have come to a view - the view that Zeus really didn't rule Ancient Greece or that God(s) do exist in which case you need to pick one (or more) Sadly, I don't have much time, so I am left with apatheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism. My view is when these silly little childish arguments about the existence or otherwise of metaphysical beings is over, I won't have to categorise myself as anything. And I can just call myself 'human'. Oh and by the way - the scientific method/scientific treatise says, almost explicitly, that everything is ultimately knowable, so agnosticism and science are polar opposites. Science says all things are knowable, agnosticism says (at least) some things are unknowable.

I've just watched this series of 6 videos on Svensmark and his work… First impressions? Total shock at his personable and practical persona. I'd heard about him and his work many years ago, but imagined he was some sort of elderly quack mad scientist type with a crackpot theory to peddle. Why would I have formed that impression, I've been wondering… has he been demonized? I think so. If you can't attack the science, attack the man. However, it wasn't until I got to the third video of the series, before I realised the depth of antagonism he'd provoked — watch at 7:20 when he's giving a seminar. Sir John Mason, director of the UK MetO stands up visibly angry and harangues Dr Svensmark like a head prefect ludicrously demanding that his experiments on cloud nucleation should never even take place! Unbelievable, not very scientific and very shaming for the MetO. Rather like the Pope storming into Galileo's cell and confiscating his telescope. Anyway, watch and enjoy the videos, they last about 10 minutes each.