Logically, agnosticism is the most rational position

[serp777]

In terms of beliefs about the supernatural and God, agnosticism seems to be the most rational positions to hold compared to atheism and theism. I am the kind of agnostic where I don't know if God exists, and I don't even know how I would attempt to calculate a probability for God's existence, let alone actually give a probability.

I think the atheistic claim that God is unlikely seems to be an impossible claim. There are way too many possibilities and factors that would be required to actually determine God to be unlikely. Furthermore, theism is equally illogical since it claims that either God's existence is likely, or certain.

I would argue that nobody has anywhere close to enough information that would enable them to formally, or even informally, determine the likelihood of God's existence. Even visions or feelings that people have aren't anywhere near conclusive enough. Visions and feelings could be delusions, or an alien experiment, or a fake deity tricking you such as Satan, or some kind of hallucination, or just wishful thinking. These feelings or visions can't be used to know if God is real due to the unreliability and unverifiability of feelings and visions, especially considering feelings and visions tend to confirm a variety of beliefs that are often mutually exclusive. Anyways, it seems to me that if people were trying to be as logical as possible, they should be agnostics as i've defined them (not knowing the probability of God's existence and not knowing if its possible to get such a probability).

 

[loverofhumanity]

For myself personally I have ample proof of the existence of God. Every atom in existence proves there is a God. But behind this statement is my own 41 years of researching and study. It's not just an opinion based on blind faith. There are logical proofs and spiritual proofs.

 

[McBell]

In terms of beliefs about the supernatural and God, agnosticism seems to be the most rational positions to hold compared to atheism and theism. I am the kind of agnostic where I don't know if God exists, and I don't even know how I would attempt to calculate a probability for God's existence, let alone actually give a probability.

I think the atheistic claim that God is unlikely seems to be an impossible claim. There are way too many possibilities and factors that would be required to actually determine God to be unlikely. Furthermore, theism is equally illogical since it claims that either God's existence is likely, or certain.

I would argue that nobody has anywhere close to enough information that would enable them to formally, or even informally, determine the likelihood of God's existence. Even visions or feelings that people have aren't anywhere near conclusive enough. Visions and feelings could be delusions, or an alien experiment, or a fake deity tricking you such as Satan, or some kind of hallucination, or just wishful thinking. These feelings or visions can't be used to know if God is real due to the unreliability and unverifiability of feelings and visions, especially considering feelings and visions tend to confirm a variety of beliefs that are often mutually exclusive. Anyways, it seems to me that if people were trying to be as logical as possible, they should be agnostics as i've defined them (not knowing the probability of God's existence and not knowing if its possible to get such a probability).

agnosticism does not preclude or exclude theism or atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For myself personally I have ample proof of the existence of God. Every atom in existence proves there is a God. But behind this statement is my own 41 years of researching and study. It's not just an opinion based on blind faith. There are logical proofs and spiritual proofs.

Maybe you could start a new thread where you give some of the "logical proofs" of God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In terms of beliefs about the supernatural and God, agnosticism seems to be the most rational positions to hold compared to atheism and theism. I am the kind of agnostic where I don't know if God exists, and I don't even know how I would attempt to calculate a probability for God's existence, let alone actually give a probability.

I think the atheistic claim that God is unlikely seems to be an impossible claim. There are way too many possibilities and factors that would be required to actually determine God to be unlikely. Furthermore, theism is equally illogical since it claims that either God's existence is likely, or certain.

I would argue that nobody has anywhere close to enough information that would enable them to formally, or even informally, determine the likelihood of God's existence. Even visions or feelings that people have aren't anywhere near conclusive enough. Visions and feelings could be delusions, or an alien experiment, or a fake deity tricking you such as Satan, or some kind of hallucination, or just wishful thinking. These feelings or visions can't be used to know if God is real due to the unreliability and unverifiability of feelings and visions, especially considering feelings and visions tend to confirm a variety of beliefs that are often mutually exclusive. Anyways, it seems to me that if people were trying to be as logical as possible, they should be agnostics as i've defined them (not knowing the probability of God's existence and not knowing if its possible to get such a probability).

Let's nail down terms. How are you using "agnosticism", "atheism" and "theism"?

Personally, I think "weak" agnosticism (i.e. "I can't demonstrate the existence or non-existence of gods with the knowledge we have now") is reasonable but "hard" atheism (i.e. "the existence of gods is inherrntly unknowable") is unreasonable.

I also don't think that atheism (i.e. the lack of belief in gods) is incompatible at all with a lack of evidence one way or the other. Even in the case of self-aware atheism (i.e. "I'm not convinced of the existence of any gods"), lack of evidence for gods implies lack of justification for belief in gods and therefore justification for atheism.

 

[Quintessence]

While we're at it, let's nail down how they are using the terms "supernatural" and "God." Do you really mean God as in proper case as in you're only talking about the god of the classical monotheists? Do you recognize that outside of classical monotheism, gods =/= supernatural, or are we ignoring that like most dialogues in the Western cultures do?

It might also be good to clarify why how we quantify a "most rational" position, and why a "most rational" position is important over, say, the "most practical" position or the "most beloved" position or whatever.

 

[LuisDantas]

it seems to me that if people were trying to be as logical as possible, they should be agnostics as i've defined them (not knowing the probability of God's existence and not knowing if its possible to get such a probability).

While I agree, I question the practical viability and relevance of such a stance. "God" is ultimately too personal a concept for true, pure agnosticism to be very meaningful or very easy to maintain.

 

[Sleeppy]

Existence isn't the question. Is it logically possible to discuss what doesn't exist?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As others pointed out, agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms as they address two different subjects, knowledge and belief. I'm an atheist because I've seen no compelling reason to conclude creator gods exist. I don't and can't know for sure it doesn't (yet. If unified m-theory really gets a head of steam it might be more rational to conclude that there's no room for creation, with universes being a natural and inevitable result of a natural process, but we're not there yet and one could propose a non-creator God or gods) just like I don't and can't know for sure there's not a planet of jade jackals judiciously and jovially juggling jackfruit. But as I've seen no evidence for it I file it under things I don't believe in.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

For myself personally I have ample proof of the existence of God. Every atom in existence proves there is a God. But behind this statement is my own 41 years of researching and study. It's not just an opinion based on blind faith. There are logical proofs and spiritual proofs.

I've personally never seen a logical argument for god (s) that didn't push the pure assumption that complexity indicates design, or that gaps of knowledge indicates gods. Both logical fallacies in of themselves.

 

[leibowde84]

For myself personally I have ample proof of the existence of God. Every atom in existence proves there is a God. But behind this statement is my own 41 years of researching and study. It's not just an opinion based on blind faith. There are logical proofs and spiritual proofs.

What logical proofs are there that don't rely on logical fallacies like God of the gaps arguments (arguing from ignorance)?

 

[Altfish]

In terms of beliefs about the supernatural and God, agnosticism seems to be the most rational positions to hold compared to atheism and theism. I am the kind of agnostic where I don't know if God exists, and I don't even know how I would attempt to calculate a probability for God's existence, let alone actually give a probability.

I think the atheistic claim that God is unlikely seems to be an impossible claim. There are way too many possibilities and factors that would be required to actually determine God to be unlikely. Furthermore, theism is equally illogical since it claims that either God's existence is likely, or certain.

I would argue that nobody has anywhere close to enough information that would enable them to formally, or even informally, determine the likelihood of God's existence. Even visions or feelings that people have aren't anywhere near conclusive enough. Visions and feelings could be delusions, or an alien experiment, or a fake deity tricking you such as Satan, or some kind of hallucination, or just wishful thinking. These feelings or visions can't be used to know if God is real due to the unreliability and unverifiability of feelings and visions, especially considering feelings and visions tend to confirm a variety of beliefs that are often mutually exclusive. Anyways, it seems to me that if people were trying to be as logical as possible, they should be agnostics as i've defined them (not knowing the probability of God's existence and not knowing if its possible to get such a probability).

It is like if you go from Black to White, isn't it all grey? But at some point you call it white.

I don't know how much lack of evidence one needs to be able to confidently say "God does not exist". I am open minded and if any evidence was put forward I'd change my mind. BUT I have seen absolutely none.

 

[George-ananda]

Perhaps agnosticism would make sense if there were no clues. My studies of many types of paranormal phenomena, Vedic Science/Teaching, advanced masters/souls, etc, has dovetailed for me into an understanding that I accept beyond reasonable doubt. However such things are not commonly studied by westerners and meet with (what I feel to be) unfair derision. These things I mention do dovetail to quite a detailed understanding.

 

[jonathan180iq]

For myself personally I have ample proof of the existence of God. Every atom in existence proves there is a God. But behind this statement is my own 41 years of researching and study. It's not just an opinion based on blind faith. There are logical proofs and spiritual proofs.

...For myself personally, I have ample proof of the existence of Baal. Every atom in existence proves he exists. But behind this statement is my own 33 years of researching and study. It's not just an opinion on blind faith. There are logical proofs and spiritual proofs...

Personal experience and conviction are great for your faith, man. But they say nothing on the reality of the actual existence of a deity.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I would argue that nobody has anywhere close to enough information that would enable them to formally, or even informally, determine the likelihood of God's existence.

This strong stance nullifies the entire god conversation, doesn't it?

If you openly admit that we have nowhere near enough knowledge to even pretend to make a claim about god, then why are we talking about god?

Why are we talking about anything at all?

Also, isn't your stance here pretty much true of any pursuit of knowledge?
There are an infinite number of things that we don't know about. Therefor we can't say for certain if we really know anything at all, can we?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In terms of beliefs about the supernatural and God, agnosticism seems to be the most rational positions to hold compared to atheism and theism. I am the kind of agnostic where I don't know if God exists, and I don't even know how I would attempt to calculate a probability for God's existence, let alone actually give a probability.

I think the atheistic claim that God is unlikely seems to be an impossible claim. There are way too many possibilities and factors that would be required to actually determine God to be unlikely. Furthermore, theism is equally illogical since it claims that either God's existence is likely, or certain.

I would argue that nobody has anywhere close to enough information that would enable them to formally, or even informally, determine the likelihood of God's existence. Even visions or feelings that people have aren't anywhere near conclusive enough. Visions and feelings could be delusions, or an alien experiment, or a fake deity tricking you such as Satan, or some kind of hallucination, or just wishful thinking. These feelings or visions can't be used to know if God is real due to the unreliability and unverifiable of feelings and visions, especially considering feelings and visions tend to confirm a variety of beliefs that are often mutually exclusive. Anyways, it seems to me that if people were trying to be as logical as possible, they should be agnostics as i've defined them (not knowing the probability of God's existence and not knowing if its possible to get such a probability).

Good argument. I'd agree at the logic behind it but disagree with the conclusion.

Atheist rebuttal

It would be weird to assume that god exists only because Catherine and thousands among thousands in history made the claim and wrote down he does. I think god-theism is so embedded in some people's minds that to think no god exists at all without having an X factor is like jumping off a ledge without a parachute.

I use math a lot since it's universal. That's like millions of people saying two and two is six (pretending it can't be proven wrong). Then, today we say "oh, we can't say 2 and 2 doesn't equal 6 nor can we say it does" because there is no evidence or no known way to know either way. So we are agnostic to the problem.

It's just a claim. In reality, everyday life, two and two doesn't equal six and that fact is without our own existence.

God is the same way. If you look at all the definitions of god, they all mirror the wants, needs, and desires of human beings. They are "myths" of humanity and the core of a lot of people's imagination, or in other cases, ways of art of expression to other art that depicts god and the mentally insane.

God has never been defined by anything outside of what we already know of life. It's a psychological construct, for lack of better words. The X factor in god-theism becomes "but it's a mystery" or "it's unknown consciousness" or "it's a higher power [than us]" and so forth.

Until someone can describe god with details of his character humans haven't heard of, why would an atheist think god exist at all?

Why would an agnostic feel it's not possible to know when everything either points to his non-existence (as explained above) or his existence that is, in my opinion, the source of a person's mind? What is it about agnosticism that keeps that X factor just because there is a claim a mysterious being exists but then if I made a claim Xertinoic exists just now and made a good argument for it, how many people would be agnostics to this idea?

Would there need to be thousands of people to believe this for it to make it into agnosticism realm?

Theist rebuttal

On the other end, why would a theist think god could not be proven? If we have experiences in everyday life and those experiences prove to us, say, our mother loves us, why and how is that different than the experiences of god? In my opinion, it doesn't have to be "spiritual" and god-belief doesn't sound supernatural. I believe in spirits and they are natural just as anything and anyone else. However, thinking of a theist position (assuming), because we base a lot of our facts on our experiences (not many people use a measuring cup to see how much love their mother has for them), then why would it be illogical to assume that theist to, well, be a theist.

If that theist was agnostic, then he would have to say his experiences "could be" real but he has no way of knowing. He then doubts himself and his experiences because (pretending) psychologist say that experiences don't lead to truth. I mean, I have eye problems but no eye doctor can detect the cause. The experiences are real (I'm a theist to these stupid eye episodes-they exist) so how can I be an agnostic to it? How is that logical when all my senses and experiences tell me otherwise?

Conclusion

Agnosticism doesn't sound like a rational position if compared to theism and atheism. It makes sense. We don't know everything. However, to say theism and atheism are not rational it makes me think if we can trust our experiences or our observations and conclusions thereof.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

While I agree, I question the practical viability and relevance of such a stance. "God" is ultimately too personal a concept for true, pure agnosticism to be very meaningful or very easy to maintain.

I also agree with the OP.
However, I would argue with your inferences/conclusions from the logical correctness of agnosticism.
I have maintained my agnostic view of "the divine" for many years/decades, and have always found it to be relevant, useful, and even comforting: particularly while discussing such topics with individuals or groups (like here).
Starting from the unbiased zero-point can (but not always) help instill a zen-like calm, while many around you (as you point out) are far too personally wrapped up in their own concepts of what 'is' or 'is not', for them to see clearly. Like calmly talking to hyper children with big imaginations. They're cute, but not very rationally productive.

 

[Acim]

Given that I used to be agnostic
And given that I used to base (possible) existence of G as outside of me, over yonder
And given that I'm now very willing to argue existence of physicality, as I find that holds very little to arguably no objectivity
Then some of what passes for 'proof' or lack thereof, I find debatable. Just as another agnostic/atheist would find existence of God as open to (ongoing) debate.

I'd probably wish to discuss existence first before assuming anything else, or granting certain axioms as 'beyond dispute.'

With all that said, I'm currently a strong theist.

With certain assumptions seen as a 'given,' all (commonly known) positions (about divine/supernatural, or lack thereof) strike me as having rationality.

 

[viole]

In terms of beliefs about the supernatural and God, agnosticism seems to be the most rational positions to hold compared to atheism and theism. I am the kind of agnostic where I don't know if God exists, and I don't even know how I would attempt to calculate a probability for God's existence, let alone actually give a probability.

I think the atheistic claim that God is unlikely seems to be an impossible claim. There are way too many possibilities and factors that would be required to actually determine God to be unlikely. Furthermore, theism is equally illogical since it claims that either God's existence is likely, or certain.

I would argue that nobody has anywhere close to enough information that would enable them to formally, or even informally, determine the likelihood of God's existence. Even visions or feelings that people have aren't anywhere near conclusive enough. Visions and feelings could be delusions, or an alien experiment, or a fake deity tricking you such as Satan, or some kind of hallucination, or just wishful thinking. These feelings or visions can't be used to know if God is real due to the unreliability and unverifiability of feelings and visions, especially considering feelings and visions tend to confirm a variety of beliefs that are often mutually exclusive. Anyways, it seems to me that if people were trying to be as logical as possible, they should be agnostics as i've defined them (not knowing the probability of God's existence and not knowing if its possible to get such a probability).

Do you know the probability of blue fairies to exist, for instance? i don't.

Does that entail that the most rational position to hold about blue fairies is agnosticism?

I think we are giving religious claims a privileged position, for some reason. Undeserved, in my opinion. If I claim agnosticism about God, people might take me seriously and even respect that. But if I claim agnosticism about blue fairies, they might look at me funny.

I never understood why, since Gods and blue fairies have both a probability that is inscrutable.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This strong stance nullifies the entire god conversation, doesn't it?

If you openly admit that we have nowhere near enough knowledge to even pretend to make a claim about god, then why are we talking about god?

Why are we talking about anything at all?

Also, isn't your stance here pretty much true of any pursuit of knowledge?
There are an infinite number of things that we don't know about. Therefor we can't say for certain if we really know anything at all, can we?

An interesting implication of the "we have no evidence either way" claim: it implies that every single theistic religion is made-up nonsense.

Any reasonable justification for belief in a theistic religion would itself be evidence of a god, so "no evidence" means that all god-belief is rooted in either delusion or lies.

And on the other side, when we say that we can't disprove the existence of gods, it's only in the sense that we can't rule out with certainty that any of these delusions or lies just happened to serendipitously line up with something real that nobody knows about in an "a stopped clock is right twice a day" kind of way.

From where I sit, this is actually a much more anti-theistic and anti-religion position than that of most atheists I know (i.e. something like "I personally haven't seen evidence that will convince me so far").