Which Worldview Is the Most Logical?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are many worldviews, such as atheism, apatheism, agnosticism, theism, deism, pantheism, panentheism just to name a few.

In this thread, we will offer our opinions as to which worldview is the most logical. With your opinion, please provide a reasoned argument as to why.

Preemptively, this is not a thread to argue which worldview is right. The view you perceive to be the most logical may not even be your own.

Above all, let's please keep the discourse civil.

I will offer my opinion later in the thread, but you are welcome to guess which one I might view as the most logical. You might be surprised.

I think that depends what you mean by "most logical."

If you just mean "logically consistent," then pantheism probably wins:

- let us define the universe as "God"
- the universe exists
- therefore God exists

The only external claim ("the universe exists") is one that I think is generally accepted. My objections to the first statement aren't about logic per se.

However, if "most logical" also considers the logic that went into the construction of the worldview, then I can't see how any worldview that includes a deity can be "most logical" unless the necessity of a deity was shown to be necessary.

 

[Audie]

I take the term "worldview" to mean the mental model of reality a person uses to understand and predict the world around them.

Like any model, it only includes things that the person considers important, and only to the level of detail that they consider important.

In this approach, an "atheist worldview" would be a mental model that includes no gods.

Sure, pengie, but, from my pov, and that
of, I think, many another, it is no more,
likely less of a descriptor to put on the list
than "amonarchist / apolitical", ""afootbaalist"
ot maybe "aflyimgsaucerist". A lot of things
possible as non considerations.

It is the footballists who make a thing of it

 

[SalixIncendium]

One correction right off the bat. Most agnostics are atheists. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods and most agnostics do not believe in a god. Hard atheism is only part of atheism, that is the belief that there are no gods. It would be best not to conflate the two.

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God is unknowable by humans. While I would agree that there are agnostic atheists, there are also many agnostics that do not lack belief in any gods, but simply claim that the existence of any gods is unknowable.

To simply claim that most agnostics are athiest would pretty much eliminate the need for the term 'agnosticism,' or at least to label oneself as agnostic, wouldn't you agree?

As to the rest, if god is ineffective why believe in him?

Your pronoun selection is interesting. But I digress. There are those that have had a mystical experience that involved something greater than themselves (some might go as far to call it a God experience). That experience was was quite effective in making an impact on their worldview.

 

[Salvador]

Sure, pengie, but, from my pov, and that
of, I think, many another, it is no more,
likely less of a descriptor to put on the list
than "amonarchist / apolitical", ""afootbaalist"
ot maybe "aflyimgsaucerist". A lot of things
possible as non considerations.

It is the footballists who make a thing of it

I've posted the following below video debunking aflyingsaucerism:

 

[Revoltingest]

All internally consistent worldviews are "logical". The world is a bit trickier than that though. There's also the question if theism, atheism, pantheism, etc are worldviews or a collection of worldviews that overlap each other. For example I share much of the same worldview as most somewhat scientifically educated and curious people in the west, while holding a heretical yet also quite traditional theistic view.

The real question should be about "rational", which has to do with adopting premises.
One have irrational premises (eg, infidels must die), & reason from them with perfect logic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, pengie, but, from my pov, and that
of, I think, many another, it is no more,
likely less of a descriptor to put on the list
than "amonarchist / apolitical", ""afootbaalist"
ot maybe "aflyimgsaucerist". A lot of things
possible as non considerations.

It is the footballists who make a thing of it

That's right: the fact that a worldview is atheistic is generally unimportant. It's only an issue because so many people have theistic worldviews. Being an atheist today is like being a non-smoker 50 years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God is unknowable by humans. While I would agree that there are agnostic atheists, there are also many agnostics that do not lack belief in any gods, but simply claim that the existence of any gods is unknowable.

To simply claim that most agnostics are athiest would pretty much eliminate the need for the term 'agnosticism,' or at least to label oneself as agnostic, wouldn't you agree?

No, even though most agnostics are also atheists it is still a useful term. There are even agnostic Christians. One can follow a specific God and still be able to admit that one cannot be sure of that God's existence.

Your pronoun selection is interesting. But I digress. There are those that have had a mystical experience that involved something greater than themselves (some might go as far to call it a God experience). That experience was was quite effective in making an impact on their worldview.

Sorry, but I am old and feeble. God was always a male when I grew up. And one thing to note on "mystical experiences". They quite often have mundane explanations. They also usually apply to one specific religion, but they are never strong enough evidence to convince people of other religions that their experience was valid.

 

[Salvador]

I think that depends what you mean by "most logical."

If you just mean "logically consistent," then pantheism probably wins:

- let us define the universe as "God"
- the universe exists
- therefore God exists

The only external claim ("the universe exists") is one that I think is generally accepted. My objections to the first statement aren't about logic per se.

However, if "most logical" also considers the logic that went into the construction of the worldview, then I can't see how any worldview that includes a deity can be "most logical" unless the necessity of a deity was shown to be necessary.

A deistic god makes more sense to me than a theistic god, but how would such a non-theistic deity, who doesn't intervene in any affairs of humans, be indistinguishable from nature.

 

[Shantanu]

A deistic god makes more sense to me than a theistic god, but how would such a non-theistic deity, who doesn't intervene in any affairs of humans, be indistinguishable from nature.

You would need to surrender to God and force Him to come through and communicate with you if you want to see God outside of Nature.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A deistic god makes more sense to me than a theistic god, but how would such a non-theistic deity, who doesn't intervene in any affairs of humans, be indistinguishable from nature.

Funny - I was thinking of pointing out that deism is probably the least logical possibility from the OP: it asserts that God exists while also asserting that it's undetectable by any way that we might investigate whether God exists. If it was correct, then a deist would be completely unjustified in asserting that it's correct. It's self-defeating.

 

[Salvador]

One correction right off the bat. Most agnostics are atheists. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods and most agnostics do not believe in a god. Hard atheism is only part of atheism, that is the belief that there are no gods. It would be best not to conflate the two. As to the rest, if god is ineffective why believe in him?

Unlike most other atheists, I don't believe we humans, we who are presently Earth-bound, are the most technologically advanced beings or the most intelligent life forms in the universe; I don't ignore all the weak and inconclusive evidence of our genetic coding having been invented by extraterrestrial intelligence. Just because there isn't any such thing as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and highly benevolent supernatural theistic deity, doesn't mean there is no such thing as extraterrestrial beings that have more knowledge than we Earthlings with regard to knowledge about the fundamental laws of physics. Also, just because there isn't any such thing as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and highly benevolent supernatural theistic deity, doesn't mean there is no such thing as extraterrestrial intelligence that has interstellar space travel capabilities beyond NASA's space exploration capabilities.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unlike most other atheists, I don't believe we humans, we who are presently Earth-bound, are the most technologically advanced beings or the most intelligent life forms in the universe; I don't ignore all the weak and inconclusive evidence of our genetic coding having been invented by extraterrestrial intelligence. Just because there isn't any such thing as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and highly benevolent supernatural theistic deity, doesn't mean there is no such thing as extraterrestrial beings that have more knowledge than we Earthlings with regard to knowledge about the fundamental laws of physics. Also, just because there isn't any such thing as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and highly benevolent supernatural theistic deity, doesn't mean there is no such thing as extraterrestrial intelligence that has interstellar space travel capabilities beyond NASA's space exploration capabilities.

What makes you think that most atheists think that humans are the most intelligent life forms in the universe? I have never seen an atheist make that claim.

Interstellar space travel may be another matter. Though possible the more we learn the less likely it seems for any living intelligent being. Possible, but rather unlikely. And without a way to go faster than light almost certainly impossible for any practical mission at all.

 

[Salvador]

What makes you think that most atheists think that humans are the most intelligent life forms in the universe? I have never seen an atheist make that claim.

Interstellar space travel may be another matter. Though possible the more we learn the less likely it seems for any living intelligent being. Possible, but rather unlikely. And without a way to go faster than light almost certainly impossible for any practical mission at all.

I agree with you regarding the limitations of interstellar space travel for any of us biological beings, but interstellar space travel for artificial intelligent beings or robotic interstellar probes seem to me to be highly possible. I know there's no conclusive evidence of Earth being visited by artificial extraterrestrial intelligence, but there is weak and inconclusive evidence that Earth has been visited by either robotic space probes or extraterrestrial machine intelligence.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

One correction right off the bat. Most agnostics are atheists. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods and most agnostics do not believe in a god. Hard atheism is only part of atheism, that is the belief that there are no gods. It would be best not to conflate the two. As to the rest, if god is ineffective why believe in him?

Agnostic theism is a thing and I would venture that it's just as reasonable to assume there are more agnostic theists than agnostic atheists, especially given much Eastern philosophy about deities. How would you conclude there are more agnostic atheists?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agnostic theism is a thing and I would venture that it's just as reasonable to assume there are more agnostic theists than agnostic atheists, especially given much Eastern philosophy about deities. How would you conclude there are more agnostic atheists?

Frankly I do not know that much about Eastern philosophy and how many adherents there are to it. My conclusion was based upon Western beliefs. You may be right, I will have to plead ignorance in regards to your claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree with you regarding the limitations of interstellar space travel for any of us biological beings, but interstellar space travel for artificial intelligent beings or robotic interstellar probes seem to me to be highly possible. I know there's no conclusive evidence of Earth being visited by artificial extraterrestrial intelligence, but there is weak and inconclusive evidence that Earth has been visited by either robotic space probes or extraterrestrial machine intelligence.

You do know what the phrase "UFO" means, don't you? It does not mean "Flying Saucer". It does not mean "Alien beings".

 

[Salvador]

You do know what the phrase "UFO" means, don't you? It does not mean "Flying Saucer". It does not mean "Alien beings".

I agree with you there most likely aren't any biological aliens piloting these possible extraterrestrial drones or space probes from far away extraterrestrial civilizations, I'd guess these space craft are most likely just controlled by alien-made artificial intelligence.

 

[Salvador]

According to the scale of belief, my belief is rated as strong agnosticism, which means I don't know if God exists, because the reality of God's existence is absolutely unknowable to me, but I'm on the verge of weak atheism, which means I don't think God likely exists, so then I'm willing to say I don't believe in God. So then, I'm teetering between strong agnosticism and weak atheism.

 

[Earthling]

Aren't logic and worldview basically contradictory terms?

Logical describes something that comes from clear reasoning. ... The adjective logical is rooted in the Greek word logos, which means "reason, idea, or word." So calling something logical means it's based on reason and sound ideas — in other words, thought out with mathematical precision and removed from emotion.

Worldview is a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.

I certainly consider my worldview to be removed from emotion. I try and remain separate from the world, not getting emotionally involved in politics or religion, but hey . . . how realistic let alone logical is that . . .

Most people probably deceive themselves on what is logical, especially when it comes to worldview.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Agnostic theism is a thing and I would venture that it's just as reasonable to assume there are more agnostic theists than agnostic atheists, especially given much Eastern philosophy about deities. How would you conclude there are more agnostic atheists?

Agnostic theism is possible, but IMO suggests somewhat muddled thinking:

"The existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable, but I'm going to go ahead and believe in one/some anyway."

Agnostic monotheism is even more confused, IMO. I don't see how an agnostic could be a monotheist without engaging in some serious use of double standards:

"The existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable, but I'm going to go ahead and pick one to believe in and reject the rest."

For an agnostic, I'd say that the most reasonable approach is atheism:

"The existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable, so I won't accept them as existing until I have reason to do so."

It's also worth pointing out that the agnostic position that gods are unknowable implies that many religious claims are necessarily wrong. In a lot of ways, agnosticism is more opposed to religion than simple atheism is.