So, athiests say they're the most 'logical'. How about agnostics?

Question

So, atheists claim that atheism is the most logical choice, because god cannot be proven to exist. Okay, cool, I get that. But how is that the most logical? You're ruling out a possibility; an unlikely one, possibly, but one that is there still there. More than once throughout history has something thought to be impossible to exist has actually been proven to, like germs, for a good example.

So, why isn't agnosticism the choice for people who wish to be logical about religion? It allows for everything, and for nothing. You really can't be proven wrong with it, because you can just say, 'Hey, I said it was possible.'

So, denizens of yahoo answers who always have enlightening responses, discuss.

Forgot to mention in that actually, the existence of God become a possibility that isn't some miniscule amount when you factor in quantum physics. Higher dimensional planes can easily explain the existance of God, or of multiple Gods, or WTFever you want. Of course, Quantum physics is not a particularly stable form of science, but it is something to consider. It's not just that there's a random idea pulled from no where; it's got some support.

If there was no factorable chance of a God really existing, I'd probably just be an athiest, but there is.

Answer 1

There are two kinds of logic at work here: Deductive and Inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning leads to an absolute conclusion. For example:

A: All Notre Dame football players lift weights.
B: Jim plays football for Notre Dame
CONCLUSION: Jim lifts weights.

Inductive reasoning is less conclusive, but may be just as convincing in the short-run. Inductive reasoning is based on the preponderance of the evidence. The greater the evidence in support of one conclusion, the more likely that conclusion is deemed to be true.

A: All but one out of the forty-five Notre Dame football players weigh more than 200 lbs.
B: Jim plays football for Notre Dame
CONCLUSION: Jim PROBABLY weighs more than 200 lbs.

Proofs about God's existence or non-existence cannot be deductive, primarily because the definition of God is so sketchy. No matter how you define God, there are those who will say that definition is incomplete or completely wrong. Therefore conclusions about God must drawn from inductive reasoning.

In truth, almost atheists are eventually agnostic to some degree. Anyone who says that the existence of God cannot be categorically proved or disproved fits the definition of an agnostic. However, atheists have looked at the evidence and reached the inductive conclusion that the chances of God's existence are so remote, that it is likely that no described God exists, or at least no described God is relevant to our existence. Such evidence includes the problem of evil, the lack of credible supernatural interventions in the natural world, the changing nature of described Gods, the lack of ethical differences between believers and disbelievers, the increasingly greater ability of science to explain elements of the universe and life, brain science that indicates no need to conjecture the existence of a soul, the uselessness of god in helping to explain phenomena, the failure of prayer, the wishful-thinking components of religions, etc.

Agnostics are hoping for an eventual deductive conclusion about God. They may lean toward theism or atheism, based on their inductive reasoning, but they await a day when the evidence for or against God has the capacity of overruling any contrary conclusion.

- {♂♂} - {♂♀} - {♀♀} -

Answer 2

Because agnosticism is not a conclusion one can reach by logic. It's as simple as that. It means, on your terms, it is "logical" to believe that there might be dragons, or goblins, or Valhalla, or a hollow earth, or any other "possibility" even though there is absolutely no evidence supporting that possibility. Atheists are logical because we accept that when evidence arises we have to look seriously at what it points. Agnosticism isn't a position of that kind, it says "I don't know and I'm keeping my options open". That's fine, but it doesn't follow that it's logical. Unless you want to confess to keeping an open mind about dragons...


I don't think you'll find quantum physics posits the possibility of god. It's mysterious, sure, but it's grounded in randomness. Assuming a god is no different from assuming a god in the formation of rainbows. I don't think you'll find many quantum phsyicists attending church regularly.

Answer 3

- In argument for the religions -
What annoys me about atheists is the fact that logic is based upon a set of postulates that is assumed to be true. Notice that "back in the day" there were a lot of things that were considered true and "logical" however now - with more evidence - they are "proven" to be illogical and false. Looking at this sort of turn of events, isn't it quite possible that there may be some paradigm shift in the future that would make our science partially useless with new discoveries?

- In argument for the atheists -
There needs to be an understanding that for atheists, they don't consider possibility, but probability. For them, they consider probability by the amount of supporting evidence that they can gather to make a "theory" stronger. This is why they can't accept something such as religion's beliefs. They consider that probability of such a thing as religion's belief so small that they find it insignificant and not worthy of belief.

As stated above - this does not mean that they are most "logical" for logic can deal with morals as well and most of them are not considering the moralistic sense of religion.

*edit*

Might I add another thing. Christians and Atheists have been at it for quite a while and both are, unfortuneately very adamant in their beliefs - too much so to listen intently and accept the others' arguments. They are more focused on disproving the others' fallacies to accept the truthful and logical parts or to take them into account.

By "they" I'm referring to "most of them."

Answer 4

Just because something is logical doesn't mean it is true. Reason and logic can only take one so far in their quest for God. They have their place and function in this regard (for example Aristotles Unmoved Mover Argument), but they are not absolutes because humans are not omnipotent. God is said to exist outside of this material universe, therefore we cannot find evidence of God in the same way we find evidence for other things within the universe. However, when one does look at this universe unbiasedly, there is order and beauty and mystery and even more in ourselves, there is intellect, a sense of "self" a search for meaning and goodness and truth. I think these things point towards God and in a sense are evidences though not scientific ones.

The point is, science does not have the capabilities to truly answer the question of Gods existence in the way it answers questions on an empirical level. That question is best answered by being open to believing in God. If you do this, it is my experience that you will have an encounter with God in the depths of your soul. A mystery. A Presence.

Answer 5

I consistently idea the thumb down ranking was once for use whilst any individual gave an unsuitable reply so the asker is aware of that the reply given is flawed. That is how I use the thumb down icon. Well, and infrequently whilst a few one is solely being vulgar and impolite. An illustration reply I could supply a thumbs all the way down to is "Moses took 2 of each and every animal at the Ark." I could then answer with the right reply, "Noah took 2 of each and every animal at the Ark." A lot of humans do abuse the thumbs procedure and supply me a thumbs down simply seeing that the do not like my reply. Sometimes I like getting thumbs down, seeing that no less than I understand that the reader particularly learn what I wrote and had a response to it.

Answer 6

I consider myself agnostic... I completely believe there is something bigger and better than us 'somewhere'.... perhaps so different that we cannot and will never understand it.... I believe in Evolution, too, but have a feeling someone/thing got it started ...... it's all too perfect to be totally accidental..... I don't buy any 'god' that is aware of us at all.... whether it's a loving one or an angry one... it's all a concoction by man to explain what he cannot.....and that, to me, is logical.... because every nation and race on the planet has one or two of their very own .... some are gods, some are just wise men, but whatever they are, they have all the 'answers'... we, mankind, can't seem to go about our lives on our own and find our own answers, we have to have someone to tell us what to do and think and say?.... I DON"T THINK SO!!... an agnostic uses logic to find the best way to go... and then follows his own path.... and ya know, it's usually a pretty good one!...full of caring, loving, peaceful, Earth-friendly, folks.... who don't need outside direction to live healthy, productive and full-filling lives....

Answer 7

It's not the possibility that's important, it's the probability. And the probability is too low to be significant. It's exactly the same as the probability for Santa really existing.

And I disagree with agnosticism because they are turning a blind eye to the harm that religion causes, and that they won't get off the fence over so obviously silly a story, even though they are willing to take a solid position on Santa.

Answer 8

If there is no evidence something exists, which is more logical: saying it does not exist or saying it might not exist? Agnosticism as noncommittal atheism is not logical. In order to be logical, the agnostic requires evidence that some sort of deity might exist.

Answer 9

That's a big reason why I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic and I think like an atheist most of the time, I respect them immensely. However, I always say, "I've never found proof of a god but I've never found proof that god doesn't exist either."

Answer 10

Agnosticism sounds like a reasonable choice on the surface, and all atheist are to some extent agnostic, in that they say, "If you find something that convinces me, I will believe."
However, agnosticism is not completely intellectually honest. You may say that you don't know one way or another when I tell you that I have a two-ton purple frog as a pet and that it can move things about by telekenesis, but the fact is, you won't believe me until I come up with proof.