Agnostic atheism is more rational than atheism

By definition, being atheist means the complete rejection of the existence of god. Respectively, many atheists completely reject any argument that there might be a god. In comparison to that, the agnostic-atheist might also believe that there is no god, but he is more open to the idea that a god might exist – I claim that this approach is rational while being atheist is irrational.

Just to clarify my argument, I claim that many atheists are treating the probability of an existence of god as 0%, while being agnostic-atheist completely reject 0% but still puts a very low number on that probability. Another clarification is that there is a distinction between the existence of some god, and the existence of a specific god as being portrayed by Christianity or any other religion, as the popular religions beliefs are much less likely to be true (while they are still not completely 0%).

Unanswered questions:

The main problem with the atheist argument is that it doesn’t acknowledge enough the fact that we just don’t really know enough about our existence. We don’t really know what happened before the big bang (or any first stage physicists will discover), and cannot completely rule out that a god took an active part. Even if we had any form of proof to solve this question, we still don’t know whether some sort of god exists after that, as science actually shows that much more intelligent life than ours is a very valid possibility (see Fermi Paradox), and they might have been involved in our creation or development.

Irrational bias to certainty:

We need to acknowledge that when humans don’t know something, they have a tendency to cling to a not-proven argument and claim that a proof was found. In a broader sense, this might have been the beginning of religion as people tried to understand their existence. You can even think about science in the last two centuries, when many theories that scientists were positive to be true, were found to be completely wrong, in fields such as medicine, biology, physics and more (see Scientific Revolution). This doesn’t mean all of the theories we currently have are wrong, it means we need to accept that at least some of them are wrong, and we need to accept that they might influence the question of the existence of god.

Hence, even if the current evidence shows that god is not likely to be existent, the complete rejection of the existence of god is irrational.

EngagementGrade: 100%Total votes: 2
ClarityGrade: 100%Total votes: 2
RespectfulGrade: 100%Total votes: 2
Referenced-backedGrade: 100%Total votes: 2
Guests can't vote - please login


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Close Bitnami banner