Siding with Knowledge

After all of the reading, it is still difficult for me to determine which is more rational, atheism or agnosticism. I would conclude atheism is more logical just because of all the discussions from naturalism versus supernaturalism, which is why I suspect we read and discussed that material to prepare for this reading and thought process. From the evidence I have experienced and observed in my life time it would be easier for me to draw conclusions that a God, especially in the Christian sense, does not exists, instead of proving that one did exist.

Agnosticism is easy for me to relate with because I like the use of it in terms as a stance of knowledge which is touched on in the main reading a bit less than the article posted on Prof. Johnson's blog but makes the same correlation. It is easier to assert that one has knowledge of a general view and when evidence presents a different conclusion one may effectively observe and review their position accordingly without probable attachment. For theists however, their emotional attachment to what they believe in is more sided or drastic involvement because they are not in middle ground and most likely have deep ties to the belief with family and friends. In other words, it would be much more difficult for a theist to adjust their lifestyle around a challenge to, or a loss of, their faith in the religion they follow. Partly this may be because many religions teach to remain firm in one’s faith despite its temptations and challenges. I choose to side with knowledge in order to trust what I've learned and agree is real with my peers. In many ways I choose a more naturalistic view to label myself with before I would term it as agnostic.