Share your worldview?

[Whateverist]

I agree with the bold (my use of math and/or numbers was not the most accurate tool to demonstrate my point). I disagree with everything else, especially that certainty would be the most reasonable position, and here's why: agnosticism is where all investigations begin. I think you agree with this, right? You can't begin an investigation with a conclusion... a hypothesis, yes, but if you already have a conclusion, you won't investigate further. But after you find a reasonable conclusion, if you do not end with some degree of uncertainty, you cut yourself off from further discovery.

This "investigation" hasn't begun, it's been concluded.  Afterlives are fairy tales..explicitly, demonstrably..and self-establishingly so.  Nothing that we will one day learn will ever confirm those fairy tales because they were simply wrong...even if we are also, meaningfully, wrong...about something..not that you have any suggestions as to what that might be.  

Ptolemy had a model of the universe. Earth in the middle, sun circles around etc. etc.-- Then came along Copernicus who debunked the Ptolemaic model. But here's the thing: Copernicus was wrong. He thought the sun was the center of the universe. It's not. He thought all the stars revolved around the sun. They don't. Certainty in the Copernican model is not the most reasonable position, nor is complete certainty in any position ever advisable. I'm sure we all appreciate what Copernicus clarified for us. But the fact is, certainty in his assertion that the stars revolve around the sun would have inhibited further discovery. Even in cases where we have very good information/evidence, we need to be willing to subject our conclusions (however well-founded they may be) to further scrutiny.

If you'd like to consider fairy tales as legitimate as investigation into our universe be my guest.  At least there's a universe to look at and be wrong about.   I fear that we're no longer being even remotely rational in the comparison, even if we feel that we're being generous and ecumenical with knowledge and certainty, or that such an approach has utility when dealing with the afflicted.

In instances in which there is anything, or more of anything, to learn, for any of the things you reference above to be relevant...as true as they may be, you'd have to establish that this thing we're talking about is in that set.  

I think it's counterproductive and a-rational, at best.

I don't think you let fairy tales in the tent merely by answering I don't know to certain overly ambitious questions.  From the outside death looks like rot and ruin.  From the inside .. should we ask Rik?  (Please God, no.)  Maybe it feels like falling into a black hole, an admittedly useless comparison but just packed full of suggestiveness.  But if anyone wants to say "but you don't know what happens after you die firsthand".  I'm happy to admit I haven't crossed that river yet.  Doesn't mean I attach any probability greater than zero to the likelihood of the xtian version.  And it isn't like my claim to know the unknowable will make the least impression on the relentlessly gullible.