If you are in a burning building, and there is only one exit, is it not reasonable to have hope that there is safety on the other side? Would it not also be irrational to give up hope and stay in the building on the premise that we don’t know whats on the other side of the door?
We find ourselves in a world that generally has two existential possibilities regarding the human condition.
There is no meaningful significance, moral value, or purpose beyond what we imagine inside our heads, and ultimately when the human race dies our lives and what we imagined to achieve will amount to absolutely nothing.
Our existence and our actions really mean something, and has purpose, and our lives will not ultimately come to nothing but will become something greater than we can imagine.
Why would someone choose option 1 merely on the basis of not knowing? Is that a reasonable skepticism, or is it negative pessimism disguised as something reasonable?
Is it not reasonable to have hope in something greater rather than resign to oblivion in the absence of evidence?
It seems to me that option two is the very definition of being positive, and i venture to argue that it is more rational to have hope than to not have hope.