Radical Atheist

Image by © ahmosher via Flickr

There are those people who fall asleep as soon as the plane is in the air and sleep through the entire flight.

These are believers. They ignore the process in favor of the results. They propose a conclusion, even proclaim it to be the only conclusion that’s acceptable, before submitting that conclusion to the same critical thought process most people apply to other aspects of their lives.

Then there are those of us who stay awake the entire flight, staring out the windows and watching the other passengers.

We are those to whom the process is the most fascinating part of reality. The end game, being inevitable, is uninteresting. It will unfold in its own way and time. No one knows for certain which philosophy will win out after we die. So we see little value on placing too much importance on that. Since we are alive now, in this time and place, in the body we inhabit, we might as well focus on the here-and-now. The present moment is the ultimate reality. We are only truly alive at the point in space-time when the future becomes the past. We can’t even measure that period of time it’s so short. We can only experience it. That’s what non-believers can enjoy, the experience of the moment. We find it because we are looking for it. When your focus is 500 feet down the trail you miss the universe under your feet.

Print Friendly

Image via Wikipedia

“Atheism” and “agnosticism” are both poorly understood terms. Gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge. Theism and atheism relate to belief.

Agnosticism, as defined by its creator, Thomas Henry Huxley, is similar to skepticism. It’s a means of examining reality that says, “show me”. Show me the evidence that leads to a certain conclusion, show me the process of getting from point A to point Z that supports the contention that point Z is true. Knowledge should be based on truth and truth claims should be examined skeptically/agnostically to judge their merit.

Atheism is a rejection of the beliefs of those who claim that there are or have been gods. We do not accept the explanations and substantiations offered by believers in support of their beliefs.

I am an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism is the tool I use to examine truth claims and atheism is the conclusion I’ve reached in the matter of belief in gods.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Accidental Agnostic (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Atheist Revolution (rwandanatheist.blogspot.com)
• Believing In Belief (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)

Print Friendly

To accept any brand of theism entails accepting certain assumptions as established fact. All religious belief systems have a creation story. It may be interpreted literally or figuratively, but the underlying assumption that the universe was created by a particular god must be accepted as literal truth and fact to be a member of any particular sect of religious belief.

In rejecting religious belief, atheists also dismiss the presumption that any god created the universe.

However, beyond implying the rejection of religious creation stories, atheism does not provide further guidance as to what to think about the manner in which the universe came in to being. Unlike the vast majority of religions, atheism isn’t a belief system. Atheism is a single point of disagreement with other people over the idea that it’s plausible that any particular god exists. There are many things that atheists believe and disbelieve. The fact we’re atheists only pertains to a single one of the disbeliefs.

Some atheists just don’t give a damn about philosophy or science. They could care less how we got here. They have lives to lead and no time for foolish speculation about things we can’t possibly know at this point in time. We tend to call folks like this practical and level headed.

Others of us are fascinated with understanding how everything works and what it all means. There are many names for us, one or two are complimentary. We follow the findings of scientists, philosophers and thinkers who enlighten us and increase our knowledge, which we expect to result in wisdom.

Accepting scientific explanations about life and the universe and philosophical musings on our place in nature are not obligatory. No atheist is obligated to agree with science. It’s an option, one of many that don’t entail believing in gods.

Scientific explanations of reality are incomplete and never absolute. Some people can’t tolerate a lack of absolutes, so they invent them then proclaim their inventions to be absolute. “It is because we say it is.” Not a convincing argument. My standards for belief and agreement are too high to be satisfied by religious belief. I was a theist, I’ve been there, I’ve walked that road in total sincerity and with unbridled passion for many years. Theism in general and Christianity in particular are not unknown to me. I’ve made their arguments and fought for their validity. I’m completely comfortable with dismissing them as irrelevant in the quest to understand nature on their own merits. Having scientific and philosophical explanations that hold together better and explain nature in terms that don’t require a suspension of good sense and skepticism is an added bonus. It’s nice to have but isn’t the reason for my rejection of belief in gods.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Berlinski on Atheism’s “Scientific Pretensions” (schansblog.blogspot.com)
• Shut Up, That’s Why (tuibguy.com)
• Atheist Revolution (rwandanatheist.blogspot.com)

Print Friendly