Radical Atheist

For those of you reading this is an RSS feedreader and for those who may not click over to the “About RA” tab, I would like to post the reason I created Radical Atheist; the reasoning behind the site and why I’m an atheist.

No one debates the reality that the vast majority of the world’s population are religious. But “vast majority” does not imply every single person is religious, nor does it validate religious belief. All that it indicates is that humans tend to fall rather easily into religious belief and do so by the millions.

That number does not include me.

My name is Jack Carlson. In my early 20s I enlisted in the U.S. Army and served proudly as a member of the Army Security Agency (376th ASA) assigned to Ft. Meade, Maryland as an intelligence analyst. Learning to analyze encrypted intelligence requires developing an attitude of skepticism and curiosity. You can’t believe what you see on the first examination, you have to dig deeper and deeper to uncover the real message.

That was over 30 years ago, but it began a life-long affinity for skepticism and curiosity. Before I enlisted I had been a devout Christian, like most people I knew. During my tour I began to apply skepticism and curiosity to my religious beliefs. Instead of simply blindly believing everything I was told, I began to dig deeper, trying to uncover the real message. What I discovered is what I share here on Radical Atheist.

Why “Radical Atheist”? That was inspired by an interview American Atheist conducted with Douglas Adams (author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy).

I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god – in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism – both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn’t belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don’t see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don’t believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn’t make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don’t know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it’s the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.

I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” – then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.

Throughout history people have invented gods. At first they were credited with all the good things that happened in a person’s life and blamed for all the bad things. Lightening, thunder, fire and death were all manifestations of mysterious gods. As time went on and humans acquired a better understanding of nature, science began to provide more sensible explanations for those things we used to attribute to the gods. As we enter the 21st century, there is no longer any need for a belief in gods. We don’t have answers to all our questions yet, some of our questions may never be answered to our complete satisfaction. But our knowledge has advanced sufficiently for us to know that nothing in nature requires belief in a supernatural force to explain it. Religion has been reduced to the role of gap-filling. If we don’t know something, rather than attempt to find a natural answer or accept that it’s an unknown at present, we fill the gaps in our knowledge with “god did it”. And since most religions teach that we cannot understand how their gods operate, we are then relieved of any further responsibility to pursue a natural understanding. God-of-gaps reasoning is intellectually dishonest. It’s an abandonment of our humanity.

While I’m not a professed anti-theist, I am hoping that humanity will not be shackled by religious belief for much longer. Religion in the modern world has only lead to divisiveness between the people of antagonistic beliefs, providing a “reason” for wars and hostilities. Religion has outlived its usefulness. It’s outdated and has now become a greater liability to civilization than an asset. I see no reason for modern man to retain beliefs more appropriate to nomadic herders thousands of years ago.

A life lived without any belief in the supernatural or gods is not immoral, bleak, pointless or pathetic. Atheists are just as happy, productive and decent citizens as anyone else. Our motivations may be different but the result is the same. We hold jobs, we have families, we are involved in our communities. We tend to be less visible than the religious simply because we don’t mention our motivation at every opportunity. We don’t support charities in the name of atheism. We don’t attend atheist meetings every Sunday or send 10% of our income to the atheist headquarters. In fact, there is no atheist headquarters, no dogma, no belief system. Atheism is a conclusion we have reached after examining the claims of religion and finding them unsupported by reality and therefore unbelievable. In rejecting the claims of the religious we do not suggest an alternative belief system. Each individual is free to develop their own purpose in life, to find their own reason for being here. Even those of us who do not believe there’s any reason for us being here can enjoy this life. Just because it’s pointless doesn’t mean it’s worthless.

I sincerely hope you enjoy reading Radical Atheist. If nothing else, I hope it causes you to question your own beliefs, to be skeptical and curious about life. Nothing worth believing should fear examination.

Print Friendly