How did the Atheist cross the road…?

I am frustrated by articles in atheist magazines, blogs and forums in which proponents argue why they have their belief in a godless world.

As an atheist it needs to be clearer that this is not in my view, a belief per se, but more a way of ordering my steps.

I have no issue with those who believe in unsubstantiated systems that purport to define rationality to an environment.

My wider role is to inculcate the systems I use and if I can persuade others to use such systems.

I am not a total adherent of logic as logic assumes a known foundation and known interrelationships. As a tool to guide my reasoning it is useful.

To attempt to belittle irrational belief systems by applying logic is flawed and lazy, we must lead by example.

The best way to live is to base everything we do on gathered evidence, it would be even better to base our actions and behaviour on established reliable evidence.

I know by crossing a road on foot that should I use the crossing correctly I will be able to cross safely.

This however assumes a lot.

That the crossing rules will be obeyed by all players, that the technology used will function in the manner designed. That established theory on the physical attributes of mass backed up with established evidence is further validated.

We still do rely on belief to shape our behaviour and actions, whether we profess to be atheist or not, rational or irrational, open or closed-minded.

The fact is we are only aspiring to be rational and open-minded, the complexity of the world is so that to argue one possesses perfect knowledge and perfect decision making methodologies is to betray ones ignorance or desire for safety.

We do not know how the world is; we have a set of theories that have been established through evidence and so experience. We do not all perceive even the most familiar things the same. We do not all see colours the same way. To be fully rational then is an aspiration.

What we do know however is that as far as decision making methodologies go, it is far better to be aspiring towards rationality in a seemingly irrational environment than to believe, that is to accept as evidence, a system that states its theories show the rationality of said environment.

A system that is unable to provide reliable evidence of relationships and structure.

A system that asks you to believe its tenants are true.

A system that sometimes commands you to believe it is true so that you state openly that you now know how the environment is rational.

A credible system, which is based on creed, not objectivity.

I am aware of my perceptive abilities to a small degree; I am unaware of my unperceived perceptive abilities.

I am aware of my ability to grasp the meaning required of the words “objective” “rational” but am unaware of how others perceive them.

I know that given established rules if I cross the road at a given point, using the technology provided and assuming the rationality of all other actors, I will not be hit by a vehicle.

I do not analyse the outcome of my transaction and determine that a higher being has deemed it appropriate that I arrive safely on the other side. I do not determine if hit by a vehicle that a higher being has deemed that appropriate.

As a rational thinker, I know that there is no safety even after I cross the road, I know that all actors are not rational, or see reason the same way and may have themselves other reasons to affect their behaviour. I know that technology fails and so does perception. I know there are many other objects that could hit me instead of or aswell as a vehicle.

I know that a living entity exists as is and does not come in degrees of perfection so that one can be described as higher. I do not have a sustainable definition of “perfection”

Thanks to established evidence, learnt mechanisms to make rational decisions, an awareness of my own irrational prejudices, and knowledge of the volatility of our living environment, I can step off the kerb and believe I will make it to the other side conscious.