Is Atheism a Religion?

[Burning Petard]

Major Meade, I don't know about your sources. My sources are limited by my basic monolingualism. I have to evaluate for myself the agenda and reliability and accuracy of others who can read the Latin of Calvin or Augustine, or the Hebrew of the TANAKH I don't think there are any extant manuscripts of Corinthians contemporary with when the letter was written. Many claim to have had personal experience with Jesus. I give higher value to the understandings of Jesus' teachings from Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who made no such claim of personal experience) than to the understandings of Oral Roberts who did. Roberts died wearing Italian suits and gold bracelets in Newport Beach California. Bonhoeffer died naked on a scaffold in Flossenburg Germany.

snailgate

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yeah, me too - limitations all around. Afraid that it's various English translations of the scriptures for me, some of which I prefer for attempting to translate what's actually there in Hebrew and Greek rather than jazzing it up to emphasize "what they meant to say". That's the claim anyway. Almost everyone must rely on experts, eh?

I consider neither Bonhoeffer nor Jimmy Braggart nor Oral Roberts etc. as any kind of source. Although the understanding of the first-named is to be admired and enjoyed while the last two and their ilk are rejected out of hand.

[RayThom]

Limitations or personal interpretation? That's the cool thing about the bible -- it means what you want/need it to mean.

Biblical hermeneutics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics

[MajGenl.Meade]

To a degree, Ray. However, there is a limit to interpretation - it would be difficult to find in, say, the letter to the Romans that Paul advocates the wholesale slaughter of catfish.

The problem with interpretation has always been the issue of application.



But your comment equally applies to the study of history - pick your scholar and decide if past events happened as he or she has written and mean what he or she has concluded. It's also "the cool thing" about news. . .

[RayThom]

... But your comment equally applies to the study of history - pick your scholar and decide if past events happened as he or she has written and mean what he or she has concluded. It's also "the cool thing" about news...

No argument there. History ALWAYS goes to its best writers.

[Scooter]

Is Atheism a Belief?

One of the most common accusations aimed at atheists is that atheism is an article of faith, a belief just like religion.

Is atheism a belief?

No.

I really wish I could just leave it at that. Maybe post a funny story about Einstein instead, or show you some cute pictures of our cats.

But I suppose I can't just leave it at that.

Here's the thing. One of the most common accusations aimed at atheists is that atheism is an article of faith, a belief just like religion. Because atheism can't be proven with absolute 100-percent certainty, the accusation goes, therefore not believing in God means taking a leap of faith -- a leap of faith that's every bit as irrational and unjustified as religion.

It's a little odd to have this accusation hurled in such an accusatory manner by people who supposedly respect and value faith. But that's a puzzle for another time. Today, I want to talk about a different puzzle -- the puzzle of what atheism really is, and how it gets so misunderstood.

Let's start with this right off the bat: No, atheism is not a belief. For me, and for the overwhelming majority of atheists I know, atheism is not the a priori assumption that there is no God. Our atheism is not an article of faith, adhered to regardless of what evidence does or does not support it. Our atheism is not the absolute, 100 percent, unshakable certainty that there is no God.

For me, and for the overwhelming majority of atheists I know, our atheism is a provisional conclusion, based on careful reasoning and on the best available evidence we have. Our atheism is the conclusion that the God hypothesis is unsupported by any good evidence, and that unless we see better evidence, we're going to assume that God does not exist. If we see better evidence, we'll change our minds.

Look at it this way. Are you 100-percent certain that there are no unicorns? Are you 100-percent certain that the Earth is round? I assume the answer is a pretty heartfelt, "No." I assume you accept that it's hypothetically possible, however improbable, that unicorns really exist and that all physical traces of them have disappeared by magic. I assume you accept that it's hypothetically possible, however improbable, that the Earth really is a flat disc carried on the back of a giant turtle, and that all evidence to the contrary has been planted in our brains by hyper-intelligent space aliens as some sort of cosmic prank.

Does that mean your conclusions -- the "no unicorns/ round Earth" conclusions -- are articles of faith?

No. Of course not.

Your conclusion that there are no unicorns on this round Earth of ours is based on careful reasoning and the best available evidence you have. If you saw better evidence -- if there were a discovery of unicorns on a remote island of Madagascar, if you saw an article in the Times about an astonishing but well-substantiated archeological find of unicorn fossils -- you'd change your mind.

And that's the deal with atheism. If atheism is a belief, then any conclusion we can't be 100-percent certain of is a belief. And that's not a very useful definition of the word "belief." With the exception of certain mathematical and logic conclusions (along the lines of "if A and B are true, then C is true"), we don't know anything with 100-percent certainty. But we can still make reasonable conclusions about what is and is not likely to be true. We can still sift through our ideas, and test them, and make reasonable conclusions about how likely or unlikely they are. And those conclusions are not beliefs. If that's how you're defining belief, then just about everything we know is a belief.

Religious belief, on the other hand, is a belief. If you ask most religious believers, "What would convince you that your belief was mistaken? What would convince you that God does not exist?", they typically reply, "Nothing. I have faith in my God. Nothing would persuade me that he was not real. That's what it means to have faith." This isn't true of all believers -- some will say that their religious belief is based on evidence and reason and could be falsified -- but when you press them hard on what evidence would persuade them out of their belief, they get very slippery indeed. They keep moving the goalposts again and again, or they keep changing their definitions of God to the point where he's so abstract he essentially can't be disproven, or they make their standards of evidence so impossible that they're laughably absurd. ("Come up with an alternate explanation for the existence of every single physical particle in the universe. Everything -- down to the minutest sub-atomic particle known or surmised presently, to everything yet to be discovered in the future -- must be accounted for up-front each with its own individual explanation." I'm not kidding. Someone actually said that.) Their belief might be falsifiable in theory... but in practice, it's anything but. In practice, it's an a priori assumption, an axiom they start with and are not willing to let go of, no matter how much overwhelming evidence there is contradicting it, or how many logical pretzels their axiom forces them into.

And that's conspicuously not the case for atheism.

Now, a few atheists will contradict this. A few atheists do say, "Yes, I'm 100-percent persuaded that atheism is correct." But when you press them on it, they almost always acknowledge that yes, hypothetically, there might be some God hypothesis that's correct. Even if it's not a God hypothesis that anyone actually believes in, or even if it's only the most detached, deistic, non-interventionist, "for all practical purposes non-existent" God you can think of... when pressed, even the ardent "100-percenters" acknowledge that there's a minuscule, entirely hypothetical possibility that God exists. When they say they're 100 percent convinced of their atheism, they mean that they're 100 percent convinced for all practical purposes, given the best information they currently have.

And that's still a conclusion -- not a belief.

So is atheism a belief?

No.

[Joe Guy]

Merriam-Webster defines atheism as

a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

[datsunaholic]

Interesting wordplay but it doesn't make a point. Semantics. Conclusion, Belief, Faith... except that a belief can be either a conclusion or a faith, or even a little of both. Still a belief.

I BELIEVE the Earth is round. Not by faith, but by evidence. i BELIEVE in evolution, for the same reason. I DO NOT believe in Unicorns. There is no evidence that they exist outside of fantasy. But I do believe in Woolly Mammoths and Dinosaurs. Because of evidence. I don't believe in Secthaniodizxs. Because I just made that up. Did 6th century Anglo-Saxons believe in Kangaroos? No, but they also didn't "not believe" in Kangaroos either, because they'd never heard of them.

Atheists, on the other hand, HAVE heard of the concept of God or gods and have CHOSEN not to believe in them. A person who has never heard of religion in any form, is not, by definition, an atheist.

This isn't a great analogy, but imagine a person, blind from birth, asked what their favorite color is. They've never been told what colors are or what the difference is. So they won't HAVE a favorite color. But now if someone was to describe those colors to the blind person in a way the blind person could understand. Perhaps the blind person would now have a favorite color? But it's based solely on the descriptions given by someone else and is colored by that persons own color perception and opinions. Or, that blind person could still, even after being given descriptions, say, I still don't have a favorite color. At that point it's a choice. Before, it was not.

With an Atheist, there was a point, or multiple points, in their life where they had to choose between believing and not believing in a god. The choice made it a belief. That still doesn't make it a religion- preaching and attempting to convince other people that your point of view is correct and theirs is not in the context of religion IS a religion. Doesn't have to be organized.

[Scooter]

Merriam-Webster defines atheism as

a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Dictionary definitions can be either normative (how a word should be defined) or descriptive (how a word is defined by some users). Obviously if a significant number of theists choose to reinforce their own prejudices by viewing atheism as a religion, that will be reflected in dictionary definitions.

[Crackpot]

Athiesm became a religion once adherents started proselytising.

[Scooter]

So what does that mean, exactly? Because it could be interpreted as atheism is not a religion so long as atheists remain closeted about it, but as soon as they come out...

[Crackpot]

Look the word up. That should clear it up for you.

[Scooter]

I know what the word means, and I also know that people choose to apply the word to the positions/actions taken by atheists in ways that bear an eerie similarity to the claims that gays were attempting to "recruit" others merely by living their lives openly and unapologetically, and encouraging others to do the same.

I also have a problem with the concept that, because some atheists might choose to proselytize, that that makes all atheists a part of a religion.

[Sue U]

Merriam-Webster defines atheism as

a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

The definition doesn't even purport to characterize atheism as a religion; it is a "religious position" in that it has a position on the religious question regarding the existence of a supernatural deity (i.e., there isn't one, or at least there doesn't appear to be one).

Atheism is no more a religion than physics is a religion. Do you "believe in" subatomic particles or string theory or gravitational waves?

Atheism is not a belief system, but its diametric opposite: the absence of a belief system. The "semantic" problem is that it is defined by reference to theism, or religious belief generally, which effectively positions the issue as one of "comparative religions," regardless of how useless that approach may be.

[Econoline]

Exactly, Sue. Calling atheism a "religion" makes just about as much sense as saying that non-Hinduism is a "religion" practiced by everyone who doesn't believe in the Hindu gods and goddesses.




Tangentially, I'm reminded of a quote from Philip Pullman (author of the His Dark Materials trilogy): “Although I call myself an atheist, I am a Church of England atheist, and a 1662 Book of Common Prayer atheist, because that’s the tradition I was brought up in and I cannot escape those early influences.”

[Long Run]

Atheists share many qualities with those who are religious, including never being lumped in with the latitudinarians.

[RayThom]

Atheists share many qualities with those who are religious, including never being lumped in with the latitudinarians..."

Oh, God, can't we all just get along? Let's discuss this after Judgement Day.


Amen.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Tangentially, I'm reminded of a quote from Philip Pullman (author of the His Dark Materials trilogy): “Although I call myself an atheist, I am a Church of England atheist, and a 1662 Book of Common Prayer atheist, because that’s the tradition I was brought up in and I cannot escape those early influences.”

I know what he means. I was at Lucky's Market this morning because they have $1.50 off gluten-free bread; sale ends today and I wanted to stock up the freezer. Back home I said proudly to my wife: "I got five loaves of bread." "Good," she said. "Did you get two small fishes as well? "

I had to laugh. I cannot escape those early influences.

[rubato]

Limitations or personal interpretation? That's the cool thing about the bible -- it means what you want/need it to mean.

Biblical hermeneutics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics

back up on your wall, Mr Dumpty.


yrs,
rubato