semantics, religionIs atheism a religion? Please give yes or no answers with arguments supporting your answer.
To be more precise, I’m looking for answers along the lines of stefano’s answer. As sirrocco has pointed out, looking at the definition, there is nothing to suggest that it should be a religion. However, since it is quite possible to be religious and atheist, this for example, how accurate is it to describe atheism (or particular kinds of adherence to atheism) as a religion, in practice?
Well the obvious answer is NO. And the most used analogy is : atheism is a religion the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I suppose the question you’re really asking is Do atheists take it on faith, that there is no god.
That depends on whether the question of its or their existence is a scientific hypothesis or not. Atheists take it on evidence that there is no god - or rather lack thereof.
Arguments for:
A scientific examination of this evidence will, to all impartial analysis, turn up no result. All evidence can be explained away so to speak, until there isn’t much left. It is therefore necessary to conclude that no evidence could be found, thus there is no god.
Arguments against:
It is therefore, with all the necessary scientific rigour, an unanswerable question. The good practices of science dictate that this question be answered negatively, until any evidence to the contrary turns up
This is examining the question of the existence of god, or gods, as a classical scientific hypothesis. Most often, historically, the question has been asked as a philosophical one. Which is a different thing altogether.
Philosophy provides many tools to answer this question, only one of which is Logic. It is obviously to be answered negatively using classical logical reasoning. But there are philosophical paths which can legitimately, following all of their rules and standards, answer it positively.
You will find, for example, that it makes perfect sense from a post modern relativistic point of view to suppose there may well be a god or gods. These discussions must be answered by questioning the validity of the methodology itself, instead of engaging in it’s style of discussion, the same goes the other way ‘round of course.
This is of course no proof, by definition. From a strict scientific point of view, there is no god until we get more evidence. This we don’t take on faith any more than gravity or evolution. We judge it by it’s observable effects. If there is no effect, there is no agent.
As you’ve updated your question, I’ll add this little bit:
If people regard your lack of religiosity as not being based on evidence - or as being based on unsubstantiated evidence, they must provide reasons for it. Otherwise, you needn’t take them seriously. You need not, as you may think at first, disprove their assertions.
One must be careful to keep in mind that one is refusing to accept an assertion, rather than making one.
In practice, arguments that lack of religious belief is based on faith often rely on misconceptions and fallacies about science.
Just one example:
The scientific principle of falsifiability must apply and if not answered, renders the question unscientific. Here’s the fallacy:
An unanswerable question is one that you can answer “any way you like”.
An argument employing this fallacy is easily contradicted. And I’ll assert that many of the “atheists are believers too”-arguments are employing it.
And here’s the logical proof to refute it:
if a question is unanswerable, it can (a) have no knowable answers or (b) have no answers
a: There is no way prove any answer, therefore the correctness of no answer can be established, therefore no answer is found to be correct,
b: There are no answers, therefore there are no right answers,
therefore every answer is to be considered wrong.
Or to put it in context, if we can’t know there is no god (which hasn’t been established here remember), we must assume there is no god, until further evidence is provided or the prerequisites to the question change.
Quite simply, no. Does one have a religion around one’s non-belief in unicorns? Unlikely. It seems the reason this question keeps cropping up is that atheism is (often) in opposition to religion and so many want to see it as offering a counter-religion in place of established ones.
In general I agree with sirocco. But I think it’s more subtle than that.
I believe very strongly in the world as-is, which is to say that I do my best to transform my mental model of the world to match the world as accurately as possible. When I find an inconsistency, I’m wrong, whether it’s my understanding or my senses - but I don’t allow my understanding to contradict the world. I don’t believe in science, but I do understand that it will tend to yield the best answer.
So I feel extremely strongly that the miracle of Life is that intricate complexity could arise from simple determinism, and that simply existing is enough to be proud of. I also feel I should make the best of the time I have, because that’s it.
You could call that feeling a religion. But if I was being cynical, I’d say that it’s based in observable fact and therefore not a religion.
But I’ll be going to Christmas mass in a few weeks. I’m not “not-Christian”, I’m just not religious.
Yes and no. It depends on the practitioner. I consider religion to be a fervent, illogical belief in a system.
Argument for YES
I would say that some people that take on the label of ‘atheist’ (intentional emphasis on the quotation marks) do so in direct opposition to a belief system that they grew up in, and take their non-belief to the same extremes that believers of the same system would take.
Argument for NO
Others take on the label of atheist (no quotes) because of a rational outlook on life. They realize the inherent good and bad in humanity and deal with it in a rational way, and not ‘pray’ it away.
I look at it in respect to sanity. I don’t think that I’m ‘going to hell’ because I refused to let my new-born son be mutilated in the name of god (circumcision). I don’t believe that I’m going to hell because I cheated on a test when I was in the third grade. I don’t think I am assured a place in heaven because I was an altar boy as a child. On the same note, I don’t believe I will go to heaven because of the good things I have done in my life.
I don’t believe in hell because it doesn’t exist. I don’t believe in heaven because it doesn’t exist. Heaven and hell are can be manifested just fine in this life. Who can afford to waste time thinking about the afterlife when this life is right in front of them?
In my opinion, atheism is rather a descriptor that describes a religion (or in many cases, a philosophy) then a religion itself, more akin to monotheism or polytheism in general.
There’s no definitive answer.
However, there are at least two different macro-groups of atheists:
activist atheists: people that actually believe that atheism is the right moral/civil/rational choice and actively promote it. In this case, it may sometimes evolve in a pseudo-religion thing
unconcerned atheists: people that just don’t believe in any kind of God and are uninterested with the question; in this case atheism is absolutely not a kind of religion
No.
People have different ideas about what the definition of "religion" is, however I do not believe that atheism (the lack of a belief in a deity) by itself, could reasonably be considered a religion.
I think Dictionary.com's definition is pretty good:
Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
So, does atheism fit the above definition?
Unlike religion, the definition of atheism is pretty clear cut: Atheism is the lack of a belief in a deity.
Obviously, atheists in the wild have a number of different beliefs about the universe. But all the word "atheist" tells you is that the person does not believe in a deity.
I think it is obvious that "non-belief in a deity" does not fit the above definition of religion.
It could be argued that atheism is a belief about the nature of the universe, specifically "there is no god". However, that cannot be enough to call it a religion - otherwise every other belief would be a religion too ("The earth orbits the sun", "It's cold here", "I like icecream" - all beliefs concerning the nature of the universe).
I'll buck the trend and argue that atheism is a religion, just one with no practices.
In one sense atheism is the belief that deities do not exist. This is a faith-based belief, just as the belief that deities do exist is faith-based (i.e. it can't be proven logically or scientifically, you simply place your faith in it being true). It would seem to take just as much faith to believe that God does exist as it does to believe that he doesn't.
If religion is in a general sense thought of as "a set of faith-based beliefs regarding the existence of deities and how to practice said beliefs", then atheism is a religion with no practices. There is the faith-based belief that there is no God, just as a Christian holds the faith-based belief that there is a God, but unlike the Christian the Atheist has no standard set of practices like going to church, praying, etc..
The definition I've sometimes heard used for atheism, that it is "the absence of belief that any deities exist", honestly sounds more like a description of agnosticism, or a sort of indifference to the possibility that deities exist. But belief in the assertion that "there is no God" would seem to me to be a belief based on faith, and thus a religion.
No. Atheism is a position held with respect to a proposition that God(s) exist, in which the atheist says, “I do not find evidence in support of your proposition and I will take no action in my life based ON that proposition being true.”
A religion accepts the proposition AND takes actions based on the proposition being true: worship, sacrifice, prayer, etc.
Atheism has no “authoritative texts. Atheism has no required practices, or proscribed activities. The desire by the religious to tar us with the CLAIM that atheism is a religion… so I guess we’re just as bad as they are in having “faith”??… is a gross example of projection.
I saw a good video on YouTube which has an answer to this question (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8)
The long and the short of it is that Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby - i.e. it isn't.
No, where is the dogma? I’m not sure why we even need a word for it. Do we need a word for not believing in flying pigs?
My answer is no. In my view, being religious is synonymous to believe in one or more gods.
Atheism is simply a word to describe a position of non belief.
If you take a generic definition of religion; “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects” then from that definition as a starting position, it could be developed into a religious belief system.
However if you take on a more specific definition like, “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
The the very foundations of what a religion is, “the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies” dictates the inability of atheism to be a religion or it’s belief systems developing into one. The foundation of which it would need to be created on is the main principle of contention.
Atheism is a religion if being healthy is a disease.
No. Is “unemployed” a profession? Of course not!
Do you consider being unemployed a job?
No? Then being atheist is not a religion.
I think it’s pretty clear that any group that has a concrete belief about the nature of god that is founded in absence of evidence is religious in nature. Indeed, you can even become ordained in the Church of Atheism, go to athiest gatherings and affirm your lack of belief in god, sing atheist songs, put annoying ads in public places.
What else would you call it?
I tend to argue both sides (because I enjoy it), and I’ve found that, for every atypically informed and cogent religious person, there is an equally uninformed and ignorant non-religious person, at which point it just boils down to “my team” vs “your team”, and the whole thing becomes tedious.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.