Cynthia's and Lisa's comments to my last post led me to this question - is atheism a religion? I was raised a Roman Catholic, but I've been an atheist since I was 12 or 13. At the time, I was going through my confirmation and was also an altar boy (one thing about being an altar boy is that you become very familiar with the New Testament, much to the dismay of religious folks who have argued with me). This left me a lot of time to sit in church and think about religion. As I started thinking (true to that bumper sticker warning about "praying in schools and thinking in churches") and asking questions, my faith evaporated (if I ever did believe, it's hard to say what belief meant to me as a child). My anti-conversion (aversion?) was quick and clear.
I don't think atheism is a version of religion. Religions are based on an acceptance of things that can't be proven. Atheism is based on a refusal to accept anything that can't be proven. There are many different religions (okay, I'm stating the obvious) that have varying views of supreme beings, holy books, etc. But they are all alike in their reliance on faith. Atheism is unlike any religion in that it’s based on the scientific method. But the opinion that "atheism is just another religion" is something I hear a lot. I think there are two reasons for that.
One is the way religions compete with each other to win "mindshare". They evangelize to win converts and establish themselves as the "one true faith". Atheism, because it is a challenge to any religious doctrine, appears to be a religious contender, i.e. "if atheism challenges what my faith professes, it must be a competing religion". But there's no atheist church, there are no sacred atheist texts, there's no atheist creed (but I do think that oxymoron would be a good name for a rock band, The Atheist Creed :). One does not "join" atheism (religion comes from the Latin ligare: to bind or join), atheists remain apart.
The other reason religious people think atheism is a religion is because they think it takes faith to believe there is no God. I've often been told that, since I can't prove that there is no God, I must base my lack of belief on faith. Hence Atheism is a faith. The problem with that logic is that you can’t equate the proof of a negative with the proof of a positive. The scientific method isn't built on disproving negative claims (prove to me there are no UFOs, prove to me that astrology doesn't work), but instead on proving positive claims. Atheists don’t claim that there is no God, but rather don’t believe in God because there is no testable proof of his/her existence. Atheism is a lack of faith in the supernatural, not a faith in "no God".
So which is it for you – is atheism just another religion, or is it a way of thinking that is different from any religion? (and what about agnostics - confused, fence-straddlers, or just too nice to take a stand?)
8 comments:
To suggest that one may fear an "avowed atheist" as much as she fears an "avowed Christian fundamentalist" is not to say that one feels atheism is a religion. It's simply that to declare anything so assuredly in opposition to something else simply makes me a bit nervous.
I remember discussions in grad. school where some classmates felt that only a black man or woman could write authentically about the black experience; that no one other than a gay or lesbian could write about being gay.
Is this the case...?
Will we never have equal rights for homosexual couples, for instance, until we have an avowed anti-anti-gay in the White House...?
Hmmmm....
It all feels like religious fervor to me.
I'm not sure why atheists feel so put upon. They can marry in every state in the union. They can file a joint tax return if it suits them. They are allowed to adopt and foster kids. They aren't profiled to be stopped by the police.
My concern about the separation of church and state is that the governemt should not be involved in religion- any religion. For the government to be separate from religion is not to suggest that our government is atheist but that its doing what its business and staying out of what is not its domain.
There are many ways that the media is not doing its job in this election- not pursuing tough questions about foreign policy or healthcare are examples. It seems to me that they are focusing on softer issues like personalities and religion. Since reporting the news is a business, I think that they are giving their customers what they want to deal with and can digest. If you want to know more about substantive issues, there are many places that you can find that information. Asking the commercial media to provide that is like asking McDonalds to only serve health food. (these media comments may be piggy backing on a discussion that John and I had through email.)
This isn't exactly a direct answer to John's QOTD (question of the day) but addition musings.
My definition of religion is when someone uses the words "faith" or "belief". Modern religions use those words, and older, less chic religions have the word "superstition" applied -- but it is all the same thing. The one in vogue is "faith" and the old-fashioned one is "superstition." Same thing.
I think everyone is constantly beset with the tug and pull of what makes sense and is provable over what we are taught (brainwashed) as a child that we must be / believe. Converts from one religion to another are the perfect example. They feel the need to reject the original religion, but can't break free of the training that they must HAVE a religion -- so they shop around and choose another one that feels better. This is nothing but exchanging one product for another one in a different color.
The person who rejects his superstition (any religion) and feels safe and confident (not worried secretly that god will hunt him down eventually) is free of the brainwashing.
For most people the brainwashing is so total (been going on for thousands of years) and so useful (must easier to control your children and family or your governed population if you can threaten with unseen / unprovable) that they cannot accept any alternative. They can sometimes tolerate versions (Judaism vs Islam vs Christianity) but cannot entertain the idea that their "faith" is only a superstition. Hence the race to prove the One True Faith. You can't really believe in your superstition if it can be trumped by another superstition. (Proving, in my atheistic mind, that ALL superstition and ALL religion is equally vapid.)
So that brings me to my definition of atheism -- picture a red circle with a red slash across it "Superstition". I suppose it might require my "faith" that a vengeful god is not lying in wait for me around the next corner, that bad luck will not be directed at me by offended laws of nature. For a fledgling atheist, one just kicking the superstition habit, that might be a useful crutch. With time a more seasoned atheist would realize that, in fact, there ARE laws of nature and order, like gravity and math, and that they exist because they work, not because of a diety's whim.
To continue to rant just a bit -- I was listening to Mr Bush the other day -- He was in the middle East trying to rustle up some peace. He was asked if he thought there was a real chance of establishing an agreement before he left office. His reply -- "I have faith." That caught my ear. Faith? How about "I have knowledge." He knows nothing! He only believes things. THIS is the insidious, damaging, horrible mixing of religion with politics. He is not talking from his religion, but from his religion's instillation of acceptance of "belief" as equal to reality. So, when we talk about separating religion and politics, what we TRULY need are politicians willing to work from facts, not belief -- to work with reality, not superstition. But as I outlined above, most children are so thoroughly brainwashed into religious thinking that it pervades every decision they make, every move the make.
So, an avowed atheist would be someone who governs without the use of superstition / belief / faith. This would be really hard to do, because almost all of the governed are uncomfortable without faith. Most ordinary people govern their own lives using superstition and gut feelings to guide them -- very little effort to sort out fact from fairy tale.
And I'll add: Agnostics are wanna-be atheists who are still a little nervous about the god around the corner -- leaving their options open, just in case.
Hmm...I think what we have most to fear is lack of logic and lack of compassion. I think armed with those two things someone from any religion can govern a secular society fairly and wisely. I have actually met many people of the religious ilk who welcome the differences in human belief. That's the reality of the our species.
Cynthia's comment about conversion is interesting. I have always been fascinated by those that convert. I love C.S. Lewis and Graham Greene, both of whom I view as thinkers extraordinaire. How much of their conversions was their deep thought and how much was driven by the need for the comforting cloak of faith? I also agree with her visual depiction of atheism: the circle and line over the word superstition. That is perfect.
I also agree with Lisaj that to oppose something "so assuredly", something that, really, NObody knows is..well..not logical. (Which isn't to say that I don't trust my "intuition" that Jim and Tammy Faye were full of it.) But, as has been stated, neither is it logical to assume we know God's agenda and that He is most certainly pulling for our soldiers, church, football game, whatever. That's silly and presumptuous. I recently read for the first time Vonnegut's Sirens of Titan. I highly recommend it to anyone who thinks we have a purpose in life and to anyone with a sense of humor. I love that man!
I can't say I'm 100% atheist as powerful feelings of awe at the beauty of our world creep in from time to time, and I rather enjoy them (since usually I'm such a depressed cynic!) I don't think physics and god are mutually exclusive. I don't think the religious scholars are wasting their time, either. I think they grapple the issues of faith/non faith, secular/non-secular head on.
I just don't know and am fairly certain that I won't know in my lifetime, so honestly, I rarely devote much thought to it at this point in my life. I resent being called a fence-straddling coward however! My interest in keeping the door open is not one of assuring a comfy cloud after death...of not burning any bridges. If there is no afterlife, I'm fine with that, and if there is, I can't wait to see what it's like!
Meanwhile, the efforts of our politicians to stage some sort of alliance with the one, true God (who is conveniently invisible), is laughable (if it weren't so serious). Especially in light of the fact that cultures who govern by their religion (i.e. live and breathe their faith every day, not just one out of 7) measure the success of their society by the condition/treatment of their poor. If we're going to marry religion to politics, it's an all or nothing thing. So, now let's just choose a religion, and go get some blankets and soup for those homeless people...Tea anyone?
The above post also wasn't a direct answer to either of John's questions. So, succinctly: I don't trust the media anymore for a multitude of reasons, but I still consume it out of habit/necessity, and Atheism is not a religion.
Bring back the real media!!!!
~Polly
You're partially correct.
Religion is a belief in a higher order and is characterized by rituals and observances. So it does require faith (something that I think is all too often minimized by non-believers).
To then say that atheism is scientifically based is incorrect. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Period. It has nothing to do with adopting the scientific method as an alternative to faith. I'm sure there are some really dumb atheists out there who wouldn't know the scientific method from the rhythm method.
You can rightly say that atheism is a choice, just as religion is a choice.
I heard a Fresh Air interview tonight on the radio.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18429953
This is an interview between Terry Gross and the author of book called "God in the White House". The author traces the history of american politics and religion and has some very interesting things to say. For example, when Kennedy entered the White House, having quelled peoples' fears about his catholicism, this paved the way for George Romney's election as governor of Michigan, with not one question about his faith -- an acceptance Mitt, his son, does not enjoy now. The author notes that while Kennedy defused the public's worries about religion, Nixon brought it all raging back by tiring the people out with his terrible, immorale behavior. Right after him came Mr. Carter, the baptist preacher. He also talks about the organization of what is now the religious right. All very interesting to hear and Terry Gross is polite and gracious and intelligent, usual. Click the link and take a listen.
This is more in line with John's first post on this blog -- Tired of All the God Stuff -- but I thought it was interesting and I wasn't sure folks would see a new post on the old topic. So I put it here, too.
Post a Comment