Illuminati-R-Us

This is one that comes up from time to time at the boards I sometimes monitor. A typical polemic involves describing adherents to various religious systems as primitive, backward, stupid, etc., for believing in something/someone whose existence is not proven, and that things like science and logic compel one to be an atheist.

A standard rejoinder is that the non-existence of a deity is unprovable, so an affirmative disbelief in one is also a religion. One can find a response to this argument at this page.

A standard response is to note that if atheism is a religion, then "bald" is a hair color, and not collecting stamps is a hobby, not kicking a kitten is a form of animal abuse and so on. Another is to note that if the definition of religion was expanded enough to legitimately include atheism - say, by defining a religion as "any philosophy on life" - then practically everything in the world would be a religion, such as socio-economic policies or views on equality. (British law has come close to finding this in employment discrimination cases.)

So to answer the question of whether atheism is a religion, we need to have a definition of "religion". OK, that makes sense to me. So I went looking for one, and found one at this page.

Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

So if we accept this definition, which would not apply to atheism? The only one I see might be the requirement to be organised. But then, we have organisations like this one.

So have this and other such organisations turned atheism into a religion, by fulfilling the final requirement, that it be organised?

Мастер wrote:So to answer the question of whether atheism is a religion, we need to have a definition of "religion". OK, that makes sense to me. So I went looking for one, and found one at this page.

Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

So if we accept this definition, which would not apply to atheism?

I didn't know atheism was an organised set of beliefs! I thought the term 'a-theistic', meant 'without belief'. (I stand to be corrected in this as in all things)

Thinking about this a little further, I suppose that 'being without belief' might seem to be an incomprehensible concept to someone who can't function without belief. Therefore I could see the situation arising where those who believe seek to impose a definition, in terms of belief, on atheism as 'an organised system of beliefs about not believing etc...'

As for science, its about knowing, rather than believing. Knowing is a harder concept to grapple with than believing. 'Knowing' implies discarding imagination, and requires constant negotiation about the meaning of reality* (which is why simply believing is easier). Absolute knowledge is theoretically unattainable if we accept the hypothesis that things can't be proved, but rather they can only be disproved. And so the seed of disbelief is sown...

* this is because 'knowing' implies that there is a 'reality' which 'exists' independent of the imagination, ipso facto it is a reality which exists outside the existence of the individual, and therefore may be subject to interpretation which may vary between individuals, possibly giving rise to negotiation about the meaning of events in reality. The medium of that negotiation may be a cultural artefact such as language or art or music, but the syntax and semantics etc of that medium still may be subject to negotiation between individuals - hence cultures/languages may change over time and in different settings, depending on who is using those artefacts for the time being. I could prattle on like this for eternity...

I have not believed in god for many years, but I don;t call myself an atheist. Maybe i am the only one who feels this way, but I reserve the term "atheist" for someone who is adamant about it, someone who shouts THERE IS NO GOD when it comes up. For me it isn't a thing, I simply have no reason to believe in spooks. No reason either to be organized about it or to agree on anything with someone else. When you organize into groups, it may not be religion, but it is more than just an outlook.

tubeswell wrote:I thought the term 'a-theistic', meant 'without belief'. (I stand to be corrected in this as in all things)

I believe it more closely translates to "without gods".

Enzo wrote:I have not believed in god for many years, but I don;t call myself an atheist. Maybe i am the only one who feels this way, but I reserve the term "atheist" for someone who is adamant about it, someone who shouts THERE IS NO GOD when it comes up. For me it isn't a thing, I simply have no reason to believe in spooks. No reason either to be organized about it or to agree on anything with someone else. When you organize into groups, it may not be religion, but it is more than just an outlook.

Yeah. What he said.

Lance wrote:I believe it more closely translates to "without gods".

Wow, that site discusses different definitions of atheism, and even includes a Ven diagram!

It rather startled me to find that one is relatively frequently (even on job applications) asked one's religion around here. One of the standard options is usually "free thinker". Most recently, I had to answer this question when having some forms notarised, so they knew which variety of oath/affirmation to give me.

Just looked up the Wikipedia page for "free thinker", if this is really the definition, then I have never met one.

Lance wrote:

tubeswell wrote:I thought the term 'a-theistic', meant 'without belief'. (I stand to be corrected in this as in all things)

I believe it more closely translates to "without gods".

The definition on that site is .. 'the rejection of belief in the existence of deities', which precisely accords with what I was saying. (which is not to say that that site, or me, are infalliably correct)

Belief doesn't enter into it for me. I see no evidence for the existence of any gods, and do not see any requirement for the universe to have them in order to function. I don't think that's the same as believing that there's no such thing. I think that the use of such terminology is an attempt to couch the discussion in the terms of those who do believe in gods.

Lianachan wrote:Belief doesn't enter into it for me. I see no evidence for the existence of any gods, and do not see any requirement for the universe to have them in order to function. I don't think that's the same as believing that there's no such thing. I think that the use of such terminology is an attempt to couch the discussion in the terms of those who do believe in gods.

Amen ;-)

So, when we know something, do we stop believing in it?

MM_Dandy wrote:So, when we know something, do we stop believing in it?

I believe so )

tubeswell wrote:

MM_Dandy wrote:So, when we know something, do we stop believing in it?

I believe so )

That's a good question. Those who "believe" in the Easter Bunny "know" the Easter Bunny exists, however incorrect that knowledge may be.

I'm a cynical old bastard - I'm not sure I believe in anything.

Lianachan wrote:I'm a cynical old bastard - I'm not sure I believe in anything.

I don't believe you.

Right.



Precision versus accuracy?

Lance wrote:

tubeswell wrote:

MM_Dandy wrote:So, when we know something, do we stop believing in it?

I believe so )

That's a good question. Those who "believe" in the Easter Bunny "know" the Easter Bunny exists, however incorrect that knowledge may be.

And when they know the easter bunny isn't real, they stop believing in it.

I dispute the definiton of belif as "to hold something true even if there is no evidence for it" - I find that sather superficial. I prefer the definition given bei Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, a German physicist and philopher, who also happened to be a devout Proetstant Christian: To believe in something is to live the way you cannot help living if what you believe in is true. When my son was visited in nursing school by a body builder policeman jammed into a too-small red coat, wearing a red cap and a big fake beard, and giving out presents from a large bag, he didn't believe in Santa Claus because he checked yes on a questionnaire that asked "do you believe there is a Santa Claus?" He believed in Santa Claus because he treated the guy in the shabby costume AS Santa Claus.

With that definition, a lot of the overhyped "belief" controversies become even moot. Or mute?

I'm going a bit further to say that I think belief is being defined as "to hold something as true despite the lack of evidence to support it." A definition I would instead assign to faith. In other words, lack of evidence is necessary to actually believe something. Or, to put it yet another way, introducing supporting evidence for something means that that thing no longer qualifies to be believed. Rather, I hold that belief means "to hold something as true." No qualifiers - the basis for it is irrelevant.

But, getting back to the point - I, for one, am not going to insist that atheism is a religion. Even if I could somehow prove beyond all doubt that it were, it still wouldn't change atheists into theists.

MM_Dandy wrote:I'm going a bit further to say that I think belief is being defined as "to hold something as true despite the lack of evidence to support it." A definition I would instead assign to faith. In other words, lack of evidence is necessary to actually believe something. Or, to put it yet another way, introducing supporting evidence for something means that that thing no longer qualifies to be believed. Rather, I hold that belief means "to hold something as true." No qualifiers - the basis for it is irrelevant.

But, getting back to the point - I, for one, am not going to insist that atheism is a religion. Even if I could somehow prove beyond all doubt that it were, it still wouldn't change atheists into theists.

Amen