Is Atheism a Religion?

[Epistemologist]

Atheism is a religious belief according to what John Dewey writes; that seems like a reasonable claim. Many, however, would say that it's not a religion per se because it is not defined in terms of a specific culture. Some, would say, in fact, that atheism represents the anti-culture.

I disagree to some degree, though. I think that strong atheism i.e. active disbelief in God, by its extrinsic nature forces its believers into a culture. No, they may not have the same physical characteristics. No, they may not have what we call ceremonies and rituals. And no, they might not have explicit moral and aesthetic establishments. But they experience solidarity and have common fundamental interests. I'm assuming that that atheistic believers take their belief as a inherent fiber of their being, regardless of whether or not they're gnostic or agnostic.

Is atheism a religion? Please explain your criteria as well and perhaps people who wrote about things like these e.g. Dewey, George Santayana, etc.

I know we won't be able to definitely answer this question, but let's discuss it in a friendly fashion. By that token, I urge us not to debate whether atheism or theism is right, because I think that's rather futile and only increases hostile tensions. Let's be cool at least in this thread.

[Jack]

But they experience solidarity and have common fundamental interests.

So do dog fanciers. Are breed clubs religions as well?
Atheists do experience solidarity on the single issue of belief in a diety, and have that as a single, common interest. Beyond our disbelief, there is no other point of view that we necessarly agree with as atheists.

This debate seems fairly recent in origin. I wonder why now, after many years of outspoken atheism in this country, there are those proposing we call a lack of faith a religion. Could it be that the theists want to put us on common ground with themselves so as to better defeat the logic of athesim by calling it "just another religion".

What might help is if we first agree upon a definition of what constitutes a religion. The points you raised, I agree, we fail to observe (ceremonies, rituals, a core credo that all atheists accept as the ultimate truth, etc.)

[Kamehameha34]

Is someone who isn't in a club an anti-club club member? :confused:

[ghost_stalker]

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was especially funny =D

According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the Mensa Magazine in 2002, there seems to be an inverse correlation between intelligence and religious belief. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell finds that all but four reported such a connection, concluding that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind." A survey published in Nature confirms that belief in a personal god or afterlife is at an all time low among the members of the National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of which believed in a personal god as compared to more than 85% of the US general population.[69]

So if you are religious, statistically you are probably stupid.

[Blef]

Personally I think that most people do not regard atheism as a religion, but as the lack of religious belief. That's not a supportable assertion, it's just my sense of the matter built up over a lifetime of hearing atheists reviled as godless heathens, etc. I've been an atheist since I was 13, and I have never regarded myself as religious in all that time since.

It's necessary to define the term religion in order to answer your question. I don't have a ready definition to hand since religious beliefs are not something I care much about, so I'll borrow one I found. It seems good enough to me. You may use a different definition than I do. Here's the one I'm adopting for purposes of this discussion.

From Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religion is the adherence to codified beliefs and rituals that (generally) involve a faith in a spiritual nature and a study of inherited ancestral traditions, knowledge and wisdom related to understanding human life. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to faith as well as to the larger shared systems of belief.

and

Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy.

Notice that these definitions of religion are general. They don't even stipulate belief in the existence of gods, which is something that I think most people do associate with religion. Since atheism literally means without belief in gods, it is clearly not a religion if your definition of religion stipulates belief in the existence of gods.

But even by the general definitions that don't mention gods, atheism is clearly not a religion because it doesn't require adherence to anything (codified beliefs and rituals), nor does it hold anything to be sacred or holy.

So no, atheism is not a religion. It's not even in the same class. It is merely the lack of belief in gods, or the active belief that gods don't exist. In any case, the single-issue conceptual simplicity of atheism comes nowhere near the complexity of the concept of religion.

Did you mean to ask if humanism was a religion?

[johnsonwood]

Atheism is a form of theology in that theology has to do with one's relationship with a god or gods. That explanation doesn't rule out atheism as a theology.
Atheism is not a religion because religions require worship, worship of the stones of the field or the trees in a forest or of some all-powerful but invisible god invented by primitive people thousands of years ago, whereas atheists do not worship.

[Jack]

Atheism is a form of theology in that theology has to do with one's relationship with a god or gods. That explanation doesn't rule out atheism as a theology.

"The study of the nature of God. The study of religion, and religious beliefs. (Greek theo-logia: god-treating of)."
Glossary
Theology presumes the existence of god(s). Since atheism rejects the existence of god(s), how would atheism qualify as theology? You won't learn a thing about god(s) by studying atheism.

[Cephus]

Quote by: ghost_stalker According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the Mensa Magazine in 2002, there seems to be an inverse correlation between intelligence and religious belief.

It isn't just that one study, it's literally dozens of them done over the last hundred years or so. There is a clear inverse correlation between intelligence and religious belief, especially fundamentalist religious belief.

That's not to say that theists are stupid, just that as one's intelligence rises, one has less of a need to turn to the supernatural.

[The Architect]

Atheism is the state of disbelief or non-belief in the existence of a deity or deities. It is commonly defined as the positive denial of theism (i.e., the assertion that deities do not exist), or the deliberate rejection of theism.
- The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to faith as well as to the larger shared systems of belief.So Atheism is a relgion, just not one with spiritual rituals.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Isherwood This debate seems fairly recent in origin. I wonder why now, after many years of outspoken atheism in this country, there are those proposing we call a lack of faith a religion. Could it be that the theists want to put us on common ground with themselves so as to better defeat the logic of athesim by calling it "just another religion".

No, keep in mind that we're talking about strong atheists here i.e. ones who actively believe that there is no God. We're not talking about weak atheists i.e. those who don't even have a conception of God e.g. people on some isolated island. So, there isn't lack of faith here; on the contrary, strong atheists have at least some faith in their beliefs regardless of how much reasonings, proofs, and evidence they have to support them. Keep in mind that there is no such thing as absolute evidence. And as for the dog training example, I seriously doubt that dealing dogs is an inherent fiber of one's being.

In his Religion versus the Religious, John Dewey describes religious experience and, through the reasoning presented in some excerpts, implies that atheism qualifies as a religious belief:

Quote by: John Dewey The actual religious quality in the experience described is the effect produced, the better adjustment in life and its conditions, not the manner and cause of its production. The way in which the experience operated, its function, determines its religious value. If the reorientation actually occurs, it, and the sense of security and stability accompanying it, are forces on their own account. It takes place in different persons in a multitude of ways. It is sometimes brought about by devotion to a cause; sometimes by a passage of poetry that opens a new perspective; sometimes as was the case with Spinoza -- deemed an atheist in his day -- through philosophical reflection.

Quote by: John Dewey The connection between imagination and the harmonizing of the self is closer than is usually thought. The idea of a whole, whether of the whole personal being or of the world, is an imaginative, not a literal, idea. The limited world of our observation and reflection becomes the Universe only through imaginative extension. It cannot be apprehended in knowledge nor realized in reflection. Neither observation, thought, nor practical activity can attain that complete unification of the self which is called a whole. The whole self is an ideal, an imaginative projection. Hence the idea of a thoroughgoing and deep-seated harmonizing of the self with the Universe (as a name for the totality of conditions with which the self is connected) operates only through imagination -- which is one reason why this composing of the self is not voluntary in the sense of an act of special volition or resolution. An "adjustment" possesses the will rather than is its express product. Religionists have been right in thinking of it as an influx from sources beyond conscious deliberation and purpose -- a fact that helps explain, psychologically, why it has so generally been attributed to a supernatural source and that, perhaps, throws some light upon the reference of it by William James to unconscious factors. And it is pertinent to note that the unification of the self throughout the ceaseless flux of what it does, suffers, and achieves, cannot be attained in terms of itself. The self is always directed toward something beyond itself and so its own unification depends upon the idea of the integration of the shifting scenes of the world into that imaginative totality we call the Universe.

Quote by: John Dewey All religions, marked by elevated ideal quality, have dwelt upon the power of religion to introduce perspective into the piecemeal and shifting episodes of existence. Here too we need to reverse the ordinary statement and say that whatever introduces genuine perspective is religious, not that religion is something that introduces it. There can be no doubt (referring to the second element of the definition) of our dependence upon forces beyond our control. Primitive man was so impotent in the face of these forces that, especially in an unfavorable natural environment, fear became a dominant attitude, and, as the old saying goes, fear created the gods. With increase of mechanisms of control, the element of fear has, relatively speaking, subsided. Some optimistic souls have even concluded that the forces about us are on the whole essentially benign. But every crisis, whether of the individual or of the community, reminds man of the precarious and partial nature of the control he exercises. When man, individually and collectively, has done his uttermost, conditions that at different times and places have given rise to the ideas of Fate and Fortune, of Chance and Providence, remain. It is the part of manliness to insist upon the capacity of mankind to strive to direct natural and social forces to humane ends. But unqualified absolutistic statements about the omnipotence of such endeavors reflect egoism rather than intelligent courage.

Quote by: John Dewey Any activity pursued in behalf of an ideal end against obstacles and in spite of threats of personal loss because of conviction of its general and enduring value is religious in quality.

It should also do us well for me to quote atheist George Santayana from his How Religion May Be an Embodiment of Reason:

Quote by: George Santayana What is the secret of this ineptitude? Why does religion, so near to rationality in its purpose, fall so far short of it in its texture and in its results? The answer is easy: Religion pursues, rationality through the imagination. When it explains events or assigns causes, it gives imaginative substitute for science. When it gives; precepts, insinuates ideals, or remoulds aspiration, it is an imaginative substitute for wisdom—I mean for the deliberate and impartial pursuit of all good. The conditions and the aims of life are both represented in religion poetically, but this poetry tends to arrogate to itself literal truth and moral authority, neither of which it possesses. Hence the depth and importance of religion become intelligible no less than its contradictions and practical disasters. Its object is the same as that of reason, but its method is to proceed by intuition and by unchecked poetical conceits. These are repeated and vulgarised in proportion to their original fineness and significance, till they pass for reports of objective truth and come to constitute a world of faith, superposed upon the world of experience and regarded as materially enveloping it, if not in space at least in time and in existence. The only truth of religion comes from its interpretation of life, from its symbolic rendering of that moral, experience which it springs out of and which it seeks to elucidate. Its falsehood comes from the insidious misunderstanding which clings to it, to the effect that these poetic conceptions are not merely representations of experience as it is or should be, but are rather information about experience or reality elsewhere—an experience and reality which, strangely enough, supply just the defects betrayed by reality and experience here.

Although he doesn't really think atheism should qualify as a religion, and I don't agree with many of his points, he shines some light on religion. He later goes on to say that religion supplies a relatively essential moral and aesthetic societal framework

Dewey comments on Santayana's opinion:

Quote by: John Dewey Mr. Santayana has connected the religious quality of experience with the imaginative, as that is expressed in poetry. "Religion and poetry," he says, "are identical in essence, and differ merely in the way in which they are attached to practical affairs. Poetry is called religion when it intervenes in life, and religion, when it merely supervenes upon life, is seen to be nothing but poetry." The difference between intervening in and supervening upon is as important as is the identity set forth. Imagination may play upon life or it may enter profoundly into it. As Mr. Santayana puts it, "poetry has a universal and a moral function," for "its highest power lies in its relevance to the ideals and purposes of life." Except as it intervenes, "all observation is observation of brute fact, all discipline is mere repression, until these facts digested and this discipline embodied in humane impulses become the starting-point for a creative movement of the imagination, the firm basis for ideal constructions in society, religion, and art."

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Is someone who isn't in a club an anti-club club member? :confused:

Well, every member of a club is an anti-club member for other clubs, because they're fundamental enemies. Nonetheless, strong atheism relies on a belief just as theism relies on a belief, and each forms its own club of believers in a sense.

Quote by: ghost_stalker So if you are religious, statistically you are probably stupid.

I seriously question those statistics.

As a side note, perhaps I should give some excerpts of William James and William Clifford, since they provide relevant insight. Also, maybe I should also show a relevant philosophy paper. Then again, I wonder if these quotes are awfully exhausting, although they provide valuable insight. Thus, I'll keep it small for now.

[RickSp]

I could care less about Dewey's sweeping semiology. Theism is religion. A-theism is non-theism. It is not a religion.

The suggestion that imagination, strong beliefs, or even a well defined sense of self must somehow be "religious" is fatuous bunk, at best.

[Jack]

strong atheists have at least some faith in their beliefs

If we use the religious concept of faith; "the acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason", then it would be inaccurate to say that we have faith as the basis of our point of view. POV, attitude or opinion would be more accurate terms to use to describe our views. Without evidence of god(s), we refuse to accept the notion. Many people do not believe in the Loch Ness Monster. I don't hear anyone suggesting that not believing in the Loch Ness Monster constitutes a separate belief system based on not believing.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: RickSp I could care less about Dewey's sweeping semiology. Theism is religion. A-theism is non-theism. It is not a religion. The suggestion that imagination, strong beliefs, or even a well defined sense of self must somehow be "religious" is fatuous bunk, at best.

Don't play with words here. That's equivocation, I think. Theism per se is not a religion. It's represented in many religions. And atheism does represent a religious belief, because you believe there is no God. However, we've come to question of whether or not it's a religion. Also, I think what these philosopher have to say is much more credible than your unwarranted claims.

Keep in mind:

Quote by: John Dewey It is the part of manliness to insist upon the capacity of mankind to strive to direct natural and social forces to humane ends. But unqualified absolutistic statements about the omnipotence of such endeavors reflect egoism rather than intelligent courage.

[Blef]

Quote by: The Architect Atheism is the state of disbelief or non-belief in the existence of a deity or deities. It is commonly defined as the positive denial of theism (i.e., the assertion that deities do not exist), or the deliberate rejection of theism. - The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to faith as well as to the larger shared systems of belief.So Atheism is a relgion, just not one with spiritual rituals.

Limiting myself to comments regarding strong atheism, since that is what Epistemologist stipulated:

Atheists don't share a system of belief. They have in common that they don't believe that gods exist. Aside from that, they hold many different world views. There is no system of dogma, ritual, rites, affirmations, prayers, spells, or chants practiced by atheists as part of their daily lives. They don't publish commandments or rules or insist that others follow them. They don't have elders or governing bodies or councils, nor do they issue edicts to any "followers". Atheists are individual in their lives and existence and don't have congregations or followers. There is no atheist catechism, no atheist "bible". Like any group of like-minded individuals, they may get together for camaraderie and education and to organize themselves in defense against theists who want to push a theist agenda on everyone else, but they don't "fellowship in the service of non-belief".

It is only a few theists I've ever heard propose that atheism is a religion. Other non-theist followers of what could reasonably be called religion under the definitions proposed here (e.g., Buddhists), do not seem to make that claim. Why is it that some theists like to claim that atheism is a religion? What do you get out of that?

Ask your church elders and pastors and other keepers of your faith and dogma. Do they consider atheism a religion? I rather doubt it, and I think it is high time that those of you theists who have strayed and have started spreading this heresy listen to your popes and priests and go align yourselves back with your official dogma.

[Jack]

And atheism does represent a religious belief, because you believe there is no God.

To say we believe there is no god would suppose that gods were possible in the first place. We don't reject something shown to exist. We refuse to believe in a fancy that no one has been able to produce any evidence for.

I don't believe there's life on Mars. Show me evidence and I'll change my position. The same with god. Until you can show me a reason to believe, I'll remain an non-believer, and solidly so since the lack of evidence is well documented. There are many fantastic claims I don't accept as rational or realistic. My lack of belief does not constitute a religion in regard to any of those claims.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Isherwood If we use the religious concept of faith; "the acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason", then it would be inaccurate to say that we have faith as the basis of our point of view. POV, attitude or opinion would be more accurate terms to use to describe our views. Without evidence of god(s), we refuse to accept the notion. Many people do not believe in the Loch Ness Monster. I don't hear anyone suggesting that not believing in the Loch Ness Monster constitutes a separate belief system based on not believing.

Well, if we say that atheists are skeptics to some degree, then it is prudent for me to allude to William James:

Quote by: William James Skepticism, then, is not avoidance of option; it is option of a certain particular kind of risk. Better risk loss of truth than chance of error – that is your faith-vetoer’s exact position. He is actively playing his stake as much as the believer is; he is backing the field against the religious hypothesis, just as the believer is backing the religious hypothesis against the field. To preach skepticism as a duty until “sufficient evidence” for religion be found, is tantamount therefore to telling us, when in presence of the religious hypothesis, that to yield to our hope that it may be its being error is wiser and better than to yield to our hope that it may be true. It is not intellect against all passions, then; it is only intellect with one passion laying down its law.

Skepticism by its very nature is simply a faith-based pseudo-alternative to faith-based belief, if that makes sense.

As for the Loch Ness monster, there should actually be three categories of believers/non-believers. One category is believers and another category is strong non-believers, who actively say there is no monster; they actually rely on the belief in the non-existence of the monster. There is a third category, though, of weak non-believers, who have no conception of the monster. They've never heard of it; small children and other isolated individuals would perhaps fit this category. But as for fundamental belief systems, though, I don't think belief/non-belief in the Loch Ness monster is a fundamental thing for many people; I doubt, for instance, that their afterlife is at stake based on the monster.

[Jack]

Skepticism allows for the object of our skepticism to be true, though we may not know it yet. This is not true in the case of god(s). There is no reason to suppose that gods are real, there is no need for gods, no credible evidence has ever been presented for the existence of gods. For those reasons I dismiss the possibility of gods. It's a belief system that requires faith, or belief despite the lack of evidence. I see that as unnecessary.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Epistemologist Don't play with words here. That's equivocation, I think. Theism per se is not a religion. It's represented in many religions. And atheism does represent a religious belief, because you believe there is no God. However, we've come to question of whether or not it's a religion. Also, I think what these philosopher have to say is much more credible than your unwarranted claims.

Theism by definition is religion. A-theism is non-religion. That is simply what the words mean. To claim that all belief is religious is unsupported nonsense, nothing more. As I noted previously, I could care less about Dewey's sweeping semiology. The best thing I can say about him is that he says very little with a certain eloquence. I can see how some might be impressed and even fooled.

[Jack]

I think what these philosopher have to say is much more credible than your unwarranted claims.

How exactly are RickSp's views, or mine, unwarranted? Philosophers at least as intelligent as Dewey support our views. Why appeal to a sympathetic authority when we're debating from our own base of opinion?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Epistemologist Skepticism by its very nature is simply a faith-based pseudo-alternative to faith-based belief, if that makes sense.

No it doesn't. Makes no sense whatsoever. Faith and skepticism are opposites. To refer to skepticism as "faith-based" is to redefine the term so that it is meaningless.

The religious prefer to redefine everything in their own terms. If one does not share their religious cosmology then one must therefore believe in nothing at all. Or, as you claim, this lack of belief is somehow magically transformed into a religious dogma of its own. I do not understand this desire to shape all others in the images of your own theology. It appears to me to be either naivete, insecurity, arrogance, or perhaps a mix of each.