Type “Atheism is” in Google search and the first thing you get is the suggestion “Atheism is a religion”. This is a common idea among those who have no operational (or theoretical) definition of religion. But how can it be a religion?
One of the other suggestions you’ll get is “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby”. This sums up the validity of this ‘atheism is a religion’ argument. But let’s actually define religion, shall we?
Some key characteristics must be present for something to really be a religion. There must be some form of doctrine and dogma, even if this only references spoken word. There is usually a human-image god, but not always. Above all, there is a centralized belief system. This means that people interpret that doctrine and dogma through a narrow window. There is no outside consideration. Religion is insulation from the outside world (at least until facts and evidence become overwhelming). If any doctrine is to be true, it must comport to a centralizing belief system.
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism clearly fall under the definition of religion. They are systems of belief which hold certain things to be absolutely true. In this case, it’s that there is a God. What comes from this is a supporting system.
But how does atheism fall under this definition? There is a common belief – there are no gods – but it is not centralizing principle. Take baseball as an example. Almost everyone attending a game at Fenway is a baseball (and hopefully Red Sox) fan. This is a common belief – baseball is enjoyable and worth paying to see. But does it centralize anything? In the strictest sense of the word, it physically centralizes people because they must go to a particular venue, but it does not centralize any belief system. How could it? What follows from a belief that baseball is fun to watch in person? Nothing which isn’t trivial.
And so what is it that follows from atheism? In essence, it is an absence of belief. Beyond this commonality, there is nothing which holds atheists together. This is one reason they have very little political power or clout. As PZ pointed out in his talk at Bates, there are more non-believers than there are Jews. The critical difference is that Jews have a centralized belief system. Atheists do not have such a definition. Many atheists believe religion is bad, but that is not true of all – and there is nothing which dictates via atheism that it is actually bad. These arguments lie outside atheism (though they may be a contributing factor to one becoming an atheist).
If atheism can be defined as a religion, then it follows that deism and agnosticism can be defined the same. Why not? The only criteria presented for defining atheism as a religion is that it makes a claim about gods. “God is hands-off” and “maybe” both make claims – one speaks of the nature of a creator, one implies possibility – so why not define these as religion? Well, the answer is obvious. If atheism can be defined as religion, then the person with an actual religion has a rhetorical tool. It can be claimed that the fight is religion vs religion and that one must be right. This conveniently side-steps addressing the issue that all religion is wrong (if everything is religion and we agree that something must be true, then not everything can be false). It also places the negative connotations earned by religion into the lap of atheism. I actually like this effect since it tacitly acknowledges that religion is negative, but it fails to follow from any working definition of religion.
Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Religions | Tagged: Atheism is, Atheism is a religion, Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby, pz myers, What defines atheism | 2 Comments »
For the Sake of Science 