I get google alerts about certain religious topics that I might want to blog about, including “atheism,” and I’ve noticed that a lot of people call atheism a religion. I think that’s kind of funny, in both the “ha-ha” and “strange” sense.
There are some people who it seems are so strong in their atheistic views that they don’t much differ from evangelical Christians in their annoying factor, but atheism itself is, by definition, a lack of belief, not a set of beliefs.
Here’s how my own life went:
I was born not believing in anything. I was born an atheist.
I grew up with no religious indoctrination in the home, so I continued to not believe in anything. I was still an atheist.
I went to college and was exposed to a few different belief systems, but I still didn’t believe in a god. (It was a liberal college.) I was still an atheist.
I got married and had a family and was eventually exposed to evangelical Christianity, which I believed in with every fiber of my being for over 5 years. I was no longer an atheist; I was a Christian.
I decided to explore my doubts about Christianity and decided that I didn’t believe in it anymore, so I am back to not believing in anything. I am, once again, an atheist.
Now, can you see why I think the idea of atheism being a religion a silly notion? I didn’t adopt a religion or set of beliefs to become an atheist. Atheism is the natural state I was born into. When I left Christianity and did not replace it with another religious belief, I went back to being an atheist.
Atheism is the absence of religious belief. When I had a religious belief, I was no longer an atheist. Now that I no longer have that religious belief – poof, I am an atheist again.
If I had some vague sense that god exists, but did not adhere to an established religion, I would not be an atheist. I would be something else. Agnostic, maybe. Deist. I don’t know. But, I have no reason to believe that there is a god, so I don’t and that makes me an atheist.
And atheism is not a religion.
Dear Charity,
I hope this comment finds you well.
Your assertion that ‘atheism is not a religion’ deserves a counterpoint. If atheism is not a religion, then theism is not a religion.
Why would I posit such a thing? Because I think before one can safely conclude that atheism is not a religion one first must define the differences between religious and non-religious beliefs. Does theism as pure theism constitute a religious belief? If so, what religion is theism? Is there a Church of Theism anywhere? Is it possible for a person to be a a non-religious theist? Can a theist have NO religious beliefs, and hence, since ‘atheism is the absence of religious belief,’ actually be an atheist?
You get the point. What constitutes a “religious” belief? What is essential to a belief that qualifies it as religious? I think you need to explore that before you can safely conclude atheism is not a religion.
Forgive me if you have already made such distinctions between non-religious and religious belief; I may have missed them. But as it stands, your current argument is not as compelling as it could be. Maybe I really have missed something.
Best regards,
BG
Good point, Charity. Atheism requires no faith whatsoever.
Bill Gnade said: “If atheism is not a religion, then theism is not a religion.”
I agree that theism is not a religion (though it is not an if/then conditional statement related to atheism). Theism is a general umbrella term that encompasses all religions. It is a belief in a god or gods, nonspecific.
In contrast, a religion is a specific set of beliefs about god (or gods).
Atheism is not a religion. It is not a set of beliefs about god. It is the lack of belief in god.
BG: “Can a theist have NO religious beliefs, and hence, since ‘atheism is the absence of religious belief,’ actually be an atheist?”
Atheism is not a religion, but it does not mean “not religious.” Obviously, an atheist is not religious, but not all people who are not religious are atheists.
In the set of non-religious people, atheism is a sub-set. So is “non-religious theists.”
I said in my post, “If I had some vague sense that god exists, but did not adhere to an established religion, I would not be an atheist.” In that case, I would be a non-religious theist. Not an atheist.
Charity, very interesting. Thank you.
Charity (and JD Ryan),
Also, I don’t see any evidence here that anyone has shown atheism requires no faith. Of course atheism requires faith. See my essay The Existence of God: A Letter To Christopher Hitchens, particularly that which follows the subhead, The Transcendental Ego.
And this essay explores the whole issue of foundationalism vis-á-vis the speed of light.
Peace.
Charity,
I’ve been thinking, which is not always a good thing.
First, I would note that not all religions are theistic. I believe there is at least one form of Buddhism that is atheistic.
Second, about your essay. Something else about it doesn’t quite settle with me. I am not exactly sure what it is; I have been reflecting on it since I first read “Is Atheism a Religion?” Let me see if I can at least outline what I am feeling.
You said: “I was born not believing in anything. I was born an atheist. … Atheism is the natural state I was born into. When I left Christianity and did not replace it with another religious belief, I went back to being an atheist.”
Are you arguing that the “natural state” is not only like a default setting, but it is somehow preferable? That the natural state is the true state? If so, aren’t there major problems with this?
I was born unable to talk, and unable to walk. I was born knowing nothing. I was born essentially blind, unable to differentiate colors, objects. I was born unable to feed myself. I was born without any belief in truth, love, a future, a past. I was born in utter weakness, dependency, frailty. Are these all, then, my default setting? Are these reflective of ultimate reality? Are these all preferable?
Of course, I can also add this: I can’t recall a moment in my life when I was not a theist. Hence, my default setting is theistic. Does this then prove that theism is true?
This is what I feel: I don’t know how you can say you were born an atheist. The claim seems to be a question-begging fallacy: what did you know about anything when you were born? How do you know you were born an atheist?
I think your argument is akin to this: I was born not knowing anything about mathematics. Eventually, as I explored this world, I pursued a degree in mathematics. But then something happened; I started to have doubts about mathematics. I spotted anomalies; I noted that mathematics was just another language — another set of symbols — to describe the world. The language was not itself identical to reality; it was always symbolic, and hence estranged from ultimately reality. It was descriptive, but not exhaustively descriptive. It could explain, but only up to a point. It could predict, but it could never create. Hence, my doubts led me to deny mathematics altogether because it could not explain reality in total. Besides, I was born not believing in mathematics; belief in mathematics is just some learned behavior passed down through the generations, used to ensure we all conform to some social norms. But rejecting mathematics has been easy for me, precisely since I was born without any knowledge of mathematics.
Do you see my difficulty? And do you see why I am having a hard time nailing down what I think is wrong with your essay?
Peace.
BG
“Do you see my difficulty? And do you see why I am having a hard time nailing down what I think is wrong with your essay?”
Yes, your difficulty lies in the fact that you are assuming a lot of things that are not part of what I was saying in this post.
I was simply explaining why I think it is silly to call atheism a religion.
From there, you pull in all these other issues – such as whether atheism or theism is better and the truth of atheism and theism.
I did not address those issues at all.
“Are you arguing that the “natural state” is not only like a default setting, but it is somehow preferable?”
I was not saying that it was preferable, just that it is like a default state that I returned to. I was trying to illustrate that I did not adopt a set of religious beliefs to “become” an atheist. It’s just what was left when I took away the Christianity and my belief in god. That’s why I don’t consider it a religion.
“I can’t recall a moment in my life when I was not a theist. Hence, my default setting is theistic.”
I find it hard to believe you were actually born believing in god. I would be willing to bet it was learned.
And I would imagine that you can’t remember a moment in your life before you could talk, so does that mean you could always talk?
“what did you know about anything when you were born? How do you know you were born an atheist?”
I didn’t know anything about anything when I was born, that’s how I know I was born an atheist. I was born not believing in god because the idea of god was not something I knew about – so I couldn’t have believed in god.
Note, I am not claiming that I was born a strong atheist, that is, I did not have a belief that there was no god.
I am having a hard time with the math analogy. Mathematics is practically useful, so much so that I am not even sure it is possible to live without using math. I mean, cooking, shopping, decorating, building, paying bills, and many other things use math and cannot be done without it.
I’m not sure that it is even possible to reject it.
The other problem I have with your analogy is with what it implies, if it is meant to be an analogy for my rejection of god.
“It was descriptive, but not exhaustively descriptive. It could explain, but only up to a point.’
That is not why I rejected Christianity. I was quite content with the fact that it couldn’t explain everything. After all, God is so big, we could never understand all of Him, right? That made sense to me.
“Hence, my doubts led me to deny mathematics altogether because it could not explain reality in total.”
Again, not why I rejected Christianity. It was more that Christianity created more problems than it solved, for me. I certainly can’t see math in that same light.
“But rejecting mathematics has been easy for me, precisely since I was born without any knowledge of mathematics.”
Rejecting Christianity was not easy. It was hard, so hard. It was probably the biggest loss I have ever experienced in my life. It cost me my community, friends, answers about life, my sense of security. It almost cost me my marriage. It caused me a lot of anxiety, confusion, and depression. I was an emotional mess for months. There are still days when I wonder if I will ever be totally okay again.
The fact that I was essentially an atheist my whole life up until I became a Christian does not take anything away from how much I did believe in God and how important that was to my life. Losing that was anything but easy.
Okay, so, what reason do you have for thinking that atheism is a religion? What makes a religion, in your view? Why is it important to you that atheism be classified as a religion?
Charity,
In haste: First, I did not intend to apply the mathematics analogy to your situation. I was trying to show that the argument is circular; I probably failed, but that was my intent. No, I do not for a minute believe your atheism was easy. I know it was hard to announce to your friends and family. We’ve talked about this before. (I actually mentioned here how my becoming a Christian was brutally hard for me, as I lost friends, family, status and, in some ways, happiness.)
My point is that I am simply trying to show that your overall argument is not convincing, at least to me. I am not saying anything about the correctness of atheism or that theism is superior. I simply think the argument as it stands is not as strong as you might like.
Second, I like you. I like your spirit, your attitude, your approach. I am not a judgmental sort. I am really on your side; you can believe as you wish, and I will defend it.
Third, I have not at all asserted the atheism is a religion. I haven’t even implied it. But I have asked you several times to read my Letter to Christopher Hitchens; you will at least see what I am getting at.
I write in haste, so forgive me. But do know I consider you something of a friend, at least as much as that is possible in this weird cyber-world. So I do not come as an accuser.
Peace.
BG
Dear Charity,
I am sorry for taking so long to get back to this very interesting discussion. I suspect that this comment is going to be a long one. So, in advance, I apologize for my many words.
First, you wrote:
[Y]our difficulty lies in the fact that you are assuming a lot of things that are not part of what I was saying in this post.
I was simply explaining why I think it is silly to call atheism a religion.
From there, you pull in all these other issues – such as whether atheism or theism is better and the truth of atheism and theism.
I did not address those issues at all.
Please note, Charity, that I did not address those issues either. I said nothing about whether theism is better than atheism, or vice versa, nor did I explore or commend the truth of either (at least not in this thread). I specifically mentioned, for clarity’s sake, that your essay is not as strong as it could be because it lacks any discussion of what constitutes a religious belief and what does not. Atheism may be the absence of belief, as you assert, but that doesn’t in itself make it a non-religious belief, since there are religions that are atheistic. What is essential to a religious belief that makes it religious? And what is essential to weak atheism, or even strong atheism, that makes either non-religious? There have been, as you know, strict materialists — men and women who believe matter is the only ultimate reality — who have nonetheless written poetry, pure paeans of joy, to the power of evolution and progress; to the triumphant liberties gained when mankind, finally unchained from superstition, gleefully spins “down the ringing grooves of change.” In other words, it is possible for materialists to worship, laud, and adore materiality — and even call people to obey. (We see such neo-pagans worshiping every day; surely you’ve seen what I’ve seen in downtown Burlington.)
So I did not do what you’ve claimed.
Second, I remain uncomfortable with your argument that atheism, the condition in which you were ostensibly born, is not just a default setting but represents an unlearned behavior. I would think just the opposite is the case. Toddlers and children are eager to believe in God — and fairies and sprites and monsters and ghosts. Children constantly enter into a state of pretend; they even create their own mysteries, tales; they also create playmates. To many children, the world is an enchanted place; magic is everywhere. All this, of course, might be learned. I offer that it is. But the default setting of children, as far as I can tell, is eagerness to believe. Children, at least the vast majority of them, are hardly born skeptics. (And any adult who claims he or she was always skeptical is, I am willing to bet, rewriting history in order to protect some conceit.) Credulity is a strikingly common post-natal human trait.
Clearly, as children mature, they toss aside beliefs that were fabrications, mere fantasies. But surely not all fantasies; surely not all that is imagined is lost as children mature. In fact, where would even science be, let alone the arts, without imagination, without curious minds believing in things unseen, untouched, and, in a strict sense, unknowable?
Yet even if we grant that children grow skeptical, into the sort of skeptical adults we all have come to know, it would be a mistake, even an outlandish one, to suggest skepticism is unlearned. If there is anything learned in all of this it is skepticism, doubt; disbelief. We teach our children to ask tough questions, to challenge authority. We give them tools to find their way through mazes of disinformation, junk, intellectual pollution; tools like logic, which is, without question, something children learn.
So I disagree with you about what is learned and what is not: belief and doubt, or belief and disbelief, are learned behaviors. So, too, is unbelief, or non-belief; both are always the result of having learned how to assess information, using learned skills and processes. (If we talk about the absence of belief, we are essentially talking about nothingness. To even discuss the absence of belief in ANY thing is to engage the intellect — all that is learned — to reflect on what the intellect cannot believe, since it is absent. It is essentially a meaningless endeavor.)
The New Oxford American Dictionary gives this terse definition of atheism: “The theory or belief that God does not exist.”
Note the assumption in the first definiens — a theory; all theories require one to employ all one has learned. Note the assumption in the second definiens — a belief. The same dictionary describes belief as “an acceptance that a statement is true.” The assumption, again, is that one accepts based on what one has learned.
You also wrote this:
I didn’t know anything about anything when I was born, that’s how I know I was born an atheist. I was born not believing in god because the idea of god was not something I knew about – so I couldn’t have believed in god.
Well, I was born not believing in ANYTHING, because the idea of anything was not something I knew about — so I couldn’t have believed in anything. Surely you see that your argument is not particularly compelling! And surely you realize that if there is a God, God is not going to program His creatures for instant and immediate belief; no God would do such a thing. God, should He exist, wants our lives to be our own, including our belief in His existence. He wants our whole being to be co-created, so to speak: He wants me to love Him freely, from the depths of my own being, my own will. So, too, belief in His existence: He’s not in the habit of determinism, a nasty habit if there ever was one. He’s about freedom, about discovery, inquiry. To “believe” at birth, to believe even before reflection or cognition, is not only impossible, it’s anathema to a healthy soul. Doubt, as you know, is even honored in the gospel narratives; Christianity “gets it” when it comes to doubt. Jesus does not rebuke the “Doubting Thomas.” Instead, He willingly submits to Thomas’ need for empirical justification, for the tactile and visual proof Thomas’ inquiry seeks.
All this to say two things, namely, that doubt, skepticism, and even cynicism are learned behaviors, and any serious commentary that implies belief in God at birth is either possible or desirable is profoundly mistaken. If belief in God is to be rejected because it is a learned behavior, so too is disbelief, since disbelief is also a learned behavior. Sheer unknowing, akin to the cognition of an infant, is not some baseline; everything about us is learned.
Lastly, whether atheism is a religion is still a matter of inquiry. You have
agreed that theism is not a religion; you’ve affirmed that there are atheistic religions, and that it is possible to be a theist and not be religious at all. It would seem, then, that you’ve placed theism and atheism in the same category. What is that category if not religion? For me, atheism and theism are indeed theories about First Things, about ultimate reality, or even about Final Things. Both are rooted in faith-based axioms; they are intellectual positions taken to interpret reality. In that, they are both metaphysical descriptors.
______
Look, I believe in something, like the resurrection of Christ. You don’t believe in this. But you DO believe in something: you believe the universe shows us that there is no resurrection at all. You don’t KNOW this; this is not something plainly given to you — with absolute proof — by the universe in some quasi-revelation (and this you admit in your “weak atheism”). Yours is a faith-based belief, as is mine. Both, contrary to popular opinion, are also firmly rooted in reason.
Charity, I know there is nothing I can do or say that will convince you that theism — especially Christian theism — is intellectually viable or compelling. I am merely talking with you about things. I can’t change your mind, though you might change mine. Why would I say that? Because Christian faith is hard; it even warns of the inherent struggles one will find in embracing such a seemingly absurd belief. Such reminds me of something G. K. Chesterton once said: “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and not tried.” His remark affirms one thing, that Christianity is at least hard, especially in a world that not only rejects it, but pretty much hates it.
So, I don’t know if my faith will survive the onslaught of accusations and mockeries to which it daily submits; nor do I know if I have the fortitude to maintain my pilgrimage toward God. I am vulnerable, no doubt, and I can’t pretend I am not. But if Helen Keller is right, that “life is either a daring adventure or nothing at all,” then I think Christianity without challenge, without obstacles and detours and traps, would be utterly dulling, uninteresting to the Nth-degree. It is an adventure, that’s for sure, and I press on.
Like Frodo.
Peace to you.
Bill,
I’m not sure why you are so focused on the one sentence about being an atheist when I was born. That was but one piece of my life’s time line.
My point was that I never had a specific set of beliefs. To consider something a religion, it requires a specific set of beliefs. I never had that until I became a Christian.
Having rejected that set of beliefs, I have returned to my previous state of having no set of beliefs.
Yes, there are things I believe about life. I believe that the sun will not burn out. I believe that the mail will be delivered, except for Sundays and holidays. I believe that it is worthwhile to be nice to people, even though that doesn’t guarantee that they will be nice back.
But, I do not have religious beliefs.
If you want to talk dictionary definitions, Merriam-Webster online defines religious as: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
I do not have any such faithful devotion. I have no idea about the ultimate reality. I do not insist there is no deity.
I rejected the only religious beliefs I ever had, leaving me with none once again.
There are some atheists who do have a faithful devotion to their beliefs of the ultimate reality. I admit, those atheists could be considered to have a religion. But that does not make atheism itself a religion.
I do not have it all figured out. I don’t think I ever will, especially since I don’t much care to try and figure it all out.
Living is hard enough. Finding happiness and fulfillment, taking care of responsibilities, and fostering personal relationships are all enough work, without spending my time trying to figure out ultimate reality in a way that I am sure enough of to faithfully devote myself to it.
I personally do not believe in god, but I am not making any claims about what the ultimate reality is. I find it a stretch to call that a religion.