There Is No Tradition
All religions have a tradition and a history. Atheism has many, but no single one that sustains a movement over centuries, as you find in every major world religion.
There Is No Founder
Buddha, Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, L. Ron Hubbard - most major religions have a founding figure or prophet. Atheism has no such figure. There are many old-timers like Galileo, for example, who rise to prominence, but none of these atheists 'founded' atheism and none commands the reverence accorded to the founders and patriarchs of the world religions.
There Are No Holidays
Most religions have holy days (still, despite the all-out assault on Christmas). Atheism has no holidays, and no framework to decide when such holidays would be or what they might commemorate. Festivus doesn't count.
There Is No Identifying Clothing
Yarmulkes, robes, veils, turbans, sacred underwear and other holy vestments hold great importance for the majority of religions. Atheism has no dress code, although comfortable shoes are recommended.
There Is No Concept of the Afterlife
Most religions attempt to answer the question of what happens to us when we die. Where do we go to be warmed in the loving embrace of the lord? Where do they go to be horrifically tortured? There's heaven and hell, of course, and reincarnation, nirvana and moksha. Atheists have no concept of the afterlife, except that, most commonly, there isn't one.
There Is No Creation Myth
Now wait just a minute! How is the Big Bang any less of a myth than Genesis? Keeping in mind that not all atheists believe in the Big Bang theory, it's different because it's a scientific postulate that can be tested and the effects of which can be empirically demonstrated. If in the end this theory does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, it will be chucked on the trash heap alongside the bodily humors and the Atkins Diet.
So, atheism shares none of the characteristics common to all belief systems commonly known as religions. Even widely-despised and derided belief systems like Satanism, Wicca, paganism and Presbyterianism are religions by these standards. Atheism is not. Arguing that it is means that faith in god, ritual, community, tradition, spirituality and theology are irrelevant. Religion then becomes an incredibly paltry thing. It is not a source of solace and spiritual wonder; it is not a vehicle for bringing symmetry to the chaos of life and meaning to the void - it's just the act of taking a position on the existence of god. That's it. How pathetic.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Phillip Winn
I agree -- to a point. It is true that athiesm is not a religion. But then, based on your arguments above, neither is theism! Theists believe one thing in common: there is a god (or gods). That's all. Beyond that, they may have nothing in common.
Theists break down into many groups, and most or all of those groups can accurately be labeled a religion. Similarly, would it be fair to say that atheism breaks down into many groups, most or all of which can accurately be labeled a religion?
I suspect so. The secular humanists in one group over here, the existentialists in another group over here, and so on. Of course, most atheist will resist these categorizations, but it may not surprise you to realize that most theists would do the same.
Despite the popular image of a monolithic religious right, pulling levers zombie-like for the Republican party, even when you drill down into a sub-sub-subr group like "evangelical Christians," you still find quite a lot of diversity.
So I agree -- atheism is not a religion. It is many religions.
2 - Pete Blackwell
I don't think 'theists' would resist being separated into categories like Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. In fact, they do so quite readily. Each of these religions has all of the characteristics of religion that I list above.
None of the major atheist groups (excepting Buddhism, etc.) share these characteristics. Yes, there are people who may self-identify as 'secular humanists', but they have no god, no church, no priests, no sacred texts, no cohesive spiritual vision, no founder, etc.
The one thing they do share, apart from not believing in god, is a common belief system (sort of). That doesn't make it a religion or a faith. The whole point of my post was to argue that to say a religion need only be a belief system and nothing else makes a mockery of the concept of religion. Religion constitues so much more than that.
3 - duane
Well done, Pete. One of the best posts I've read here at BC. And a difficult topic on top of it all.
One thing that I would like to have seen is some speculation as to why the faithful insist on labeling atheism as a religion. What's their angle? I have a few ideas but I would like to get your perspective on this. I do agree with your comment that religionists weaken their claims to faith by arguing that belief in science is equivalent to faith. They know not what they say.
The quote by Rev. Bill McGinnis is a fine example of sloppy thinking.
One quibble concerning your moderately conciliatory position. You say
Religion has been central to the history of humanity and there's no reason to believe it won't continue to be.
Lots of things have played a role in the history of civilization. Religion, where it has done good, might be looked at as analogous to scaffolding under which a (somewhat) civilized society has been constructed. Eventually the scaffolding will be torn down. Slavery, just to take an example, has also played a crucial historical role in the building of civilization. We don't need that anymore, either.
4 - Pete Blackwell
Well, whether we need religion and whether we're going to have it are two separate matters. Considering that the vast majority of the world's population follows a religion (as defined in my article), it's safe to say that religion will underpin our civilization for a very long time to come. And that's not all to the bad. Religion has always been a force of both good and evil; of both terrible ignorance and sublime illumination (in the non-divine sense).
I hint at why some religious folks insist on labeling atheism as a religion at the beginning of my post. It has to do, I think, with self-validation, and is the sign of a quite weak and trepidatious faith. The same could be said of atheists who insist that religion is concomitant with stupidity.
And there's part of the issue. Religious folks are rightly offended when they're told they are a bunch of slavering idiots (whether or not it happens to be true in any given case). The impulse for some would be to turn around and say, "oh yeah, well you're idiots, too, and you just don't know it".
Then there are those who simply cannot comprehend the possibility of a non-faith-based world view. They then assign a faith proposition to atheism based on an extrapolation from their own experience.
Of course, there's great variety among atheists (and religious people, too). There are some who choose not to believe in god, and some who simply cannot. Like Freud, they lack the 'oceanic feeling'. Religious naysayers may err in assuming that all atheism is willful rebellion.
5 - duane
Thanks, Pete. You keep making comments that I wish I had made, such as
They then assign a faith proposition to atheism based on an extrapolation from their own experience.
I believe you've captured something there.
6 - Matthew T. Sussman
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
--Rush
7 - Pete Blackwell
True, but a choice isn't a religion. I chose to eat a donut this morning. Am I a member of the Church of Donuttery? Mmmmm...worship!
8 - Dave Nalle
Damn, we need to get to work making atheism into a real religion. Let's get some holidays and scriptures going. Otherwise the government might take away our legal status as a protected religion.
Perhaps we could have 'God is Dead' day around easter time.
Dave
9 - duane
Wait a minute. What's going on here? I thought atheists were humorless nihilistic curmudgeonly pessimists. You know ... like me.
10 - D'oh
IMHO, the religionists who constantly seek to frame atheism as a religion do so in order to couch their arguments legally as an issue of freedom of religion.
To wit: by calling atheism a religion, they can now argue that the government's approach to separation favors one religion (atheism) over another, thus giving them a leg to stand on in court when trying to do things like placing the 10 Commandments in public buildings.
To my thought, freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion, if a person so chooses.
So Suss in #6 nails it in a way.
11 - Michael Alfaro
Nice staw man Bill McGinnis. I think you should learn a bit more logic before you make extreme claims. What theist seem to forget is that their extraordinary claims need extrordinary evidence. To them, there is no need for logic as a medium because their religion prevents them from questioning.
12 - Trey
Great article, Pete...
I am actually a Christian, but I agree with you that atheism itself is not a religion. People can be religious about their atheism, just as people can be religious about anything they do or give credence to.
Trey
13 - Trey
Michael,
You're making a bit of a sweeping statement, don't you think? Of course there are many theists that need more logic, but there are plenty of atheists that do to. There is this sort of bias against faith in our culture and in western culture that says scientists, atheists and agnostics should be taken seriously, but if you believe in the supernatural (especially in any specified way), you're opinion and arguments lack logic.
Of course, Michael, you and I both come to this argument with a definite presupposition and no amount of so-called logic will keep us neutral on this issue.
The claims of an atheist are no more or less evidenced or "extreme" (to use your word) than a Christian, a muslim, or a Jew.
14 - Bobby Sprinkle
According to your description, if you are an American, you are part of a religion.
There Is No God
This doesn't apply but then you said belief in God wasn't necessary for a religion. More on that later.
There Is No Common Belief
American's certainly have common beliefs. While there are differences, the vast, overwhelming majority subscribe to the beliefs listed in the Bill of Rights. We commonly believe in the rule of law, private property, and that bikinis should be a privilege not a right.
There Are No Laws
Ummm .... I'm pretty sure this one is obvious.
There Is No Church or Ritual
We have lots of rituals. We vote every two years, we pay taxes (tithe), we go to war every eleven years (roughly), and we argue endlessly over the designated pitcher rule. We have what amounts to the equivalent of churches with the White House, Capitol Building, Supreme Court, etc. Even the monuments stand out like religious sites requiring pilgrimages every few years.
There Is No Unified Conception of Spirituality
There is a unified concept of being an American. What that means exactly is up for debate but so is the concept of spirituality amongst religions and even in defined religions themselves.
There Is No Scripture
Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, Gettysburg Address, I have a Dream; the only thing we have to fear is fear itself..... should I go on?
There Is No Priesthood
President, Senators, Representatives, Justices, etc.
There Is No Tradition
Mom, Apple Pie, Norman Rockwell ... come on! Actually there are many things that can be called traditions in America. Heck, don't we all hate the French?
There Is No Founder
While you may not be able to say there is a founder, you can't argue that there is a clear cut set of founders. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin ... you could probably limit the amount of true founders to under 20 substantial men.
There Are No Holidays
There is one holiday expressly to celebrate America ... July 4th. There are two holidays to celebrate their military heroes. There is one to celebrate the workers and one to celebrate a couple of their founders.
There Is No Identifying Clothing
But according to studies we all are obese. Do clothes from the Big and Tall store count as identifying clothing? Actually, this one can't be used in all cases anyway. What are the different identifying clothes that separate a Methodist and a Baptist from the Atheist that lives next door?
There Is No Concept of the Afterlife
This does vary a little from American to American. Some believe that after America there will be a One World Order run by the UN. Others believe the world can't survive without the shining beacon that is America and will crash into chaos and anarchy without it. Others, granted a minority, believe that a comment the size of Texas will come towards the Earth and only a valiant attempt by some space faring oil drillers will have any hope of saving us. If they fail ... The point is although the beliefs may vary, all Americans have some vision of what life after America will be like.
There Is No Creation Myth
There is a universally accepted belief in the creation of America. It may not be called myth but then most religions believe their creation story is fact too.
So you see there are three hundred million members of the religion of America. Some of these even claim to be Atheists, which I have clearly shown is impossible. Actually, I think you definition of religion and what makes it up is much, much too broad in some areas and too focused in others. You are picking and choosing those areas that best suit your argument. I hope the silliness above illustrates that point.
All that beings said, while I do not believe you made a good case, I do agree somewhat with your argument. I agree that atheism is not a religion if you consider religion to be a regimented group that has hierarchies, etc. However, I can name many people that claim to be Christian but hate the very thought of "religion". Would you classify these people who hate organized religions as "religious"? Is religion nothing more than believing and subscribing to some organized groups idea of whatever religion should be about?
It might be better to skip the word "faith" as well. I would instead choose to use the word "belief". In this regard, atheism shares many similarities with believers of various religious faiths. If you take out the dogma, which you try so hard to pigeonhole all religions into, the similarities jump out much more clearly. You “believe” until proved otherwise that there is no God (for whatever reasons). If God showed up and parted the Red Sea in front of you, I hope you would be willing to reconsider. Belief is the word that makes atheists similar (in some regards) to believers of various religious faiths. Religion is a bad comparison all the way around, even amongst the “faithful”.
15 - Pete Blackwell
Of course it depends on what the claim is. The atheism vs. faith argument is bogus to a point. The scientific argument requires evidence and the religious one does not because of the very nature of what they are.
It's as if religion and science exist in different intellectual dimensions"the rules of one don't apply to the other. The problem is when people try to force the 'truth' of one dimension on the other. Christians demanding that Creationism be taught is science class is a perfect example of this conflict.
There are plenty of religious people who have no problem with rationality and science"in fact, many scientists are themselves religious. They just have different standards of evidence for different kinds of truth claims.
16 - Bobby Sprinkle
In reference to D'Oh's comment (#10) ...
The Constitution actually says ...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I don't see anywhere in there a case to be made for freedom FROM religion. What I see is that Congress can't prevent the free exercise of religion or establish an "official" state religion. Where again does it say that you are free from all signs, symbols, references, and allusions to religion?
I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. I do not believe that this implies the absolute removal of all references to religion in anyway shape or form. It simply means that you can't be treated differently because you are a Jew, Muslim, Christian, or cattle rustler.
Bringing it back on topic, can an atheist even complain about this at all since you are part of NO religion? If you look at it logically, you don't even have this right UNLESS you are part of a religion.
Bummer for you guys ....
17 - Pete Blackwell
Bobby, you seem to imply that all belief is religious belief, which strikes me as degrading to both sides. Religious belief has a certain character: it is concerned with the spirit and, in most cases, with god. Americanism, by contrast, is concerned with America.
Your version of America is, to use your term, a little too narrow. This country is hugely diverse, with millions of different beliefs in conflict with each other. We're not all as similar as you claim.
Of course, to an extent, you could argue that nationalism shares many things in common with religion. The one glaring difference is its purpose, which is rarely spiritual or epistemological in nature.
Now you have to ask yourself, do you have a close, personal relationship with America?
18 - Bobby Sprinkle
Pete,
My point was that your definition of religion (more specifically what religion isn't) was too broad. Almost anything can be lumped under it, including half the religions of the world.
As to my definition being to narrow, I disagree. You state that ALL religions have certain aspects to them that you then list in the negative. You are encompassing an incredible wide variety and "hugely diverse" spectrum to use your words and completely understate the problem. Half of these religions hate the others and their beliefs are almost always mutually exclusive. Yet you claim they all fall under the same category of "religion".
Thus I claim that all Americans can fall under the same category. Yes, its very diverse. Yes, they believe different things. Yes, they are in conflict with each other. How is this different than all the religions in your argument?
Belief is belief, no matter what. I believe that my next breath will contain enough oxygen to sustain me. I also believe the moon will follow a set, predictable orbit from now until tomorrow at 2:55 PM (after that who knows?). I might believe that God is a big pink bunny with fuzzy black slippers. You might believe there is no God.
We can argue whether beliefs are verifiable and then argue again over how verifiable and under what conditions. But we can't argue that these are in fact beliefs. You can't classify beliefs as spiritual, scientific, or whatever. I belief simply implies a "faith", for want of a better term, that something is true. In some cases it might be more of a "hope" that something is true.
For example, you enter a room in which you have never been before. You see a chair in the middle of the room which you have never seen. You sit in the chair and it holds your weight. Why did you sit? Because you "believed" the chair would hold your weight. A visual inspection of the chair seemed to show it in good condition. You had put your weight onto similarly shaped chairs in the past. Other people have told you about sitting in chairs. Based on this evidence, you sat. Now was it possible that the chair looked good but was rotten? Yes. Was it possible that someone had sawed the back legs to collapse as a practical joke? Yes. But you "believed" based on the best evidence available that the chair would work so you sat.
Belief is belief the only thing different is the evidence used to support it.
Are you implying with your last line that religion requires close personal relationships? According to your first point, not all religions even need a God. How do you have close personal relationships if there is no God figure? So, no, I do not have a close personal relationship with America. But according to your definition, its still my religion.
19 - Pete Blackwell
I was making a joke with my last line. Sorry to raise your hackles.
It was my hope that my defenition of religion would encompasses not just half but all of the major world religions. That was the whole point. And then I showed how atheism fails to meet each of the criteria.
You are right to say that all Americans fall under the same category. Namely, they are Americans. All brown dogs are brown dogs. That doesn't make it a religion unless 'religion' is a meaningless word.
I strongly disagree with your statement that "belief is belief". There are all kinds of different beliefs out there. One kind is "religious belief". Atheism is not such a belief for reasons I outlined. To equate atheism with religion is to destroy the meaning of religion (purportedly in the attempt to bolster it...).
The belief that a chair will support your weight is based on visual evidence and experience. It is a practical, banal belief. To say that belief is the same as a belief in a perfect and redeeming savior is absurd. Hence the use of 'faith' to describe such a belief. And hey, I didn't invent that distinction.
20 - Bliffle
"One thing that I would like to have seen is some speculation as to why the faithful insist on labeling atheism as a religion. What's their angle?"
They want to drag atheism down into the same mud rasslin' pit that they are in.
21 - Bobby Sprinkle
Sorry if it appeared my hackles were raised. Not so.
I did indeed misspeak at the start of my last post as well. Touché. I meant to say that you could include almost anything under it including all religions. My bad.
You aren't arguing that beliefs are different. You are arguing that the belief can be verified in different ways. What if the perfect and redeeming savior suddenly showed up on your doorstep and proved it to you with visual evidence and experience? Would your belief in him still be different than the belief in the chair? Both beliefs would then be proved with the same method. How are they different?
The only thing that separates beliefs is the proofs or evidence that can be used to support them. In fact, the evidence is usually the same. We separate "religious" beliefs because we feel it is unlikely that they will be proved in a visual, verifiable, reproducible manner. However, IF they were proved in that manner by God showing up, they would cease to be different than the belief that the moon orbits according to set physical laws.
Thus the belief in and of itself is not different. The evidence is. In that regard, atheism is very much like a "religious" belief (let me again go on record as disliking the term religion as an application of spiritual faith. Many would say they hate religion but believe very much in God, etc.) Atheism can't be proved anymore than religion can. Can you prove to me that God doesn't exist? In a verifiable, reproducible manner? No more than I could prove to you that God does exist.
Sure it seems likely based on what you know that a God may not exist. But you can't prove it. You believe it based on the best available evidence to you AND your own personal bias. I might look at almost the same evidence, introduce my own personal bias and come to the opposite conclusion. In fact, we can probably use the exact same facts in our attempt to prove each other wrong.
In that manner, your "belief" in atheism is very similar to a "belief" in a God. You are correct that atheism is not a religion but in many cases neither is a belief in God. I'm simply defining the argument different than your original post. Religion is the wrong way to compare their similarities. Belief is the better case.
22 - Baronius
Bobby - Very interesting.
Pete - You write well. I don't agree with a lot of this article, but you represented your cause admirably.
I wonder, if you break atheism down to its major "denominations", would you concede that some are belief systems? Marxism is a shoo-in. It has a founder, a creed, rituals, icons of its saints, and holidays. Darwinism is a tougher call, until you try to disagree with a believer. Nihilism has a pretty consistent ethos, and body art is both a uniform and a ritual for its followers.
Also, would you accept the statement that atheism is a creed?
23 - Bobby Sprinkle
In reference to #20 ...
Not all "the faithful" do insist on such a label.
However, I think the term is just being misused by both sides. As I have tried to lay out, religion is a bad way to compare. In some cases, neither side fits into the religion mold.
I think the more appropriate term is to say that both are based on a belief system.
Besides, maybe they don't want to drag you into the mud. Maybe they want to pull you up for some spiritual square dancing?
24 - Pete Blackwell
To #23: Even if you could say both are based on a belief system (which I don't agree with), you'd have to set the standard for "belief system" so low as to render it meaningless, which is evidently not the point religious people who see atheism as a religion (or belief system) want to make.
25 - Pete Blackwell
To #22: I just don't think the idea of atheist "denominations" means much. Certainly these denominations aren't as well defined or coherent as actual religious ones are.
Marxism (or Soviet Communism) was certainly a religion, but not because of atheism. There's an excellent book of essays by communist apostates that came out in the 40s or 50s (I think) called The God That Failed. What made the Soviet system a "religion" was its faith in the perfectability of man through the process of dialectical materialism. It took many precepts of Christianity and stood them on their head (just as Marxism is an inversion of Hegel's philosophy of history). So, yes, the Soviets tried to prop up their movement with the religious skeleton of Christianity, but athiesm was only a part of that.
In addition to The God That Failed, Darkness at Noon illustrates this point nicely. Arthur Koestler is one of the contributing essayists for TGTF, by the way.
I wouldn't call atheism a creed because a creed, to me, is a positive belief. I believe in god the father almighty, etc. Atheism is, necessarily, a negative belief.