Is Atheism a religion?

[OpiatefortheMasses]

Atheism a religion? It seems highly unlikely that the polar position to theism would be considered a religion but it seems the comparison is made quite a bit. When you look at what can be considered intrinsic properties of a religion it really doesn't stick to well. Unlike a religion, atheism has no systematic beliefs, rituals or doctrine so as to how it could be considered a religion in that rite is a mystery. If any of you honestly believe that atheism is a religion I would much appreciate it if you explained why you believe that and how you believe this is true.

[EduChris]

...Do you make your choices by doing what you will or by willing yourself to will?

Please explain what you mean by these terms. What differences do you see between them? Do you see this as an either/or situation, or a both-and situation? What is your own proposed answer, and how did you arrive at such?

[EduChris]

...I don't really agree with Dawkins on this one. (What's new?)...Dawkins in often a bit (!) over-simple on the socio-political aspects of belief.

Understatement!

...I think it would be a shameful, and stupid, attitude to be intolerant of 'reasonable belief'...

Agreed.

...How would you rate Plantinga in this view?...

I've only read one of his shorter books, so I can't comment much (other than to say that his reputation is good). Two of my own favorites are Richard Swinburne and Keith Ward.

...This opens the possibility that morality, internal narrative, and even our sense of self, are emergent products of this process of socially shared and socially developed structure...

Perhaps. The question is, do any of these emergent products "turn around," so to speak, and actually make a difference in the world? Or are they all just some sort of impotent froth of the waves of a reality that cannot be different than it is?

...I think we can live and function very well with a kind of 'suspension of disbelief' in which we kind of go along with the socially-structured 'conceit' of individual autonomy...And we can move carefully toward a less judgemental, less retributive political/ethical structure in the future...

You are sounding quite a bit like a theologian here!

[EduChris]

...I was interested to read Plantinga's take on this point...I think we can live and function very well with a kind of 'suspension of disbelief'...

I wanted to make a point--not for your benefit, since I'm sure you are already familiar with what I will say, but simply to air out my thoughts in public.

Early on in seminary, I read Parker Palmer's book, To Know as We are Known. It made virtually no impact on me--it was actually an optional book for the course, and I didn't need to make use of it. I forgot about it until later on, when I was raving to my professor about another book: The Art of Changing the Brain. When my professor mentioned some of the underlying similarities between Zull's book and Palmer's book, I went back and re-read Palmer. This time around, I found it thrilling--it was a completely different experience reading it the second time.

In my final semester I was a T.A. for another professor's Education I class. She assigned Palmer's book as required reading. The students in the class were all fresh out of college, and they seemed to think that a dogmatic, hyper-skeptical attitude toward the book would demonstrate to the professor their intellectual mettle. Unfortunately, their hyper-critical stance prevented Palmer's words and thoughts from penetrating into their inner world. I don't think they learned anything from Palmer, and they missed out on something big as a result of their determined disbelief.

Sometimes a 'suspension of disbelief' is necessary in order to create an openness for learning.

[I Wear White Socks]

...Do you make your choices by doing what you will or by willing yourself to will?

Please explain what you mean by these terms. What differences do you see between them? Do you see this as an either/or situation, or a both-and situation? What is your own proposed answer, and how did you arrive at such?

I can only act according to the strongest influences exerted upon me at any given moment and then try to understand why I made the choice afterward. Looking back, there was no other will to be found than the one expressed by the action. I can never find influences which would have caused me to do anything different. Will escapes detection until action demands a reason for why a choice was made. You may claim you don't will to do something while struggling not to do it. But after it is done, no one cay get away with saying they did not will it. Otherwise, it never would have been done. Will provides an explanation. It may be invoked as a cause for praise or blame, but not a cause of the action. If will was a causal mechanism, it would work beforehand to prevent people from ever making choices and claiming they didn't mean to make them. There would be no excuse. There is no such thing as doing what you don't really want to do, because the fact that you did it speaks for itself to prove otherwise. You did it. Will or no will. Period. That's what I mean when saying you cannot will yourself to will. When I was a Christian, I tried to will myself to always will what I thought bible-god willed so I could make choices accordingly. I tried to will myself to will. More often than not, there were influences that exerted a stronger influence on me than my supposed free will. It was an exercise in futility because external influences caused my action, not my so-called will. I come to these conclusions by experience and observation.

[EduChris]

...I can only act according to the strongest influences exerted upon me at any given moment and then try to understand why I made the choice afterward. Looking back, there was no other will to be found than the one expressed by the action. I can never find influences which would have caused me to do anything different. Will escapes detection until action demands a reason for why a choice was made. You may claim you don't will to do something while struggling not to do it. But after it is done, no one cay get away with saying they did not will it. Otherwise, it never would have been done. Will provides an explanation. It may be invoked as a cause for praise or blame, but not a cause of the action. If will was a causal mechanism, it would work beforehand to prevent people from ever making choices and claiming they didn't mean to make them. There would be no excuse. There is no such thing as doing what you don't really want to do, because the fact that you did it speaks for itself to prove otherwise. You did it. Will or no will. Period. That's what I mean when saying you cannot will yourself to will. When I was a Christian, I tried to will myself to always will what I thought bible-god willed so I could make choices accordingly. I tried to will myself to will. More often than not, there were influences that exerted a stronger influence on me than my supposed free will. It was an exercise in futility because external influences caused my action, not my so-called will. I come to these conclusions by experience and observation.

It sounds as though you consider yourself to be an object only, and not a subject. Is this correct? And you believe that we are all objects only, rather than subjects. Am I understanding you properly?

[100%atheist]

Atheism a religion? It seems highly unlikely that the polar position to theism would be considered a religion but it seems the comparison is made quite a bit. When you look at what can be considered intrinsic properties of a religion it really doesn't stick to well. Unlike a religion, atheism has no systematic beliefs, rituals or doctrine so as to how it could be considered a religion in that rite is a mystery. If any of you honestly believe that atheism is a religion I would much appreciate it if you explained why you believe that and how you believe this is true.

Atheism is the unevidenced, faith-based assumption that the sum total of all reality can be fully explained by chance & necessity alone, apart from any volitional element.

Your post is an example of inflammatory demagogy.

[Jax Agnesson]

Atheism a religion? It seems highly unlikely that the polar position to theism would be considered a religion but it seems the comparison is made quite a bit. When you look at what can be considered intrinsic properties of a religion it really doesn't stick to well. Unlike a religion, atheism has no systematic beliefs, rituals or doctrine so as to how it could be considered a religion in that rite is a mystery. If any of you honestly believe that atheism is a religion I would much appreciate it if you explained why you believe that and how you believe this is true.

Atheism is the unevidenced, faith-based assumption that the sum total of all reality can be fully explained by chance & necessity alone, apart from any volitional element.

Your post is an example of inflammatory demagogy.

I don't agree, 100%atheist. EduChris's statement seems a bit bombastic to me, but it's hardly inflammatory (except to a person who is inflamed by it, obviously). Effective demagoguery requires more than that. Blank unsupported statements don't cut it with the masses.
However: EduChris, on the OP, I think we can agree that neither atheism nor theism qualifies as a religion, and in my view neither of them qualifies as a philosophy. At best, they are base-positions, akin to idealism and materialism, upon which thinkers might or might not construct self-consistent philosophies.
To use your black-box proposal, the theist believes the box must necessarily contain some element of volition; the atheist doesn't. Would you think that's a fair summary?

[EduChris]

...neither atheism nor theism qualifies as a religion...

Agreed.

...At best, they are base-positions, akin to idealism and materialism, upon which thinkers might or might not construct self-consistent philosophies...

Yes, they are a basic orientation, a starting point, a basic commitment to the sort of beings we are as humans (and as an aside, I agree with Theopoesis that theism offers better and more coherent philosophical/worldview options, as compared to non-theism).

...To use your black-box proposal, the theist believes the box must necessarily contain some element of volition; the atheist doesn't. Would you think that's a fair summary?

The contents of the black box are there if and only if they are there by necessity. If the theist believes volition to be present inside the black box by necessity, the non-theist believes volition to be absent by necessity. So the question is, which position is logically preferable?

From the standpoint of epistemology, "possible" is more privative than "impossible." Therefore, it seems to me that rather than rule out volition--rather than singling it out from among the three causal mechanisms of chance, necessity, and volition--we should include all three. And if volition is not precluded at the outset, then it takes its rightful place within the black box of logical necessity. Theism thus becomes the epistemologically preferred option--if and only if volition is a genuine possibility (which it seems to be).

[Jax Agnesson]

The contents of the black box are there if and only if they are there by necessity. If the theist believes volition to be present inside the black box by necessity, the non-theist believes volition to be absent by necessity.

Not quite. Perhaps every theist must believe that volition is present in the black box by necessity; indeed it is difficult to imagine how else to define 'theist'. But an atheist may state, (as I do) that 'I do not believe that volition must necessarily be there'. Note that this is not the same as the (strong atheist) position of arguing 'that volition must necessarily not be there'.

So the question is, which position is logically preferable?

I apply Ockham's razor. Since I consider the Universe could possibly exist without the presence of volition in the black box, I see no sense in assuming its presence.

From the standpoint of epistemology, "possible" is more privative than "impossible." Therefore, it seems to me that rather than rule out volition--rather than singling it out from among the three causal mechanisms of chance, necessity, and volition--we should include all three. And if volition is not precluded at the outset, then it takes its rightful place within the black box of logical necessity. Theism thus becomes the epistemologically preferred option--if and only if volition is a genuine possibility (which it seems to be).

It is possible that volition might be present, but I do not assume that it is.

[EduChris]

...every theist must believe that volition is present in the black box by necessity; indeed it is difficult to imagine how else to define 'theist'...

There are "hopeful theists" who aren't sure, but nevertheless have hope, and choose to live as though volition were in the black box. I suppose there are also "anxious non-theists," who aren't sure but who hope that volition is not inside the box, and who choose to live as though volition were not inside the box. Numerous such distinctions could probably be made...

...But an atheist may state, (as I do) that 'I do not believe that volition must necessarily be there'. Note that this is not the same as the (strong atheist) position of arguing 'that volition must necessarily not be there'...

Such distinctions apply to contingent things--things outside the black box--but not to anything inside the black box.

...Since I consider the Universe could possibly exist without the presence of volition in the black box, I see no sense in assuming its presence...

Is this because you believe there is no genuine volition outside the black box--i.e., that we humans do not possess even the tiniest measure of genuine volition?

...is possible that volition might be present, but I do not assume that it is.

Again, as far as I can see, such distinctions only apply to contingent things outside the black box. If you admit that it is possible for volition to be present inside the black box, you are admitting that there is some possible world in which volition is present inside the black box. But if we remember, the black box is the non-contingent reality which undergirds all of contingent reality. This means that if there is even one possible world in which the black box contains volition, it follows that the black box contains volition for all possible universes--which is just another way of saying that if volitional black box is possible, then volitional black box is necessary.