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]

duplicate deleted

[Jax Agnesson]

If you believe yourself to have some measure of volition and some measure of rationality, then it seems you would opt for theism (volitional non-contingent reality). On the other hand, if you believe yourself to lack volition, then you would opt for non-theism (but I hope you see the irony here).

Yes, I see the irony in that. It's reflected, murkily, in the way many Christians cannot (or will not? ) accept that atheists often do not 'choose' to be atheists.

Agnosticism is a starting point, not a final destination. For me, I don't see how anyone can credibly deny any measure of volition for themselves, since we all seem to have an inner mental conscious life that experiences volition every single day of our lives.

I agree that denying our own sense of volition seems to lead to a hopeless fatalism, if looked at through an absolutist lens. OTOH, if one starts from the recognition that we humans are always capable of error, then even our impression of volition might on some level be illusory. Of course, for practical reasons we are obliged to act as if our best estimate is a correct picture of reality, but it is wise, IMO, to have in the back of the mind the recognition that it probably isn't exactly right.

[EduChris]

...atheists often do not 'choose' to be atheists.

There was a time when atheism was simply not a viable option for people. The plausibility structures of their culture simply did not permit atheism as a viable worldview. I believe Richard Dawkins admitted as much when he exclaimed that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Today, the plausibility structures have changed to a degree that in some circles it is almost impossible to be anything other than an atheist. So you are correct to say that our choices are often limited. However, we do have smaller choices which we can make, and those smaller choices--collectively, over time--can help us catch a small glimpse of the world beyond our culture's plausibility structures.

For example, an intellectually minded atheist might devote some time to the study not just of science, but also of philosophy, or literary interpretation, or even the history of Christian thought (or Jewish, Buddist, Hindu thought, etc).

Now the problem is that most of us don't have the time or the interest to engage in such studies. And the best scholarly resources are difficult to find within the proliferation of unscholarly popular books and blogs. Sometimes the old saying is true, "A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing." But if one is of the intellectual bent, one can at least make some effort. In fact, one of the goals of higher education--secular or religious--is to invite people into a way of life where new thoughts and ideas are allowed to germinate and even to blossom.

...if one starts from the recognition that we humans are always capable of error, then even our impression of volition might on some level be illusory. Of course, for practical reasons we are obliged to act as if our best estimate is a correct picture of reality, but it is wise, IMO, to have in the back of the mind the recognition that it probably isn't exactly right.

Yes, intellectual humility is a precious and valuable commodity. Still, at the end of the day, we either have some measure of volition or we don't. Choosing to deny our volition is a self-defeating, self-refuting endeavor. If we don't have volition, then we can't choose to believe or disbelieve anything at all. We didn't choose whom to read; we didn't choose which evidence we should evaluate or even allow to serve as evidence; we didn't choose which principles of logic should have priority whenever a conflict or a balancing of options is required. In terms of logic, the nonvolitional hypothesis is a dead end because it forces you to admit that every single thought you've ever had and and ever will have, all of your goals and ambitions, all of your likes and dislikes, are utterly beyond even the smallest degree of your control. And this would not only be true of yourself, but also for all of the other people whose books you are reading, and whose testimony you find most persuasive.

We can't actually live as though all of this were true. How could there ever be any evidence which could cause us to reject the only means we have for evaluating evidence in the first place? Logically, we can't subjectively choose to view ourself as an object only, rather than a subject, an agent. So why should we?

[I Wear White Socks]

Why does it "seem" this way to you? I have never argued for such a viewpoint.

If you have ever argued for the existence of original sin, fallen nature, sin nature, depravity, marred image/likeness or any of the other terms coined by theologians, then resorted to utilizing the philosophical club of "free will" to beat down criticisms of the proposition that humanity is born prejudged, condemned, under wrath, damned, etc., then it appears you have indeed slipped that volitional rope around everyone's neck from birth (or at least puberty), thus concocting the poison of sin/death/hell to drink right along with offering the cure of salvation. Without invoking free will as the main ingredient, this on-the-spot combination of supply and demand wouldn't work when you tried to evangelize.

[EduChris]

...If you have ever argued for...then it appears you have indeed slipped that volitional rope around everyone's neck...

If you have ever seen me arguing for any of those viewpoints, then you should stop and ask me what I mean by those terms. And if you have never seen me arguing for those things, then you shouldn't be assuming anything at all.

[Jester]

Moderator Warning

... since it would seem your theology necessitates putting a volitional rope around humanity's neck so you can stand back, watch creatures hang themselves with it, then offer jesus to save them from themselves.

The language here is clearly inflammatory, and could be viewed as a personal attack. Please be sure to debate the issues in a more polite manner.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[I Wear White Socks]

If we don't have volition, then we can't choose to believe or disbelieve anything at all.

There is an emerging body of literature by neuroscientists, cognitive neuroscientists and evolutionary psychologists discussing the mechanisms by which humans come to believe things, and they don't require a disembodied mind with moral concerns called god.

Jesse Bering –The Belief Instict: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life

Todd Tremlin – Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion (2006)

Scott Atran – In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion (Evolution and Cognition Series).

Iikka Pyysiainen – Supernatural Agents: Why We Believe in Souls, Gods, and Buddhas.

Paschal Boyer – Religion Explained (2001)

Michael Shermer – The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths

Michael Shermer – How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science

Michael C. Corballis – The Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought and Civilization.

[Jax Agnesson]

...atheists often do not 'choose' to be atheists.

There was a time when atheism was simply not a viable option for people. The plausibility structures of their culture simply did not permit atheism as a viable worldview. I believe Richard Dawkins admitted as much when he exclaimed that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

I don't really agree with Dawkins on this one. (What's new?) There have been, and there still are, times and places where an open and honest skepticism has been, or is today, not an option. And in many places and times, religious debate, and atheism, have been recognised and supported. Dawkins in often a bit (!) over-simple on the socio-political aspects of belief.

Today, the plausibility structures have changed to a degree that in some circles it is almost impossible to be anything other than an atheist.

I would imagine that, outside the political centres of certain Stalinist regimes, (now thankfully defunct) an open and not-too-strident faith is accepted and respected more or less everywhere except within certain small dogmatic circles. Of course, I have no experience of being a theist in today's US or Europe, so perhaps you can correct me on that. I think it would be a shameful, and stupid, attitude to be intolerant of 'reasonable belief'.

So you are correct to say that our choices are often limited. However, we do have smaller choices which we can make, and those smaller choices--collectively, over time--can help us catch a small glimpse of the world beyond our culture's plausibility structures.

For example, an intellectually minded atheist might devote some time to the study not just of science, but also of philosophy, or literary interpretation, or even the history of Christian thought (or Jewish, Buddist, Hindu thought, etc).

Yes, I was interested to read Plantinga's take on this point. In 'Reason and Belief in God' he admits that he could not choose to become an atheist, but that he could put himself in the position of associating with non-believers, etc, with the intention of forgetting his faith. I will try to look up the exact quote over the next couple of days, but my copy is out on loan. To another atheist, oddly enough.

Now the problem is that most of us don't have the time or the interest to engage in such studies. And the best scholarly resources are difficult to find within the proliferation of unscholarly popular books and blogs.

How would you rate Plantinga in this view?

Sometimes the old saying is true, "A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing." But if one is of the intellectual bent, one can at least make some effort. In fact, one of the goals of higher education--secular or religious--is to invite people into a way of life where new thoughts and ideas are allowed to germinate and even to blossom.

...if one starts from the recognition that we humans are always capable of error, then even our impression of volition might on some level be illusory. Of course, for practical reasons we are obliged to act as if our best estimate is a correct picture of reality, but it is wise, IMO, to have in the back of the mind the recognition that it probably isn't exactly right.

Yes, intellectual humility is a precious and valuable commodity. Still, at the end of the day, we either have some measure of volition or we don't.

But it might not be that simple. We are complex social animals. We have evolved to watch, and anticipate, the actions of others of our species, and to use the fact that other of our conspecifics are engaged in this watching and anticipation. We form pacts and alliances; we make agreements; we work with the inbuilt 'theory of mind'. Like no other animal we know of, we communicate abstract ideas, desires, intentions. 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.

Choosing to deny our volition is a self-defeating, self-refuting endeavor. If we don't have volition, then we can't choose to believe or disbelieve anything at all. We didn't choose whom to read; we didn't choose which evidence we should evaluate or even allow to serve as evidence; we didn't choose which principles of logic should have priority whenever a conflict or a balancing of options is required. In terms of logic, the nonvolitional hypothesis is a dead end because it forces you to admit that every single thought you've ever had and and ever will have, all of your goals and ambitions, all of your likes and dislikes, are utterly beyond even the smallest degree of your control. And this would not only be true of yourself, but also for all of the other people whose books you are reading, and whose testimony you find most persuasive.

We can't actually live as though all of this were true. We can't subjectively choose to view ourself as an object only, rather than a subject, and agent. So why should we?

I think we can live with the possibility that our ideas about self, about free will, and so forth, are incomplete. And 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 because it underpins a lot of our useful moral and legal agreements. For now, at least.
And we can move carefully toward a less judgemental, less retributive political/ethical structure in the future. I think recognition of the part that religion has played, and continues to play, both for good and for ill, in the construction of ethics, is an important part of a humane, and humanist, attitude.

[I Wear White Socks]

Deleted. See post below.

[I Wear White Socks]

Volition not only explains certain effects (our actions and decisions) but also grants us a certain degree of personal ownership and responsibility for the future which we (at least in part) create for ourselves.

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