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.

[Jax Agnesson]

...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?

I am undecided about the depth to which our experienced 'free will' extends. I recognise that the experience of free will is meaningful for all practical human purposes, (except maybe when one includes philosophy amongst our 'practical purposes!':roll:)

...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.

This looks like a very strong argument at first, Chris. But it assumes that all possible Universes would have to be contingent on the same non-contingent causes as our own, and I don't see why that should have to be so. I could dream up half a dozen scenarios in which possible worlds exist whose causes are completely independent of whatever caused ours.

[EduChris]

...the black box is the non-contingent reality which undergirds all of contingent reality...

This looks like a very strong argument at first, Chris. But it assumes that all possible Universes would have to be contingent on the same non-contingent causes as our own, and I don't see why that should have to be so...

The only thing I stipulate is that the black box, whatever it contains, undergirds all contingencies. There are not multiple black boxes; there is only one black box. If volition is anywhere inside the black box, then theism is the epistemically preferred option.

...I could dream up half a dozen scenarios in which possible worlds exist whose causes are completely independent of whatever caused ours.

You appear to be multiplying entities unnecessarily (contra Occam's Razor, which you mentioned previously) by postulating multiple independent causes which all inhere within the black box. This seems rather ad hoc to me; epistemologically speaking, simpler is better (ceteris paribus).

If we want to subject the contents of the black box to logical analysis, I believe we can come up with a very simple working definition--or at least a very simple starting point--such that any additional complicating factors or entities would require sufficient justification.

Here is my initial working definition:

1) Not arbitrarily limited by any physical or spatio-temporal dimensions
2) Not abitrarily limited in the capacity to handle or process information
3) Not arbitrarily limited in causal efficacy

I believe the above definition is both simple and capable of producing any possible world. If I am correct, then there is no need (and no epistemological warrant) to postulate additional entities inside the black box.

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

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.

While EduChris' comment could have been more polite, the moderators have always given more leeway regarding comments about a belief. These kinds of comments directed at Christianity (or other religious beliefs) are not uncommon, and do not receive censure.

This is, however, a one-liner post. Please be sure you are contributing to the discussion, rather than simply making negative remarks about other posts.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[Jax Agnesson]

...the black box is the non-contingent reality which undergirds all of contingent reality...

This looks like a very strong argument at first, Chris. But it assumes that all possible Universes would have to be contingent on the same non-contingent causes as our own, and I don't see why that should have to be so...

The only thing I stipulate is that the black box, whatever it contains, undergirds all contingencies. There are not multiple black boxes; there is only one black box. If volition is anywhere inside the black box, then theism is the epistemically preferred option.

...I could dream up half a dozen scenarios in which possible worlds exist whose causes are completely independent of whatever caused ours.

You appear to be multiplying entities unnecessarily (contra Occam's Razor, which you mentioned previously) by postulating multiple independent causes which all inhere within the black box. This seems rather ad hoc to me; epistemologically speaking, simpler is better (ceteris paribus).

If we want to subject the contents of the black box to logical analysis, I believe we can come up with a very simple working definition--or at least a very simple starting point--such that any additional complicating factors or entities would require sufficient justification.

Here is my initial working definition:

1) Not arbitrarily limited by any physical or spatio-temporal dimensions
2) Not abitrarily limited in the capacity to handle or process information
3) Not arbitrarily limited in causal efficacy

I believe the above definition is both simple and capable of producing any possible world. If I am correct, then there is no need (and no epistemological warrant) to postulate additional entities inside the black box.

This is an intriguing argument, Chris, and I think I need more time to think about it. In any case, it's outside OftM's OP, on which we are already agreed. A new thread? All best, Jax.

[EduChris]

...This is an intriguing argument, Chris, and I think I need more time to think about it. In any case, it's outside OftM's OP, on which we are already agreed. A new thread? All best, Jax.

Yes, we agree that neither theism nor atheism is a religion.

I'm okay with starting a new thread if you think it's best; however, the argument I've presented here supports my post #5, so I don't think we're completely off-topic.

[Jax Agnesson]

...This is an intriguing argument, Chris, and I think I need more time to think about it. In any case, it's outside OftM's OP, on which we are already agreed. A new thread? All best, Jax.

Yes, we agree that neither theism nor atheism is a religion.

I'm okay with starting a new thread if you think it's best; however, the argument I've presented here supports my post #5, so I don't think we're completely off-topic.

i think your post no 5 defines atheism in a way that, if valid, would itself add nothing to support your position re the OP of this thread.
On the subject of your 'black box' approach to the uncaused cause, I think a new topic, maybe in the philosophy sub'forum, might attract some thoughtful debate.

[JustAGuy]

My first debate post. Please be gentle.

I realize this thread is a bit concluded, but I'm rusty at this and it can stand as a good place to get my feet wet.

Certainly atheism is not a religion, and as the debate on this appears satisfied, explaining my own point of view would be moot.

However, this thread has been troubling me, but I couldn't put my finger on it until...

We know of three causal mechanisms: chance, necessity, and volition. These are the only three we know of, and if you want to propose some other mechanism then you'd have to provide some good reason for such. Theists don't arbitrarily rule out any of the three known causal mechanisms, whereas non-theists necessarily rule out volition. Unless you can come up with some good reason to rule out volition (and such an attempt seems to be a self-defeating proposition) then theism is actually the default position, since it doesn't arbitrarily rule anything out.

(hey my first bbcode!)

Volition. Perhaps I am not understanding your use of this in a macro sense.

The problem I have is with the black box example itself. I believe humans have volition. I do not believe volition is in the box. I do not agree that volition must be in box for it to exist outside the box because it is a far more modest mechanism, more of a trait, that can be derived from chance and necessity.

Anything that lives through time must, by necessity, have mechanisms to sustain itself. At some level of poorly understood demarcation of consciousness, we have volition. It exists in a far smaller subset of mechanisms within chance and necessity.

Chance and necessity are two huge complementary mechanisms that have universal applications. I can easily observe and conclude each piece of clutter on my desk is full of chance and necessity. It is of necessity this rock sits on my desk because of its own composition in relation to forces, such as gravity. It is chance that it sits here because I brought it here or to be even more tightly aligned to the point, it is chance that it has its shape from being eroded to its current form by its chance adventures in the ocean.

But it doesn't have volition. I can't observe or imagine it unless I want to get way anthropomorphic on it.

Would the universe have volition if there was no life? It would have chance and necessity. Does the existence of life demand volition be in the box as a separate mechanism? Not by my above thinking.

To extract and conflate volition to level of chance and necessity seems a deliberate, unsupported leap to promote the existence of God.

In fact, the entire example has triggers facilitating the conclusion of theism, with the obviously designed "black box" that has mechanisms placed within.

I have to work on my editing.

[EduChris]

...I'm okay with starting a new thread if you think it's best; however, the argument I've presented here supports my post #5, so I don't think we're completely off-topic.

i think your post no 5 defines atheism in a way that, if valid, would itself add nothing to support your position re the OP of this thread.
On the subject of your 'black box' approach to the uncaused cause, I think a new topic, maybe in the philosophy sub'forum, might attract some thoughtful debate.

I have started a new thread for this topic: Volitional Non-contingent Reality?. Those that are interested may continue the discussion on that thread in the Philosophy sub-forum.

[EduChris]

My first debate post. Please be gentle.

I realize this thread is a bit concluded, but I'm rusty at this and it can stand as a good place to get my feet wet.

Certainly atheism is not a religion, and as the debate on this appears satisfied, explaining my own point of view would be moot.

However, this thread has been troubling me, but I couldn't put my finger on it until...

We know of three causal mechanisms: chance, necessity, and volition. These are the only three we know of, and if you want to propose some other mechanism then you'd have to provide some good reason for such. Theists don't arbitrarily rule out any of the three known causal mechanisms, whereas non-theists necessarily rule out volition. Unless you can come up with some good reason to rule out volition (and such an attempt seems to be a self-defeating proposition) then theism is actually the default position, since it doesn't arbitrarily rule anything out.

(hey my first bbcode!)

Volition. Perhaps I am not understanding your use of this in a macro sense.

The problem I have is with the black box example itself. I believe humans have volition. I do not believe volition is in the box. I do not agree that volition must be in box for it to exist outside the box because it is a far more modest mechanism, more of a trait, that can be derived from chance and necessity.

Anything that lives through time must, by necessity, have mechanisms to sustain itself. At some level of poorly understood demarcation of consciousness, we have volition. It exists in a far smaller subset of mechanisms within chance and necessity.

Chance and necessity are two huge complementary mechanisms that have universal applications. I can easily observe and conclude each piece of clutter on my desk is full of chance and necessity. It is of necessity this rock sits on my desk because of its own composition in relation to forces, such as gravity. It is chance that it sits here because I brought it here or to be even more tightly aligned to the point, it is chance that it has its shape from being eroded to its current form by its chance adventures in the ocean.

But it doesn't have volition. I can't observe or imagine it unless I want to get way anthropomorphic on it.

Would the universe have volition if there was no life? It would have chance and necessity. Does the existence of life demand volition be in the box as a separate mechanism? Not by my above thinking.

To extract and conflate volition to level of chance and necessity seems a deliberate, unsupported leap to promote the existence of God.

In fact, the entire example has triggers facilitating the conclusion of theism, with the obviously designed "black box" that has mechanisms placed within.

I have to work on my editing.

Sorry to pull a switcheroo on your first post. But it is probably best that we continue this discussion on the new thread I have created in the Philosophy sub-forum. I suppose if you want to look at the bright side, this might at least give you a good excuse to work on your editing.

[EduChris]

...I do not agree that volition must be in box for it to exist outside the box because it...can be derived from chance and necessity...Chance and necessity are two huge complementary mechanisms that have universal applications...To extract and conflate volition to level of chance and necessity seems a deliberate, unsupported leap to promote the existence of God...

Although we're continuing this discussion on another thread, I probably should refer you back to post #42 and post #41 for my previous response to the issues you raised.

...the entire example has triggers facilitating the conclusion of theism, with the obviously designed "black box" that has mechanisms placed within...

General tools of logic ought to be permissible when discussing metaphysical concepts.