Atheism as a religion

[dust]

ATHEISM: 2 definitions (quick Google)

 

disbelief¹ or lack of belief² in the existence of God or gods

 

RELIGION: 3 definitions (quick Google)

 

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

 

a particular system of faith and worship

 

a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

 

 

Clearly, an atheist who either disbelieves or has a lack of belief in the possibility of God or gods cannot possibly be said to be religious if we use the first definition of religion as it relates to God or gods.

However, personality cults such as that around Mao Zedong and other leaders have had many of the trappings of religion without a belief in an actual God. Millions of Chinese were taught to worship Mao, and some even went as far as believing that he was superhuman.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_persecution_in_Communist_Romania

This is a more succinct example: 400 priests killed, churches seized, population "indoctrinated" with atheism, all with the intention to "propagate among the labouring masses political and scientific knowledge to fight obscurantism, superstition, mysticism, and all other influences of bourgeois ideologies."

 

So... worship in superhuman controlling power? Check. Particular system of faith? Check. Pursuit to which one ascribes supreme importance? Check. There have indeed been religious atheists, by any of the above definitions.

 

 

 

The question that is most relevant is whether or not modern atheists in countries such as the USA, UK, Germany, Japan, etc can be described as religious. I would say that, by and large, atheism does not coincide with any of the above 3 definitions of religion. For the most part, a modern atheist is simply content to not believe in God.

 

What I would suggest is that, rather than atheism itself, there are certain modern pursuits which a majority of atheists adhere to that can be described as religious in many cases, at least with regard to the 3^rd and possibly 2^nd definitions of religion above. Without a doubt there are people who ascribe supreme importance to science & technology, a certain type of education, a specific place in the workforce, etc, and though we can't map traditional religious ceremony exactly with modern cultural patterns, there is, at least to me, a distinct similarity in behaviour.

 

That's what I think, anyway.

[Marblehead]

 

Edited for a better layout

Yes Bubbles, that was a long read. I fell asleep three times reading it.

 

So bottom line, Mr Dewey was suggesting that the experiences could happen to anyone. More often than not a religious person would find the cause within their religion. A non-religious person would look for other causes, maybe a good meditation system.

 

The human brain functions approximately the same for everyone. What makes the difference is what we have been taught in the past or the understandings we have formed based on our experiences throughout our life.

[Marblehead]

 

That's what I think, anyway.

Fair.

 

But to kill one god only to replace it with another is, IMO, only a grab for supreme power. "Bow down to me! I am god."

 

Doesn't matter if that god is some superstition or some individual or some political group.

 

Perhaps this is why Nietzsche was unable to offer us a replacement for god after declaring him dead. There is no way to replace a god except by creating a new one.

 

The only rational thing to do is declare all gods superstition, and declaring them only a means by power lords to control the people.

 

And we shouldn't speak unfairly about the Marxists who killed many people trying to kill religion unless we consider how many millions of people have been killed by religious people.

[dust]

And we shouldn't speak unfairly about the Marxists who killed many people trying to kill religion unless we consider how many millions of people have been killed by religious people.

 

I don't think it's unfair to note facts. Religious people have killed a lot, yes, but there are as many different religions as there are political and cultural and economic groups causing death and sadness every day. To talk about one, do we have to mention all the others?

[dust]

A thought, only vaguely related:

 

It often seems that many non-religious people blame "religion" as a cause of things as if it had been cast down to Earth by a malevolent God.

 

I used to do this. As a capital-A Atheist for many years, I blamed religion for so many of the world's evils.

 

But that's pure nonsense. If the idea is to realize that there is no God, we must equally realize that all "evils" in the world are created by people. For me, it's important to realize that religion is nothing more than a tool. Whatever ends it serves, good or bad, are purely those of the people who use it.

 

Just like "the economy", or "politics", it is something based entirely in the (collective) human mind, to which we ascribe some outside power. And even if we accept that any theistic religion has taken on a life of its own, becoming something separate from the people who created it, without people's acceptance of it, it would have no power.

Edited October 31, 2014 by dustybeijing

[Owledge]

@dustybeijing

I think the problem there is that when people refer to religion in that sense, they are talking about the worldly part of it, the actions of organized power centers. And indeed, THAT problem can be found in all areas of life. It doesn't depend on religious mindset, but on power in the hands of the few and manipulation of the masses.

And because this association is made between the phenomenon and the term, with the same reasoning people rightfully call things like Apple worship or man-made global warming religions.

The latter one is a very good example of how especially Atheists (/Antitheists) can easily compete with the most appalling of Christianity's bigots. THAT belief system is so effective that even someone like Steven Colbert turns into nothing short of an arrogant prick in its defense. (Offense would actually be more fitting word.)

 

So, without wanting to polarize or alienate too much, but there seems to be a duality, a difference with the same result, in that the strongest of theist minds tend to be unbelievably naive, while the strongest of atheist minds tend to be unbelievably arrogant. The former have too much heart focus with weak mind, the latter too much mind focus with weak heart. Both are imbalances, thus causing problems.

What is to be aspired is the Buddha nature: strong heart and strong mind. The greater the imbalance, the less progress is made due to high difficulty.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Owledge

[Marblehead]

To talk about one, do we have to mention all the others?

Only in order to maintain balance within the discussion and not allow our statements to be one-sided.

[Marblehead]

But that's pure nonsense. If the idea is to realize that there is no God, we must equally realize that all "evils" in the world are created by people. For me, it's important to realize that religion is nothing more than a tool. Whatever ends it serves, good or bad, are purely those of the people who use it.

Okay. Now you are speaking in concepts that I can agree with.

[Marblehead]

I think the problem there is ...

I have no problem with that post either.

 

(Well, except that I would have said "Tao nature" instead of "Buddha nature".)

[Bubbles]

Yes Bubbles, that was a long read. I fell asleep three times reading it.

I am sorry for that.

So bottom line, Mr Dewey was suggesting that the experiences could happen to anyone. More often than not a religious person would find the cause within their religion. A non-religious person would look for other causes, maybe a good meditation system.

 

The human brain functions approximately the same for everyone. What makes the difference is what we have been taught in the past or the understandings we have formed based on our experiences throughout our life.

John Dewey finds a religious component in human’s life that is independent from institutionalized religions and their traditional functioning. That religious component is often neglected or remains unseen because people who reject religions (mostly because of their past actions, their authoritarian functioning etc) don’t see that there is something in their life experience that is religious.

It means that someone could be a materialist atheist but still be a religious person inasmuch as one finds something that enables a sense of inner stability and peace. Even if one stripes away all reference to external god(s), to supernatural forces etc, one can still be a religious person.

[C T]

I think the words compulsion, obsession, passion and fanaticism could easily be interchanged with the word 'religious'.

 

Often, there is a kind of amusing confusion happening when people are asked if they would call themselves 'religious'. It immediately connotes the idea of a god, or gods being worshipped like clockwork, and the trend today is for most people to answer in the negative. But people tend to worship many things in life besides godly beings who are believed to reside in higher realms - freedom being one very apt example.

 

The object of focus is secondary - it is the prevalent attitude that is brought to bear upon the object that determines one's fervour, isn't it? Taking a look around, i can see many things that people would obsess themselves over as a replacement for the god who died recently in their lives and got replaced.

[Owledge]

I think the words compulsion, obsession, passion and fanaticism could easily be interchanged with the word 'religious'.

 

Often, there is a kind of amusing confusion happening when people are asked if they would call themselves 'religious'. It immediately connotes the idea of a god, or gods being worshipped like clockwork, and the trend today is for most people to answer in the negative. But people tend to worship many things in life besides godly beings who are believed to reside in higher realms - freedom being one very apt example.

 

The object of focus is secondary - it is the prevalent attitude that is brought to bear upon the object that determines one's fervour, isn't it? Taking a look around, i can see many things that people would obsess themselves over as a replacement for the god who died recently in their lives and got replaced.

Unless you interpret religion as originating from re-ligare = reconnecting with the divine, that from which we have been separated when we came into life.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Owledge

[Cheshire Cat]

I think the words compulsion, obsession, passion and fanaticism could easily be interchanged with the word 'religious'.

 

Often, there is a kind of amusing confusion happening when people are asked if they would call themselves 'religious'. It immediately connotes the idea of a god, or gods being worshipped like clockwork, and the trend today is for most people to answer in the negative. But people tend to worship many things in life besides godly beings who are believed to reside in higher realms - freedom being one very apt example.

 

The object of focus is secondary - it is the prevalent attitude that is brought to bear upon the object that determines one's fervour, isn't it? Taking a look around, i can see many things that people would obsess themselves over as a replacement for the god who died recently in their lives and got replaced.

 

In my opinion, to be religious has more to do with what one expects in the afterlife and how he lives with it.... than with worships and such.

[Marblehead]

I am sorry for that.

 

John Dewey finds a religious component in human’s life that is independent from institutionalized religions and their traditional functioning. That religious component is often neglected or remains unseen because people who reject religions (mostly because of their past actions, their authoritarian functioning etc) don’t see that there is something in their life experience that is religious.

It means that someone could be a materialist atheist but still be a religious person inasmuch as one finds something that enables a sense of inner stability and peace. Even if one stripes away all reference to external god(s), to supernatural forces etc, one can still be a religious person.

I am actually in agreement except the five highlighted words should be, IMO, "spiritual".

 

I have no problem, normally, speaking about spirituality. But "religious" is not a part of what I am.

[Marblehead]

Unless you interpret religion as originating from re-ligare = reconnecting with the divine, that from which we have been separated when we came into life.

I have always been an aspect of Tao. I don't call it divine though.

[dust]

Words words words! Words are important..

 

Unless you interpret religion as originating from re-ligare = reconnecting with the divine, that from which we have been separated when we came into life.

 

In my opinion, to be religious has more to do with what one expects in the afterlife and how he lives with it.... than with worships and such.

 

What I see a lot of here is people trying to define a word, rather than actually talk about what's happening in the world. Me included.

 

One's personal definition of "atheism" or "religion" or "spirituality" is, I think, pretty much irrelevant to the intended question of the thread. It's worded as "atheism as a religion", but if we can move past those specific words, I think what we're asking is "Are there people whose disbelief in God goes past passive non-belief into the realms of obsession / fanaticism?"

 

I think the words compulsion, obsession, passion and fanaticism could easily be interchanged with the word 'religious'.

 

Removing the word "religious" for the moment, these other words can often be applied, as far as I'm concerned. I'm going to make one assumption: many who disavow religion and "hocus pocus" sooner or later end up looking to "science" for answers. As Sagan says,

 

There is no other species on the Earth that does science. It is, so far, entirely a human invention, evolved by natural selection in the cerebral cortex for one simple reason: it works. It is not perfect. It can be misused. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything. It has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised. We must understand the Cosmos as it is and not confuse how it is with how we wish it to be.

 

Well, I like his definition -- noting that science can be misused, and that authority has no authority. As defined above it is a great tool...but for what, exactly? What's the purpose? Does science ever examine its own assumption that constant probing and searching and "improving" is beneficial or useful? And are we really to believe that there is no scientific authority that people follow? The vast majority of people who claim atheism and follow science have a very limited understanding of physics, chemistry, or anything else. Just look here:

 

https://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience

 

Scrolling through a page that's closing in on 19 million likes (quite a number for something that isn't a celebrity - a major influencer like Jay-Z has 22 million) one sees that, though people who "Like" the page surely profess a love of science, there's a distinct lack of interest for any actual scientific information. From the first few articles on the page (as I write):

 

Pope Endorses Evolution etc: 160,000 Likes

Hydrating beer: 156,000

Jaguar getting high: 42,000

Star necklace: 35,000

Squirrel eating a pumpkin: 23,000

Telescope image: 11,000

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: 10,000

DNA electronics: 9,000

Stomachs in petri dishes: 7,000

Brain virus: 4,000 Likes

 

Notice a trend? It seems to me that articles with a novelty/comedy factor or, notably, an anti-religious element, are the most-Liked, whereas the more actual scientific information to be found in an article.... far fewer people "Liking".

 

As I see it, there is undeniably a fanaticism around some people's disbelief and subsequent "belief in science", coupled with an absolute lack of understanding of "real science". It worries me a little. But no more than anything else.

[Marblehead]

One's personal definition of "atheism" or "religion" or "spirituality" is, I think, pretty much irrelevant to the intended question of the thread. It's worded as "atheism as a religion", but if we can move past those specific words, I think what we're asking is "Are there people whose disbelief in God goes past passive non-belief into the realms of obsession / fanaticism?"

If one were to ask me that question my answer would be: Yes, absolutely.

 

PS Nice to see you quoting Carl. He is one of my favorites. (Yes, I know he has passed but he is still here.)

[C T]

Unless you interpret religion as originating from re-ligare = reconnecting with the divine, that from which we have been separated when we came into life.

Well, that's the thing, in days of old, there was probably a very narrow interpretation of 'religion' - these days the nuances are much more apparent.

 

That is approximately the point i was making... Is there a fundamental difference in attitude (not taking benefits into account) between someone who, without fail, gets up at 4am each morning, puts on his gear and goes out running/jogging for an hour, and another who sees discomfort in not going to church 3 times a week? Could both be deemed religious, with or without the addition of the word 'God' into the equation.

 

What about one who is prepared to kill to defend his or her property? What is the underlying drive behind such a mental frame?

[Owledge]

Well, that's the thing, in days of old, there was probably a very narrow interpretation of 'religion' - these days the nuances are much more apparent.

 

That is approximately the point i was making... Is there a fundamental difference in attitude (not taking benefits into account) between someone who, without fail, gets up at 4am each morning, puts on his gear and goes out running/jogging for an hour, and another who sees discomfort in not going to church 3 times a week? Could both be deemed religious, with or without the addition of the word 'God' into the equation.

 

What about one who is prepared to kill to defend his or her property? What is the underlying drive behind such a mental frame?

As an answer for that, I only have the relatively common viewpoint that life itself, for everybody, is a spiritual and religious journey. We all strive for happiness, and true happiness is the realm of the divine.

Many people just don't see their lives that way, but it still makes it valid as a viewpoint.

Also, people apply very different strategies, but even if it might not appear like it (e.g. if someone is confused/misguided), it's always about finding happiness.

 

Ironically, true happiness / bliss / whatever you want to call it, is not the realm of the divine, but merely the effect of the distance of us from it. We experience bliss when we witness the divine, but when we become the divine, there cannot be emotion.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Owledge

[Bubbles]

I am actually in agreement except the five highlighted words should be, IMO, "spiritual".

 

I have no problem, normally, speaking about spirituality. But "religious" is not a part of what I am.

I am fine with that, Marblehead.