Is atheism a religion?
March 12th, 2008
by Brian
Many people insist that atheism is not a religion. And in the traditional conception of religion (i.e., belief in and worship of a supreme being, for example) I agree. However, I feel that our current definition of religion implies a deference and confers a legitimacy to religion which unfairly works to exclude other viewpoints that serve the same functions as religion for many people. Specifically, of course, I refer to atheism.
In what way, if any, does atheism resemble religion? In order to get there I think we must call a spade a spade. Adherents to religion claim to know what is true when it comes to the supernatural. And most of society is content to let them make that claim. However, humans act within the confines of bounded rationality: we can only know so much and, therefore, we do the best we can with incomplete information. So why is it that when a religious person says, “I know there is a god,” we say, “Oh, okay.” But if an atheist says, “I have serious doubts there is a god,” it’s just her opinion.
Let me give you a rather ridiculous example. I wrote the first draft of this blog entry with a pen. I feel comfortable saying, “That is my pen,” and living my life accordingly. But it’s possible that, unbeknownst to me, someone swapped my pen for an identical pen. In that instance, I was writing with someone else’s pen. Further, it may not be a pen at all. Maybe it’s some kind of crazy alien transmitter thingy designed to appear and function like a pen to prevent detection.
Similarly, when people make religious assertions, they do so subject to their own bounded rationality. Some are unaware of the limitations of their bounded rationality. Others deny the effect of those bounds. But this does not change the reality that religious persons (like all of us) make decisions and assertions with incomplete information. It is no different than may alien transmitter pen. However, we are told that a belief in a supernatural being should be immune to rational criticism and it is labeled “religion.”
But is a disbelief in a supernatural being not very similar in nature? It is a position on the existence or nonexistence of a supreme being taken within the confines of bounded rationality. When approached from this angle, is there any reason atheism should be treated differently than a “mainstream” religion? I argue that to treat the two differently lends an undeserved legitimacy to the assertions of those who claim to be ruled by a supreme being.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
You also have to keep in mind that many atheists are selling their perspective as a competing worldview, while denying their view is in any way religious. When you tell someone “don’t view religion THAT way, view it THIS way,” it’s hard, in my opine, to also tell them that it is not a religious perspective. Perhaps not a RELIGION, but it is a religious perspective.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I think that some people absolutely do take their atheism to the level that you suggest, Brian. That is, they believe that it is a fact that god does not exist. I think many others, though, myself included, instead view it not as a fact but as a decision that is a result of the evidence that we have. I do not see any evidence that god exists and so I live my life in such a way that god does not exist. That does not mean that I would say unequivocally that god absolutely does not exist. If I were presented with true evidence, as opposed to anecdotal evidence, I would reconsider my position.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Well said, Jaime. I agree and further assert that proving a negative is logically impossible anyway. Thus, I cannot even prove that unicorns or giant flying, fire breathing wolves don’t exist… but the flying wolves would be pretty rad.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I guess my point is not that one must say, “I KNOW there is no god,” in order for atheism to be viewed as a religion. Really, I think it’s unfair when we treat someone who disregards her bounded rationality as somehow special to the detriment of those who make assertions regarding the same subject matter simply because she comes to an affirmative conclusion rather than a negative conclusion. In that way, if atheism is not a religion, then neither is Hinduism, for example. The rules of the game cannot be different based on what your ultimate conclusion happens to be.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Because of the point you brought up (nobody has absolute knowledge of anything), I think the word ‘know’ is trickier than the word ‘religion’. In order to be a useful word, we have to use the word ‘know’ to mean ‘believe very strongly’. Otherwise, we don’t know that Bertrand Russell’s teapot doesn’t exist.
So adherents to religion claim to know what is true when it comes to the supernatural. I and most atheists I know claim to know god doesn’t exist as much as we know hobgoblins don’t exist (or that aliens didn’t abduct and replace own pens). When the former statement is dimissed as opinion, I chalk it up to our simply being in the minority.
But lack of belief in a supernatural being is similar to belief only in that there are usually similar degrees of certainty. And this is why atheism, just like lack of belief in Russell’s teapot, should be treated differently than mainstream religion. Treating the two differently doesn’t so much lend more legitimacy to religious assertions than atheism, as it does distinguish active from reactive. It makes clear that one’s religion is a unique belief in some noun (whether a persona or a supernatural phenomenon) which was conceived, defined, and proffered as real. It clarifies that atheism, at its strongest, is simply listening to any or all of those claims, and refusing to accept them.
I also get that Brian sees religion/atheism as two answers to the same question. But even someone who has never broached the question is considered an atheist.
In the end, I think we’d have to redefine both religion and atheism to consider atheism a religion.