Why do people think atheism is a religion?
- Details
- Published on Wednesday, 07 March 2012 07:08
- Written by John Draper
- Hits: 1306
If I am asked what my religion is, I'm likely to say "I don't have one". The person asking will then say (or just think) that I must be either agnostic or atheist. They think I have a religion called atheism. You can argue semantics all you like - the word atheism means NO belief in a god but most people think of it as a set of beliefs and they think that means it's a religion. Linguistic scholars will tell you that words can change their meaning with time - common usage ends up defining their meaning. For example, terrific used to mean terrifying but now means great.
Recently, Richard Dawkins told the Archbishop of Canterbury that he's agnostic since he's not 100% certain there's no God. He's only as certain as he is that there's no Santa Claus. (I think he actually said "as certain that there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden" - but that's an English expression which can cause a giggle here). By the Oxford English dictionary definition of atheist and agnostic, he's really agnostic. Dawkins and I both trust the scientific method but no science that I can think of is 100% certain of anything although one can act as if it is correct. Newton wrote down some laws that work as long as you are not going anywhere near the speed of light. But in fact his laws are not 100% right. He was "wrong": calculations using his equations have miniscule errors. But for all usual situations, you can ignore the error.
In fact if you delve into quantum mechanics, there is no such thing as a certainty - just high probabilities. I have been asked whether I'm agnostic or atheist and I answer "atheist" even though, strictly speaking, I am agnostic. Maybe Dawkins should do the same. Why am I (strictly speaking) agnostic? Because I have an open mind. It's conceivable that evidence could be found to prove that a god exists but it's unlikely. In fact I'd estimate it to be 1 in many billions but I don't really know. [See also "What it would take for me to become a Christian"] I can't know - but then neither can religious people know that God does exist. They have chosen to believe - or in most cases it's really to affirm that they will continue to believe in the religion they were brought up in. You can compare this remote possibility with the higher probability that I will die in the next minute or so. But I continue in what I do with the assumption that I will continue to live for a while longer. My non-belief in a god is in the same category - I act as if there is none. There is no impact of a god on my life nor the life of anyone I have ever met nor on any world events. There is an impact from what people believe but not from the actions of any god. So I live my life and see the world around me as natural and free of any supernatural god.
But that does not stop other people from believing in a god and does not stop them saying that my religion is atheism!
Of course there's a touch of embarrassment (or something) in people's desire to want everyone to have a religion. Wouldn't they look silly if they discovered that they had been hanging on to their religion through faith and found out that they were in a minority - what if their peers, friends and "just everyone" did not have faith? Right now in Canada and certainly in the U.S., there's no danger of that. But this desire to be in the right team; to be in the right crowd; to have friends who are "sensible" (that is think like them) means that they want everyone to have the same religion as them - but failing that, to have some kind of religion, some kind of blind faith. They probably feel they are being kind - John has a religion just like everyone else!
-
2012-03-07 17:54:32 | chris
I believe the meaning of the word agnostic has changed. By true definition we all should be agnostic. There can be an agnostic theist, and agnostic atheist, but everyone unless they're just stupid is agnostic. The true definition of agnostic is knowing that we cannot be for sure that there is or isn't a God. That's it. So you can still know this, but still believe in a God, or not. In my opinion agnostic shouldn't even be a word, because it just explains common sense.
-
2012-03-07 22:35:00 | manfred
"coincidence" is a troubling thing. In my view, coincidence carries a hint of the possibility that there is a larger force acting upon us than our own volition. That, to me, is enough to keep me from declaring myself as an atheist. Am I then an agnostic, is the next question that raises. I conclude, from all my other opinions, that I am nothing that has a label; I am a being, as long as I am alive in this form, that just questions every absolute that is proposed, and I think that there is more to every story than what I can perceive with my present capabilities.
Why should there be a "category" into which I fall just to make it convenient for those who need some sort of organized grouping of thinkers, or non-thinkers, to be able to relate to their (the thinkers) thoughts and position them relative to their own thinking. I don't need that kind of relationship to believe what I believe to be my reality.
-
2012-03-08 16:18:03 | Clare
No,Manfred, coincidence is not troubling. It is just that -coincidence. It has nothing to do with a "larger force". If you believe it does,you need to offer some type of proof or evidence.
-
2012-03-08 18:46:34 | manfred
while I did say "hint of a possibility" I did not suggest that I have evidence, at least evidence that I might recognize as such. Furthermore, where is the evidence that there is NO possibility of it being so? You seem positive that there is no evidence anywhere that would support such a possibility so I ask you to provide evidence that supports your contention, if it is that.
-
2012-03-08 22:04:58 | Clare
Manfred, in logic, there is no need to prove a negative . The burden of proof in on the person making the assertion to the positive.
-
2012-03-09 17:24:18 | manfred
If that is always true, why then does this site continue to cite the lack of evidence of something in an effort to prove a negative, which is that there is no God, (or a higher power)?
John seeks to support, and likely ultimately come as close as he can to prove) his belief that God does NOT exist. That seems to me to be an effort to prove a negative, which you just said is unnecessary. I can't see that he has yet provided positive evidence to support that belief. If I'm wrong on this, I'm sure he'll let us know. Following your principle, how would you propose that John try to prove his contention?
Don't misunderstand me here, I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm saying that "the hint of a possibility" leaves a lot to be proven if that observation is incorrect, and you likely won't find any positive evidence to refute my thoughts about "coincidence".
I can't see that your defense of "logic" is a valid one here.
-
2012-03-24 19:51:46 | Phelan Scanlon
Whenever I refer to Atheism as a religion i do so out of respect. God's existence cannot be proven nor disproven. Therefore, it takes a measure of Faith to say with 100% conviction that: 'there is no God'. Such a belief is absolute, clear, unqualified. Unlike agnostics, but like Christians, Atheists make an ultimate statement. It is an unambiguous claim. I may well be mischaracterizing Atheists but I think their willingness to take a clear stand is worthy of respect. It is a point of view that guides moral and life decisions. Not perhaps a religion but an Ultimate Statement.
It is just in North America and mostly in the U.S that people think like this. In most European countries, it is considered embarrassing to still be a church-going Christian, or to mention religion in any form at dinner parties is boring and in bad form.