Reflecting on Atheism.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

This presupposes that they had religion and theology in the first place. Which is what the question is about. Because if pagan Greece and Rome did not have religion, then what they were discussing about teaching in schools could not have been 'theology' or 'religious information'.

And before someone tells me about the Greek 'gods' Zeus, Thor, Athena, and the stories about them, the temples, the rituals etc etc, I'm very well aware of all that, but what makes all those practices into religion.

I would say that the belief, myths, temples, rituals, worship etc are precisely what makes those practices into religion.

What is Religion anyways?

That's not an easy question to answer. Do you have a definition that would exclude pre-christian beliefs?

and minor point: they didn't see their "gods" (another Christian theological concept) as supernatural agents.

Hang on there sparky, what definition of 'supernatural agent' are you using? All the gods you've mentioned so far would easily fit into my definition.

and more importantly, we have to remember that the term 'Religion' itself was born out of Christian theology. and this brings us right back to the title of the thread. If 'Religion', 'God', 'gods', 'theism' are all Christian theological concepts, then what is Atheism?

How the terms came about is generally irrelevant when considering what those terms apply to.

[Brian37]

Here is an interesting quote from philosopher John Gray from his book Straw Dogs:

"To Deny the existence of God is to accept the categories [framework] of monotheism. As these categories fall into disuse, unbelief becomes uninteresting. Atheists say they want a secular world, but a world defined by the absence of the Christian God is still a Christian world. Secularism is like chastity, a condition defined by what it denies. If atheism has a future, it can only be in a Christian world.

Atheism is a late bloom of a Christian passion for truth. No Pagan is ready to sacrifice the pleasure of life for the sake of mere truth. The long delayed consequence of Christian faith was an idolatry of truth that found its most complete expression in Atheism."

Hi guys. I just joined this forum. I thought this quote was fascinating and would be interesting to reflect upon and discuss about.

What a bunch of drivel, we also deny Allah and Vishnu and Yahweh.

[arvind13]

It was St. Augustine who made the word re-ligare prominent. The well-known etymological remark that brings ‘re-ligion’ in connection with ‘re-ligare’ (to tie together, to link) makes us see religious phenomena as instruments of connection, as modes of union.

For the pagans, 'religio' and re-ligare meant something completely different. Here is a quote from cicero, a Roman philosopher:

"For religion has been distinguished from superstition not only by philosophers but by our own ancestors. Persons who spent whole days in prayer and sacrifice to ensure that their children should outlive them were termed ‘superstitious’…Those on the other hand who carefully reviewed and so to speak retraced all the lore of the ritual were called ‘religious’ from relegere (to re-trace or re-read), like ‘elegant’ from eligere (to select), ‘diligent’ from diligere (to care for), ‘intelligent’ from intellegere (to understand); for all these words contain the same sense of ‘picking out’ (legere) that is present in ‘religions’."

This interpretation of the word 'religio' by Cicero, in its turn, appeals to his culture and tradition. For the pagans, religio was almost synonymous with 'traditio'. From the pagan perspective, Religion simply meant the traditions handed down by your ancestors The ideas of carefully reviewing, or retracing, and ‘picking out’ do make sense when religion is the tradition handed down by your ancestors.

Whereas in Judeo-Christian theology, religion becomes inextricably linked to belief. From the Christian perspective, practices and rituals are based on beliefs. This was not the case with pagan cultures like Ancient Greece, China, and India.

and that is why the term 'religion' as it is presently used is derived from Christian theology and doesn't apply to these traditions.

[genkaus]

@Arvind,

Whether of not cultures originating in India, China or ancient Greece had an explicit term for "religious belief" or not is irrelevant. The only factor in determining whether or not a cultural phenomena is a religion or not is what you mean by religion and if the shoe fits. That they themselves could not separate the religious aspects of their lives does not mean they had none.

You start with the assumption that religion is defined with a Christian bias and therefore, any negation carries with it the same bias. And you assume that giving the etymological history somehow bolsters this argument. It doesn't.

Identifying religion is pretty easy. If a cultural phenomenon has following aspects:
1. Belief in supernatural and/or divine entities - such as gods, deities, angels, spirits and so on.
2. Regarding certain objects/times/places as sacred or profane due to those beliefs.
3. A supposedly historical narrative explaining those beliefs.
4. Rituals and practices consequent of those beliefs and centered on them.
5. A moral code based on those beliefs,

- if this shoe fits, then the phenomenon can be correctly regarded as a religion. The Western colonists had the right idea when they assumed they wouldn't find any culture without a religion - because as far as Hinduism is concerned, the shoe fits better than Cinderella.

[Trino34]

This is why I despise philosophers. Pointless rambling about inconsequential nonsense.

Welcome.

Atheist rambling is sexy too... mmm tell me more

[arvind13]

@Arvind,

Whether of not cultures originating in India, China or ancient Greece had an explicit term for "religious belief" or not is irrelevant. The only factor in determining whether or not a cultural phenomena is a religion or not is what you mean by religion and if the shoe fits. That they themselves could not separate the religious aspects of their lives does not mean they had none.

You start with the assumption that religion is defined with a Christian bias and therefore, any negation carries with it the same bias. And you assume that giving the etymological history somehow bolsters this argument. It doesn't.

Identifying religion is pretty easy. If a cultural phenomenon has following aspects:
1. Belief in supernatural and/or divine entities - such as gods, deities, angels, spirits and so on.
2. Regarding certain objects/times/places as sacred or profane due to those beliefs.
3. A supposedly historical narrative explaining those beliefs.
4. Rituals and practices consequent of those beliefs and centered on them.
5. A moral code based on those beliefs,

- if this shoe fits, then the phenomenon can be correctly regarded as a religion. The Western colonists had the right idea when they assumed they wouldn't find any culture without a religion - because as far as Hinduism is concerned, the shoe fits better than Cinderella.

And as I explained above, the shoe doesn't fit at all. Because the Asian traditions, Roman traditions are not predicated on beliefs. Sure there are Indians with certain beliefs when it comes to their "gods", but belief is irrelevant to continuing a tradition.

But there's a much bigger problem at stake; you can't solve the problem of what religion is by providing definitions. Because definitions don't allow of counterexamples and there are no constraints when it comes to definitions. You can give whatever definition you like. So each person gives a definition according to his/her assumptions and pre-conceived notions. No one is under any compulsion to modify their definition.

On the other hand, a theory about the phenomenon of religion would have certain implications/consequences. If these consequences are falsified, the theory gets refuted as well. Exactly this feature is missing. We are unable to test for the presence or absence of religion using our current explanations. We cannot spell out the what the implications would be if religion is absent.

If there is a phenomena (religion) that exists in this world, then we need to have a theory that describes the structure of that phenomena. Such a theory must be testable, falsifiable. It must also be able to predict empirical consequences. Only then can we even begin saying that something or the other is an example of that phenomena. A definition is not a theory.

Let me give an example: Suppose that one defines grass as everything that is green. Could the yellow grass that is found beneath a stone be a counter-example to this definition? No, it could not, because according to this definition this yellow grass is not grass at all, because it is not green.Now take the example of a theory of photosynthesis which explains why grass is green. Contrary to definitions, this theory has consequences or implications, one being that if grass is not exposed to sunlight for a longer period of time, it will not turn green. Hence, the example of the yellow grass under the stone confirms the theory. Suppose that one does find green grass in a dark cave, this grass would indeed be a counter-example to the theory of photosynthesis and it would be falsified.

[pocaracas]

So... only christianity is a religion. Every other form of organized belief in extra-ordinary entities and powers is.... something else for which we don't have a single word... perhaps "cult".
But wait... not all christianity... catholics, only?... perhaps it was the orthodox that coined the term "religion"...
oh boy... we have a word commonly used with a meaning that you have just erased... not a smart way to interact with other people using something called "language".

[Bipolar Bob]

Ummm, atheism is far older than Christianity...so this dude is like putting the fucking cart before the horse.

[arvind13]

So... only christianity is a religion. Every other form of organized belief in extra-ordinary entities and powers is.... something else for which we don't have a single word... perhaps "cult".
But wait... not all christianity... catholics, only?... perhaps it was the orthodox that coined the term "religion"...
oh boy... we have a word commonly used with a meaning that you have just erased... not a smart way to interact with other people using something called "language".

Well, Christianity has a certain structure which makes it into a religion.This same structure is shared by two other entities: Islam and Judaism. So these three are the only religions in the world.

In my last post I spoke about the need for a scientific theory of religion, which lays bare the structure of religion, outlines the empirical consequences. Fortunately such a theory exists: http://www.hipkapi.com/2011/03/05/the-re...angadhara/

The theory solves many problems (as any scientific theory should) and answers many questions, such as:

Are beliefs central to religion? If so, Why?

Why are doctrines so important to religion?

What is the relationship between doctrines and religious practice?

What is worship?

This theory shows us why Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are the only religion. And its not so much about the word or concept religion. These three phenomena share a structure. Instead of calling this structure religion, call it X. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are examples of X. The pagan traditions of Greece, Rome, and Asia are not examples of X

And for the members mentioning that there were those that identified themselves as atheists long before Judaism and Christianity:

When Greeks and Romans used the word Atheos, they were referring to those who refused to take part in certain traditions, and rejected certain practices. The same applies to 'Nasthiks' (commonly translated as Atheists) in India. These were people who refused or rejected practices like going to the temple or participating in certain festivals.

But this had nothing to do with beliefs, as traditions weren't based on and didn't revolve around a belief system.

After Europe became Christian, the meaning of the word 'Atheos' radically transformed. Now it meant not believing in or 'lack of belief' in God. it became all about belief.

[genkaus]

And as I explained above, the shoe doesn't fit at all. Because the Asian traditions, Roman traditions are not predicated on beliefs. Sure there are Indians with certain beliefs when it comes to their "gods", but belief is irrelevant to continuing a tradition.

And as I explained above - you are wrong. Asian and Hellenistic traditions are predicated on beliefs. Without the belief in Hera, you wouldn't sacrifice a calf for her, nor consult her oracle. Without believing that the Ganges is sacred, you wouldn't travel miles just to take a dip. Traditions without belief don't last long. In fact, belief is the only reason why many Hindu traditions are still alive.

But there's a much bigger problem at stake; you can't solve the problem of what religion is by providing definitions. Because definitions don't allow of counterexamples and there are no constraints when it comes to definitions. You can give whatever definition you like. So each person gives a definition according to his/her assumptions and pre-conceived notions. No one is under any compulsion to modify their definition.

What are you blathering about? Ofcourse you can solve the problem of "what religion is" by providing definitions. The examples, counter-examples and constraints are simple - the definition must be able to currently identify what are commonly regarded as religion and there shouldn't be any mus-identifications, such as calling a philosophy a religions. And everyone is under the compulsion to modify the definition - to fit the popular view.

On the other hand, a theory about the phenomenon of religion would have certain implications/consequences. If these consequences are falsified, the theory gets refuted as well. Exactly this feature is missing. We are unable to test for the presence or absence of religion using our current explanations. We cannot spell out the what the implications would be if religion is absent.

If there is a phenomena (religion) that exists in this world, then we need to have a theory that describes the structure of that phenomena. Such a theory must be testable, falsifiable. It must also be able to predict empirical consequences. Only then can we even begin saying that something or the other is an example of that phenomena. A definition is not a theory.

Here's a theory for you:

The characteristics given above are the identifying features of any religion. You can test it by seeing if all the known religions fit the bill. You can falsify it by showing a known religion that doesn't fit or a known non-religion fitting. And you can predict whether or not a new phenomenon is going to be considered a religion.