Atheism is a religion.

[Dystopia]

[quote='Jenny A' pid='710969' dateline='1405636250']


Firstly, there are more than three agnostic/atheist commentators in the world. I was raising a point I find interesting in that these three are often presented together in media like a 'trinity'. It's a comment on the media, not them.

Everybody has a system of belief, there is no such concept as lack of belief. The idea that religion is the only social construct that supports the human need for a system of belief is nonsense. I've not yet met a scientist who doesn't believe that scientific endeavour will lead to human progress. But the very idea of human progress is not a scientific one, there is no universal standard by which humans can be empirically measured, this irrational faith, that technology and knowledge will deliver human progress, is part of the system of belief that props up science.

What I am saying is that these systems of belief meet our human needs, whether they are religious or not. We can replace our prophets of god with prophets of science but that will not change a thing. Each generation will continue to irrationally believe they are more enlightened than the previous generation, we will continue to believe we have made progress as a species, we will continue to believe we are masters of our own destiny. All of these are not scientific facts, they are articles of faith born of our hubris, and the only reason we elevate these prophets is they support the delusions we have about ourselves.

MM

Hmmm. Still don't see atheism as a religion or even a philosophy. Atheism by itself is at most a premise: I don't have a belief in god. It is not a system of anything.

It is possible to make science into a kind of religion though one can be a scientist without making science a religion or even a philosophy. Science is a useful method. But you don't have to know much or any science to lack a belief in god.

Belief in human progress is getting closer, but there are atheists who think we are going to hell (excuse me, nuclear oblivion or global warming toast) in a hand basket.

But although both might be hindered by a belief in god, neither science nor belief in human progress flows from a lack of belief in god.

The president of the portuguese atheist association described atheism in a welcome video as a worldview. I think it's legit. It is in a certain way a position, a stand.

[Cato]

MM,
You seem to again just be regurgitating John Gray's hatred of humanism via a 'no progress' argument with the constant equivocation of religion and enlightenment ideals. Gray acknowledges scientific and technological progress, but ignores the philosophic and political progress required to achieve this relative to unshackling our minds from religious influence.

Gray's other mistake is in denying progress simply on the basis that we can never reach a state of utopia. I've heard him express that eradicating slavery on most of the globe isn't progress, because there are still pockets of it and that at any moment our commitment to this idea can be rescinded. A bit disingenuous I think. Defining progress as achieving some perfected ideal state allows Gray to dismiss the concept of progress out of hand.

Be careful about invoking evolutionary psychology to buttress your point. We are wired to learn and assign cause for what we experience in addition to being a social animal. Religions were created to provide explanation and help give structure to social expectations. This is much different than saying we are hard wired for religion.

[ManMachine]

I would suggest that your use of the word belief makes the term a little less than useful. I don't have to believe in a man eating bear in a cave, and I don't have to believe that science will "deliver us" from anything. I can watch the bear eat a man, and we're definitely not at a loss to demonstrate all the ways in which science has delivered us. Natural hardwirings and evolutionary benefits aren't a compelling case for continuing in any particular behavior. I'm naturally hardwired to be aggressive. You don't want me stumbling around killing every tom dick and harry I come across, amiright? In any case, I don't actually think that we're talking about hardwiring, we're talking about words and their ability to paint a picture. You've made these things so by choice of vocab, which is cool......but it doesn't go much further than your narrative. We're hardwired to seek out survival strategies, belief being one of them - we're not hardwired for belief itself. Further, blind faith as evolutionary benefit is stretching it to point of breaking. If we were hardwired for such in-and-of-itself, or if it were truly blind, it wouldn't reflect the situation and environment of the believer - changing as that environment and their situation within it changes- and we wouldn't be losing said faith so rapidly.

I can't find (but if you can, please share) anything that suggests that "blind faith" or even "faith" as you've expressed it is a heritable trait - or any mechanism by which evolutionary processes in and of themselves would manufacture it as a trait. What I do see, is an inheritable trait that can be leveraged to produce the effect....or not.

I am not saying blind faith is a heritable trait, I'm saying it is easy to see how it would be useful as an evolutionary strategy. I am saying the predisposition to develop a system of belief is hardwired. You can read about that here.

James Randi Education Foundation - Why we are hardwired for belief in God

We are hardwired for 'belief itself'.

MM

[Mudhammam]

We are hardwired for 'belief itself'.

MM

That's quite a bit different than saying we are hard-wired for faith in faeries.

[ManMachine]

---

[quote='Jenny A' pid='710969' dateline='1405636250']


Firstly, there are more than three agnostic/atheist commentators in the world. I was raising a point I find interesting in that these three are often presented together in media like a 'trinity'. It's a comment on the media, not them.

Everybody has a system of belief, there is no such concept as lack of belief. The idea that religion is the only social construct that supports the human need for a system of belief is nonsense. I've not yet met a scientist who doesn't believe that scientific endeavour will lead to human progress. But the very idea of human progress is not a scientific one, there is no universal standard by which humans can be empirically measured, this irrational faith, that technology and knowledge will deliver human progress, is part of the system of belief that props up science.

What I am saying is that these systems of belief meet our human needs, whether they are religious or not. We can replace our prophets of god with prophets of science but that will not change a thing. Each generation will continue to irrationally believe they are more enlightened than the previous generation, we will continue to believe we have made progress as a species, we will continue to believe we are masters of our own destiny. All of these are not scientific facts, they are articles of faith born of our hubris, and the only reason we elevate these prophets is they support the delusions we have about ourselves.

MM

Hmmm. Still don't see atheism as a religion or even a philosophy. Atheism by itself is at most a premise: I don't have a belief in god. It is not a system of anything.

It is possible to make science into a kind of religion though one can be a scientist without making science a religion or even a philosophy. Science is a useful method. But you don't have to know much or any science to lack a belief in god.

Belief in human progress is getting closer, but there are atheists who think we are going to hell (excuse me, nuclear oblivion or global warming toast) in a hand basket.

But although both might be hindered by a belief in god, neither science nor belief in human progress flows from a lack of belief in god.

---

You are quite right, science and a belief in human progress does not flow from a lack of belief in a god, nor am I suggesting they do. I am putting forward the idea that they both serve the same human needs as their religious counterparts.

MM

---

We are hardwired for 'belief itself'.

MM

That's quite a bit different than saying we are hard-wired for faith in faeries.

Who said we are hardwired for faith in faeries? You lost me.

MM

[Mudhammam]

Who said we are hardwired for faith in faeries? You lost me.

I don't think religious devotion is retarded. The need to have systems of belief is hardwired into our brains.

Did you mean to imply something else?

---

You are quite right, science and a belief in human progress does not flow from a lack of belief in a god, nor am I suggesting they do. I am putting forward the idea that they both serve the same human needs as their religious counterparts.

Putting grass in a bowl of water and calling it soup also serves the universal human need to consume food but clearly it is not as nutritional as an actual meal. And I think that's a fair comparison.

[Jenny A]

You are quite right, science and a belief in human progress does not flow from a lack of belief in a god, nor am I suggesting they do. I am putting forward the idea that they both serve the same human needs as their religious counterparts.

MM

Religion can provide: a philosophy of life; a moral framework (not necessarily a good one); a method of explaining the world; a sense of personal importance or meaning; a sense of the importance of humanity; a sense of belonging; a sense of being looking after by something greater than oneself.

For some people science and belief in human progress do provide a method of explaining the world and perhaps a sense of personal or at least human importance. But so many things like political ideology do some of that, that labeling them religion just muddies the waters.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't have time for zealots or preachers of any stripe.

---

You are quite right, science and a belief in human progress does not flow from a lack of belief in a god, nor am I suggesting they do. I am putting forward the idea that they both serve the same human needs as their religious counterparts.

I disagree. The purpose of science is interrogating the Universe. The purpose of religion is assuaging man's angst at the fact of mortality. That some people make science the central point of their epistemology doesn't mean that they use science to feel spiritual.

[buddabobblehead]

I certainly do NOT understand atheism as a religion. Not even close. No more than chemistry is a religion. Religions have to do with the FAITH in the supernatural. Those things are are believed to 'exist' outside of nature. 'Faith' belongs to religion. We dont need faith to understand math or science. A true atheist understands faith or belief as an intermediate point of knowledge along the continuum of speculation and hypothesis to fact and truth. We know that 2 + 2=4. No faith required. Does string theory explain what is not explained by general relativity and quantum mechanics? One may have faith (believe) that it does, and others may not. Science is in the process of finding out. A true atheist does not believe in 'faith' as having any real meaning except for a lack of knowledge. Without faith there can be no religion.

[Mister Agenda]

I don't think atheism is a religion, but I do feel it will one day become likened to a religion.

The way some atheists are going, I wouldn't be surprised if some of those few atheists (a small fraction of a very small fraction) they started imitating the worst fundemenatlsist in terms of their barbarism.

Being someday likened to a religion is today. What fundamental principles would they be following in their barbarism? Why do you distinguish yourself from the fundamentalists when they are theists just like you? Isn't it hypocritical to make distinctions among theists and not among atheists, especially considering most Western ones are humanists, who have a body count comparable to Quakers and Jains?

Not to promote atheism, but out of a misguided approach to counter what they see as the evil of religion (or as the 20th century proved, to consolidate power). It's always about power, no matter the side (first thing that is taught in political science).

You wouldn't be trying to conflate humanism and rational skepticism with communism in order to paint them all with the same brush, would you? I think you would.

---

I'm basing it on what I saw from the 20th century throughout the world. Religion was seen by many nations as a threat to their own legitimacy. The religions they oppressed stood contrary to the own morals these leaders were promoting. Even though Christianity states for slaves to obey their masters and you would think it again would be referenced and used for nefarious purposes, it also stated for masters to take care of their slaves (something many of these leaders were against).

And you think secular democracies would do the same thing as totalitarian communist states, apparently. Not much difference between them to you, eh?

---

The president of the portuguese atheist association described atheism in a welcome video as a worldview. I think it's legit. It is in a certain way a position, a stand.

Can you name two different things for which all atheists stand? We can't even all agree on the proper definition of atheist.