Is atheism a religion?
August 10, 2007 by Darque
Is atheism a religion? It’s a question that has been bounced back and forth ever since modern atheism started gaining momentum in the mid-twentieth century. Most atheists agree that in no way can atheism be called a religion. Theists often prefer to call atheism a religion, perhaps because they fallaciously think that we would then be as susceptible to attack as they are. But are we really content to be “Other” in every religious context, or is there something to our belief?
Being a logical sort, I suppose the first question should be, what’s a religion? Is it a church, a belief, a philosophy, a punishment for sin, a vehicle for guilt, or what? We could call it an opiate for the masses, or a method of oppression, or a control mechanism. We could call it a cover for the guilty actions of a few supposedly pious individuals. I’m sure there’s a lot of rather snide remarks we could come up with here, but let’s be totally objective: what is a religion?
Over at Princeton’s WordNet, they give two general definitions: “a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny,” and “an institution to express belief in a divine power.” That’s a decent definition, in some ways, depending on whether you’re talking about the belief or the hierarchy.
Wikipedia says, “Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind’s relationship with the universe. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken a huge number of forms in various cultures and individuals.” There’s a lot of backpedaling in that one - I’m not so sure you can work with it.
But I think it’s the standard anthropological definition, found here in Oregon State’s computers, that has the most useful definition, in everyday use, because it’s not specifically tied to any one religion: “a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power.”
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has grappled with this question, too. In United States vs. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) (here at FindLaw), the Court had to decide the case of Brian Seeger, who wanted to be counted as a “conscientious objector” to the Vietnam War, and wanted to get out of the draft. Problem was, the “conscientious objector” status could only be used if the person objected to the conflict based on one’s “religious training and belief.” But Seeger wasn’t part of any orthodox religion - and the US Army needed recruits. Could he possibly object if he didn’t have the morality of a god to back him up? The Supreme Court said yes - that anyone with a belief “which in his life fills the same place as a belief in God fills in the life of an orthodox religionist, is entitled to exemption under the statute.” (That’s Justice Douglas concurring.)
That’s very important language: that any belief which occupies the same place as that of a belief in god in the life of an orthodox religionist qualifies for the same exemption. So let me ask you, as one atheist to another: do you believe that there is no god as strongly as any Christian believes that there is a god? If you think atheism isn’t a religion, then you would have sent Brian Seeger off to Vietnam, because his firmly-held belief wasn’t a mainstream orthodox religion.
It seems that, for the most part, it’s the theists that want to classify atheism as a religion. That puts atheism in a more comfortable position for them, I suppose - it’s easier to oppose an atheism as a non-Christian religion than it is to oppose it as a mere philosophy or political stance. Atheists, it seems, don’t like the idea of calling atheism a religion. They give a great many reasons and arguments, but the “Religion of Atheism” page at abarnett.demon.co.uk has a great quote: “If atheism is religion, ‘albino’ is a suntan.” It makes atheists just as uncomfortable to be on the religious spectrum as it makes theists to have us there.
But we belong there.
No, albino isn’t a suntan - but skipping albinos when counting skin colors is disingenuous. I suppose it’s the same argument for black being a color - if black is the absence of all color, is it a color at all? Well, yes - black isn’t invisible, and neither are we atheists, no matter who wants us to be. (And yes, zero is a number, too.)
If religion is a “set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power,” then atheism is a religion - a belief that there isn’t a supernatural power is “pertaining to” supernatural power. If atheism isn’t a religion, then we are forever barred from claiming any of the legal powers and ramifications of religion, from Seeger’s conscientious objector status, to Maryland’s bogus declaration of belief that was required of Roy Torcaso - which the Supreme Court overturned in ‘61, saying that it infringed on Torcaso’s religious rights - rights which we can’t have if atheism isn’t a religion. Calling atheism anything but a religion means that we essentially give up on getting the same rights as theists in the areas of social services - just imagine a family court awarding sole custody of children to their devoutly Christian mother, just because the otherwise well-qualified father is also an atheist.
I know that the word “religion” leaves a lot of bad taste in the mouths of atheists, and for thousands of good reasons. But religion doesn’t mean that we have to believe that we’re the chosen people, or that we’re the center of the universe, or that we have a monopoly on morality - that’s just Christianity. Being a religion doesn’t mean that atheists have to build a hierarchy of priests, bishops, pastors, ministers, rabbis, or anything of the kind - that’s just what those orthodox religions happen to do. We don’t need all the pomp and circumstance, we don’t need all the bad habits, all the indulgences and corruption and holy wars and guilt and sin - that’s their gig, not ours. Nor would we be required to have any kind of belief in the afterlife - go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe.
That’s the whole point. Our belief is just as valid as theirs, and deserves the same consideration from a social and legal standpoint. We are no less deserving just because our belief in god is that there isn’t one - what matters is that our belief occupies the same place in our lives as their belief occupies in theirs. What we do with it is our business, and is likely to be very different - but that’s a right that we can only claim if we say that atheism is a religion.
When the North Carolina Convention was called in to vote whether to adopt the U.S. Constitution, Article VI was discussed - the part of the Constitution that forbids religious tests for oaths of office. James Iredell, who would later become a Supreme Court Justice, said: “”. . . [I]t is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?”
He knew exactly what I contend now: that religious freedom applies to atheists because atheism is a religious belief.
By your definition of religion, everyone that exists must have one. If everyone is religious, is no one religious?
[Reply]
By my definition, there’s only one group of people who can argue that they have absolutely no religious inclination whatsoever: those that ignore it completely. That goes back to the “weak atheist vs. strong atheist” dichotomy, and it’s a very real difference: me, I have very strong feelings about atheism, and I’m with Penn Jillette when I say that not only do I not believe in god, I believe there is no god.
But there are the so-called “weak” atheists, too - those whose belief does not parallel the strength of conviction of a believer of an orthodox religion. These are the kinds of people who don’t even think to call themselves atheists; it just never occurs to them that they have an affiliation at all. Unfortunately for them, they are at the same disadvantage as any other atheist, and they are targeted the same as Richard Dawkins, an outspoken and strong atheist. Fortunately for them, however, if strong atheists band together just long enough to assert their own rights - and to keep theists from over-asserting theirs - weak atheists benefit as well.
My point is that even “none” IS an answer to the question, “What is your religion?” The time that atheists could sit back and let the various orthodox religions of the world settle their own differences, if it ever existed, is gone. Simply abandoning and ignoring the religious rights that all United States citizens have (and the many countries that have adopted First Amendment-like laws) doesn’t make the problem go away, doesn’t solve anything, and in fact just makes it easier for theists to make naked grabs for power. (And if you don’t think theists have their sights set on governmental authority, then you’re not even bothering to read the news - go ahead and look at the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives for a start.)
On a personal level, no, atheism isn’t much like any religion. We don’t have any rules for life, or dogma, or anything of the kind. We don’t have churches (much to my chagrin) or large-scale organization or anything of that kind, and we’re not likely to, either. That wouldn’t change by calling atheism a religion, no matter who does the calling.
Just look at it this way: if a legal measure that violates your religious rights affects you in any way, then yes, your atheism is a religion. From Seeger’s conscientious objector status to Torcaso’s job, we atheists do have religious rights - rights which will remain endangered until we start saying that our lack of god does qualify as a religious belief.
We can’t count on the courts to do the job for us forever. We certainly don’t have a liberal-leaning Supreme Court to protect our rights for us anymore - in fact, I’d be awfully surprised to see the Roberts court do anything but restrict the rights of atheists. I certainly can’t imagine a scenario that would have Scalia or Alito coming to our defense, no matter how constitutionally required.
[Reply]
I always enjoy reading your articles and posts on SU, Darque. However, this is exactly the thing I don’t want to be labeled with at all. I completely understand your point that we should make our voices heard to gain equal footing with those that believe in deities. What frustrates me online are those that believe just because they do not believe, and that is good enough for them.
I’m not saying they should immediately open up the bible and start at Genesis (or should they?) but if one is going to state said beliefs, they should do so in a manner that is educated and knowledgeable (as you do time and time again, sir, bravo), not because mainstream atheist protagonists say so.
Just like those religious folk who like to say “God said it, and I believe it, so that’s that!”, an atheist should also go beyond “I don’t believe this, and that’s that!”
I do applaud you in pointing out why it’s important that atheists do stand somewhere on the scale of religions, but I am tired of having to claim anything, personally. I don’t want to have anything to do with religions or gods either. I just wish we could get past all of this dogmatic back and forth and focus on the real thing: living, and preserving this earth for future generations.
[Reply]
Ah, a fun topic.
The old phrase “Atheism is a religion like Bald is a hair color” comes to mind…
By the various definitions above, it seems like we’re asking the wrong questions.
The layman’s question is “What is your hair color?” while the legal question is “How would you describe the top of your head?”
As far as legality, personal rights, and legal protections, of course Atheism is a religion - The law makes no assumptions as to the top of a person’s head.
The layperson in the analogy, though, has never seen a bald person, and simply assumes that all people have hair. Atheism does not fit the assumptions made by this interrogator.
The term “religion” is (by itself) not specific enough to make a claim. The underlying assumptions must be taken into account.
I would suggest, though that regardless of the definition, atheism is no more or less a religion than theism.
The real question is why we are using this incredibly subjective term to describe anything at all…
[Reply]
Wait, what rights do we lose if Atheism is not a religion?
[Reply]
Well, you can look at it like that, but thats like saying that if you don’t carry a gun, you lose the right to carry arms. We have the freedom to carry arms but we have the freedom not too. Same with religion.(good metaphor, religion as a loaded gun)
Also, a religion requires you to believe in some supernatural force right? As an atheist, I don’t, most atheists don’t. How can it be a religion if there is nothing for the people in it to follow?
[Reply]
HannahW,
“But I think it’s the standard anthropological definition, found here in Oregon State’s computers, that has the most useful definition, in everyday use, because it’s not specifically tied to any one religion: `a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power’.”
It does not say you have to believe the supernatural, it says you have to have attitudes, beliefs and practices PERTAINING to the supernatural. I think “Skepticism” would qualify as an attitude and belief pertaining to the supernatural, and “ignoring” could be considered a practice…
bseymour42: If atheism is not a religion under US law, it does not enjoy the protections afforded to person who practice religion - If atheism is not a religion, Fair Housing and Equal Employment Opportunity would not apply. Atheism would, at best, be a freedom of speech issue, and you CAN discriminate against a person based on their speech. You can put “No Musicians”, “No KKK Members” or “No Visible tattoos” in your advertisement because these are not “Protected Classes” - if Atheism isn’t a religion, it becomes lawful to say “No Atheists” - you can add that language to a contract, and you can be fired or evicted just for saying “I’m an Atheist”.
Most people consider Buddhism a religion, yet many of the definitions of Religion preclude Buddhism as well as Atheism.
Here’s a question: Why is it “liberal” to strictly interpret the constitution? Wouldn’t that be “conservative” - as in “The words should be taken at face value”?
Damn DoubleThink.
[Reply]
Okay, maybe the initial question here, “Is atheism a religion?” has two different answers. For all functional purposes, from the viewpoint of the atheist - no. We don’t do all those things that religions do, of course, and atheism doesn’t tend to match most folks’ perceptions of what religion is. So, for most personal purposes, it’s no - and mostly irrelevant, since it comes down to the personal interpretation anyway.
However, once you expand the question into the legal realm, there are a lot of reasons to call atheism a religion. I know I might stress this more than most people, just from a professional bias, but chances are pretty good that at some point in your life, the government is going to ask what religion you are, and it’s going to ask for a reason. From social services to military to taxes to… well, pretty much anytime the government bothers to ask you what your religion is, we as atheists can’t afford to be so philosophical: atheism is our religion.
Hannah: religion doesn’t require you to believe anything concerning any kind of spiritual, supernatural force. It requires you to have a belief concerning such a thing - and not believing in it is a belief concerning the supernatural. We have as much right to that belief as anyone has to believe otherwise - a right that is enshrined in the First Amendment. And like any muscle, rights that go unused do atrophy. We have unfettered freedom to believe what we want, and we have a nearly-universal right to exercise our religion however we want.
As I brought up in a few court cases in the main post, the Supreme Court has, in the past, come to the conclusion that atheism is, for legal purposes, a religion. The thing is, those were some time ago, under very different leadership. The Supreme Court is not an immovable force in government; it is made up of people who bring their own political, legal, and constitutional views with them. Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Earl Burger, from the sixties through the eighties, made the Supreme Court a liberal institution, expanding the rights of many minorities, including religious, ethnic, and sexual minorities. But Chief Justice Rehnquist’s time on the Court changed a lot of that, turning the clock back - and especially with Bush’s recent appointments, Justice Alito and new Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court is once again a strongly conservative group.
The point behind this little Supreme Court lesson (and woefully incomplete, I apologize - we could fill fifty pages like this and still barely scratch the surface) is that those cases that ruled in favor of atheism so long ago were made by courts that were in favor of expanding civil rights, in favor of equal protection, and in favor of fair treatment to minorities. Don’t expect such favors from the current court - and with the ages of Justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, expect the heavily conservative court to stay that way for the foreseeable future. Without getting too political, let’s just say that they would probably happily send Seeger off to war, and they would likely salivate at the chance to keep Torcaso off the job and to keep other atheists from taking office. (How fair and competent can these guys be if George W. Bush would want to appoint them?)
So there are very real reasons to assert atheism as a religion. Now, calling it a religion legally wouldn’t change the way you live your life. You wouldn’t suddenly have to start paying a tithe, or start following some atheistic code of rules, or anything of the sort. In fact, if it’s a religion, nobody would ever be able to force you to do any of that stuff, because that would be an unconscionable breach of your constitutionally-protected right to exercise your religion. That’s powerful language in legal circles - and language you can’t use if it’s not a religion.
Rivalarrival: Concerning the liberal/conservative dichotomy, maybe it’s because the Constitution is (in my opinion) the most liberal document ever written, created at the height of the modern age of liberalism, by some very committed followers of the Enlightenment. But yeah, those words can mean very different things depending on which century you’re in - and so far, this 21st century is shaping up to be a rough time for liberals.
[Reply]
I alluded to it in an earlier comment, but never completed my thought… Atheism is as much a religion as Theism - More often than not, when we say “a religion” we’re speaking of something far more specific than simple belief in god.
When we ask “is atheism a religion?” we make a few assumptions as to “atheism” - some people could be thinking Strong Atheism only, some could be thinking Strong and Weak Atheism.
Implicit Atheism could not be categorized as a religion, in any event. Of course, just be asking a person their religion, you’ve removed the “implicitness” of their atheism…
Weak Atheism is a conscious decision, although it is not a positive belief - It would not be a religion under the layperson definition, but would be under the legal definition.
Strong Atheism could be argued to be a religion in both cases. It requires just as much faith to say “there is no God” as it does to say “there is a god”
Buddhism is technically atheistic, but a religion.
Anti-Theism could go several ways as an anti-theist could fit into several categories.
Back to my response…
The government has no business asking a person’s religion. There is (or at least should be) a large wall between the affairs of Church and State. (On a side note, I just responded to a census over the phone, and told the census taker where she could stick her questions about race and religion) It is unlawful for the government to show preferential, or deferential treatment to a person based on his or her religion.
[Reply]
To have religious rights is also a right to not have religion.
Note the concurring opinion stated:
“…fills the same place as a belief…”
Not
“…is the same as a belief…”
The answer to the question:
“…do you believe that there is no god as strongly as any Christian believes that there is a god?”
Is a certain no. That is true for most of the atheists I speak to as well.
A thought exercise. If tomorrow Allah came down and shook my hand, if I could examine the situation and determine that it was not, in fact, a hallucination or some other effect, I would indeed convert to Islam and begin praying eastward 5 times a day. The Christians I come across seem to be in agreement when I ask them this very question that if Allah appeared before them, they would know Satan was at work in the guise of Allah.
In the face of overwhelming evidence, most atheists change their stance on the issue. Most religious people will not and instead create excuses (think apologetics). This, in my opinion, is the key tenant that keeps atheism from being a religion.
And lastly, I’ll leave you with a bit of a tongue in cheek comment. Note that when people talk about Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, and other religions, they always capitalize them. That is because they are proper nouns, and the name of something specific. Atheism is only capitalized at the beginning of a sentence because it is not a proper noun. Keep that in mind ^.-
[Reply]
I don’t think I care very much if it is or is not a religion. To include it in the list for legal representation - fine!
OTOH This splitting of the faithless into strong and weak is a bit much. Sounds a bit like those who go around arguing that Atheism is the only way to be are grousing at the rest of the world.
Do we argue that there are strong and weak Mac users? or are they all fanboys?
[Reply]
Oldman,
Strong and Weak don’t describe the person, but the nature of belief/non-belief/lack of belief.
Weak Atheism is the predominant type. The Weak Atheist makes no specific claims as to God’s existence. He only claims that the Theist has not conclusively demonstrated God’s Existence. If presented with irrefutable evidence of God’s existence, the weak atheist will become a Theist. His mind is Open. Weak Atheism is probably better stated as Atheist-Agnostic: “I don’t know, therefore I don’t believe”
Strong Atheism differs in that the Strong Atheist says “God Does Not Exist”. The Strong Atheist’s mind is closed. If presented with irrefutable evidence, he will still disbelieve.Strong Atheism is sometimes referred to as Atheist-Gnostic: “I know, therefore I don’t believe”
One can’t compare an affirmative stance (Theism, Mac Users) with Atheism, which does not require a positive statement.
An A-Microsoftist, though, could either be weak or strong. A person who has never experienced Windows (Lucky bastard) couldn’t rationally and logically claim that Mac or Linux is better than Windows. This person would be a Weak A-Microsoftist. Us poor dumb bastards who have suffered the various flavors of BSOD over the years can claim to be Strong Anti-Microsoftists. We know how evil it is, and thus don’t use it.
The difference between Microsoft and God, though is that Microsoft has been demonstrated to exist, while no significant evidence supporting God’s existence has ever been presented.
Sil-Chan,
At birth, we have the right to live. But, we do not have the right to arbitrarily end our lives. (Sounds a little dark, doesn’t it?) If a person starts talking about ending his life, he is institutionalized. Having the right to do something does not necessarily mean we have the right to NOT do it. (Sorry, I’m nitpicking now)
“In the face of overwhelming evidence, most atheists change their stance on the issue. Most religious people will not and instead create excuses (think apologetics). This, in my opinion, is the key tenant that keeps atheism from being a religion.”
This is one of the assumptions you have tacked on to the definition of “Religion” (At least the definitions we were using above). Do you think “must maintain an irrational belief despite positive proof of that belief’s irrationality” is a fair phrase to include in a definition of Religion itself?
[Reply]
** Guts, not “gods” **
>> Who eats? Who reproduces?
As formerly good English subjects, newly victorious Americans had also thrown off a state church, the Church of England. In the Mother Country of 1786 a religious nonconformist (not a confessing Anglican) could not become a physician, attorney at law, an officer in HM forces on land or sea, could not attend either Cambridge or Oxford.
Americans were not about to tolerate a repeat performance. The issues were meat-and-potatoes: who eats well, procreates, educates the kids, rises in social standing. Real issues — not how to communicate with some cultural Icon, either theistic or deistic. As Marvin Harris would put it — we’re always talking about “cultural materialism.” The race to death of food production and reproduction. Guts lead God by the nose every time.
Amendment 1 to the U.S. Constitution protects what used to be called “freedom of conscience.” Initially the right of every man (not slave, not female, not propertyless) to freely choose how to conduct his life. “Freedom of conscience” provides cover for the atheist, agnostic, deist, and an overwhelming population of the blessedly indifferent.
>> Historical fear of being branded ‘atheist’
In what we now call American popular culture, a charge of atheism has always been socially acceptable weapon as Tom Paine quickly found out way back in 1794. Agnosticism as a separate attitude towards established religion didn’t even exist until the concept and word were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1895. Deism, then as now, was a safe option among intellectuals with a flair for hypocrisy, like Jefferson.
Reflecting traditional fear in denying the gods, U.S. courts have consistently held that the ‘God’ in whom we profess trust on bills and coins refers to a non-denominational, cross-faith providential Power. (I call this “the minimum standard god.” Or, MSG.) You won’t see ‘In God we trust’ removed any time soon, especially just to please an unorganized mass of “godless atheists.”
>> Atheism is not a recognizable praxis
One defining characteristic of a ‘religion’ is that it form a recognizable social unit sharing common practices, identifiable from within and without. Atheism embodies no common praxis — it has no affirmations, no rituals, it has no common symbols, no outward means of identification.
Having an opinion that the gods do not exist can not mean that one has an opinion about gods. There being nothing about which to have an opinion. One of the great clarifications within Logic is to distinguish an existence claim from a claim that some existing thing has a property.
>> Speaking clearly about non-existent, but well-known fictional characters.
I can have opinions about the fictitious character “Hamlet” as presented by Shakespeare in his play, ‘The Tragedy of Hamlet.’ I can also have opinions about the mythological being “God” as presented in the synoptic gospels of ‘The New Testament.’
All I know about these characters is what I can read in the pages devoted to them. I can no more find Hamlet’s bones buried in a chapel at Elsinore than I can find God by doing astronomical research or by having physical sensations attributed to the actions of the being called “God” in the NT.
The MSG is not the God of the NT, is not Allah of the Koran, is not Yahweh of the Torah, is not Ahura Mazda of the Gathas. Each of these mythological constructs can be assigned a position on a family tree of Middle Eastern gods and their Western derivatives. But, it’s total ignorance to say that all these fictions are identical. It’s logically wrong to claim that ‘God does not exist’ is the same sort of claim as ‘God is a loving person.’
bipolar2
copyright asserted 2007
[Reply]
Asserting Atheism as a religion is the nuclear arms race approach to preventing nuclear war. The problem isn’t the Atheist’s lack of rights for not claiming religion. The problem is a social bias against atheists, and a social bias in favor of those who are religions.
Also, I believe a non-denominational theist would struggle with the same lack of religious rights that atheists do.
[Reply]