Atheism isn't a religion. Neither is theism.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

There are, however, religions that have atheistic and theistic elements

The three major theistic religions are well known: Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Marxism-Leninism is a good example of a religion with an atheistic element. It had it's dogmas (the belief in "historical inevitability" for a start), it's ceremonies - even it's heretics. It's off-shoot, Maoism, is another.

Discuss.

(just something I'm working through - feel free to tear apart)

[Space Cadet B^3]

Hmm...

Definitions of religion on the Web:

1. a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
2. an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn vs. Definitions of theism on the Web:

the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[Varaj]

Religion is a fuzzy word that people usually choose to define in a way that serves their interests.

Had a religions teach in college that defined it as "Anything that lets a group get together and drink coffee."

[Harry]

Had a religions teach in college that defined it as "Anything that lets a group get together and drink coffee."

Aww, jeez.... I guess that means I am religious.

<---- Church of Gaming, Book Stores and Militaria Hobbies

[Space Cadet B^3]

Aww, jeez.... I guess that means I am religious.

<---- Church of Gaming, Book Stores and Militaria Hobbies
Can I come to your church? :)

[Atropine Mama]

Yeah, I just generally take religion to mean a manner of belief. I do think atheism is my religion, although it's more like apathism, hehe. But regardless, it has similarities to theism in that it's faith-based, unproveable, guides my actions, provides comfort, and gives me hope. Isn't that pretty much the essense of a religion?

[Eliezer]

I like Hastur's definition of religion.

Although, when I talk about people who like Apple I tend to define religion as, "An irrationally held belief system contrary to all evidence that affirms itself a pretense of superiority over other belief systems."

[Scarbonac]

Religion is a fuzzy word that people usually choose to define in a way that serves their interests.

Had a religions teach in college that defined it as "Anything that lets a group get together and drink coffee."

So, in college, I was a member of The Church of Doing Laundry at Mom's?

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I'm wondering if "religion" is what happens when two people who share a particular ideology get together and have kids - it's a way of passing on that ideology

[Darkfire]

....I tend to define religion as, "An irrationally held belief system contrary to all evidence that affirms itself a pretense of superiority over other belief systems."

I would've though this definition would've applied to all religions ;)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

There are, however, religions that have atheistic and theistic elements

The three major theistic religions are well known: Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Marxism-Leninism is a good example of a religion with an atheistic element. It had it's dogmas (the belief in "historical inevitability" for a start), it's ceremonies - even it's heretics. It's off-shoot, Maoism, is another.

Discuss.

(just something I'm working through - feel free to tear apart)

I agree entirely. Indeed, the "new atheism" is a misnomer. It's really the new anti-dogmatism.

As I've written on another site:

It may surprise you to hear that my primary target isn't religion, or even theism as such. Indeed, there are some forms of religion (and even some rare forms of theism, specifically deism) with which I have very little problem at all.

So, what *is* my problem? My problem is with dogma. With the belief that it is acceptable, even admirable, to believe propositions without good evidence or without good reasons for believing those propositions to be true.

The forms those dogmatically believed propositions can take are potentially infinite. One might dogmatically believe in the historical inevitability of a communist utopia, under which the State will wither away, after a brief but necessary period of a dictatorship of the proletariat. One might dogmatically believe in the existence of something called the Aryan race, in its inherent superiority to all other races, and in the inherent inferiority and perfidy of the Jewish race. One might dogmatically believe that the Creator of the universe called one's religion to convert the world or take it by force through holy war, that death in the defence of (or attempt to reconquer) lands so acquired is the greatest of all actions, and that such martyrs will go to paradise after they die to be attended by 72 virgin brides and joined in due course be all their family and loved-ones. Or one might dogmatically believe that the creator of the universe condemns contraception as a mortal sin.

What all four of these beliefs have in common is that there is very little or no evidence for them and that there is much good evidence against them. Yet all four beliefs have at times been passionately, ardently believed and acted upon by otherwise rational, sane and educated people - often resulting in those same people performing some of the most irrational, insane and barbaric acts imaginable.

Thankfully, fascist, Nazi and Communist dogmas have been so discredited that almost no-one believes them any more. That is a development to be celebrated. But as the events of New York and Washington DC and Bali and Madrid and London demonstrate; as demonstrated by the genocidally stupid anti-contraceptive policies of the Catholic church in Africa and the homicidally stupid stem-cell policies of Christian churches in the US ; religious dogmas are alive and kicking and at work in the world.

Reason and evidence and empiricism and science and liberal democracy - in short, the forces of the Enlightenment - have destroyed Communist and Fascist dogmas. Now it is time to do the same to the dogmas of religious faith.

Now, you might say that there is something about atheism that leads to barbarism, immorality and dictatorship. You might even say that there is something about atheism that leads to the dogmatism I decry.

But if you said that, you would have to explain the inconvenient fact that some of the most civilised, liberal and prosperous nations in the world are "atheistic" in the sense that a majority of the population do not believe in God.

Take Sweden. When polled, over 80% of Swedes say they don't believe in God and over 40% explicitly identify themselves as atheists. Yet Sweden has some of the lowest crime, poverty STD and teenage pregnancy rates in the world. It is a functioning liberal democracy with very little social unrest and a near 100% literacy rate. And while Sweden is the extreme, similar figures associating atheism with societal health can be found in most of the countries of western Europe as well as in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Moreover, even in the heavily religious United States of America, the more religious a State is, the *higher* its rates of crime, divorce, STD infection and teenage pregnancy tend to be.

Clearly, a widespread disbelief in God is not incompatible with a healthy, happy, prosperous and civilised society.

So, what's the difference between the slaughterhouses built by the Godless Commies of Russia and China and the civilized liberal polities built by the Godless progressives of Western Europe and elsewhere? The obvious answer is that Western European countries are liberal democracies and Soviet Russia and Red China clearly were not. It was not its atheism per se, but the illiberalism, the undemocratic nature, the *dogmatism* of Communism that made it the architect of so much twentieth century horror.

As I've said before, I'm a fan of religion and a big fan or organised religion - I just got married in a High Church Anglican ceremony, for goodness sake. Rather it's that particular form of dogma called faith that I have a problem with.

[Freedom Canadian]

I just got married in a High Church Anglican ceremony, for goodness sake.

Congrats ! :)

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Ok, let's define ideology as a shared myth - one that communicates shared values within a group

Now can you see a problem with attempting it eliminate it from society?

[Space Cadet B^3]

Who wants to eliminate it from society?! I am a non-believer and I don't give a fuck what club you belong to, I think religion can be good for people.

It doesn't matter if they're a shriner, a christian, a hindu or a Kiwana... Just be.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Ok, let's define ideology as a shared myth - one that communicates shared values within a group

Now can you see a problem with attempting it eliminate it from society?

There would be numerous problems with doing that, which is why neither I nor the new anti-dogmatists want to. We just want everbody to acknowledge that they ARE myths - that they are illustrative fictions, like LotR and the superman myth and the King Arthur stories.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

We just want everbody to acknowledge that they ARE myths - that they are illustrative fictions, like LotR and the superman myth and the King Arthur stories.

The problem is that they don't work (as well?) unless you believe in them

And we're back at the end of the road again

[BOZ]

Who wants to eliminate it from society?! I am a non-believer and I don't give a fuck what club you belong to, I think religion can be good for people.

It doesn't matter if they're a shriner, a christian, a hindu or a Kiwana... Just be.

that reminds me of these "Coexist" bumper stickers i've been seeing a lot of lately around here.

[Northcott]

that reminds me of these "Coexist" bumper stickers i've been seeing a lot of lately around here.


I dig it. Neat graphic.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

that reminds me of these "Coexist" bumper stickers i've been seeing a lot of lately around here.

Yeah, Bono was hawking those at the U2 concert I went to a while back.

I used to think that was possible. But with Islam at least, some of the central ideas (apostacy, submission, sharia, literal truth and inerrancy of the Koran, etc) are just logically incompatible with liberal democracy.

Either Islam reforms towards the benign murkiness of much modern Christianity (and I don't see evidence of that happening; indeed Darkfire is evidence of the contrary) or one side is going to have to hammer the other into oblivion.

And, as Ayaan Hirsi says, the sooner the West stops apologising for itself and stands up and says "enough!", the better.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

There would be numerous problems with doing that, which is why neither I nor the new anti-dogmatists want to. We just want everbody to acknowledge that they ARE myths - that they are illustrative fictions, like LotR and the superman myth and the King Arthur stories.

The problem is that they don't work (as well?) unless you believe in them

And we're back at the end of the road again

No, I think we've made some progress.

I can see that myths might not work as well if they aren't believed as more then metaphors and myths. But, if so, how much less effective? And what do we gain in an open, rational society in exchange for that loss of effectiveness?

[Hastur T. Fannon]

But, if so, how much less effective? And what do we gain in an open, rational society in exchange for that loss of effectiveness?

Double-blind study?

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I can see that myths might not work as well if they aren't believed as more then metaphors and myths. But, if so, how much less effective? And what do we gain in an open, rational society in exchange for that loss of effectiveness?

Shall we take the words "belief" and "faith" to be statements about emotional commitment to a particular proposition?

If someone becomes less emotionally committed to ideas like justice, human rights etc., can you see how that might be "bad for society"

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Shall we take the words "belief" and "faith" to be statements about emotional commitment to a particular proposition?

If someone becomes less emotionally committed to ideas like justice, human rights etc., can you see how that might be "bad for society"

But commitment to what about the proposition? That it's true? That it's beautiful? That it's an inspiring example? We need to be clear here - as Dennett puts it, no "murkies", are you a "bright" or a "super"?

"Human rights" are just a (wonderful) human invention. So, I believe, is "God" - do you?. "Justice" is an interesting case: given that primates and maybe pigs, dogs have been shown a sense of fairness, it may be a human invention built upon an evolved tendency common to "higher" mammals. (Hell, fairness may be even be observable in African parrots, so it may not be limited to mammals.)

[Hastur T. Fannon]

But commitment to what about the proposition? That it's true? That it's beautiful? That it's an inspiring example?

I'd say "yes" too all three, but I think you reserve the word "true" for propositions that have been empirically tested

So, I believe, is "God" - do you?

I am emotionally committed to the idea that that my concept of God maps onto something that isn't just inside my head

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I'd say "yes" too all three, but I think you reserve the word "true" for propositions that have been empirically tested

Statements about the external world need external evidence. Statements about purely made up entities (God, Human Rights, Aragorn son of Arathorn, Santa Clause) don't - except, of course, for the evidence of what is meant by the idea by looking at previous documents where its been developed.

I am emotionally committed to the idea that that my concept of God maps onto something that isn't just inside my head

Ok. Why is using your emotional commitment alone good enough to believe that? Isn't accepting the legitimacy of such a move dangerous for rational communication?

I think you may be misunderstanding Sam Harris' point about the emotion-belief continuum.

[Enk]

Atticus, I just read your anti-dogmatism repost, and have a question:

You point out a positive correlation late in the post between liberal, civilized, and wealthy nations and their per capita occurrence of atheism. The implication seems to be that you believe there's a level of causation, where atheism is a building block in that particular mix. My question is two part: am I reading this implication correctly, and if so, why do you believe that atheism helps breed that sort of society rather than the reverse (that wealthy democracies breed atheism)?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Atticus, I just read your anti-dogmatism repost, and have a question:

You point out a positive correlation late in the post between liberal, civilized, and wealthy nations and their per capita occurrence of atheism. The implication seems to be that you believe there's a level of causation, where atheism is a building block in that particular mix. My question is two part: am I reading this implication correctly, and if so, why do you believe that atheism helps breed that sort of society rather than the reverse (that wealthy democracies breed atheism)?

As I said somewhere else I posted that: "Note I do not claim here that atheism has caused these wonderful societies to be so wonderful, atheism alone is too empty for that, for the reasons I give above. I cite these facts merely to show that atheism is compatible with social harmony."

I'm not making an argument about causation between atheism and social harmony. In fact I'm making an argument about non-causation.

As I say, I don't think atheism caused Swedish social harmony. But it is true that I do think that both were caused by a third common cause - Sweden's commitment to reason and evidence and science and liberalism and democracy. In short, I think that anti-dogmatism tends to lead to both atheism (because the currently available evidence is against God) and social harmony (because anti-dogmatism is productive of conversation and makes violence less necessary). That, however, is a different issue.

PS - And yes, I also think wealth has a lot to do with it...

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Statements about the external world need external evidence.

Sez you

Ok. Why is using your emotional commitment alone good enough to believe that? Isn't accepting the legitimacy of such a move dangerous for rational communication?

I have no idea what you're saying here

I think you may be misunderstanding Sam Harris' point about the emotion-belief continuum.

Probably. But I've been using "faith", "believe" and "emotional commitment" as synonyms for some time.

[Northcott]

Extreme dedication to rationality may be considered an insanity in itself.