What Color Is Your Hair? or, Why Atheism Is 9/10 Religion
Posted in Atheism, Religion, Skepticism on | 4 minutes | 17 Comments →
There's a fairly popular saying that many atheists seem particularly fond of quoting lately:
"Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
I clearly understand why atheists object to their beliefs being encapsulated in the word religion. Of course, individual atheists will have different reasons for this objection, as we can't paint a large group of people with a broad stroke. Nonetheless, the alleged conclusion here is that atheism is not a religion, but I'm going to disagree and show several ways in which I feel this argument fails, albeit with a small amount of reservation. But first the disclaimer: This is largely a matter of semantics and definitions of words.
First and most obviously, bald people still have hair color. In fact, many bald people still have hair – just less than their genetically privileged counterparts. In similar fashion, atheism still has much of what religions have, save for one thing: Gods. The problem is that theism is not an intrinsic aspect of religion, evidenced by the fact that non-theistic religions have existed for thousands of years. Buddhism comes to mind. Jnana comes to mind. John H. Dietrich's approach to the religion of humanism comes to mind.
According to Wikipedia, religion is,
…a set of stories, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to an ultimate power or reality.
Note that often does not entail always, and that by this definition, atheism is most certainly a religion. As the atheist blogger Ebonmuse tells us, atheism certainly has its stories. Atheism also has its symbols: The Scarlet A, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Darwin fish. Like religion, atheism has a set of beliefs, and atheists can and do defend these beliefs as dogmatically, and irrationally, as their religious counterparts. And although they are not necessarily ritualistic practices, atheists have practices, too. Atheists preach to congregations, atheists proselytize to the unsaved, atheists collect money for their causes, atheists lobby the government for their causes, atheists have their disciples and apostles, and atheists fellowship with one another.
Atheism also shares many of religion's negative qualities. There are certainly closed-minded, bigoted atheists. Albeit certainly with more valid ground to stand on, atheists whine about their persecution. In the very same way they criticize believers, atheists also seek to have their symbols in government buildings, yet in the basest hypocrisy, they take it a step further by actually insulting all the other symbols in the government building. Imagine the outcry if a Christian nativity scene tastelessly lambasted a Jewish menorah!
Nor do the similarities stop there. Contrary to false arguments often proposed by religious critics, atheists are very adamant about the idea that atheism does not entail lack of meaning in life, and I'll go out on a limb here and posit that like their religious adversaries, possibly all atheists derive meaning from their beliefs. A great many essays on this point are floating around the blogoshpere, right now. Lastly, atheism certainly references an ultimate power and reality. The only difference is that they do so with a lower-case "u" and "r". So in all reality, what's so different about atheism than religion?
In fact, the only area in which atheism can legitimately avoid the label of religion is when dealing with the IRS, and even there we find gray areas. As a nativity scene can be considered secular for legal purposes, atheism can be considered a religion for legal purposes.
So what color is your religion?
James
says...I find the analogy “Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color” to miss the mark. I prefer the following:
“Calling atheism a religion is like calling not stamp collecting a hobby.”
I find that calling atheism a religion involves stretching the definition of religion to the point where it for all practical purposes ceases being useful. Definitions are only useful in so much as they clearly differentiate between various concepts. For me, religion involves a shared belief among members that there exists a supernatural element to the world that gives it greater meaning. This is the “ultimate power or reality” in the definition that you cite. Atheism sets itself in opposition to these views by abstaining from belief in this hyper-reality. Sure, we believe in a lot of other things about the physical world, but this is still an important and noteworthy difference.
So, as far as I am concerned, a person cannot make a hobby out of not collecting stamps anymore than a person can really make a religion out of not believing in a god or gods.
jim
says...The first definition in my Websters defines religion as:
a) belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe b) expression of such a belief in conduct and ritual
However, there are also more inclusive definitions under which you could theoretically place pretty much any system of thought. My preference is to try and stick to the primary definition, since it’s closer to the traditional understanding. I tend to agree with James that spreading definitions too thin sort of abolishes the meaning of words by making them all-inclusive. Theism is defined in Websters as:
1 belief in a god or gods
2 belief in one God; monotheism: opposed to PANTHEISM, POLYTHEISM
and ‘atheism’ is defined as:
1 the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist
2 godlessness
All these definitions seem good enough for me, and the subject doesn’t seem meaningful enough to seriously argue about.
cl
says...James, jim…
As far as the stamp-collecting analogy, I see where you’re coming from, but I think it fails as well, just not as obviously. For the analogy to be valid, it entails that the non-stamp-collector doesn’t partake in any aspect of stamp-collecting. In reality, the non-stamp-collectors don’t go around debating or critiquing the stamp-collectors. The non-stamp-collectors don’t create organizations to unify their position of non-collecting. The non-stamp-collectors don’t write books attempting to derail stamp-collecting ideas, and so on and so forth. In reality, non-stamp-collectors have nothing in common with their collector counterparts, but in reality, the atheist shares virtually every characteristic of the religionist except for God(s) and 501(c)(3) status.
Secondly, although I can certainly understand the problems that differing definitions create, I will say this: I didn’t stretch the definition I used at all. So, by Wikipedia’s definition, the argument stands.
Further arguing in this respect will eventually always descend into worthlessness, I suppose, because my opponents can always say, “Well, I don’t agree on your definition of religion.”
And round and round the wheel will go.
James
says...“In reality, the non-stamp-collectors don’t go around debating or critiquing the stamp-collectors. The non-stamp-collectors don’t create organizations to unify their position of non-collecting. The non-stamp-collectors don’t write books attempting to derail stamp-collecting ideas, and so on and so forth.”
Even if they did do all of those things, that still would not make their collective effort of not stamp collecting a hobby. The unification of people around a common goal or a common belief/lack of belief is not getting to the essential aspect of what a religion is. I like Dan Dennett’s definition of religion from Breaking the Spell:
Religions are “social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought.”
Now, you could go on forever listing commonalities between what religions people and non-religious people do. But in doing so you miss the heart of what religion really is, and that is some kind of commitment to a view that there are supernatural agents at work in the world and that these agents effect our lives in particular ways that may or may not require us to do something.
Atheism is missing this. So, if you want another analogy, calling atheism a religion is like calling a bagel a dinner roll – you may still have some bread to chew on but the center is clearly missing.
Lifeguard
says...Is “theism” a religion?
I don’t thnk so. “Theism” is a philosophical underpinning of many religions, but it’s not a religion in an of itself. It’s an umbrella term that encompasses both “monotheism” and “polytheism.” In that sense theism is a term that encompasses many diverse religions– religions like Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Santeria, and Wicca.
Atheism is the opposite of theism. It’s a philosophical idea. Some religions– such as Zen Buddhism and some forms of Taoism– can, I think, properly be called “atheist” religions as opposed to theistic ones. Some secular atheists might have beliefs and practices that can be characterized as “religious,” but that doesn’t make atheism itself a religion.
Theism isn’t a religion. And neither is atheism.
cl
says...I disagree. I’m a non-stamp-collector. Hence, thoughts about stamps rarely, if ever enter my mind. Atheists OTOH are often obsessed with religion. Non-stamp-collectors aren’t obsessed with collecting stamps. Thoughts related to stamp-collecting rarely, if ever enter the mind of the non-stamp-collector.
I agree, but that’s not my point. The unification of people around a common goal or a common belief / lack of belief is getting to the essential aspect of what a hobby is.
I also like Dennett’s definition of religion. And when you say,
I still disagree, and we’re right back to that thing about the wheels of definition turning ’round and ’round. Atheism is, in nearly every aspect, religion without God. That’s why I say it’s 9/10 religion, and that’s why I think attempts to provide a clear line of demarcation are superfluous. Atheism usually entails everything religion entails, minus the focus on the supernatural or an afterlife.
Lastly, the biggest problem for those who wish to frame the definition of religion in an exclusively supernatural context are essentially maintaining that Buddhism and Jnana are not religions. I’m open to explanations in that respect.
cl
says...Lifeguard,
Good to hear from you.
I agree that theism, in itself, is not a religion, and I didn’t argue that in the post. So my apologies if I implied such. I do think it was jim who introduced definitions of theism, BTW. However, would you argue that theism is not inherently religious? I wouldn’t.
Again, we’re back to the wheels of definition turning ’round and ’round. By Wikipedia’s definition, atheism is certainly much closer to religion than not. In fact, atheism meets nearly every definition of religion Wikipedia provides, minus reference to the supernatural.
And if Zen Buddhism can be legitimately referred to as an atheist religion merely on account of its lack of appeal to the supernatural, then why can’t atheism be legitimately referred to as another atheist religion?
Should I rephrase the argument to, “Why secular humanism is 9/10 religion?” Would that be more correct IYO?
jim
says...cl:
“Again, we’re back to the wheels of definition turning ’round and ’round. By Wikipedia’s definition, atheism is certainly much closer to religion than not.”
You DO realize you’re the one who started the wheel turning in the first place? :)
“Further arguing in this respect will eventually always descend into worthlessness, I suppose, because my opponents can always say, “Well, I don’t agree on your definition of religion.”
And of course, the same holds true the other way ’round. A lot more could be postulated about what the word ‘religion’ actually entails apart from these sparse definitions; however, it would still all boil down to what you or anybody else accepts as the true meaning of the word. I might argue that traditional usage comes down on my side, but language changes, so that really wouldn’t be saying much.
“Should I rephrase the argument to, “Why secular humanism is 9/10 religion?” Would that be more correct IYO?”
This might be more apropos to the point I think you’re trying to make, since there seems to be a correlation between deontological aspects of the informal humanist manifesto, and SOME moralistic supernatural imperatives presecribed within certain belief systems traditionally termed ‘religious’.
However, I don’t think that atheists like myself who don’t prescribe to a system of deontic moral ‘givens’, can rightly be put into the religious camp. But again, a square peg CAN be fitted into a round hole with enough perseverance, and a really big hammer. Seems like kind of a futile exercise, though :)
James
says...“Atheism usually entails everything religion entails, minus the focus on the supernatural or an afterlife.”
That is a big minus and why, in my opinion, atheism is not a religion. Whether or not some atheists are obsessed with religion, whether or not some atheists gather together to talk about atheism, whether or not some atheists write books about atheism, etc, etc is immaterial as far as I am concerned. I don’t see the usefulness in calling atheism a religion when atheism is missing what seems to me to be the most critical aspect of all religions.
“Lastly, the biggest problem for those who wish to frame the definition of religion in an exclusively supernatural context are essentially maintaining that Buddhism and Jnana are not religions.”
Why is that a big problem? I am not familiar with Jnana but if Buddhism is empty of any supernatural elements then Buddhism perhaps should be considered a life philosophy and not a religion.
James
says...Lifeguard has a point when he says that theism isn’t a religion. Theism isn’t a religion because the term just means some belief in god – it doesn’t describe a particulars set of practices and beliefs that revolve around it.
This is why I like Dennet’s definition. It grounds the meaning of religion in terms of actual social practices and social relations. It is the coming together of a group of people who share a common set of beliefs about supernatural forces that supposedly make a difference in our world and our lives and trying, collectively, to figure out what that means and what should be done about it. Out of these practices emerge the special symbols and rituals that Wikipedia alludes to.
With atheists, our social relations are all over the map. We all do different things, sometimes together and sometimes not. The only thing that unites us is a shared conviction that religious claims (in the sense described above) are false – hard to build any religion around that!
cl
says...I agree with what you say, and I can respect your opinion, but I’m attacking your analogy, not your opinion. Like the hair-color analogy, I think the stamp-collecting analogy fails, because if it were accurate, the atheist would be as aloof to theism and religion as the non-stamp-collector is aloof to stamp-collecting. Such is clearly not the case, wouldn’t you say?
I think that’s fair, but this is rarely the case even in scholarly settings. And my point is that, since Buddhism is considered an atheist religion, then secular humanism should also be considered an atheist religion. Don’t you think that’s reasonable?
You said this to Lifeguard:
Doesn’t the exact same thing apply to theists? Aren’t their social relations and particular interpretations of belief equally all over the map? Isn’t the main thing that unites them a shared belief that their particular flavor of theism is true? And many religions are built around just that. So I would amend your statement to, “It’s hard to build any theism around that,” but that’s just my opinion. Is it not reasonable?
cl
says...jim,
Thanks for support on my distinction between atheism and secular humanism. It makes sense to me as well. You might want to take a look at my last comment to James, as well.
As far as starting the wheels turning, perhaps I did by simple inclusion of a definition, but my intent with this post is to attack the analogies as inadequate; not to necessarily attack the opinion the analogies are meant to convey, if that makes sense.
jim
says...cl:
Well, that’s the thing about analogies-they’re generally meant to express the spirit of an idea, and will always fail under a sufficient amount of nit-picking. But I DO think it’s stretching things a bit far to call lack of religion, even ORGANIZED lack of religion, a religion; ESPECIALLY if the said organization is only meant to counter religious claims.
However, I can certainly see how some forms of ‘humanism’ that lean on pre-packaged moralistic frameworks could be considered religious. For instance, I consider
the blanket statement ‘Life is GOOD’ to be no more rooted in observable fact than the statement ‘All men are in sin’. Humanists have their unexamined creeds, and I’d never deny that fact.
cl
says...Gets my vote!
James
says...“Like the hair-color analogy, I think the stamp-collecting analogy fails, because if it were accurate, the atheist would be as aloof to theism and religion as the non-stamp-collector is aloof to stamp-collecting.”
It doesn’t matter as far as my analogy goes whether or not atheists or non-stamp collectors are aloof to theism or stamp collecting. The point of the analogy is that not stamp collecting is not a hobby because it is the rejection of a hobby – likewise, atheism is not a religion because it is the rejection of religion. That is the level on which the analogy is meant to work.
“And my point is that, since Buddhism is considered an atheist religion, then secular humanism should also be considered an atheist religion. Don’t you think that’s reasonable?”
Not really, only because I wouldn’t consider Buddhism a religion, either (although I suspect that certain elements of some forms of Buddhism lead others to think so, such as reincarnation and the deification of the Buddha). But if you want both to be religions, then do you propose using another term to distinguish between beliefs centered around supernatural entities and beliefs that are not (or the rejection of those beliefs)? If you do, then I would love to hear it. If not, then I think that religion as a word is more useful in the manner in which I have described.
“Doesn’t the exact same thing apply to theists? Aren’t their social relations and particular interpretations of belief equally all over the map?”
In general, yes. But not with regards to the more specific statement that I made: “It is the coming together of a group of people who share a common set of beliefs about supernatural forces that supposedly make a difference in our world and our lives and trying, collectively, to figure out what that means and what should be done about it.”
cl
says...I’m going to have to disagree. Atheism entails the rejection of theism, not religion. Now granted, theism is the strongest philosophical underpinning of religion, and that’s what atheism rejects. However, atheism manifests nearly every other philosophical and social context as religion. Non-stamp-collectors don’t even think about stamp-collecting. I’m just saying that both analogies offered here fail, IMO. When I think of a better analogy, I’ll post it here.
Not at all. I think the standards work rather well. Beliefs centered around supernatural entities are theistic beliefs; beliefs centered around the rejection of supernaturalism are atheistic beliefs. Substitute religions for beliefs and it makes sense too, unless we frame the definition of religion such that it is exclusively theist. I don’t, Wikipedia doesn’t. Others do, Merriam Webster does. Who’s right? How do we know?
The Thinker
says...My friend, who is a atheist and daughter of a Nobel Laureat in Science, was told that there is no God and that she had everything she needed to do it herself.
Webster’s and her definitions of:
A theis – without (theos) God
Ag nostic – not having knowledge
Well, that’s my $0.02