What is religion?
According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary;
1 a : the state of a religious, eg. a nun in her 20th year of religion
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith — re·li·gion·less adjective (emphasis mine)
Please observe definition #4. Even though religion is commonly known to only be associated with belief in God or some higher power, by definition, it does not have to be. Any cause! Any principle! Any system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith is RELIGION. Now check this out....
 |
| Richard Dawkins - Scholar, Best Selling Author of "The God Delusion", Renowned Atheist Thinker |
Here's an interesting excerpt from an interview with leading atheist Richard Dawkins;
In Dawkins' view, there is a battle taking place in Britain between the forces of reason, and religious fundamentalism and it is far from won. He is one of its most famous and prolific combatants - but the question might be whether he is among its most effective. The God Delusion's stated aim was to "convert" readers to atheism - but he admits that as a proselytising tool it has broadly failed. "Yes," he smiles. "I think that was a bit unrealistic. A worthwhile aim, but unrealistic."
In fact, Dawkins has been described as "the biggest recruiter for creationism in this country". Critics accuse him of an imaginative failure when it comes to human nature's susceptibility to the comfort of irrational thought. They say his intellectual intolerance alienates people, and have questioned his wisdom in attacking a target such as the comedian Peter Kay, for admitting to finding faith comforting. "How can you take seriously," Dawkins notoriously scorned, "someone who likes to believe something because he finds it 'comforting'?" (emphasis mine)
Source - 'People say I'm strident'; An Interview with Richard Dawkins by Decca Aitkenhead, The Guardian, Saturday 25 October 2008
Richard Dawkins is an atheist. He is also religious. His admittedly failed attempt to "convert" readers to atheism with the book "The God Delusion" was a perfect example. Our religion believes in God. His religion does not. Atheism is not anti-religion. It's anti-religions that believe in God. As long as the object of a religion is not any form of God it offers no challenge to atheism. Hence, Dawkins is a religious leader with a faithful following of believing "non-believers".
His war against "religion" is really not a war against "religion" because that doesn't make any logical sense. If it was, then he would be at war with himself. In fact, maybe he is. Maybe that's the answer. He's as much conflicted as the people he desires to enlighten. Since he cannot prove God's non-existence, his disbelief of God's existence and adamant opposition to the belief of others is a religious position. I'm religious and I have no problem with that. At least I'm not denying it.
Atheism is defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as;
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
We believe in God! Atheists don't! We have our doctrines! They have theirs! The war between Christianity and Atheism is not a war between religion and reason. It's another religious war like the one against Islam but in the end there will be only one winner.
Here's another quote from the interview with Richard Dawkins;
Does he ever, I ask, envy people who believe in God?
"No." He shakes his head firmly. Even though faith is said to be so famously comforting?
"You see," he says, "I'm so eager to say well maybe it is comforting but so what? I suspect that for every person who is comforted by it, there will be somebody else who is in mortal fear of it." Does he not envy those who manage not to find God mortally fearful?
"If I envied them that, then I'd have to envy people who are on some drug, which just makes them feel good. So to the extent that religion's comforting, it's probably not ..."
Dawkins likes to joke that old people go to church because they're "cramming for the final". He never worries that one day in old age he may wake and find himself feeling drawn towards faith, though. If he did, he would put it down to senile dementia. He seems much more worried about spurious reports of a fictitious deathbed conversion being put about by his enemies after he dies. He is probably not joking at all when he says "I want to make damn sure there's a tape recorder running for my last words." (emphasis mine)
Source - 'People say I'm strident'; An Interview with Richard Dawkins by Decca Aitkenhead, The Guardian, Saturday 25 October 2008
Wanna be sure a tape recorder's running as you lay in your deathbed? Oh, that won't be a problem. :-)
Matthew 12:36-37(NLT) - And I tell you this, you must give an account on judgment day for every idle word you speak. The words you say will either acquit you or condemn you.”
Atheism does not fit the definition of religion you've highlighted because it lacks reliance on faith. Faith is the belief in something whether the evidence supports it or not; athism is a natural conclusion based on the utter lack of a shred of evidence for the existence of gods.
ReplyDeleteThere is also no shred of evidence that God does not exist but that's a belief that's harbored by atheists.
ReplyDeleteIf the sole purpose of atheism is to oppose believers in God it does not exist as an entity of it's own.
I hope there's more to atheism. If not, then I'm right. It's a religion.
There is also no shred of evidence that Mithra, Zeus, Apollo or Isis exist. Do you believe in them as well? Why not?
ReplyDeleteAtheism has no purpose; it is the single belief that gods don't exist. How does that make you right that it's a religion?
Ok, let's get specific... here's the definition again;
ReplyDelete"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith — re·li·gion·less adjective"
You just said;
"Atheism has no purpose; it is the single belief that gods don't exist."
You cannot prove that gods don't exist. That simply cannot be done! Hence, you have to believe that gods don't exist without proof that they don't exist. Hence, you have to believe it by faith.
Once again, you have just said to me that Atheism is a religion. Thanks for the confirmation.
So you believe in Mithra and Zeus and Apollo?
ReplyDeleteI don't get your point. I'm sorry. How does that connect to what I just said? You can quote me if you like. I would love to understand your position.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that your logic doesn't hold up. If I should believe in your god because I can't disprove his existence, by that same logic, you should believe in every god.
ReplyDeleteCan we agree that's nonsense? Since that's your only support for the idea that atheism requires faith, you now have no way to back up that assertion.
So I'll say it again: Atheism does not require faith and thus is not a religion.
Oh that's your point. Oh, well you missed mine completely. I did not say you need to believe in my God. You did not read that. You made that up completely. The entire article had one point and I proved it. You missed the point.
ReplyDeleteThe point was that Atheism is a religion based on the definition of the word. You are yet to prove me wrong because I am right. You are arguing about a completely different point that I have not made in this article.
If you want to engage me in a logical argument then formulate a logical response to my argument. You have not done so. Maybe you should read the article again and also read my comments so you can stick to the point of the article.
Also, let me make myself perfectly clear. You cannot prove there is no God so you cannot believe there is no God unless you believe it by faith.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, using logic, based purely on the definition of the term "religion" belief in God's non-existence (atheism) is as religious as belief in God's existence.
If Atheism were truly all logical then the atheist position must be that you do not believe in God's existence and you also do not believe in God's non-existence.
You don't believe anything unless you can prove it so you cannot say you believe there is no God. That is being logical. You can logically respond to that if you can.
You are not right, because atheism does not require faith. Since there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of any gods, the conclusion that none exist is a rational one. Belief in a god does require faith, since all evidence points to the idea that none exist.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, nice cop-out. Pretend my question has nothing to do with the conversation, so that you can avoid answering it. I'll ask again, just to confirm that you're refusing to answer:
ReplyDeleteDo you believe in Mithra, since you can't disprove his existence?
:-) I actually like you already. Thanks for your input. You're quite sharp. You make some interesting points.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, here's my response to your statement;
"Do you believe in Mithra, since you can't disprove his existence?"
I do not understand how my belief in Mithra has anything to do with my ability to disprove Mithra's existence. Hence, I choose not to answer the question since it makes no sense in the context of the discussion. If you can tell me how your question about Mithra makes logical sense in the context of the discussion I will gladly answer it. Please do so if you can.
Next, I finally get what you're saying about atheism. Thanks for clearing it up so I can respond directly to it. You finally said what needed to be said. Here's what you said;
"You are not right, because atheism does not require faith. Since there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of any gods, the conclusion that none exist is a rational one. Belief in a god does require faith, since all evidence points to the idea that none exist."
Actually, even though YOU are unable to find any shred of evidence for the existence of any gods YOU still cannot conclude that there are absolutely no gods. You can only conclude using logic that based on the lack of evidence the most likely conclusion is that there are no gods. That's logic at its most basic level.
Also, based on what you have said you still cannot conclude using logic that without a shadow of doubt there are no gods. For that to be done, you now have to provide conclusive evidence that proves that there are no gods. You cannot arrive at an absolute based on the non-existence of evidence. You can only attempt to do so based on evidence.
In addition, because people who believe in gods have not provided evidence to YOU that gods exist does not mean there is no evidence. You do not know of any evidence and that's all you can say because you do not know everything.
Once again, atheism is a religion. You cannot claim that there are no gods without doing so by faith because you are yet to prove that there are no gods.
It may be true that YOU have not seen proof that there are gods yet you cannot prove that no proof exists since you do not know everything.
The only way you can say there are no gods is if you can present proof that there are no gods. You cannot use someone else's inability to provide proof that there are gods as the basis of your position.
Last but not least. Your statement "Belief in a god does require faith, since all evidence points to the idea that none exist" can be questioned. Why? You have not seen ALL evidence.
If you are capable of presenting ALL evidence that points to the idea that none exist I invite you to do so now. I doubt you can but since I want to remain logical I do not know. Maybe you can. Why not try? Go ahead!
That's my entire point. Unless you can provide ALL evidence that gods don't exist you have to believe that they don't exist based on faith. If you say the most likely conclusion based on the evidence you have seen is that they don't exist I can accept that. However, you cannot say that there are no gods. Hence, atheism requires faith.
"I do not understand how my belief in Mithra has anything to do with my ability to disprove Mithra's existence."
ReplyDeleteYour entire argument for atheism relying on faith is based on the fact that your god's existence can't be disproved. That's how it's connected. You're not responding because you know your response will undermine your argument.
"You can only conclude using logic that based on the lack of evidence the most likely conclusion is that there are no gods."
Which is what I said. Atheism is rational, evidence-based conclusion, requiring no faith.
"You cannot arrive at an absolute based on the non-existence of evidence."
Here's where my question on Mithra comes in. How do you arrive at the idea that Mithra doesn't exist?
"You do not know of any evidence and that's all you can say because you do not know everything"
There is no evidence. Prove me wrong. If there's evidence, let's see it.
"If you are capable of presenting ALL evidence that points to the idea that none exist I invite you to do so now. I doubt you can but since I want to remain logical I do not know. Maybe you can. Why not try? Go ahead"
Sure. All phenomena in the natural world can be explained in terms of natural laws. There is no need for anything supernatural.
"If you say the most likely conclusion based on the evidence you have seen is that they don't exist I can accept that. However, you cannot say that there are no gods. Hence, atheism requires faith."
Do you take it on faith that the sun will rise tomorrow? Or is that a conclusion based on evidence?
I should clarify my last question...
ReplyDeleteFaith is the belief in something whether evidence supports it or not. If the evidence supports something, it's a rational conclusion until evidence against it is supplied. You don't need to see ALL evidence to make a rational conclusion. We all know the sun's going to come up tomorrow, because all available evidence supports that idea; it does not require faith.
All available evidence supports the idea that there are no gods. If evidence to the contrary exists, no one has been able to produce it. Atheism is thus a rational conclusion that does not require faith.
You said;
ReplyDelete"Your entire argument for atheism relying on faith is based on the fact that your god's existence can't be disproved. That's how it's connected. You're not responding because you know your response will undermine your argument."
Here's my response: OK, let's settle the Mithra issue so we can move on from Mithra. I don't know if Mithra exists. Maybe Mithra does exist. I have no interest in Mithra's existence. I actually don't care.
I don't believe in Mithra. That's different from the statement; "I don't believe in Mithra's existence." If Mithra exists, Mithra exists. It doesn't matter to me. So that's my position on Mithra.
You said;
"There is no evidence. Prove me wrong. If there's evidence, let's see it."
I did not make the claim that there is evidence to prove the existence of gods so the burden of proof is not on me. You made the claim that there is no evidence. I question that claim because you cannot absolutely confirm that none exists.
The burden of proof for your statement is on you. Your statement is based on your level of understanding and the evidence available to you. I don't need to prove you wrong. I just need to question whether or not you're absolutely right. I have done so.
"Sure. All phenomena in the natural world can be explained in terms of natural laws. There is no need for anything supernatural."
I love this statement. Thank you for presenting it to me.
Here's a logical response;
Even if your statement was completely accurate you still have not proven that there is no God. For you to make that statement you inherently assumed that all that exists is the natural world.
Hence, all that's necessary are natural laws. Can you prove that only the natural world exists? What if there's more than the natural world? That was your statement so the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to prove anything.
The statement "All phenomena in the natural world can be explained in terms of natural laws" is inaccurate.
As a student of Physics, I'll just name a few phenomena in the natural world without an explanation in terms of natural laws;
1) CP Violation - Why was there more Matter than Antimatter after The Big Bang?
2) Explain the phenomena of Dark Matter and Energy.
Last but not least, I spent some time in The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California on a research team focused on the Cosmic Microwave Background which is evidence of The Big Bang.
3) What happened before The Big Bang?
You can use all the resources available to you and if you can, find explanations for these natural phenomena using natural laws. Since experienced, world-renowned scientists admit that they cannot find it, I doubt you can.
Am I saying that there needs to be a supernatural explanation? No! I am just saying that there is no satisfactory, definitive explanation in terms of natural laws. Hence, your statement has been proven inaccurate. I am making no further claims. I am just responding to your own.
Now in response to everything else you've been saying. Here's where you and I differ. I am a man of faith. If you read my article you would see that. I am not ashamed to say that. I don't deny that I have faith.
You are the one denying that you have faith when you do. You believe there are no gods and you cannot prove there are no gods. Your only claim is that you have not seen evidence of gods. That's not enough. You have faith just like I do. Welcome to the family of faith. In that way, we are connected. :-)
So if you accept the possibility of Mithra's existence, you must logically accept the possibilty of the existence of all gods, along with fairies, unicorns, frost giants, whatever. If this possibility is based on the inability to disprove their existence, then you have no way to know anything definitively. You can't say the sun will come up tomorrow, because you can't disprove that it won't. You cannot even say for sure who you are, since you can't disprove that you're not someone else. Hence, we cannot know anthing.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that asking someone to prove that something doesn't exist is silly. It causes the logical problems that I've mentioned above. The inability to disprove something is not a reason to accept the possibility of its existence. If it were, I could make up a fictional character, and we would have to accept that maybe it really exists. It's silly. It's not how things work.
Here's how things work: If there's no evidence for something, there's no reason to believe it. That's all the proof anyone needs (which is good, but it's all anyone's is going to get).
I think the central issue is that we're not agreeing on the definition of the word faith. A rational conclusion based on evidence does not require it. It is not necessary to know everything to come to such a conclusion.
My worldview is based on evidence; it therefore does not require faith. Yours is not; that's the difference between us.
And by the way, science has no explanation for the things you've mentioned YET. Science is a process of continual improvement of knowledge; religion isn't.
Well said, Dave. Well said. Your point about us not agreeing on the definition of faith is a very good one. Hence, since we did not define it, we were not discussing the same thing. I can always define it now and continue to argument. However, that's not necessary.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, thanks for the reminder about scientific research. I've participated in it myself and I discussed the process in my book, Faith Science.
Nonetheless, I will make this simple. I'm in no way arguing for the existence of gods because I don't care about that. I am a Christian and the only God I believe in is the God of The Bible.
The God of The Bible is a Spirit. He exists in a realm that is as real as the natural realm. Can I present natural evidence to prove to you that God or even the spirit realm exists?
Maybe, but I don't need to. Some things are outside of the realm of scientific research and there are leading scientists who will agree with that.
If you really want evidence of His existence I will tell you what to do to get it. If you're interested let me know. If not, that's fine. You can walk away.
However, I assure you that evidence is available and I can make it available to you. Even though I am thoroughly enjoying this, my goal is not to win an argument so I'll stop arguing and give you what you're looking for.
I agree that we have digressed a bit from my point in joining the conversation: to dispute your assertion that atheism requires faith. I stand by my position that it does not, and it thus not a religion. I'd be happy to continue that discussion if you'd like. If not, I have certainly enjoyed the exchange.
ReplyDeleteWhether we do or not, though, you now have me curious about how I can obtain evidence of your god's existence. How would you suggest I do so?
I agree to disagree with you concerning atheism. As agreed, I will email some instructions to you directly. Check your yahoo.
ReplyDeleteDonnell-
ReplyDeleteYou wrote your article and subsequent commentary based on one piece of a poor definition (and please don't give a call to authority argument that it is good because it came from Merriam Webster). That definition is much too narrow and besides leaves one open to interpret "faith" as anything they want which then causes all sorts of semantic rubbish arguments. Another definition from dictionary.reference.com states religion as:
1)a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2)a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3)the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4)the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5)the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
If you would have used that definition you would not have been able to formulate your original point.
Regardless, those dictionary definitions are not nearly as helpful as something like The Encyclopedia of Philosophy which lists attributes of religions as:
1)Belief in supernatural beings (gods).
2)A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
3)Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
4)A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
5)Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.
6)Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.
7)A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
8)A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view.
9)A social group bound together by the above.
In reviewing these elements of religion it is clear that atheism is not a religion, any more than are the democratic and republic parties, the Lions Club or a physics club.
Furthermore, you continuously posit that atheists have "faith" that there are no gods and this is a gross and dishonest use of the word faith. Using your own source of Merriam, they define faith as:
1) a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
As you can see there are many definitions to faith and by using them interchangeably you are being dishonest. The faith of religion is the faith described in definition #2. Definition #3 describes the things like the rising of the sun, that gravity exists, etc. Even so, faith is generally not used in this context, it is more often used when people say "I have faith he will pull through." That is a belief without proof but would you call that religion? Of course not.
In the end you are arguing semantics and trying to make atheism fit into a mold that it does not.
First, you're Anonymous which means you choose not to identify yourself and stand behind your comments. Hence, your anonymity gives you the boldness to say whatever you feel like.
DeleteUnfortunately, even though I have a strong response for you I don't respond to Anonymous comments. If I am going to debate with someone I rather we identify ourselves. You know who I am. Who are you?
This is how trolling begins on The Internet. At least I approved this comment. I won't approve any more anonymous comments.
Sorry. Thanks for stopping by though.
My name is Brad Miller, I only chose anonymous because I don't realize there was a option to just put your name and I don't find it particularly necessary to put out all my Google information in any type of discussion forum.
ReplyDeleteA agree with you that the anonymity of the internet does allow for trolls, but I obviously was not trolling. I was did not write anything disrespectful and you act like I was slandering you. You said, ". . . say whatever you feel like," like I was calling you names or something.
Interestingly you do hint at another topic all together; the prejudice and bigotry toward atheist in the U.S. which definitely does make some atheists want to remain anonymous, just as many gays and lesbians do, but that is a whole other conversation.
If my name is not enough to publish this comment and a reply to the previous that's up to you, it's really not that big of a deal.
Brad
Again, I don't care if you publish this, but here is a pretty good article arguing the other side of your view, albeit not exactly exhaustive:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogcritics.org/culture/article/atheism-is-not-a-religion/
It sums up a lot of points that I think is too much information to recreate in a blog comments section.
Well hello there Brad. Welcome to Faith Science Online. I see you made several assumptions from my comments. I only wanted to know who I was talking to so there would be no trolling. I've dealt with allot of it before and have decided to put an end to it. That's all. Nothing else was intended. I rather your boldness come from your ability to present compelling arguments than anonymity.
ReplyDeleteI also saw the article link you sent. I appreciate the info. I wrote a blog and you responded to it. So, I will now respond to you. If the author of that article addresses me I will address those comments.
Additionally, if my response was not that big of a deal you would not have come back. I'm not sure why you felt the need to say that. As you would have noticed from the comment string, I actually appreciate healthy debate so I do value your comments. I just prefer to debate a man who is not afraid to identify himself.
Anyway,
You said:
You wrote your article and subsequent commentary based on one piece of a poor definition (and please don't give a call to authority argument that it is good because it came from Merriam Webster). That definition is much too narrow and besides leaves one open to interpret "faith" as anything they want which then causes all sorts of semantic rubbish arguments.
My Response:
Let's define the word "narrow". In fact, let's not. We may not agree on the source of the definition. :) I am going to make the assumption that you understand what narrow means.
Based on that assumption I want you to take a look at what you did. You told me that the definition I presented was "narrow" and then you proceeded to give me two definitions that were verbose yet much narrower. I hope you didn't intend to show me broad definitions with those two. The fact that those definitions are long and detailed don't make them broad.
Let me explain how your chosen definitions are actually the narrow definitions. Those definitions put religion into one category (related to the supernatural) while the Merriam Webster Dictionary gave several categories which also included the supernatural.
Hence, the definition I chose was broad and the definitions you chose were actually narrow. If you don't agree with that simple point maybe we should now present competing definitions of the word "narrow." My argument was based on the broader definition and your own was based on two "narrow" definitions.
Since your entire argument was built on your "narrow" definitions it doesn't warrant a further response from me. You want religion to only be related to the supernatural
so you purposefully chose those definitions.
The Merriam Webster Dictionary is a very simple dictionary that is widely used by regular people like me. From my basic understanding it's definitions do not appear to be skewed to promote one specific perspective like some others.
Additionally, I will touch something else you said.
You said:
Definition #3 describes the things like the rising of the sun, that gravity exists, etc.
My response:
Oh really? Please return to the definitions you posted and see what example is given after definition #3.
Now that I know your name, Brad. I welcome your response to my response. Pay close attention to exactly what I say because I will be doing the same with your comments. I don't want to stray from the topic so whatever you say will be used in my response.
You seem to be very passionate about your position. I also welcome that. If you really believe in your position, go ahead and vigorously defend it.
I loved reading this article, and I absolutely agree. This coming from someone who despises religion (including Atheism) for various personal reasons. I believe that a lot of Atheists seem to not realize that even their belief is based upon faith, but also is logical. Logic is not opposed by faith, as some faith can be logical.
ReplyDeleteA wise man once said, "there are no facts, only interpretations", by this statement even the most devoted Atheists should understand the faith argument. Logic is not proof, it's more like reason.
Being a software developer, I tend to embrace the logic vs faith argument. Countless times the logical approach to something seems to be correct, when on several occasions it is not, and it just so happens the faith approach wins. Of course this is not always the case, but it's a great example (at least to me) as to why one as opposed to the other is never the definitive way to go.
Thanks for the positive feedback, Sonny. We appreciate your input.
DeleteEnjoyed your post and all the back-and-forth comments. I think it would have been helpful to point out that atheism is not the only religion which dogmatically "asserts a universal negative" (as G. K. Chesterton wrote decades ago). The religion of Buddhism appears to be completely compatible with western atheism (buddhanet.net/ans73.htm ). In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court (Kaufman v. McCaughtry, and Torcaso v. Watkins) has held that atheism is a religion that is eligible for 1st Amendment government protection. If atheists (at least in the U.S.) deny that atheism is a religion, when can we expect that they will appeal the SCOTUS's decisions and demand that they be exempted from Constitutional coverage?
ReplyDeleteGood points Gary.
Delete