Atheism
We almost had an uncomfortable debate, discussion, argument at Christmas about whether atheism is just another religion. One of my guests made the argument that it was, and it bugged several of us who have (at least in my case) come painfully and reluctantly to a rejection of religion. Most of my friends who are secular humanists are also science fiction writers, and many are people who come out of scientific backgrounds. We honor and respect science. I don’t think it’s a fair comparison because what has driven most of us to abandon our faith is well, just that, this whole “faith” thing.
I want results that can be reproduced. We all loved the idea of cold fusion, but no other lab could duplicate the result so we all walked away. To argue that science is just as dogmatic as religion strikes me as idiotic. Are their individual scientists who can’t bear to give up their pet theories? Of course, but eventually the weight of their peers, questioning, reviewing and testing breaks done passionately held beliefs. At its best science is about doubt and asking questions.
I much prefer that over dogma.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I don’t believe atheism is a religion. I keep finding atheists who have really bizarre life philosophies that I don’t share at all!
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
There is a great two hour discussion between Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett (dubbed the ‘Four Horsemen’, Har Har.) available here:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2025,THE-FOUR-HORSEMEN,Discussions-With-Richard-Dawkins-Episode-1-RDFRS
They do tackle this exact issue, and several related ones.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Thank you, Michael, for this link. I’ll check it out tomorrow. That’s quite a line-up.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Reproduced from Live Journal
Hmmm, it seems to me that a “religion” by definition requires a deity(s) where as atheism denys the existance of a deity so therefore…etc
Science relys on empirical evidence rather than faith, science is prepared to be wrong, and willing to update itself in the light of new evidence. Show me one religion prepared to do the same.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Hey, I got my back up for a second, but I backed right down.
I thought I was very good.
Atheism is a religion like not believing in Zeus makes you Greek.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Walter put me onto a very interesting series of answers to the question “What have you changed your mind about?” given by an array of extremely intelligent people. There’s an essay on the compatibility (or lack thereof) of religion and science that might be relevant to this discussion. It’s at
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_16.html#shirky
The author is listed as CLAY SHIRKY
Social & Technology Network Topology Researcher; Adjunct Professor, NYU Graduate School of Interactive Telecommunications Program (ITP)
Some relevant excerpts:
“The idea that religious scientists prove that religion and science are compatible is ridiculous, and I’m embarrassed that I ever believed it. Having believed for so long, however, I understand its attraction, and its fatal weaknesses.”
And
“The people we need to watch out for in this part of the debate aren’t the fundamentalists, they’re the moderates, the ones who think that if religious belief is made metaphorical enough, incompatibility with science can be waved away. It can’t be, and we need to say so, especially to the people like me, before I changed my mind.”
January 6th, 2008 at 8:40 am
I certainly agree that atheism is not a religion. The usual argument I see to the contrary is along the lines of “You claim to know that there is no God, but you can’t possibly know that with absolute, unshakable certainty; so in saying that there is no God you’re expressing a faith that goes beyond the evidence. If you went strictly by the evidence you would be an agnostic and admit that God might exist.” But that demand for absolute, unshakable certainty rests on a conception of knowledge that only makes sense in a theistic worldview. If there were a God, he might reveal truths to us that could never be revised or questioned under any circumstances. But science does not provide such truths, and its methods are specifically designed to work in a world where they are unavailable. Things like the conservation of mass/energy are theories founded on evidence, which are subject to the test of further evidence. So if we are prepared to say that we are as certain of God’s nonexistence as we are of the conservation of mass/energy (which I personally am), we are just entitled to call the one knowledge as to call the other knowledge—and any conception of knowledge that makes sense in a nontheistic worldview must include that revisability and must apply to both. The theist’s demand for unshakable certainty amounts to slipping a theistic assumption into the debate—a move that is traditionally called “begging the question.”
But I’ve been coming to think that “faith” is not the best defining trait for “religion.” If you look at the history of Christian thought, you will find that the technical word “heresy” etymologically originated from a Greek word meaning “choice.” The root concept of the heretic is that of someone who chooses for themself what to belief or not belief, as opposed to someone who believes what they are told to believe by the authorities—in the case of Christianity back then, by the church hierarchy; in other cases, by a scripture or by a cult leader. I think that submitting beliefs to an authority is, if not the defining characteristic of religion, at least part of what defines it as the kind of thing it is. Admittedly, that leads to some reclassifications—for example, I think it could be argued that Buddhism is not, at least in origin, a religion, but more nearly an applied science—but then Buddhism has never been a perfect fit to the conceptual model of “religion” anyway.