Atheists religions; a rose by another name

I'm always impressed by evidence of delicate conscience in any human. I suspect that most people, Christian, atheist, or other, wouldn't do as much wrestling with the issue as she did. I doubt that I would. One woman, of course, is not typical of anything, but in general I've observed that the atheists I hang with are pretty much like the Christians I know from church and my Bible study groups. When I first started getting involved with atheists about a decade ago, I didn't know what to expect. Negative stereotypes about them are common in Christian circles, and I was leery about making contact. But after meeting with them in their homes and seeing how they interacted with their children, my concerns were quickly dispelled. I brought a Catholic friend with me to some of their dinners. He was uneasy at first, until one of them started talking about getting his Christmas cards out!

 

I never said that Atheism per se is a religion; only that "a belief in god(s) is not a sine qua non of religious faith". Many sects of Buddhism, for instance, are non-theistic; i.e, atheistic, yet still meet the definition of a religion; "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices", and\or a "commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance", and\or "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

 

No, I'm not.

"Religion = the service and worship of God or the supernatural, institutionalized as a system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices." is a misquote; quite probably a deliberate one.
The full quote, taken verbatim from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, is as follows.

religion
noun
re·li·gion ri-ˈli-jən
1: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2: a(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2:a(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2:b: the state of a religious
a nun in her 20th year of religion
3: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
Merriam-Webster

Definition 2: a(1) is the only one which refers to gods or the supernatural at all. When discussing non-theistic religions, it's not applicable and therefore moot, precisely as definition 2: b is not applicable and therefore moot unless you're discussing nuns.

 

Good for you!
Atheists remain most disliked religious minority in the U.S.
Why Are Americans Still Uncomfortable with Atheism?
Why some people distrust atheists
People unconsciously stereotype atheists as more likely to be serial killers, yet pin them as open-minded, scientific, and fun at parties
Atheists are one of the most discriminated against groups

 

I think you may be over-working Webster's. Definitions aren't descriptions of absolutes in Plato's heaven. They aren't right or wrong, but only more or less useful. General dictionaries like Webster's are compendiums of common usage. I think Webster's has done a pretty good job with "religion" The first usage is: "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices." Of course, the aggravating thing about it is we then need a definition of "religious". The same dictionary tells us that it means: "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity." I'm glad they put in "ultimate reality", obviously influenced by theologian Paul Tillich. This allows us to talk about non-theistic phenomena, like Buddhism, Taoism and even secular humanism as religions. A member of a "freethinkers" group I belong to says on the website: " 'Atheist' tells you what I don't believe. 'Humanist' tells you what I do believe."

I certainly don't think it's legitimate to lump all of the various definitions of a term together and conclude that the term is meaningless, or makes any organization a non-theistic religion. Like other terms, religion in popular usage has taken on broader, more metaphorical usage: religious devotion to one's studies, sports teams, etc. Sometimes these come close to the literal. While taking a walk a few days ago, I came upon a guy who seemed to be really broken up. I asked him what was wrong. He told me the Cowboys lost the game! I think such folks are taking sports way too seriously, and maybe need to consider therapy. But most of us understand the difference between figurative and literal speech. It's a judgment call.

If we really want to get into the weeds on this, we can go beyond general dictionaries to more technical ones in the social sciences and philosophy. According to the Oxford Reference--Dictionary of the Social Sciences, religion is "a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them." I balk at the term "Church" (mosques, synagogues, ashrams, etc., should also be included.) But otherwise, the definition is useful in focusing on the element of the sacred (or "numinous" or "spiritual") which scholars like Durkheim, Otto, and Eliade emphasize as central to the concept. Bishop's Encyclopedia of Religion and Culture provides a definition by anthropologist Clifford Geertz Clifford Geertz – Religion as a “System of Symbols”, which anthropologist Talal Asad calls “the most influential, certainly the most accomplished, anthropological definition of religion to have appeared in the last two decades”. 1983. “Anthropological Conceptions of Religion: Reflections on Geertz.” Man, New Series 18(2):237-259. p. 237. According to Geertz, religion is:" [1] a system of symbols which acts to [2] establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by [3] formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and [4] clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that [5] the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic”. That definition, while useful in understanding the creedal aspects of releigion, has (oddly for an anthropologist) the limitation of focusing too heavily on the doctrinal aspects of neglecting social context. As you may recall, I favor what's been called the "cluster" approach, defining religion by a cluster of attributes--the presence of most of which can be said to identify a phenomenon as "religion" There would have to be a sense of the sacred, numinous, or spiritual, combined with most or all of the "four Cs": creed, code, cultus (ritual), and community.
https://www.coursehero.com/file/22668448/Religion-terms-to-know/
Unveiling the 4 C's of Religion: A Guide to Understanding Faith - SoftHandTech
Religion 4C's | PDF.
What Is Religion?
Of course, you're free to define the term as you like, provided you let us in on how you're using it. It would also be helpful if you tell us why.

As to the question "Is atheism a religion", my answers are "not necessarily" or not usually". Atheism is simply a non-belief in a deity. As I've mentioned, I take fellowship with a group of freethinkers who get together to discuss religious topics, but non-religiously. We have community but no creed, code, or cultus, and no shared belief in the sacred. However, those atheist mega-churches Atheist "mega-churches" take root across U.S., world - CBS News and secular-humanist organizations like the American Humanist Association are a different matter. I attended a meeting of the latter organization several years ago, when they were discussing a ritual equivalent to Christian baptism: the "presentation of the child". I'd say that group was well along the way to being and atheist religion, if it wasn't one already--although it lacks supernatural beliefs! The Supreme Court has acknowledged the existence of religions that don't accept the existence of god(s) Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n. 11. This was in the context of a state law to take a religious oath for the position of notary public, which the Court held to violate his rights under the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment. The Court has subsequently extended this recognition to secular humanists in tax exemption and conscientious objection cases. Yet we should be cautious here. Christian fundamentalists have attempted to use this as a means of challenging the teaching of evolution and other secular subjects as violating the Establishment Clause by establishing secular humanism in the classroom.




.

 

I'm all for dictionaries. They facilitate a common frame of reference. As I pointed out, the dictionary you used provided a pretty good first definition of religion, if we look at how "religious" is also used and use that: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity. It would have been even better if it included other concepts of God: "Higher Power" (as used in Twelve Step " recovery groups; John Dewey's humanist definition as "the summation of human idealism", the transcendentalist, "oversoul" , Hegel's "Absolute", etc. But still useful.

So then we need to look up theism: "the belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe." But wait...whaddabout pantheism, which Richard Dawkins tells us is just "sexed up atheism: "a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe".Definition of PANTHEISM Dictionaries can be useful, if you also use judgment and don't make them your religion.

No, it was Webster's that made that choice, remember!

No, I'm hardly using the word any way I want, although I could. I could even name my dog "religion". But it would be confusing to do so. So I insist on using standard meanings of the term. That's not the same as general dictionary definitions like Webster's, which has its limitations. I tend also to consider the usage in established fields of study: anthropology, sociology, philosophy, religious studies , etc. Those expert's trump Webster's any day.

There you go again. It's not just my choice. I'm going by Webster's and those established fields of study I just mentioned. [/QUOTE]to use the term religion to refer to any individual, organization, process, or thought pattern that denies a deity BUT acknowledges ultimate reality...such as, oh science, which obviously holds that there is an ultimate reality.
You would call this a religious belief.[/QUOTE]No. While science "acknowledges" ultimate reality, it's concern is to study it by rigorous testing of falsifiable hypotheses. While scientists can be faithfully devoted to this enterprise, the norms of objectivity discourage being faithfully devoted to their ideas about ultimate reality--at least in their role as scientists.

If science found that, which seems to be far beyond its present level of knowledge, I doubt that scientists or anyone else would be displaying religious devotion to it. Game over! If scientists claim that, they'd be engaging in scientism: a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. What is Scientism? - BioLogos

Wow! Such circumlocution loses track of the simple fact that people have multiple roles and can hold two or more different beliefs at the same time! By definition, and atheist per se has no belief in a deity. But most of the atheists I know believe in other things, as well, like science and/or humanism. You, as I recall, follow Buddhism, at least in some secular form. Other atheists are humanists who hold: "a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values, especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason centered on human interests or values . secular humanism

Not atheism per se, but secular humanism can be a religious belief. Don't take my word for it. See Webster's supra. Or better yet, the courts in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n. 11; McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005), Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 418 F.3d (2005). As I've previously stated, if atheists or anyone else gather in groups (communities) that espouse a common set of beliefs about ultimate meaning (creed), follow a common set of moral rules (code), and/or engage in common rituals like attendance in regular gatherings following ceremonies or protocols like "walking from religion", solstice celebrations, presentation of the child, etc., I'd say they're probbly religious. (If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc.) And it's not just me. It's established social science usage. Who does that? The American Humanist Association (more accurately its sub-groups), those mega churches, etc. As mentioned, not the atheist group I belong to, which just gets together to eat and discuss religion.

According to a 2009 Pew survey, one-third of scientists believe in God and 18% believe in some other form of higher power. The rest are just atheists or agnostics. I'll go with that.

 

Non-sequitor.Lots of folks--most atheists and agnostics I know, even those who meet regularly to discuss religion--are just atheists and agnostics. It's the ones who go farther than that--who are into codes and creeds and/or rituals--who meet the dictionary and legal definitions of religious congregations.

????? Where did you get that idea? I mentioned that science follows a code of objectivity. That doesn't mean that religious folks, who might also be scientists, don't follow such a code in their work.

That's correct about science. As for what a god is, there are plenty of conceptions that don't involve supernatural anthropomorphic entities. Concepts of God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Summer 2020 Edition)

Yes, that's a good statement of their creed and code. For a fuller exposition, see the For other examples, check out the AHA's "Humanist Manifesto" Humanist Manifesto I - American Humanist Association
Humanist Manifesto II - American Humanist Association
For other atheist religious organizations, see:
Sunday Assembly - Learn About Us
Front Page
North Texas Church of Freethought

To make a long story short, see the excellent short article by sociologist who has studied non-theistic religious organizations for a decade and finds "that atheist churches serve many of the same purposes as religious churches. Their growth is evidence that religious decline does not necessarily mean a decline in community, ritual or People's well-being.Church without God: How secular congregations fill a need for some nonreligious Americans

 

...

 

There are a great many secular organizations that aren't religious. Why not? First of all,they lack an important element of religiosity: a spiritual purpose, which you may recall was on the list of ingredients for identifying religions. (Post 130) What is that? It's an elusive term, but I can be defined as "a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves, and it typically involves a search for meaning in life."
What Is Spirituality? | Taking Charge of Your Wellbeing
Spirituality: Definition, Psychology, & Types
https://www.humanitysteam.org/blog/...e-to-understanding-and-practice#googtrans(en)
Spirituality and Its Contribution to Mental Health
Spiritual experiences involve the "deepest values and meanings by which people live". P. Sheldrake, 2007,A Brief History of Spirituality; D.R. Griffen, 1988, Spiritualty and Society.
And no, going public with one's spiritual beliefs isn't enough to make them religious, because at least some of the 4 Cs would have to come into play. Secular humanist organizations were formed to perform functions similar to churches by bringing together non-theists into a spiritual community sharing humanist beliefs and values, demonstrating that people are capable of being ethical and moral without belief in a deity. John Dewey called Humanism our "common faith; Julian Huxley called it Religion Without Revelation"."I witnessed a discussion in a meeting of the AHA about a "presentation of the child" ceremony as a rite of passage comparable to Christian baptism--obviously intended to meet the needs of folks who were planning to raise their children in an ethical tradition. Other humanist ceremonies involve marking major life transitions. Humanist Ceremonies Humanist Family Life Ceremonies A Simple Introduction to Humanist Ritual and Ceremony - Nathan B. Weller As I've said many, many times, most atheists aren't religious; I think these are.

In Kaufman v. McCaughtry (2005), 419 F. 3d 678, a federal court held that the First Amendment protected the right of an atheist to organize such a group, since “The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a ‘way of life,’ even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being, (or beings, for polytheistic faiths) nor must it be a mainstream faith.” Courts granted tax exempt status to secular humanist organizations Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 249 F.2d 127 (D.C. Cir. 1957). Numerous other court cases reach a similar conclusion. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n. 11; McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005). I rest my case.

 

Or can at least plausibly be characterized as such.

Very good. Nationalism has quasi-religious aspects, especially when directed against common enemies. Faith, allegiance, obedience: Parallels between religion and nationalism See also, Carlton Hayes9(1960) Nationalism: A Religion; Eric Voegelin *1938); The Political Religions; Emilio Gentile (2006) Politics as Religion. It becomes particularly virulent when combined with theistic religion, as in "Christian nationalism" or Robespierre's nationalistic Cult of the Supreme Being during the French Revolution. Recognizing this gives insight into such phenomena as fascism, Political religions and fascism Stalinist and Maoist Communism https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14690760500099788 https://www.stearthinktank.com/post/maoism-nature-and-religiosity and the Korean Kims.How North Korea's Political Ideology Became A De-Facto Religion

I'd say that even ordinary patriotism also has rudimentary aspects of political religion,
owing to the fact that it and theism serve similar needs for individuals and elites.
(some scholars conceptualize nationalism as simply a more intense form of patriotism, while others emphasize the nativist component of nationalism, viewing some fellow countrymen as "the other").
https://www.snoqap.com/posts/2022/12/14/
patriotism-vs-nationalism-and-why-it-matters
Difference between Patriotism and Nationalism | Patriotism vs Nationalism )
Anyhow, both have their similarities to religion.
Patriotism as Religion
Religion and patriotism - Tamás Nyirkos
Remember the struggle against "godless communism", prosecution of flag burning as "desecration of a venerated object" in violation of a Texas statute in Texas v. Johnson, etc. ("desecration"-- how religious can you get?), etc. "America, America, God shed His grace on thee", "God bless America", etc. One of our political parties in particular has wrapped itself in the flag, while waving the cross and the Bible. https://harvardpolitics.com/in-god-we-trust-how-american-christianity-became-republicanism/ Fortunately, we're a pluralistic country with a Constitution that tolerates rival religions to the State--so far.