麻豆社

I agree that it is odd to descrive atheism as a religion. A religion is a belief system rather than a denial of one particular belief system.

But what about "humanism"? That's not just atheism; humanism does seem to be a set of beliefs about the world.

In case any humanists come after me, I'm not attacking their views (they may well be right); I'm merely observing that they have a set of beliefs.

Now it's not the case that any set of beliefs would add up to a religion. Add in other organising relationships, values, communities etc and you come close.

Humanists even have officiants now for weddings and funerals. Maybe even naming ceremonies.

Why isn't that a religion?

Yes to term 'unbelief' or 'atheism' as a religion is to put them in the same category of the misery, intolerant breeding stuff that is classified as religion. I ducked out of my Baptist upbringing as soon as I was old enough to realise that as a female I was a second class citizen on Sundays whereas the other days of the week I had an (at least legally), an equal role in society.

What about those who are unbelievers of political parties? I say this since most political parties operate and function as if they were a religion [at least in America].

Atheism is not a religion or a belief system, it is simply disbelief. It must seem strange for people who were raised to believe in a god and that the religion they were intoctrinated into or adopted had the inside track on the truth to consider that those who weren't brought up that way are perfectly normal and happy but I assure you that's the way it is. I on the other hand see people's religion as an burden imposed on them in their childhood which they voluntarily carry around all of their lives. I feel sorry for them because even for those who become atheists, they always carry vestiges of the scars they suffered. I've met many who felt guilty about having not gone to church in many years right after they told me why they became atheists. For me, religion is simply not an important part of life. Why do I read this blog and post here? It's interesting to get insight into how other people see the world in a view that is so different from my own. I'm still trying to fugure Francis Beckwith out, I hope he will further explain himself.

鈥淲ho can say what the landscape will look like once unbelief has enjoyed a past as long as Islam鈥檚鈥攍et alone as long as Christianity鈥檚?鈥� - Anthony Gottlieb

I don鈥檛 believe we as a species can afford for it to take as long as that to spread. It鈥檚 quite ironic considering that Christians have traditionally used 鈥淭he end is nigh鈥� to frighten people into being 鈥渟aved鈥� but looking at the world today, if in 50 yrs time we haven鈥檛 been annihilated by religionists (be they religiously driven rogue states or terrorists), we鈥檒l be lucky.

But I seriously think satire could come to the rescue and save the world! If I say to a religious person 鈥淲hat you believe is based on nothing in fact and therefore any claims you make (e.g. that you should get public money to fund your school) is outrageous鈥�, I am attacking something dear to that person and the conversation is going nowhere. If on the other hand I put an entirely different argument to that person, looking at a situation that鈥檚 more distant and possibly avoiding his/her particular religion I may have a chance of sowing some seeds of doubt in the concept of religion itself.

For instance 鈥淭he Islamists and Zionists are mistaken in their claims to the Temple Mount. We of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have the true claim to it as He has revealed to us鈥︹�� and so on. The only thing we 鈥楶astafarians鈥� don鈥檛 have that the others do is a history in the region but a little stretch of the imagination can rationalize up something on that front. Any other argument, on the other hand, attacking the validity of any particular aspect of 鈥榤y belief鈥� can be turned around to question the validity of the same aspect in their own.

I don鈥檛 think the particular numbers or classification of non-believers/atheists etc. matters. What鈥檚 required is that more of us find a way of illustrating the ridiculousness of faith before it鈥檚 too late - and a parody religion might just do the trick :)

In 5. Barti Ddu wrote:

What鈥檚 required is that more of us find a way of illustrating the ridiculousness of faith before it鈥檚 too late - and a parody religion might just do the trick

Barti Ddu: In Christianity today Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens conducted an on-line discussion which may be read at

Douglas Wilson is author of Letter from a Christian Citizen, senior fellow of theology at New Saint Andrews College, and minister at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. He is also the editor of Credenda/Agenda magazine and has written (among other things) Reforming Marriage and A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking. Hitchens is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair and a visiting professor of liberal studies at the New School. He is the author of numerous books, Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man," Letters To a Young Contrarian, and Why Orwell Matters.

In a discussion of this exchange at:

Derek Bell asked: What puzzles me is Hitchens et al would say that the universe is totally 鈥榙isinterested鈥� and 鈥榰ninterested鈥� how we got here, why we are here, whether we suffer or not, etc. We are just bits of protoplasm with electrical connections in our brains that consume energy and eventually burn out and fade away. The universe has no purpose and needs to purpose. If I grant this, then how do I deal with the fact that 鈥淚鈥� (as a physical part of this universe, made up of the constituents of the matter that constitutes the universe) am very interested in how I got to be here, why I am here, why I suffer, etc.?

Helen Wright followed this up with: This exchange between Wilson and Hitchens is intriguing for one particular thread that has run through their exchange. Wilson asks a simple question about the basis of morality from which Hitchens appears unable to give a satisfactory reply.

Here is how I see this ... Wilson asked: 鈥淚s there an overarching common standard for all atheists that you are obeying and which they are not obeying? If so, what is that standard and what book did it come from? Why is it binding on them if they differ with you? And if there is not a common objective standard which binds all atheists, then would it not appear that the supernatural is necessary in order to have a standard of morality that can be reasonably articulated and defended? I am not saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to live as a responsible citizen. I am saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to be able to give a rational and coherent account of why you believe yourself obligated to live this way. In order to prove me wrong here, you simply need to provide that rational account. Given atheism, objective morality follows 鈥� how?鈥�

Hitchens replied: 鈥淭he origin of ethical imperatives I believe to be derived from innate human solidarity and not from the supernatural.鈥� Wilson again asked: 鈥淲e are talking about whether or not atheism provides any rational basis for rational condemnation when others decide to misbehave this way. You keep saying, "I have come to my ethical position." I keep asking, "Yes, quite. But why did you do so?" When you say that a certain practice is evil, you have to be prepared to tell us why it is evil. You say in passing that ethical imperatives are "derived from innate human solidarity." A host of difficult questions immediately arise. Derived by whom? Is this derivation authoritative? Do the rest of us ever get to vote on which derivations represent true, innate human solidarity? Do we ever get to vote on the authorized derivers? On what basis is innate human solidarity authoritative? If someone rejects innate human solidarity, are they being evil, or are they just a mutation in the inevitable changes that the evolutionary process requires? What is the precise nature of human solidarity? Are there different denominations that read the book of innate human solidarity differently? Which one is right? Who says?鈥�

Hitchens ..... 鈥淥rdinary morality is innate in my view鈥�. To which Wilson replied: 鈥淚 am simply saying that a good person needs to be able, at a minimum, to define what goodness is and tell us what the basis for it is. There are three insurmountable problems for you here. The first is that innate is not a synonym for authoritative. Why does anyone have to obey any particular prompting from within? And which internal prompting is in charge of sorting out all the other competing promptings? Why? Second, the tangled skein of innate and conflicting moralities found within the billions of humans alive today also has to be sorted out and systematized. Why do you get to do it and then come around and tell us how we must behave? And third, according to you, this innate morality of ours is found in a creature (mankind) that is a distant blood cousin of various bacteria, aquatic mammals, and colorful birds in the jungle. Your entire worldview has evolution as a key foundation stone, and evolution means nothing if not change. You believe that virtually every species has morphed out of another one. And when we change, as we must, all our innate morality changes with us, right? We have distant cousins where the mothers ate their young. Was that innate for them? Did they evolve out of it because it was evil for them to be doing that?鈥�

Barti Ddu: Would you care to take a shot at addressing these issues and then if you are successful we can talk some more about your request that we find a way of illustrating the ridiculousness of faith before it鈥檚 too late?

Regards,
Michael

Atheism simply means "without God". As unique individuals it would be productive for the human race if we were not prevented in what ever manner from living our lives with whatever strategy we think (believe) will be best. That strategy will die with us. Perhaps if everybody took a wider view and re-assessed now and again this would be a happier and less constricted place in judgemental terms. I do think that the American clergyman Jack Spong (SIC?) has the right idea in that God god exists in each and everyones own personal and unique head and dies with them (well thoughts would do wouldn't they! Let's hope we can all stopo telling each other how inferior we are. Peter