Atheism and Agnosticism: Religions-In A Sense (translation, America, preach, mission)

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

..."faith" extends well, well beyond the boundaries of the ideologies traditionally acknowledged as "religion."

It does. Faith in trickle-down economics or the inevitability of rags-to-riches success via self-reliance, come to mind, along with the inverse: poverty usually or always is a result of sloth. However, I seldom if ever see faith explicitly mentioned as a core value / virtue in connection with beliefs, unless they are asserted beliefs in invisible entities and realms advanced by a religious group. Nor do I see overt distrust of rational, intellectual inquiry along with overt idealization of faith, outside of religion. Instead, outside of religion, I see unthinkingly accepted axiomatic beliefs without them being particularly named or dogmatized in the way that religion does.

But you are at bottom correct, there is enormous overlap, along with evidence that the same mindset / personality wiring seem to encourage empirically unsupported thinking, in and out of religion. Which explains the affinity of tea party conservatism with evangelical fundamentalism, for example.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

The attempt to draw this boundary around religion seems to me an effort to identify and exalt empiricism as the defining feature of non-religion (and in this particular case an explicit attempt to draw atheism right out of the definition), and falls into what have been called substantivist approaches. Brian Morris has promoted this notion of religion as "supraempirical," but Timothy Fitzgerald criticizes it precisely because all values, secular or otherwise, are supraempirical. Trying to rest such pluriform ideologies on a single criterion is also far too restrictive.

I would characterize it as an effort to identify empiricism as a dominant feature of non-religion and a dominant feature of religion, despite pockets of empiricism in religion and pockets of non-empiricism outside of religion. There is nothing to prevent a religious person from being a scientist, for example. I would argue that it would be difficult and full of cognitive dissonance for a Christian fundamentalist to be an employable paleontologist, for example, but not a big deal for the same person to be a medical doctor or chemist.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

But you have people like Sam Harris referring to "active atheists" who read books on atheism and attend conferences. Very clearly, many atheists conceive of atheism as far more than a lack of a particular belief.

Which does not one whit change the definition of atheism. A minority of atheists are socially active as atheists and many of those tend to read certain books, attend certain conferences, etc. So what. I am not what Harris would call an "active atheist" even though I am active in terms of this forum (and basically nothing else).

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

Additionally, that broad definition of atheism grows almost exclusively out of its rhetorical utility. Specifically, it supports seeing atheism as a sort of default worldview from which religion wrenches all humans at one point or another. Saying "all babies are born atheists" is just a juvenile way to insist that atheism is basic and natural, while religion is perversion.

Au contraire, there are atheists that religion has never "wrenched" into theism, and never will.

I suspect you would have no issue with the notion that people tend to be attached to whatever religion their birth family practiced. Unsurprisingly, the unbelieving folks I've met here and in Real Life who saw through their birth family's religious beliefs basically from the time they were old enough to evaluate them, are few and far between, but they do exist (my own wife most definitely being one of them).

I would not assert that all babies are born atheists, although it's a tempting rhetorical flourish which is, in a sense, true in a practical sense. Rather, I would say that all babies are born with no preconceptions, and then tend to absorb the preconceptions of their parents, siblings, mentors and teachers, as well as to a lesser extent, the prevailing preconception of the society / culture they are raised in.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

What determines that salvation is "quasi-religious"?

I do. You are welcome to classify it however you want. Salvific concerns explicitly expressed and thought of as such are unique to religion in my experience. Less focused ideations along those lines do of course exist elsewhere but are though of more in terms of self actualization or the pursuit of happiness or something less portentous and eternally consequential. This remains true despite that you will, I'm sure, trot out some edge case from the dusty rectum of history that demonstrates a secular notion that explicitly addresses personal salvation.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

But that's just semantics. Not believing in God is absolutely no different from believing that God doesn't exist. Distinguishing positive beliefs from negative beliefs is nothing more than semantic worldplay.

Not really; in the context of formal debate, the positive belief is the one that is required to bear the burden of proof.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

What about apophatic theism?

Speaking of dusty edge cases ... what about it? I've never met an apophatic theist and doubt that I ever will. These are exceptions that prove the rule.

[TransplantedPeach]

Mr. McClellan - If I am to agree that one cannot come up with a definition of religion that fits all religions, then what about it? Seriously. I get your point that grouping a bunch of words together to define religion with 100% accuracy at all times is impossible. If this is the case, what are the implications for religion? What are the implications for atheism and agnosticism? And how does it relate to the idea that atheism and agnosticism are, in a sense, religions?

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by mordant

It does. Faith in trickle-down economics or the inevitability of rags-to-riches success via self-reliance, come to mind, along with the inverse: poverty usually or always is a result of sloth. However, I seldom if ever see faith explicitly mentioned as a core value / virtue in connection with beliefs, unless they are asserted beliefs in invisible entities and realms advanced by a religious group.

And I think that in large part has to do with the artificial dichotomy that has been set up between the religious and the secular. Because "faith" is a more salient aspect of most religions, secular ideologies seem to have avoided using it.

Originally Posted by mordant

Nor do I see overt distrust of rational, intellectual inquiry along with overt idealization of faith, outside of religion.

I would say some people here are displaying distrust of rational, intellectual inquiry. It seems to me faith in the invisible hand of economics or in the benevolence of secularism are a couple examples of overt idealization.

One of the things I'm trying to show by illustrating the arbitrariness of the religious/secular dichotomy is that the dichotomy is fundamentally about power and not about reason or benevolence.

Originally Posted by mordant

Instead, outside of religion, I see unthinkingly accepted axiomatic beliefs without them being particularly named or dogmatized in the way that religion does.

But you are at bottom correct, there is enormous overlap, along with evidence that the same mindset / personality wiring seem to encourage empirically unsupported thinking, in and out of religion. Which explains the affinity of tea party conservatism with evangelical fundamentalism, for example.

I would characterize it as an effort to identify empiricism as a dominant feature of non-religion and a dominant feature of religion, despite pockets of empiricism in religion and pockets of non-empiricism outside of religion. There is nothing to prevent a religious person from being a scientist, for example. I would argue that it would be difficult and full of cognitive dissonance for a Christian fundamentalist to be an employable paleontologist, for example, but not a big deal for the same person to be a medical doctor or chemist.

I would agree with that, and those observations are what tend toward a "family resemblance" theory of categorization. Those kinds of theories promote the specific relationship of a constellation of non-exclusive features as determining category membership.

Originally Posted by mordant

Which does not one whit change the definition of atheism. A minority of atheists are socially active as atheists and many of those tend to read certain books, attend certain conferences, etc. So what.

A minority of religious adherents reject the notion of a deity or an afterlife, and those features influence the definition of religion. Why wouldn't they do the same for the definition of atheism? There's only one answer: to do so saddles atheism with all the rhetorical responsibilities of an ideology and a movement. Vocal atheists want all the benefits of being a community without any of the responsibility.

Originally Posted by mordant

I am not what Harris would call an "active atheist" even though I am active in terms of this forum (and basically nothing else).

Au contraire, there are atheists that religion has never "wrenched" into theism, and never will.

No one said religion gets everyone. My point is that asserting the broadest possible definition of atheism only serves a rhetorical agenda. It's not a rational and intellectual conclusion, it's a manipulation.

Originally Posted by mordant

I suspect you would have no issue with the notion that people tend to be attached to whatever religion their birth family practiced.

The attachments demonstrably weakens as children age, and it's less and less of a tendency every day.

Originally Posted by mordant

Unsurprisingly, the unbelieving folks I've met here and in Real Life who saw through their birth family's religious beliefs basically from the time they were old enough to evaluate them, are few and far between, but they do exist (my own wife most definitely being one of them).

They've been on the increase, too.

Originally Posted by mordant

I would not assert that all babies are born atheists, although it's a tempting rhetorical flourish which is, in a sense, true in a practical sense.

I would call it a rhetorical sense, not a practical one. It's practical for the sake of those power structures to which I keep referring.

Originally Posted by mordant

Rather, I would say that all babies are born with no preconceptions, and then tend to absorb the preconceptions of their parents, siblings, mentors and teachers, as well as to a lesser extent, the prevailing preconception of the society / culture they are raised in.

Very true.

Originally Posted by mordant

I do.

Then that's the extent of the relevance of your classification, unless you can make an argument for why it should be considered that. "Quasi-religious" is a really unhelpful term. I could just as easily call something "quasi-secular." It symbolizes nothing beyond the group we find it rhetorically helpful to associate a feature with that could really be associated with either.

Originally Posted by mordant

You are welcome to classify it however you want. Salvific concerns explicitly expressed and thought of as such are unique to religion in my experience.

In the Old Testament salvation was a reference to deliverance from foreign nations. This is the same sense of the word used by Antiochus Epiphanes when he named himself Soter, or "Savior." It had an exclusively temporal and nationalistic sense. Even today salvation can just as easily refer to deliverance from poverty, from guilt, from jail, from military occupation, etc., etc. Like the notion of "faith," though, people invested in the religious/secular dichotomy tend to avoid the unwanted association with the religious nuance.

Originally Posted by mordant

Less focused ideations along those lines do of course exist elsewhere but are though of more in terms of self actualization or the pursuit of happiness or something less portentous and eternally consequential. This remains true despite that you will, I'm sure, trot out some edge case from the dusty rectum of history that demonstrates a secular notion that explicitly addresses personal salvation.

Salvation has historically been a corporate notion, not a personal one. The notion that religion is about individualism and not communalism in another one of those artificial distinctions that only serves power structures. As an example, the Shinto tradition in Japan used to pervade all aspects of society, but when the rise of secularism necessitated the separation of "church" and "state," Shinto itself was divided into religious Shinto and secular Shinto. Both comprised roughly the same ritual acts, but religious Shinto was personal ritual acts, while those relevant to the community and directed at the state were deemed secular Shinto. What this does is reinforce the community as the purview of the state over and against the church. Religion could have no power beyond the individual. When western scholars and politicians came in observed the way their notion of religion was divided into religion and secularism, they were flabbergasted and insisted secular Shinto was entirely religious. Without consulting Japan or Shinto, those western entities had declared what features distinguished the secular from the religious. This in turn flabbergasted the Japanese, since foreigners were coming in to tell them how they were and weren't allowed to categorize their own notion of religion. Their secularism was rejected as religion and they were forced to gut their notion of secularism and replace it with something completely and entirely alien to them. In both stages, the definitions were developed in the service of the interests of those in power.

Originally Posted by mordant

Not really; in the context of formal debate, the positive belief is the one that is required to bear the burden of proof.

Still semantic games, because now you're just admitting you're just intentionally couching the belief a specific way so as to avoid the burden of proof.

Originally Posted by mordant

Speaking of dusty edge cases ... what about it? I've never met an apophatic theist and doubt that I ever will. These are exceptions that prove the rule.

I don't think it is helpful to declare that positions you don't understand and have never personally encountered in your passive observation of global religious phenomena must constitute exceptions that prove your rule. In the end you're still just pointing to one side of the coin.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by TransplantedPeach

Mr. McClellan - If I am to agree that one cannot come up with a definition of religion that fits all religions, then what about it?

Then it bears on discussions of the rights, responsibilities, merits, demerits, and functions of both religion and atheism as ideologies. Attempts to strictly define religion and atheism predominantly serve value judgments and power struggles, and those rhetorical agendas are undermined by an accurate and informed understanding of how these ideologies are constituted.

Originally Posted by TransplantedPeach

Seriously. I get your point that grouping a bunch of words together to define religion with 100% accuracy at all times is impossible. If this is the case, what are the implications for religion? What are the implications for atheism and agnosticism? And how does it relate to the idea that atheism and agnosticism are, in a sense, religions?

I'm not interested in saying atheism is a religion apart from highlighting the inadequacies of most attempts to define religion. I'm interested in undermining attempts to marginalize and oppress, and that's what the majority of the attempts to pigeonhole both religion and atheism are about.

[old_cold]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

I'm interested in undermining attempts to marginalize and oppress, and that's what the majority of the attempts to pigeonhole both religion and atheism are about.

What atheists, in your mind, are trying to marginalize religion?
Religion(s), however you want to define it, is insignificant to each of us on a personal basis, if I may take the liberty of saying "us".
It is anything but that, in regards to its influence on our world, as much as we might like to see it be otherwise.
As far as atheists trying to 'pigeonhole' religion, most especially the Christian one, Ha! That would be like trying to herd cats!
There is no need to attempt to pigeonhole atheism as it is a simple, uncomplicated state which by it's very nature already is.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by old_cold

What atheists, in your mind, are trying to marginalize religion?

Most of the ones actively discussing atheism on social media. The popular ones are people like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Kraus, etc.

Originally Posted by old_cold

Religion(s), however you want to define it, is insignificant to each of us on a personal basis, if I may take the liberty of saying "us". It is anything but that, in regards to its influence on our world, as much as we might like to see it be otherwise.
As far as atheists trying to 'pigeonhole' religion, most especially the Christian one, Ha! That would be like trying to herd cats!
There is no need to attempt to pigeonhole atheism as it is a simple, uncomplicated state which by it's very nature already is.

There's the marginalization and rhetorical power play. You're trying to downplay religion and dismiss it as nothing more than an unfortunately influential curiosity, while atheism is pure and distilled reason. This serves your worldview and helps to justify whatever excesses might take place in the interest of furthering that rhetorical agenda. You think it's a coincidence that Harris and Hitchens support state-sponsored terrorism provided it's aimed at Muslims?

There's quite a bit of academic literature that's been written on the way religion and atheism are defined and described and why. Would I be correct in assuming you've not read any of it?

[old_cold]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

Most of the ones actively discussing atheism on social media. The popular ones are people like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Kraus, etc.



There's the marginalization and rhetorical power play. You're trying to downplay religion and dismiss it as nothing more than an unfortunately influential curiosity, while atheism is pure and distilled reason. This serves your worldview and helps to justify whatever excesses might take place in the interest of furthering that rhetorical agenda. You think it's a coincidence that Harris and Hitchens support state-sponsored terrorism provided it's aimed at Muslims?

There's quite a bit of academic literature that's been written on the way religion and atheism are defined and described and why. Would I be correct in assuming you've not read any of it?

Did you happen to take note that I said personally?
I don't have to try to downplay it to myself since it has no importance or influence for me personally.

I have thought this way for over 60 years and you know what?
Until I started hanging around this forum, I didn't even know who Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens even were and now that I do, my stance doesn't mean I agree with whatever they think or promote. Other than as general interest in world affairs, I don't care either.

As for reading all the academic 'stuff' you're asking about, why would I?
I didn't need to read to get here, nobody was needed to guide or influence me.
You are now trying to pigeonhole all atheists as if we are a group and, as so many others have done, are trying to assign us some leaders, just because they're prominent.
You might do better to spend more time studying psychology with an open mind than trying to read the minds of people on an internet forum.
In time for an edit.
Rather than sticking your nose in more books on psychology written by others, spend more time studying people.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by old_cold

Did you happen to take note that I said personally?

Yes, of course. That doesn't change the fact that it was a public statement that reflects a widespread rhetorical agenda.

Originally Posted by old_cold

I don't have to try to downplay it to myself since it has no importance or influence for me personally.

No one said you were downplaying it to yourself.

Originally Posted by old_cold

I have thought this way for over 60 years and you know what?
Until I started hanging around this forum, I didn't even know who Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens even were and now that I do, my stance doesn't mean I agree with whatever they think or promote. Other than as general interest in world affairs, I don't care either.

As for reading all the academic 'stuff' you're asking about, why would I?

So you could speak in an informed manner instead of just making assumptions.

Originally Posted by old_cold

I didn't need to read to get here, nobody was needed to guide or influence me.
You are now trying to pigeonhole all atheists

I am doing absolutely no such thing.

Originally Posted by old_cold

as if we are a group and, as so many others have done, are trying to assign us some leaders, just because they're prominent.
You might do better to spend more time studying psychology with an open mind than trying to read the minds of people on an internet forum.
In time for an edit.
Rather than sticking your nose in more books on psychology written by others, spend more time studying people.

I do. In 2014 I spent time in eight different countries talking to people about religion and culture. I'll be in a ninth in three weeks.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by old_cold

What atheists, in your mind, are trying to marginalize religion?

Remember that in many believers' minds failing to believe in gods is equal to mocking them, persecuting believers and so on. I guess I'll have to include "marginalizing" in that list of superpowers that the non-belief of non-believers causes.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Remember that in many believers' minds failing to believe in gods is equal to mocking them, persecuting believers and so on. I guess I'll have to include "marginalizing" in that list of superpowers that the non-belief of non-believers causes.

You're not actually suggesting that this is my position, are you?