from http://thegoodatheist.net/religion/06/18/is-atheism-a-religion/

As a writer, the appeal of discussing atheism stems largely from the
fact that although its definition may be simple, the philosophies that
surround it are not. There are so many different responses to atheism
that some have begun to call it a religion. But is this true?

Is
atheism a religion, and if not, does it emulate many of the elements
of it? As I will show in this article, the answer to that question not
only makes us curious about the future implications of the growing
trend of atheism, it also demands our attention about what could
potentially be the next major movement in Western society.

What is a Religion?

To answer that question, we must examine the long history of religion
to reveal its purpose, which will in turn reveal its structure.
Although no definite number exists as to the age of religion,
anthropologists are convinced that crude animistic sects were a
hallmark of life for our ancient ancestors as far back as the
emergence of Homo sapiens (there is even evidence that our
evolutionary cousins, Neanderthals, had their own form of religion as
well). Our ancestors were not stupid; they possessed the same raw
mental power we do, but they were ignorant of the natural laws that
governed their environment. They faced the often brutal torment of
nature, and life was certainly never easy. When confronted with the
overwhelming power of nature, our ancestors turned to creative myths
to explain why such things as droughts, famine, storms, and death
occurred. As they were passed down orally from generation to
generation, the stories became ever more complex, and these
complexities led to elaborate cosmogonies, and of man's place in the
Universe.

Religion began to take a more active role in the stability of
societies during the Agrarian Revolution roughly 10,000 years ago, due
mainly to the fact that the production of food allowed for greater
numbers of individuals to live together in close proximity. In small
hunter-gatherer bands, the groups would normally be small enough to
allow conflicts to be regulated by the collective itself, so that
cheaters and opportunists would be caught relatively quickly, and
punished accordingly. In larger groupings, however, the collective was
often unable to monitor and punish those few uncooperative
individuals, and so an authoritative system needed to be devised to
regulate behavior and establish concrete laws that could all be agreed
upon. Since religions were then responsible for passing on important
traditions and information, so too could it create morality myths for
the purpose of guiding and regulating human behavior.

Of course, I make it sound as though this process was thoroughly
thought out on the part of the sects themselves. This evolution was
far more organic than directed; I use the word evolution specifically
because of the fact that religion was shaped by the selective
pressures of the rapidly escalating demands for order and structure as
changes began to affect human societies (rapidly when compared to the
genetic process of evolution, obviously). As such, the stability of
early societies became dependant, in large part, to the stability of
the religions themselves, which began to play an increasingly
important role in the functioning of society.

Religion was obviously not the only system devised to institutionalize
laws, although it probably was the first real stable system to do so.
Their powerful influence and apparent divine authority did much to
cement religion's position as arbiter. Even in societies where more
complex systems needed to be devised, such as states, nations, and
eventually empires, many of the mechanisms of authority relied heavily
on concepts first devised by religions. In any ancient (and even today
in more recent) societies, the collusion of religion and government
serves as mutually reinforcing institutions. This arrangement is due
to governments needing cooperation from the faithful droves that are
heavily dictated and mandated by religion, while sectarian
institutions rely on the ruling government to protect them against
other competing faiths. In early societies, religions played a direct
or joint role in mandating morality and laws, and secularism is only a
very recent trend in the history of human governance.

As with any powerful and highly influential institution, religion has
known its fair share of abuses. I hardly need to mention the
atrocities of the Crusades or of the Inquisition, nor do I need to
remind the reader that sectarian conflicts are still a part of our
daily lives. The Founding Fathers of America understood the dangers in
any institution that holds too much power, and devised a system of
intricate checks and balances to allow a self correcting process to
occur. Religions lack these balances, and are structured in such a way
that a very limited number of individuals command an unimaginable
level of power and influence. This, coupled with imperialistic
tendencies of various faiths aimed at becoming the only religion on
earth creates often volatile situations.

When most people think about religion, anyone not affiliated with any
sect in particular usually abhors the very notion of an institution
precisely because of the long history of both repression and terror of
a large number of religions. Many feel that anything that becomes
institutionalized is therefore inherently opposed to human freedom and
self-determination, at least when it comes to religious traditions.
Obviously, not every religion at any given time is necessarily
repressive and controlling, just as every government may not
inherently be either. It depends largely on how the institution is
created and managed, and on what foundations it lies on. Religions
like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are old religions, and many of
their tenants no longer match the social mores of contemporary
society. Also, the historic structure of religions like Christianity
have been mostly responsible for the atrocities committed in their
name, since they have relied on the executive control of a privileged
few individuals, none of which were immune from the lust for power and
control.

All of the major 3 great monotheistic religions are equally divisive
in nature, since their core ideologies tell them that they alone
possess the truth of God, making any others, by default, wrong. And if
history has taught us anything, it's that many faiths seem to regard
others with often violent contempt, if not outright hostility. That
does not mean that it is impossible for various faiths to get along
with one another. History is peppered with civilizations that
tolerated other faiths, but this tolerance could often quickly devolve
into violent assaults on tiny religious minorities. What allowed
religious dialog was not the structures of the institutions
themselves, but rather respect for the rule of law in a different and
more powerful institution: government.

Apart from religions being institutions responsible for the
codification and sometimes enforcement of morality and law, religions
obviously deal with another important element of the human experience:
spirituality. This usually involves interpreting the complex and often
confusing events and emotions we experience, since they can be
overwhelming. But religion is not unique in this regard; philosophy in
particular also performs this role, attempting to make inferences
about the human experience. It attempts to answer the same questions
religion does, but not necessarily by envoking the concept of a
creator or god.

So far, we've covered the 3 main components of religion; in explaining
processes in the natural world, in creating stability by codifying
laws and morality, and in addressing the spiritual concern of
individual humans. Although religion has deep roots in all three
aspects, it has become obvious over the past few hundred years since
the beginning of The Enlightenment that many of the traditional roles
of religion are not necessary to the functioning of society. Secular
countries have followed suit in eliminating the structures of
religious power from the political arena, and laws are no longer
modeled on the rather unsophisticated edicts of religious texts. In
civilized society, we no longer consider adultery to be a capital
offence, not because we are less moral, but because we recognize that
the finality of such a law does not have anyone's best interest in
mind. We have begun to accept that rules have exceptions, and that
there should be various degrees of punishment for the specific
circumstances of any crime.

The increased marginality of religion has not escaped its biggest
supporters, and it has taken considerable effort to wrestle these
powers away from them. In my home province of Quebec, until the Quiet
Revolution of the 60's, the church still dominated the instruction of
children, and had deep political influence. In the US, creationists
continue their assault on science, refusing to admit that the
cosmogony of their sacred text is only a myth, and insisting that it
represents objective reality. But such groups, rather than using the
strength of evidence (of which they have none), rely on our fears that
society will be doomed without them.

We have begun to demonstrate that the first two purposes of religion
can be handled without them, often with far better results. This leads
us to conclude, in modern society, that the purpose of religion is
instead of dealing with the spiritual component of life. This now
leads us to reconsider the original question of this article: whether
or not Atheism is a religion.

Although it may be said that the lack of belief in God eliminates the
need for any spirituality, I would argue that for many atheists, the
opposite is true. The realization that there is no higher power and no
special purpose to human life, forces us to begin to consider instead
what purpose our existence can have, rather than religion's assertion
that our aspirations have already been predetermined. The
understanding that there is nothing inherently special about our solar
system, which is one of many hundreds of billions in this galaxy
alone, itself one of billions, is a deep and awesome insight. How can
a person not be moved when looking up at the night sky, contemplating
that the stars they look upon are all ghostly images of the past
( since light has a finite speed, and because it sometimes takes
millions or even billions of years to reach us, the stars we see in
the sky may well have extinguished themselves long ago)?

Similarly, atheism forces us to consider morality on a far wider
scale. If there is no final arbiter, and if each one of us is
accountable to no supreme authority, it raises the stakes about how we
manage our laws and ethics. It encourages us to consider the broad
implications of our laws, and how they affect other human beings.

If spirituality is also not the exclusive realm of religion, just what
is left? For starters, Religions have traditions, as well as
institutions which teach and pass them on to younger generations. I
may know for a fact that transubstantiation (the literal changing of
wine into blood) does not really occur during religious masse, but I
cannot deny that the tradition is preserved and passed on by
Catholics, anymore than I can deny the reality of the tradition of
circumcision in Judaism (even though I may find the practice
abhorrent).

Are Atheists Dogmatic?

The accusation of atheism being a religion from the faithful seems to
me to be a deep and strange paradox. They claim that atheists have
their own dogma, and that a person needs a great deal of faith NOT to
believe. Even if that were true, which it is not, it would certainly
appear strange for the religious to consider this a flaw. After all,
these are the same people that profess un undying need for faith.

There are undoubtedly certain individuals that hold dogmatic idea,
regardless of their religiosity or not. But in general, dogmatism is
the specialty of religious institutions; not atheism. A person may
reject the notion of a God without needing to make any leap of faith.
Any intelligent religious person recognizes the fact that they believe
in God despite any evidence, or sometimes in contradiction to
evidence. Therefore, the position that God is a human construct is not
a statement of faith: it is precisely the opposite.

Currently, I would deny the status of religion to atheism, even though
I personally lament the lack of such institutions. For all the harm we
may associate with them, religious institutions still perform a
valuable function in society. For many African Americans, the only
institutions that have not let them down in 400 years have been their
own religious traditions. The community support they receive as a
direct result of their belief is a source of obvious strength, one
that atheism does not yet possess. Yet, despite the fact that atheists
find the idea of an institutionalized movement repugnant, the fact
remains that it is not the institution itself which is wrong; rather
it is the design of the structure itself. What good can come from
institutionalizing atheism? I would argue none.

It is true that in times of crisis, we feel compelled to fall back on
those systems of belief with the deepest roots, and religion certainly
has a long history. This is the reason many believe the idea that
"there are no atheists in foxholes". What they may fail to realize is
that the same impulse to fall back on various roots does not always
mean that individuals will adopt a religious stance. We also have a
long history of skepticism, and mistrust in the abuses of power. If
the traditions of science, skepticism, and free thought are to survive
any assault, its roots must be as deep as any religion. Individuals
will need to feel the same sense of community and support from atheism
as they do in their respective faiths. How else can we hope for
individuals to remove their dependence on superstition to provide
comfort and familiarity?

Is atheism a religion? No, it quite obviously is not. But we must
understand that the question is really: "can atheism provide the same
comfort and support that religion does?" In its present form, it may
not be able to do so. A serious crisis might push us more towards
religious fundamentalism, which is something that is currently
happening in the most desperate and troubled societies. If atheism is
to both survive and thrive, it will require the adoption of many of
the aspects of religion, tailored in a new way that avoids the
dangerous temptation of centralizing power and influence into the
hands of the few. Are we capable of such wisdom? Only time will tell.

from http://thegoodatheist.net/religion/06/18/is-atheism-a-religion/

As a writer, the appeal of discussing atheism stems largely from the
fact that although its definition may be simple, the philosophies that
surround it are not.

from http://thegoodatheist.net/religion/06/18/is-atheism-a-religion/

Is atheism a religion? No, it quite obviously is not.

from http://thegoodatheist.net/religion/06/18/is-atheism-a-religion/

As a writer, the appeal of discussing atheism stems largely from the
fact that although its definition may be simple, the philosophies that
surround it are not. There are so many different responses to atheism
that some have begun to call it a religion. But is this true? Is
atheism a religion, and if not, does it emulate many of the elements
of it? As I will show in this article, the answer to that question not
only makes us curious about the future implications of the growing
trend of atheism, it also demands our attention about what could
potentially be the next major movement in Western society.

What is a Religion?

To answer that question, we must examine the long history of religion
to reveal its purpose, which will in turn reveal its structure.
Although no definite number exists as to the age of religion,
anthropologists are convinced that crude animistic sects were a
hallmark of life for our ancient ancestors as far back as the
emergence of Homo sapiens (there is even evidence that our
evolutionary cousins, Neanderthals, had their own form of religion as
well). Our ancestors were not stupid; they possessed the same raw
mental power we do, but they were ignorant of the natural laws that
governed their environment. They faced the often brutal torment of
nature, and life was certainly never easy. When confronted with the
overwhelming power of nature, our ancestors turned to creative myths
to explain why such things as droughts, famine, storms, and death
occurred. As they were passed down orally from generation to
generation, the stories became ever more complex, and these
complexities led to elaborate cosmogonies, and of man's place in the
Universe.

Religion began to take a more active role in the stability of
societies during the Agrarian Revolution roughly 10,000 years ago, due
mainly to the fact that the production of food allowed for greater
numbers of individuals to live together in close proximity. In small
hunter-gatherer bands, the groups would normally be small enough to
allow conflicts to be regulated by the collective itself, so that
cheaters and opportunists would be caught relatively quickly, and
punished accordingly. In larger groupings, however, the collective was
often unable to monitor and punish those few uncooperative
individuals, and so an authoritative system needed to be devised to
regulate behavior and establish concrete laws that could all be agreed
upon. Since religions were then responsible for passing on important
traditions and information, so too could it create morality myths for
the purpose of guiding and regulating human behavior.

Of course, I make it sound as though this process was thoroughly
thought out on the part of the sects themselves. This evolution was
far more organic than directed; I use the word evolution specifically
because of the fact that religion was shaped by the selective
pressures of the rapidly escalating demands for order and structure as
changes began to affect human societies (rapidly when compared to the
genetic process of evolution, obviously). As such, the stability of
early societies became dependant, in large part, to the stability of
the religions themselves, which began to play an increasingly
important role in the functioning of society.

Religion was obviously not the only system devised to institutionalize
laws, although it probably was the first real stable system to do so.
Their powerful influence and apparent divine authority did much to
cement religion's position as arbiter. Even in societies where more
complex systems needed to be devised, such as states, nations, and
eventually empires, many of the mechanisms of authority relied heavily
on concepts first devised by religions. In any ancient (and even today
in more recent) societies, the collusion of religion and government
serves as mutually reinforcing institutions. This arrangement is due
to governments needing cooperation from the faithful droves that are
heavily dictated and mandated by religion, while sectarian
institutions rely on the ruling government to protect them against
other competing faiths. In early societies, religions played a direct
or joint role in mandating morality and laws, and secularism is only a
very recent trend in the history of human governance.

As with any powerful and highly influential institution, religion has
known its fair share of abuses. I hardly need to mention the
atrocities of the Crusades or of the Inquisition, nor do I need to
remind the reader that sectarian conflicts are still a part of our
daily lives. The Founding Fathers of America understood the dangers in
any institution that holds too much power, and devised a system of
intricate checks and balances to allow a self correcting process to
occur. Religions lack these balances, and are structured in such a way
that a very limited number of individuals command an unimaginable
level of power and influence. This, coupled with imperialistic
tendencies of various faiths aimed at becoming the only religion on
earth creates often volatile situations.

When most people think about religion, anyone not affiliated with any
sect in particular usually abhors the very notion of an institution
precisely because of the long history of both repression and terror of
a large number of religions. Many feel that anything that becomes
institutionalized is therefore inherently opposed to human freedom and
self-determination, at least when it comes to religious traditions.
Obviously, not every religion at any given time is necessarily
repressive and controlling, just as every government may not
inherently be either. It depends largely on how the institution is
created and managed, and on what foundations it lies on. Religions
like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are old religions, and many of
their tenants no longer match the social mores of contemporary
society. Also, the historic structure of religions like Christianity
have been mostly responsible for the atrocities committed in their
name, since they have relied on the executive control of a privileged
few individuals, none of which were immune from the lust for power and
control.

All of the major 3 great monotheistic religions are equally divisive
in nature, since their core ideologies tell them that they alone
possess the truth of God, making any others, by default, wrong. And if
history has taught us anything, it's that many faiths seem to regard
others with often violent contempt, if not outright hostility. That
does not mean that it is impossible for various faiths to get along
with one another. History is peppered with civilizations that
tolerated other faiths, but this tolerance could often quickly devolve
into violent assaults on tiny religious minorities. What allowed
religious dialog was not the structures of the institutions
themselves, but rather respect for the rule of law in a different and
more powerful institution: government.

Apart from religions being institutions responsible for the
codification and sometimes enforcement of morality and law, religions
obviously deal with another important element of the human experience:
spirituality. This usually involves interpreting the complex and often
confusing events and emotions we experience, since they can be
overwhelming. But religion is not unique in this regard; philosophy in
particular also performs this role, attempting to make inferences
about the human experience. It attempts to answer the same questions
religion does, but not necessarily by envoking the concept of a
creator or god.

So far, we've covered the 3 main components of religion; in explaining
processes in the natural world, in creating stability by codifying
laws and morality, and in addressing the spiritual concern of
individual humans. Although religion has deep roots in all three
aspects, it has become obvious over the past few hundred years since
the beginning of The Enlightenment that many of the traditional roles
of religion are not necessary to the functioning of society. Secular
countries have followed suit in eliminating the structures of
religious power from the political arena, and laws are no longer
modeled on the rather unsophisticated edicts of religious texts. In
civilized society, we no longer consider adultery to be a capital
offence, not because we are less moral, but because we recognize that
the finality of such a law does not have anyone's best interest in
mind. We have begun to accept that rules have exceptions, and that
there should be various degrees of punishment for the specific
circumstances of any crime.

The increased marginality of religion has not escaped its biggest
supporters, and it has taken considerable effort to wrestle these
powers away from them. In my home province of Quebec, until the Quiet
Revolution of the 60's, the church still dominated the instruction of
children, and had deep political influence. In the US, creationists
continue their assault on science, refusing to admit that the
cosmogony of their sacred text is only a myth, and insisting that it
represents objective reality. But such groups, rather than using the
strength of evidence (of which they have none), rely on our fears that
society will be doomed without them.

We have begun to demonstrate that the first two purposes of religion
can be handled without them, often with far better results. This leads
us to conclude, in modern society, that the purpose of religion is
instead of dealing with the spiritual component of life. This now
leads us to reconsider the original question of this article: whether
or not Atheism is a religion.

Although it may be said that the lack of belief in God eliminates the
need for any spirituality, I would argue that for many atheists, the
opposite is true. The realization that there is no higher power and no
special purpose to human life, forces us to begin to consider instead
what purpose our existence can have, rather than religion's assertion
that our aspirations have already been predetermined. The
understanding that there is nothing inherently special about our solar
system, which is one of many hundreds of billions in this galaxy
alone, itself one of billions, is a deep and awesome insight. How can
a person not be moved when looking up at the night sky, contemplating
that the stars they look upon are all ghostly images of the past
( since light has a finite speed, and because it sometimes takes
millions or even billions of years to reach us, the stars we see in
the sky may well have extinguished themselves long ago)?

Similarly, atheism forces us to consider morality on a far wider
scale. If there is no final arbiter, and if each one of us is
accountable to no supreme authority, it raises the stakes about how we
manage our laws and ethics. It encourages us to consider the broad
implications of our laws, and how they affect other human beings.

If spirituality is also not the exclusive realm of religion, just what
is left? For starters, Religions have traditions, as well as
institutions which teach and pass them on to younger generations. I
may know for a fact that transubstantiation (the literal changing of
wine into blood) does not really occur during religious masse, but I
cannot deny that the tradition is preserved and passed on by
Catholics, anymore than I can deny the reality of the tradition of
circumcision in Judaism (even though I may find the practice
abhorrent).

Are Atheists Dogmatic?

The accusation of atheism being a religion from the faithful seems to
me to be a deep and strange paradox. They claim that atheists have
their own dogma, and that a person needs a great deal of faith NOT to
believe. Even if that were true, which it is not, it would certainly
appear strange for the religious to consider this a flaw. After all,
these are the same people that profess un undying need for faith.

There are undoubtedly certain individuals that hold dogmatic idea,
regardless of their religiosity or not. But in general, dogmatism is
the specialty of religious institutions; not atheism. A person may
reject the notion of a God without needing to make any leap of faith.
Any intelligent religious person recognizes the fact that they believe
in God despite any evidence, or sometimes in contradiction to
evidence. Therefore, the position that God is a human construct is not
a statement of faith: it is precisely the opposite.

Currently, I would deny the status of religion to atheism, even though
I personally lament the lack of such institutions. For all the harm we
may associate with them, religious institutions still perform a
valuable function in society. For many African Americans, the only
institutions that have not let them down in 400 years have been their
own religious traditions. The community support they receive as a
direct result of their belief is a source of obvious strength, one
that atheism does not yet possess. Yet, despite the fact that atheists
find the idea of an institutionalized movement repugnant, the fact
remains that it is not the institution itself which is wrong; rather
it is the design of the structure itself. What good can come from
institutionalizing atheism? I would argue none.

It is true that in times of crisis, we feel compelled to fall back on
those systems of belief with the deepest roots, and religion certainly
has a long history. This is the reason many believe the idea that
"there are no atheists in foxholes". What they may fail to realize is
that the same impulse to fall back on various roots does not always
mean that individuals will adopt a religious stance. We also have a
long history of skepticism, and mistrust in the abuses of power. If
the traditions of science, skepticism, and free thought are to survive
any assault, its roots must be as deep as any religion. Individuals
will need to feel the same sense of community and support from atheism
as they do in their respective faiths. How else can we hope for
individuals to remove their dependence on superstition to provide
comfort and familiarity?

Is atheism a religion? No, it quite obviously is not. But we must
understand that the question is really: "can atheism provide the same
comfort and support that religion does?" In its present form, it may
not be able to do so. A serious crisis might push us more towards
religious fundamentalism, which is something that is currently
happening in the most desperate and troubled societies. If atheism is
to both survive and thrive, it will require the adoption of many of
the aspects of religion, tailored in a new way that avoids the
dangerous temptation of centralizing power and influence into the
hands of the few. Are we capable of such wisdom? Only time will tell.

fromhttp://thegoodatheist.net/religion/06/18/is-atheism-a-religion/

fromhttp://thegoodatheist.net/religion/06/18/is-atheism-a-religion/

fromhttp://thegoodatheist.net/religion/06/18/is-atheism-a-religion/

As a writer, the appeal of discussing atheism stems largely from the

Is atheism a religion? No, it quite obviously is not.

But we must
understand that the question is really: "can atheism provide the same
comfort and support that religion does?" In its present form, it may
not be able to do so.

A serious crisis might push us more towards
religious fundamentalism, which is something that is currently
happening in the most desperate and troubled societies.

If atheism is
to both survive and thrive, it will require the adoption of many of
the aspects of religion, tailored in a new way that avoids the
dangerous temptation of centralizing power and influence into the
hands of the few.

Are we capable of such wisdom? Only time will tell.