| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pea Hicks" |
| Date: |
29 Aug 2005 12:25:35 PM |
| Object: |
my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
hello!
i'm a weak atheist who's lurked this group often over the years, but
have never posted here. i've been having an ongoing debate with a roman
catholic about a wide variety of topics, and currently we're discussing
atheism. below is an article he sent me yesterday, and my response to
it. i'm wondering if anyone here would like to comment on all this, and
offer any suggestions as to my statements/explanations and how they
might be streamlined or more clearly stated? i think i'm quite clear
already, though maybe a tad long-winded. i'd be grateful for any comments.
**********************************************************************
Atheism is "Religion"
08/26/05
"When I use a word," Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty said in a rather
scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more
nor less."
Humpty Dumpty would be the patron saint of judicial activists, if he was
a saint and they had a patron saint.
Judicial activists egotistically put the emphasis on "I" in supposedly
interpreting the law instead of on faithfully fathoming and following
the intention of those who made the law.
The men who wrote and ratified the First Amendment were Christians who
defined religion in terms of Judeo-Christian theism.
To them, religion did not mean non-religion or irreligion. Or Satanism.
James Madison, Father of the Constitution and drafter of the First
Amendment, defined religion as "the duty which we owe our Creator,"
thereby necessarily excluding non-religion or atheism:
We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion, or
the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can
be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The
religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and
conscience of every man: and that it is the right of every man to
exercise it as these may dictate. (James Madison, Memorial and
Remonstrance to the Assemby of Virginia
Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote of a "wall" between church and state
after drafting the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom that explicitly
acknowledged God, declared in his second presidential inaugural address:
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is
placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General
[federal] Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to
prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as
the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the
church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious
societies.
Jefferson surely respected a person's right to be an atheist, but he did
not define atheism as religion.
In 1878, in Reynolds v. United States, the United States Supreme Court
rejected a Mormon's argument that his practice of polygamy was a
religious duty and therefore protected under the Free Exercise Clause.
The Supreme Court held that the trial court had not erred in refusing to
charge the jury that if Reynolds believed it was his religious duty to
practice polygamy, he must be found not guilty of bigamy. In
ascertaining the scope of protected religious activity in the
Constitution, the Court stated:
The word "religion" is not defined in the Constitution. We must go
elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more
appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst
of which the provision was adopted.
In Reynolds, the Supreme Court properly considered statements made by
Madison and Jefferson for guidance in ascertaining the framers' meaning
of the word "religion." Specifically, Madison's statement that religion
is "the duty we owe to our creator," and Jefferson's statement that it
is "a matter which lies solely between man and his God." These
statements illustrated the common understanding of religion in late
eighteenth-century America as a relationship between a person and some
Supreme Being. Jefferson had written that his Virginia Statute for
Religious Freedom was to "comprehend within the mantle of its protection
the Jew and Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and
infidel of every denomination," but not that atheism was a religion.
In 1890, the propriety of polygamy was again before the Supreme Court.
In Davis v. Beason, the Court upheld an Idaho statute that required
individuals registering to vote to swear that they neither practiced
polygamy nor belonged to any organization that looked upon polygamy
favorably. The defendant, a devout Mormon, asserted that the statute
violated the Free Exercise Clause. This time the Court specified that
[T]he term "religion" has reference to one's views of his relations
to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his
being and character, and of obedience to his will.
The defendant's beliefs and practices fell within the meaning of the
term, but the Court held that only his beliefs, and not his practices,
were protected under the First Amendment. There was nothing suggesting
that atheism fell within the meaning of the term.
The Davis Court's substantive definition of religion emphasizing
traditional ideas of obedience to and worship of a deity continued to be
affirmed by American courts well into the twentieth century. As late as
1931, the Supreme Court apparently reaffirmed it when Chief Justice
Charles Evans Hughes concluded that "the essence of religion is belief
in a relation to God involving duties superior to those arising from any
human relation."
Subsequently, judicial activists set aside stare decisis and effectively
rewrote the religious clauses of the First Amendment to encompass
nontraditional "religions."
United States v. Ballard , decided by the US Supreme Court in 1944,
marked the shift. In that case, the founder of the "I Am" movement was
prosecuted for using the mails for fraudulently promoting his alleged
faith-healing powers. Mr. Ballard told his followers that his ministry
had been sanctioned by personal encounters with Jesus and Saint Germain.
Followers were encouraged to send contributions to the movement, and
many did. When many contributors, contrary to Ballard's promises, failed
to experience physical healing, a San Francisco district attorney sought
prosecution. The United States Supreme Court held that the trial court
had ruled properly when it told the jury that it could inquire into the
sincerity, but not the truth or falsity, of Ballard's religious beliefs.
In his majority opinion, Justice William O. Douglas wrote:
Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe what
they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious
doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which are as real as life to
some may be incomprehensible to others. Yet the fact that they may be
beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect
before the law.... If one could be sent to jail because a jury in a
hostile environment found one's teachings false, little indeed would be
left of religious freedom.... The religious views espoused by
respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people.
But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with
finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the
religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that
task, they enter a forbidden domain.
This shift was significant, but it certainly did not suggest that
irreligion was religion.
In 1965, the Supreme Court removed God from the definition of religion,
in United States v. Seeger. The defendants were conscientious objectors
who had been convicted in federal district courts for refusal to submit
to induction after Selective Service officials had rejected their claims
for exemption. All three men had similar worldviews, and none had a
traditional concept of God. Seeger, for example, said that he was
uncertain of whether a Supreme Being existed, but that his "skepticism
or disbelief in the existence of God" did "not necessarily mean lack of
faith in anything whatsoever." His, he stated, was a "belief in and
devotion to goodness and virtue for their own sakes, and a religious
faith in a purely ethical creed."
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Congress had not intended to
restrict the exemption for conscientious objectors only to those who
believe in a traditional God. The expression, "Supreme Being," rather
than "God," had been employed by Congress "so as to embrace all
religions" while excluding "essentially political, sociological, or
philosophical views." The test of belief required by the act, the Court
held, being "whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful
occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by
the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the
exemption." The Court specifically found the beliefs of the three
defendants to be "religious" within the meaning of the Selective Service
Act.
Congress was displeased by the Court's expansive interpretation of
"religious training and belief." Congress obviously had intended to
limit conscientious objector status to those who held a traditional
belief in God. The Court, however, rather than ruling that the statute
was unconstitutional, grounded its decision in an erroneous reading of
congressional intent. Congress then went along with the Court's ruling
by removing the "Supreme Being" clause in the new Military Selective
Service Act of 1967, although the new provision retained the restrictive
phrase which ruled out inclusion of "essentially political,
sociological, or philosophical views, or a merely personal moral code."
Three years later, in Welsh v. United States, the Supreme Court
considered the case of a conscientious objector who had initially
refused to label his objection as "religious" as required under the new
Military Service Act. In his written objection, he struck out the word
"religious" and wrote that his beliefs had been formed by reading in the
fields of history and sociology. Although he had first claimed that his
beliefs were nonreligious, he later wrote in a letter to his appeal
board that his beliefs were "certainly religious in the ethical sense of
the word."
If anything, Welsh's beliefs were even more remotely religious than
Seeger's. The Court was thus faced with considering whether the Act's
requirement of "religious training and belief" would extend protection
to a person motivated in his objection to the draft by profound moral
conviction. The Court again enlarged the scope of the statute, and held:
If an individual deeply and sincerely holds beliefs which are
purely ethical or moral in source and content but that nevertheless
impose upon him a duty of conscience to refrain from participating in
any war at any time, those beliefs certainly occupy in the life of that
individual "a place parallel to that filled by...God" in traditional
religious persons.
These days the Supreme Court takes the view that as long as an "ultimate
concern" occupies in the possessor's life a place parallel to
traditional ideas of God, and so long as the beliefs are not based on
"policy, pragmatism, or expediency," they are constitutionally
religious. Under this content-neutral, functional approach, few of the
"new" religions are deprived of religious status. The Unification Church
is a religion, and the Church of Scientology has been held by the courts
to be a religious organization. Likewise, the religious nature of the
International Society for Krishna Consciousness has received judicial
recognition.
In 1961, in Torcaso v. Watkins, the Supreme Court, in a foonote,
described "secular humanism" as a religion, while ruling that the
exception in this clause of the Maryland Constitution was unconstitutional:
[N]o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification
for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a
declaration of belief in the existence of God....
Now, on August 19th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit has ruled that Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's
rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion: "Atheism is
[the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was
religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a
supreme being," the Seventh Circuit declared.
The prison had refused to allow the inmate to create a study group for
atheists.
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association
Center for Law & Policy, aptly called the court's ruling "a sort of
Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence." "Up is down, and atheism, the
antithesis of religion, is religion," Fahling said.
Distressed by the Seventh Circuit ruling that atheism is a
constitutionally protected religion and rightly viewing it as "further
evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence,"
Fahling lamented:
It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when
they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state
and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief
system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a
religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true
religious faith to be prohibited.
That's what happens when the judicial activists ignore history,
intention, plain meaning and stare decisis and arbitrarily make
decisions in accordance with their own will.
A great fall is in order.
Michael J. Gaynor, is a New York attorney admitted to practice in the
New York State courts, the United States District Court for the Southern
and Eastern Districts of New York, and the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. He has written articles for The National
Law Journal, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, and the Long
Island Catholic as well as numerous online publications and recently
appeared on The World Over With Raymond Arroyo (EWTN).
**********************************************************************
my answer follows
**********************************************************************
here again we have a failure to distinguish between the gradations of
atheism, and a usage of the term by a non-atheist who assumes he
understands (and his readers understand) what an "atheist" is.
first off, in reference to the case of the prisoner, a "study group for
atheists" is not a specific enough description of the nature of the
group in question. it says nothing of what these atheists intend to
study, only that the members of the group are atheists. there's also no
mention of how they handle the distictions between "weak atheists" and
"strong atheists," etc. are ALL atheists allowed, or do they have some
*specific* gradation of atheism in mind?
i'll demonstrate here how atheism can only *seem* to describe a
religion- in fact if you look closely, atheists can and do adhere to
both atheism AND some form of religion simultaneously. atheism is no
religion at all, that's why it can be present in those who adhere to a
religion. the best way to describe atheism is that it's actually just a
*by product* of a person's true religion. it's the fault of the observer
to see only the atheism, and say "that's their religion."
"atheism" as a descriptive term by itself does not satisfy what we mean
by "religion," which at its most basic level is the system or set of
beliefs by which we relate to the universe, inquire into the universe,
and seek a way of being in the universe that seems in harmony with the
universe the way we've perceived it. (this definition, i believe, jives
with the legal definition supplied in the article you sent me.)
religions require at least one positive belief. most "religions" are
based on a *set* of positive beliefs. these positive beliefs begin to
tell us some things about how a person relates to the universe, because
they beg the question: "WHY do you believe x?" the answer(s) they give
you will tell you something about how they relate to the universe, and
those answers will spur more questions, etc.
so, before we ask the "why" question, we must first sit down with our
atheist subject and agree on what we mean by "god." ie, are we talking
about a personal god, an abstract god, or what? once we've sufficiently
defined that, and once we've established their lack of belief in that
god, then we can proceed with "why" the question.
for the sake of clarity/brevity here, let's assume we're talking about a
lack of belief in a personal god(s), because that's the nature of the
debate you and i are having at the moment.
the "strong atheist" position, asserts a positive dogmatic belief that
god DOES NOT (or even CANNOT) exist, which begs the question "why do you
believe god DOES NOT (or CANNOT) exist?" now they'll have to attempt to
*prove* their assertion, and simply put, this attempt at "proof" (which,
if they're truly sincere, is going to be quite long-winded and
elaborate) will show us the nature of their "religion" (whether their
"proof" is considered an acceptable proof by others or not). in most
sincere strong atheist cases, the religion adhered to will end up being
some form of scientism, because the scientific method is primarily
concerned with proof. their strong atheist position simply tells us that
they believe exclusively in science as the ultimate path for seeking
answers to all questions and searching for the "ideal" way of being in
the universe. their strong atheism is a by-product of their scientism.
so you could call this "strong scientism" or dogmatic scientism. another
possible religion adhered to by a strong atheist could be nihilism,
though i think it's very rare to find examples of sincere absolutist
nihilistic belief in humans. you might also find examples of animism,
maybe buddhism, etc. among strong atheists but i think it's less likely
that these will take a position that offers conclusive proof that god
does not exist, so you probably wouldn't find too many of these. don't
forget- we're only talking about a lack of belief in *personal gods* here.
"weak atheism," makes no definitive statement about the non-existence of
god, only that the weak atheist has a default lack of believe in god,
because he hasn't so far been offered sufficiently compelling evidence
or proof of the existence of god. again, assuming "god" to mean
"personal god" at this time (see above), for the weak atheist we ask
"why do you lack belief in god?" the weak atheist's answer is,
basically, "because i have not seen sufficiently compelling evidence for
the existence of god, and until i do, i'll assume god does not exist."
again, this will spur further questions such as "where have you looked
for this evidence" or "what sort of evidence will you find compelling
enough to cause you to believe in god," etc. and through this discussion
you'll find out the religion of your weak atheist, though i believe most
will tend to shy away from dogmatic beliefs of any sort. again you may
find that many have a tendency toward scientism and secular humanism,
but you may also find that some are animists, some are buddhists, etc.
you'll find the most variety of non-personal-god based religions
represented among *weak* atheists.
so, weak atheism is not a religion, nor does it negate religion- it's
merely a by-product of religion.
ok, back to the prison example
a missing bit of info here is, specifically *what* kinds of study groups
were *not* allowed in the prison? we need to know that in order to
understand *why* atheism was not allowed as the basis for a study group.
in other words, would it also not be ok for someone to start a "study
group for prisoners who lack belief in penguins?" this group is *not*
describing their status as a "religion," only asserting the right to
selectively convene a group of prisoners who lack belief in penguins.
again- it doesn't say anything at all about what they plan to study,
only who's allowed to be a member. if such a group were allowed to
exist, then the atheist group should also be allowed to exist under the
same protection. if the "prisoners who lack belief in penguins" group
were NOT allowed to exist for some non-religious reasons, and the
"atheist" group were not allowed to exist for presumably the same
reason, then the atheists in question would have to start getting more
honest with themselves and the prison officials about what their
*actual* religions are in order to try to convince them that they had
some sort of religious justification for convening their group of
atheists. they may all remain atheists, and that may still be the
determining factor for who gets to join the group, but each person's
personal religion would have to be described for them to be taken
seriously as religionists (and thus be protected under that status).
the point here is not that atheism specifically creates legal dilemmas,
it's that *restricting prisoners from creating certain kinds of study
groups* creates legal dilemmas. nowhere in your article does it say
*why* the prisoners were not allowed to form a study group for atheists,
only that the prisoners' argument was that, for them, atheism
constituted a religion, and some folks who apparently didn't look into
the issue sufficiently got in a quandry about whether that's a paradox
or not, and whether that means the entire basis of our judicial system
is completely chaotic and arbitrary. yet another example of people
over-simplifying the issue, jumping to conclusions, and yelling "the sky
is falling!"
more discussion:
as i said earlier, part of the problem is that gaynor is making the
usual mistake, by assuming that "atheism" implies "strong atheism" (or
possibly even "nihilism," another common mistake made by theists) and in
this sense, atheism certainly CAN feel like a "religion," because it's a
dogmatic positive belief system (positive in its negative belief in god).
with respect again to personal gods at least, strong atheists, to me,
are from a rational/logical point of view only somewhat more justified
in their dogmatic assertion about god as theists are. just as i require
extraordinary evidence of god from theists, i also require extraordinary
evidence of the lack-of-god from strong atheists. i fall a bit in favor
of the strong atheists, because i feel that their assertion that "god
DOES NOT exist" is less extraordinary than the theist assertion that
"god DOES exist." also, the evidence offered by strong atheists for the
lack of god seems more rational/logical/consistent/abundant to me than
the evidence offered by theists for god. a *really* strong atheist will
say "god CANNOT exist." i feel that this assertion is about as
extraordinary as the theist "god DOES exist," let alone the theist "god
MUST exist."
anyway, gaynor fails to mention weak atheists at all. i'm a weak
atheist, though my "religion" is not atheism or weak atheism (see above
discussion). my "religion," would largely (though not comprehensively)
be described as a mix of scientism, "secular humanism," and some
elements of buddhism. generally i shy away from applying labels to
myself that attempt to sum-up vast pools of information in one fell
swoop. instead of calling myself a "scientismist secular humanist
semi-buddhist" for the sake of expediency, i would MUCH rather have a
detailed/lengthy conversation about *all* the aspects of my belief
system. that lengthy discussion/description would in itself be my
"religion," not some expedient label.
i DON'T shy away from calling myself an "atheist," though, because it's
a very specific, limited term that simply means i lack belief in a deity
or deities. it's a by-product of my religion. sure, to be most accurate,
i should in each instance define "weak atheism," "strong atheism," etc-
if i fail to, i admit that's my fault since we're in a society that is
historically ignorant or irrationally dismissive of these distinctions.
but i can explain those gradations fairly quickly for those who are
unaware of them.
it's like if i say that i own an automobile, you are instantly going to
assume that means i own a car, because in our culture, that's what the
term "automobile" generally means in common usage. but in fact, i own an
airplane. "automobile" is just as descriptive of the locomotive
properties of an airplane as it is of a car. it's in this sense that,
when we say "atheist" in this society, people generally take it to mean
"strong atheist" and not simply as a descriptive term defining some
property, which in this case is the lack-of-theism.
so, as applies to me, let's stop using "atheist" and start using "weak
atheist," if for no other reason than to act as a constant reminder of
exactly what we mean. the same way that you would rather be called a
"roman catholic" as opposed to a "christian." it's more precise.
but the *ultimate* point is, i can sum up what it means to be an "weak
atheist" VASTLY more expediently and succinctly than i can sum up what
it means to be a "scientismist secular humanist semi-buddhist" or whatever.
so, precisely, "weak atheism" means that i lack belief in a deity or
deities in the absence of, at least, *extraordinarily compelling
evidence* of the existence of a deity or deities. currently i see
nothing that even remotely qualifies as *extraordinarily compelling
evidence* of the existence of a deity or deities, therefore i currently
lack belief in a deity or deities.
now, i might be able to come up with some better wording, but whatever
that might be, it wouldn't be a much longer description/definition than
what i've just given you. questions pertaining to what constitutes
"extraordinarily compelling evidence" for me personally will start to
get at the roots of my *religion*, not my atheism, because i will then
be required to discuss some of my positive or relatively positive beliefs.
believe me, it would take MANY more words to describe my "religion," and
since i've already explained that i'm uncomfortable with the short-cut
of calling myself a "scientismist secular humanist semi-buddhist," (or
whatever) it's not going to be as simple as
q: why do you lack belief in personal god(s)?
a: because i'm a scientismist secular humanist semi-buddhist.
q: why do you believe in scientism secular humanism semi-buddhism?
etc etc
this paradigm doesn't work well with me because there's no formally,
objectively codified set of beliefs that constitute what i personally
mean by "scientism secular humanism semi-buddhism." if there were, you'd
have to first make me aware of it, and i'd have to read it and consider
it to decide whether or not i consider myself to be in sufficiently
complete alignment with it. THEN you could rightly ask me "why do you
believe in scientism secular humanism semi-buddhism." otherwise, you
would have to ask me to first enumerate the things i believe in, and
then ask me "why do you believe a, b, c, d, e, f, g..." etc. ultimately,
the point is, that's what you're going to have to do in my case. oh, and
for me it would have to be phrased "why do you *mostly* believe..."
because i subscribe to no strict dogmas (i'm an adogmatist in this
sense- i lack belief in dogmas, aka absolutes).
in *your* case, we have a satisfactory definition of "roman catholic,"
so assuming you're a sincere roman catholic who accepts all the
conditions of being a roman catholic (theism included), we can say:
q: why do you believe in theism?
a: because i believe in roman catholicism (and theistic belief is
required by this religion)
q: why do you believe in roman catholicism?
etc etc etc
in both cases - yours and mine - the answer would, or at least could,
(should!) constitute a lengthy tome.
**********************************************************************
ok! that's it for now... thanks in advance for your comments/suggestions.
pea
.
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
29 Aug 2005 02:15:12 PM |
|
|
Atheism is NOT a religion (as the term is normally used) but it IS a
religious belief. That is, it is a belief concerned with religion.
I think what often causes confusion is not "a failure to distinguish
between the gradations of atheism," as much as a failure to
distinguish between 'religion' and 'religious belief'. This is
aggravated by the fact that 'religion' is often used when
'religious belief' would be more appropriate. Combine this with
the fact that the 'legal' definitions of words are often at odds
with the 'everyday' definition (see legal definitions in the areas
of firearms for some good examples) and when you start discussing
religion in a legal context (as this article appears to be focused on)
everything becomes even more confusing.
I think it is entirely appropriate that the courts treat atheism as a
'religion' while maintaining that atheism is not 'actually' a
religion. To do otherwise opens up a Pandora's Box of possibilities
where it is legal to discriminate against atheists due their lack of
religion while maintaining that you do not discriminate on the basis of
religion. For example take your discussion of the prison atheist study
group.
"first off, in reference to the case of the prisoner, a "study group
for
atheists" is not a specific enough description of the nature of the
group in question. it says nothing of what these atheists intend to
study, only that the members of the group are atheists. there's also no
mention of how they handle the distictions between "weak atheists" and
"strong atheists," etc. are ALL atheists allowed, or do they have some
*specific* gradation of atheism in mind?"
What if we were to use this approach when seeking approval for a
Christian study group you would have to ask the following questions.
first off, in reference to the case of the prisoner, a "study group for
Christians" is not a specific enough description of the nature of the
group in question. it says nothing of what these Christians intend to
study, only that the members of the group are Christians. there's also
no
mention of how they handle the distinctions between Lutherans,
Baptists, Catholics
etc. are ALL Christians allowed, or do they have some
*specific* branch of Christianity in mind?
These types of questions would never be asked about a Christian study
group and therefore should not be asked about an atheist study group.
If study groups are allowed based solely on Christian religious beliefs
then similar groups should be allowed based on atheist religious
beliefs.
Any legal definition of 'religion' that is narrow enough to exclude
atheists would most likely also exclude many people who are not atheist
but fall outside the 'major' religions. It would also allow for
discrimination against anyone who did not meet the narrow requirements
of the definition. In order for atheist to have true religious freedom
the courts must treat atheism as a religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pea Hicks" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
29 Aug 2005 02:53:09 PM |
|
|
Jack wrote:
Any legal definition of 'religion' that is narrow enough to exclude
atheists would most likely also exclude many people who are not atheist
but fall outside the 'major' religions. It would also allow for
discrimination against anyone who did not meet the narrow requirements
of the definition. In order for atheist to have true religious freedom
the courts must treat atheism as a religion.
yes, but then wouldn't you have to call it something like "atheismism?"
or, are you saying that since atheism is a religious belief (as per your
definition), though not a religion, it still is afforded the same
religious protection under the law that religions do?
pea
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
29 Aug 2005 05:49:06 PM |
|
|
or, are you saying that since atheism is a religious belief (as per your
definition), though not a religion, it still is afforded the same
religious protection under the law that religions do?
pea
Exactly
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
01 Sep 2005 11:15:23 PM |
|
|
On 29 Aug 2005 12:15:12 -0700, "Jack" <joat_mon@hotmail.com> wrote:
Atheism is NOT a religion (as the term is normally used) but it IS a
religious belief. That is, it is a belief concerned with religion.
Not at all. It is the lack of the theism facet. Nothing more. It is
not concerned with superstition. If all weren't superstitious then
all would be by default without said facet.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
29 Aug 2005 02:28:47 PM |
|
|
On 29 Aug 2005 12:15:12 -0700, "Jack" <joat_mon@hotmail.com> wrote:
Atheism is NOT a religion (as the term is normally used) but it IS a
religious belief. That is, it is a belief concerned with religion.
Still no.
All it means is that somebody isn't theist.
It's not a belief initself, just the simple absence of somebody else's
specific belief.
A simple demographic label that says we aren't what someother people
are. That's all.
And it is only meaningful in the specific comtext of the absent
property.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pea Hicks" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
29 Aug 2005 02:55:08 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 29 Aug 2005 12:15:12 -0700, "Jack" <joat_mon@hotmail.com> wrote:
Atheism is NOT a religion (as the term is normally used) but it IS a
religious belief. That is, it is a belief concerned with religion.
Still no.
All it means is that somebody isn't theist.
It's not a belief initself, just the simple absence of somebody else's
specific belief.
A simple demographic label that says we aren't what someother people
are. That's all.
And it is only meaningful in the specific comtext of the absent
property.
right, that's what i maintain... and that if you could describe
"atheismism," then maybe you'd have something that looks like a religion.
it's also worth noting that theism is not a religion either. there are
*theistic religions*, but theism itself is not a religion. maybe
"theismism" is though.
pea
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
01 Sep 2005 11:16:09 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:55:08 -0700, Pea Hicks <phix@optigan.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 29 Aug 2005 12:15:12 -0700, "Jack" <joat_mon@hotmail.com> wrote:
Atheism is NOT a religion (as the term is normally used) but it IS a
religious belief. That is, it is a belief concerned with religion.
Still no.
All it means is that somebody isn't theist.
It's not a belief initself, just the simple absence of somebody else's
specific belief.
A simple demographic label that says we aren't what someother people
are. That's all.
And it is only meaningful in the specific comtext of the absent
property.
right, that's what i maintain... and that if you could describe
"atheismism," then maybe you'd have something that looks like a religion.
it's also worth noting that theism is not a religion either. there are
*theistic religions*, but theism itself is not a religion. maybe
"theismism" is though.
Mind Pretzel 101.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
29 Aug 2005 04:02:36 PM |
|
|
When I made the statement 'Atheism is a religious belief' I made
several assumptions that I thought were obvious, both from the content
my post and the post I was replying to, and did not need to be spelled
out. The most obvious is the fact that I using the term in relation to
people who describe themselves as atheist. Within this context I
believe it is entirely appropriate to describe atheism as a religious
belief.
A definition of atheism that includes animals, rocks, and infants is
certainly defendable but has little application in the real world, much
less in the legal world, which is the area my post was concerned with.
Such quibbles are normally used to derail discussion even where the
'rocks are atheists' position has no bearing on what is being
discussed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
02 Sep 2005 12:55:02 AM |
|
|
On 29 Aug 2005 14:02:36 -0700, "Jack" <joat_mon@hotmail.com> wrote:
When I made the statement 'Atheism is a religious belief' I made
several assumptions that I thought were obvious, both from the content
my post and the post I was replying to, and did not need to be spelled
out. The most obvious is the fact that I using the term in relation to
people who describe themselves as atheist. Within this context I
believe it is entirely appropriate to describe atheism as a religious
belief.
A definition of atheism that includes animals, rocks, and infants is
certainly defendable but has little application in the real world, much
less in the legal world, which is the area my post was concerned with.
Such quibbles are normally used to derail discussion even where the
'rocks are atheists' position has no bearing on what is being
discussed.
There's only one context that atheism may be considered a religion and
that's in a legal sense, which really means 'opinion about religion'
rather than theism. In the sense that secularism is not religion, nor
is it atheism, since it doesn't hold an opinion about theism.
Other wise, you aren't making much sense, or are having problems
making your statement. Babies are just as much as an atheist as I am
as are people who have never had the idea of a god presented to them
and haven't come up with the idea themselves. There isn't a quibble
about it. Now a theist might decide there is a difference, since
babies and the uninformed are a lot easier to pressure into believing
than a knowledgable and thoughtful atheist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
29 Aug 2005 04:13:09 PM |
|
|
On 29 Aug 2005 14:02:36 -0700, "Jack" <joat_mon@hotmail.com> wrote:
When I made the statement 'Atheism is a religious belief' I made
several assumptions that I thought were obvious, both from the content
my post and the post I was replying to, and did not need to be spelled
out. The most obvious is the fact that I using the term in relation to
people who describe themselves as atheist. Within this context I
believe it is entirely appropriate to describe atheism as a religious
belief.
Only for that small subset of atheists for whom it is a religious
belief.
But even then it's a mis-characterisation because it's no different
than not believing in Zeus, Odin, Osiris or any of the others.
For the rest of us it's the simple absence of a specific belief.
Do you realise that you are telling people like me, who simply aren't
theist, that we have a religious belief?
All it takes, is not being theist.
It's an acknowledgement that people called theists exist, and that we
are not among that group.
A definition of atheism that includes animals, rocks, and infants is
certainly defendable but has little application in the real world, much
less in the legal world, which is the area my post was concerned with.
Such quibbles are normally used to derail discussion even where the
'rocks are atheists' position has no bearing on what is being
discussed.
Nobody is doing that.
Although infants don't believe in any deity until they are taught to.
Those of us who were never taught as infants to be theist, remain in
exactly the same state of not believing in any deity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
29 Aug 2005 05:05:42 PM |
|
|
Please try and read in context. I have no desire to get into
a debate about what the meaning of 'is' is. The fact that you
stopped reading at the second line of my initial post tells me you are
not interested in discussing the issues I raised but just want to pick
nits.
Arguments about definitions are just boring. I am sorry if you are
offended by my contention that you have a religious belief
(i.e. a belief about religion) that can be implied by your using the
label atheist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
29 Aug 2005 08:02:40 PM |
|
|
On 29 Aug 2005 15:05:42 -0700, "Jack" <joat_mon@hotmail.com> wrote:
Please try and read in context. I have no desire to get into
a debate about what the meaning of 'is' is. The fact that you
stopped reading at the second line of my initial post tells me you are
not interested in discussing the issues I raised but just want to pick
nits.
It stopped as soon as you got it wrong. There was no point in going
any further if you weren't prepeared to get it right.
And plese don't invent falsehoods as a "reason" which you then pretend
I have.
Arguments about definitions are just boring. I am sorry if you are
offended by my contention that you have a religious belief
(i.e. a belief about religion) that can be implied by your using the
label atheist.
No you're not.
When you invent religious beliefs I don't have, that is hardly
"arguing about definitions".
You're the one arguing definitions to tell people who don't have any
religious beliefs that they do.
Instead of acknowledging their actual position.
Which is what causes offence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
01 Sep 2005 10:34:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:25:35 -0700, Pea Hicks <phix@optigan.com>
wrote:
hello!
i'm a weak atheist who's lurked this group often over the years, but
have never posted here. i've been having an ongoing debate with a roman
catholic about a wide variety of topics, and currently we're discussing
atheism.
Welcome to the 'zoo.'
In short, atheism is nothing more than the lack of the theism facet.
Theists {Christians} are atheist with regard to all but their
particular fantasy figure. An atheist merely is atheist with regard
to their delusion as well. The not giving their superstition special
treatment tends to upset many of the superstitious.
The US is not a Christian Nation, nor was founded on the precepts of
that superstition. The Treaty of Tripoli (1796) {Barbary Pirates}
makes that clear in Article 11.
Many Founding Fathers were religious and many were not. All were
aware of the (then) fairly recent past atrocities that occurred when
church and state were like clergy and altar boy as well as then
current abuses.
If theists had practiced what they preached it might not have been
necessary to put that separation of church and state into the founding
documents.
The DOI {Declaration of Independance} is not a legal document. It is,
however, a historical one.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
29 Aug 2005 07:06:04 PM |
|
|
Pea Hicks wrote:
**********************************************************************
my answer follows
**********************************************************************
here again we have a failure to distinguish between the gradations of
atheism, and a usage of the term by a non-atheist who assumes he
understands (and his readers understand) what an "atheist" is.
first off, in reference to the case of the prisoner, a "study group for
atheists" is not a specific enough description of the nature of the
group in question. it says nothing of what these atheists intend to
study, only that the members of the group are atheists. there's also no
mention of how they handle the distictions between "weak atheists" and
"strong atheists," etc. are ALL atheists allowed, or do they have some
*specific* gradation of atheism in mind?
The problems here are definitional. If you define religion as
belief in gods or similar, Atheism is not religion. If you use
a definition that is essentially religion is a philosophy, anything
can be religion including strong Atheism.
Its obvious here the court has taken the stance religions are more
akin to philsophy than belief in supernatural entities.
Its that simple.
i'll demonstrate here how atheism can only *seem* to describe a
religion- in fact if you look closely, atheists can and do adhere to
both atheism AND some form of religion simultaneously. atheism is no
religion at all, that's why it can be present in those who adhere to a
religion. the best way to describe atheism is that it's actually just a
*by product* of a person's true religion. it's the fault of the observer
to see only the atheism, and say "that's their religion."
"atheism" as a descriptive term by itself does not satisfy what we mean
by "religion,"
It does not fit religion defined in terms of believe in a supernatural
entity, or entities.
which at its most basic level is the system or set of
beliefs by which we relate to the universe, inquire into the universe,
and seek a way of being in the universe that seems in harmony with the
universe the way we've perceived it. (this definition, i believe, jives
with the legal definition supplied in the article you sent me.)
If you use religion in sense of philosophy that enquires of the source and
meanings of teh Univers at large, it does.
religions require at least one positive belief. most "religions" are
based on a *set* of positive beliefs. these positive beliefs begin to
tell us some things about how a person relates to the universe, because
they beg the question: "WHY do you believe x?" the answer(s) they give
you will tell you something about how they relate to the universe, and
those answers will spur more questions, etc.
so, before we ask the "why" question, we must first sit down with our
atheist subject and agree on what we mean by "god." ie, are we talking
about a personal god, an abstract god, or what? once we've sufficiently
defined that, and once we've established their lack of belief in that
god, then we can proceed with "why" the question.
for the sake of clarity/brevity here, let's assume we're talking about a
lack of belief in a personal god(s), because that's the nature of the
debate you and i are having at the moment.
the "strong atheist" position, asserts a positive dogmatic belief that
god DOES NOT (or even CANNOT) exist, which begs the question "why do you
believe god DOES NOT (or CANNOT) exist?" now they'll have to attempt to
*prove* their assertion, and simply put, this attempt at "proof" (which,
if they're truly sincere, is going to be quite long-winded and
elaborate) will show us the nature of their "religion" (whether their
"proof" is considered an acceptable proof by others or not). in most
sincere strong atheist cases, the religion adhered to will end up being
some form of scientism, because the scientific method is primarily
concerned with proof.
Wrong. Hard evidence, proof, was part of philosphy out of which
science as a dicipline grew. Searching evidence and logically
examining evidence is simple philosophy, that is what philosphy
did and what is was created to do in Greece circa 2600 BCE.
What hard Atheism does is simply note basic definitions of gods
create their own internal contradictions, which disprove the gods
so examined. The problem of evil shows omnipotence and
omnibenevlence and existance of evil to be a problem for gods
described as omnibenevolent and omnipotent.
Omniscience and createhood of god destroy possibilities
of free wil for man, and free wil of man is used to 'solve' the
problem of evil. God is described as having free will and
a good nature incapable of evil, yet inability to do evil
is not allowed to count acgainst god's free will. Then god
must likewise give man free will and a good nature.
If not he is evil. Evil exists, god didn't do that.
There is more oalong these lines. By taking a very minimalistic,
lowest common denominator definition of god, its simply
to disprove the entire class of personal, creator gods who are
omnipotent, omnisceint, ominbenevolent.
Its not a matter of science, but of simple logic, basic
philosophy.
their strong atheist position simply tells us that
they believe exclusively in science as the ultimate path for seeking
answers to all questions
Many questions do not belong to science but to philosophy.
Or other disciplines, history, mathematics, aesthetics, ethics,
none of which are parts of science proper.
and searching for the "ideal" way of being in
the universe. their strong atheism is a by-product of their scientism.
so you could call this "strong scientism" or dogmatic scientism. another
possible religion adhered to by a strong atheist could be nihilism,
though i think it's very rare to find examples of sincere absolutist
nihilistic belief in humans. you might also find examples of animism,
maybe buddhism, etc. among strong atheists but i think it's less likely
that these will take a position that offers conclusive proof that god
does not exist, so you probably wouldn't find too many of these. don't
forget- we're only talking about a lack of belief in *personal gods* here.
Hard Atheism has nothing to do with science, or scientism, or nihilism,
or anything else. Strong Atheism is based only and strictly on the fact
that theism makes claims that cause fatal self contradictions. Its
based then on applying simple logic to basic assertions made by thesists.
And nothing more. It is a species of philosophical examination of
claims made by theists.
Nihilism is basically found more in theists. People who believe that
they are incapable of controlling sinning and give up and consider
themselves damned. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.
Or peole who claim they are weak, human sinners. They sin, have a big
cathartic cry and confess their sins to god. Get up off their knees when
they have convinced themselves god has forgiven them, and start the cycle
over again.
The common doctrines man is basically a sinner, the road is wide
bu the gate is narrow combined with the doctrine of forgivness of god
creates this peculiar form of nihilism in many belivers.
"weak atheism," makes no definitive statement about the non-existence of
god, only that the weak atheist has a default lack of believe in god,
because he hasn't so far been offered sufficiently compelling evidence
or proof of the existence of god. again, assuming "god" to mean
"personal god" at this time (see above), for the weak atheist we ask
"why do you lack belief in god?" the weak atheist's answer is,
basically, "because i have not seen sufficiently compelling evidence for
the existence of god, and until i do, i'll assume god does not exist."
Many 'weak' atheists put it stringer than that. There is no proof and
unlikely to be any as the contradictions in claims seem to preclude
possibilities of god. Strong weak Atheists and weak strong Atheists
may overlap, it can be hard to label somebody in these greyish areas.
Strong Atheists usually discount the idea of supernatural on
a number of logical grounds, thus disposing entirely of any
claims of gods.
2 + 2 = 4. Does god make this rule for the Universe or is that outside
and beyond god? Such simple questions soon put the whole conception
of supernaturalism in question.
If god makes the rules and is good, evil
should not exist. Unless god is totally evil.
If such rules are outside god, they are natural, and god
isn't really needed.
Are ethical rules, killing is wrong, part of god's rules
or outside of god? Either way you answer, it can call god
and supernaturalism into question.
Again, simple logic combined with the art of asking the
right questions.
If god makes teh rules, evil should not exist. if we set things like evil
outside god, god quickly becomes superflous and all is in
the realm of the natural. Ethics is based then on logic and experience.
again, this will spur further questions such as "where have you looked
for this evidence" or "what sort of evidence will you find compelling
enough to cause you to believe in god," etc. and through this discussion
you'll find out the religion of your weak atheist, though i believe most
will tend to shy away from dogmatic beliefs of any sort. again you may
find that many have a tendency toward scientism and secular humanism,
but you may also find that some are animists, some are buddhists, etc.
you'll find the most variety of non-personal-god based religions
represented among *weak* atheists.
Animists are usually religionists, not atheists.
so, weak atheism is not a religion, nor does it negate religion- it's
merely a by-product of religion.
Again, depends on defining religion in terms of belief of
supernatural entities or not.
ok, back to the prison example
a missing bit of info here is, specifically *what* kinds of study groups
were *not* allowed in the prison? we need to know that in order to
understand *why* atheism was not allowed as the basis for a study group.
in other words, would it also not be ok for someone to start a "study
group for prisoners who lack belief in penguins?" this group is *not*
describing their status as a "religion," only asserting the right to
selectively convene a group of prisoners who lack belief in penguins.
again- it doesn't say anything at all about what they plan to study,
only who's allowed to be a member. if such a group were allowed to
exist, then the atheist group should also be allowed to exist under the
same protection. if the "prisoners who lack belief in penguins" group
were NOT allowed to exist for some non-religious reasons, and the
"atheist" group were not allowed to exist for presumably the same
reason, then the atheists in question would have to start getting more
honest with themselves and the prison officials about what their
*actual* religions are in order to try to convince them that they had
some sort of religious justification for convening their group of
atheists. they may all remain atheists, and that may still be the
determining factor for who gets to join the group, but each person's
personal religion would have to be described for them to be taken
seriously as religionists (and thus be protected under that status).
the point here is not that atheism specifically creates legal dilemmas,
it's that *restricting prisoners from creating certain kinds of study
groups* creates legal dilemmas. nowhere in your article does it say
*why* the prisoners were not allowed to form a study group for atheists,
Because prison authorities took the more restrictive view religion meant
belief in supernatural deities.
The courts took a different definition.
Here in Texas, tax exemption was denied to the Austin Ethical Society
based explicitly on lack of belief in a deity, and likewise that decision
was overturned based on denial of definition of religion in this case.
Basically, upper courts take the more expansive view that religion is
a form of philosophy.
only that the prisoners' argument was that, for them, atheism
constituted a religion, and some folks who apparently didn't look into
the issue sufficiently got in a quandry about whether that's a paradox
or not, and whether that means the entire basis of our judicial system
is completely chaotic and arbitrary. yet another example of people
over-simplifying the issue, jumping to conclusions, and yelling "the sky
is falling!"
more discussion:
as i said earlier, part of the problem is that gaynor is making the
usual mistake, by assuming that "atheism" implies "strong atheism" (or
possibly even "nihilism," another common mistake made by theists) and in
this sense, atheism certainly CAN feel like a "religion," because it's a
dogmatic positive belief system (positive in its negative belief in god).
with respect again to personal gods at least, strong atheists, to me,
are from a rational/logical point of view only somewhat more justified
in their dogmatic assertion about god as theists are. just as i require
extraordinary evidence of god from theists, i also require extraordinary
evidence of the lack-of-god from strong atheists. i fall a bit in favor
of the strong atheists, because i feel that their assertion that "god
DOES NOT exist" is less extraordinary than the theist assertion that
"god DOES exist." also, the evidence offered by strong atheists for the
lack of god seems more rational/logical/consistent/abundant to me than
the evidence offered by theists for god. a *really* strong atheist will
say "god CANNOT exist." i feel that this assertion is about as
extraordinary as the theist "god DOES exist," let alone the theist "god
MUST exist."
anyway, gaynor fails to mention weak atheists at all. i'm a weak
atheist, though my "religion" is not atheism or weak atheism (see above
discussion). my "religion," would largely (though not comprehensively)
be described as a mix of scientism, "secular humanism," and some
elements of buddhism. generally i shy away from applying labels to
myself that attempt to sum-up vast pools of information in one fell
swoop. instead of calling myself a "scientismist secular humanist
semi-buddhist" for the sake of expediency, i would MUCH rather have a
detailed/lengthy conversation about *all* the aspects of my belief
system. that lengthy discussion/description would in itself be my
"religion," not some expedient label.
i DON'T shy away from calling myself an "atheist," though, because it's
a very specific, limited term that simply means i lack belief in a deity
or deities. it's a by-product of my religion. sure, to be most accurate,
i should in each instance define "weak atheism," "strong atheism," etc-
if i fail to, i admit that's my fault since we're in a society that is
historically ignorant or irrationally dismissive of these distinctions.
but i can explain those gradations fairly quickly for those who are
unaware of them.
it's like if i say that i own an automobile, you are instantly going to
assume that means i own a car, because in our culture, that's what the
term "automobile" generally means in common usage. but in fact, i own an
airplane. "automobile" is just as descriptive of the locomotive
properties of an airplane as it is of a car. it's in this sense that,
when we say "atheist" in this society, people generally take it to mean
"strong atheist" and not simply as a descriptive term defining some
property, which in this case is the lack-of-theism.
so, as applies to me, let's stop using "atheist" and start using "weak
atheist," if for no other reason than to act as a constant reminder of
exactly what we mean. the same way that you would rather be called a
"roman catholic" as opposed to a "christian." it's more precise.
but the *ultimate* point is, i can sum up what it means to be an "weak
atheist" VASTLY more expediently and succinctly than i can sum up what
it means to be a "scientismist secular humanist semi-buddhist" or
whatever.
so, precisely, "weak atheism" means that i lack belief in a deity or
deities in the absence of, at least, *extraordinarily compelling
evidence* of the existence of a deity or deities. currently i see
nothing that even remotely qualifies as *extraordinarily compelling
evidence* of the existence of a deity or deities, therefore i currently
lack belief in a deity or deities.
now, i might be able to come up with some better wording, but whatever
that might be, it wouldn't be a much longer description/definition than
what i've just given you. questions pertaining to what constitutes
"extraordinarily compelling evidence" for me personally will start to
get at the roots of my *religion*, not my atheism, because i will then
be required to discuss some of my positive or relatively positive beliefs.
believe me, it would take MANY more words to describe my "religion," and
since i've already explained that i'm uncomfortable with the short-cut
of calling myself a "scientismist secular humanist semi-buddhist," (or
whatever) it's not going to be as simple as
q: why do you lack belief in personal god(s)?
a: because i'm a scientismist secular humanist semi-buddhist.
q: why do you believe in scientism secular humanism semi-buddhism?
etc etc
this paradigm doesn't work well with me because there's no formally,
objectively codified set of beliefs that constitute what i personally
mean by "scientism secular humanism semi-buddhism." if there were, you'd
have to first make me aware of it, and i'd have to read it and consider
it to decide whether or not i consider myself to be in sufficiently
complete alignment with it. THEN you could rightly ask me "why do you
believe in scientism secular humanism semi-buddhism." otherwise, you
would have to ask me to first enumerate the things i believe in, and
then ask me "why do you believe a, b, c, d, e, f, g..." etc. ultimately,
the point is, that's what you're going to have to do in my case. oh, and
for me it would have to be phrased "why do you *mostly* believe..."
because i subscribe to no strict dogmas (i'm an adogmatist in this
sense- i lack belief in dogmas, aka absolutes).
in *your* case, we have a satisfactory definition of "roman catholic,"
so assuming you're a sincere roman catholic who accepts all the
conditions of being a roman catholic (theism included), we can say:
q: why do you believe in theism?
a: because i believe in roman catholicism (and theistic belief is
required by this religion)
q: why do you believe in roman catholicism?
etc etc etc
in both cases - yours and mine - the answer would, or at least could,
(should!) constitute a lengthy tome.
**********************************************************************
ok! that's it for now... thanks in advance for your comments/suggestions.
pea
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
01 Sep 2005 11:17:48 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:06:04 -0500, WCB
<wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Pea Hicks wrote:
**********************************************************************
my answer follows
**********************************************************************
here again we have a failure to distinguish between the gradations of
atheism, and a usage of the term by a non-atheist who assumes he
understands (and his readers understand) what an "atheist" is.
first off, in reference to the case of the prisoner, a "study group for
atheists" is not a specific enough description of the nature of the
group in question. it says nothing of what these atheists intend to
study, only that the members of the group are atheists. there's also no
mention of how they handle the distictions between "weak atheists" and
"strong atheists," etc. are ALL atheists allowed, or do they have some
*specific* gradation of atheism in mind?
The problems here are definitional. If you define religion as
belief in gods or similar, Atheism is not religion. If you use
a definition that is essentially religion is a philosophy, anything
can be religion including strong Atheism.
Sports following, etc.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pea Hicks" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
30 Aug 2005 12:18:08 AM |
|
|
thanks for the (snipped) comments on all this wcb- alot of what you had
to say was the sort of clarifications i was looking for.
one thing though:
WCB wrote:
the point here is not that atheism specifically creates legal dilemmas,
it's that *restricting prisoners from creating certain kinds of study
groups* creates legal dilemmas. nowhere in your article does it say
*why* the prisoners were not allowed to form a study group for atheists,
Because prison authorities took the more restrictive view religion meant
belief in supernatural deities.
The courts took a different definition.
what i meant here was, what sort of study groups *are* and *are not*
allowed in the prison? ie, is it *only* groups deemed "religious study
groups" that are allowed? or is it permissable to create, say, a study
group for mathematicians? i need to know specifically why the prison did
not allow the formation of study group for atheists, other than "atheism
is not a religion, only religious study groups are allowed, therefore
you cannot form a study group for atheists." i'm assuming, for now at
least, that that was not the reason, as i find it hard to believe that
the *only* type of study groups allowed in the prison are religious
study groups.
and if that were the case, i suppose the prisoners could have simply
argued that they were Athe-ists, ie worshippers of the goddess Athe! ;)
pea
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
30 Aug 2005 03:43:11 AM |
|
|
Pea Hicks wrote:
thanks for the (snipped) comments on all this wcb- alot of what you had
to say was the sort of clarifications i was looking for.
one thing though:
WCB wrote:
the point here is not that atheism specifically creates legal dilemmas,
it's that *restricting prisoners from creating certain kinds of study
groups* creates legal dilemmas. nowhere in your article does it say
*why* the prisoners were not allowed to form a study group for atheists,
Because prison authorities took the more restrictive view religion meant
belief in supernatural deities.
The courts took a different definition.
what i meant here was, what sort of study groups *are* and *are not*
allowed in the prison? ie, is it *only* groups deemed "religious study
groups" that are allowed? or is it permissable to create, say, a study
group for mathematicians? i need to know specifically why the prison did
not allow the formation of study group for atheists, other than "atheism
is not a religion, only religious study groups are allowed, therefore
you cannot form a study group for atheists." i'm assuming, for now at
least, that that was not the reason, as i find it hard to believe that
the *only* type of study groups allowed in the prison are religious
study groups.
and if that were the case, i suppose the prisoners could have simply
argued that they were Athe-ists, ie worshippers of the goddess Athe! ;)
That is all going to depend on what state the prison is in I suspect.
Somebody is going t make that decision and its going to be based
on personality of the decision maker. And state prison rules.
I doubt you will see a group allowed to study the chemistry of high
explosives, or methodology of purifying drugs. Religion is peculiar
because of the first amendment. The state is forbeiiden to establish
religion. We had a situation some years back in Utah, where a school was
legally forbeidden to allow some groups and not others, you could
not have a religous club but disalow a club for homosexual students.
So that school shut down all clubs to exclude homosexual student groups.
Prisons probably have the same situation. If you allow groups
and disallow others, you have to have reasonable standards.
Whatever standard you choose, on religion, for whatever reason,
the courts have taken an expansive view. They have final say,
because they decide rights in this narrow case, what is religion?
Obviously, its more like they regard any form of philosophical
interest in the ways of the Universe to be a form of religion
in that sense. Mainly to avoid having to become philosophers
themselves, its the lazy man's way out I suspect.
After all, one can always dress up philosophy with specious but plausible
language to make it a pseudo-religion.
All a tough line would do is make liars of people.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pea Hicks" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
30 Aug 2005 11:34:00 AM |
|
|
WCB wrote:
After all, one can always dress up philosophy with specious but plausible
language to make it a pseudo-religion.
right, and i think that's ultimately my point here- that gaynor is
oversimplifying the situation and leaving out all the important details
of the case in order to "show" how activist judges are somehow capable
of legislating illogically.
what we really need to know is, what sort of arguments did the prisoner
make for the religiousness of *his* "atheism." in other words, we can
agree that, strictly by itself, atheism, or lack of belief in gods, does
not qualify as a religion. but as you said, if the prisoner dressed up
his "atheism" with some other related philosophical musings, he could
certainly make a case that he had a "religion," and that, in this case,
the most convenient name for his "religion" might be "atheism." that
doesn't mean that, suddenly, "atheism" is *always* a religion. just that
in this particular case, the man has a religion, and he's chosen to call
it "atheism."
now, would he still have to get all the other "atheist" prisoners to
agree with his particular "religion" in order to form the study group?
or, as suggested earlier, is it enough that their topic is merely
religious in nature?
pea
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
29 Aug 2005 01:39:39 PM |
|
|
Pea Hicks wrote:
hello!
i'm a weak atheist who's lurked this group often over the years, but
have never posted here. i've been having an ongoing debate with a roman
catholic about a wide variety of topics, and currently we're discussing
atheism. below is an article he sent me yesterday, and my response to
it. i'm wondering if anyone here would like to comment on all this, and
offer any suggestions as to my statements/explanations and how they
might be streamlined or more clearly stated? i think i'm quite clear
already, though maybe a tad long-winded. i'd be grateful for any comments.
welcome to the mayhem!
I didn't read your reply fully, but from what I saw you don't seem to
make the distinction that religion is a special type of world-view
which includes supernatural agency (ie. god, spirits, soul, etc).
I also haven't delved into the prison atheist club decision....it does
sound quite bizarre though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pea Hicks" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
29 Aug 2005 02:47:37 PM |
|
|
J Forbes wrote:
Pea Hicks wrote:
hello!
i'm a weak atheist who's lurked this group often over the years, but
have never posted here. i've been having an ongoing debate with a roman
catholic about a wide variety of topics, and currently we're discussing
atheism. below is an article he sent me yesterday, and my response to
it. i'm wondering if anyone here would like to comment on all this, and
offer any suggestions as to my statements/explanations and how they
might be streamlined or more clearly stated? i think i'm quite clear
already, though maybe a tad long-winded. i'd be grateful for any comments.
welcome to the mayhem!
thanks!!
I didn't read your reply fully, but from what I saw you don't seem to
make the distinction that religion is a special type of world-view
which includes supernatural agency (ie. god, spirits, soul, etc).
for the purposes of my response, i said that "religion" at its most
basic level is the system or set of beliefs by which we relate to the
universe, inquire into the universe, and seek a way of being in the
universe that seems in harmony with the universe the way we've perceived it.
pea
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
30 Aug 2005 03:11:26 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:47:37 -0700, Pea Hicks <phix@optigan.com>
wrote:
J Forbes wrote:
Pea Hicks wrote:
hello!
i'm a weak atheist who's lurked this group often over the years, but
have never posted here. i've been having an ongoing debate with a roman
catholic about a wide variety of topics, and currently we're discussing
atheism. below is an article he sent me yesterday, and my response to
it. i'm wondering if anyone here would like to comment on all this, and
offer any suggestions as to my statements/explanations and how they
might be streamlined or more clearly stated? i think i'm quite clear
already, though maybe a tad long-winded. i'd be grateful for any comments.
welcome to the mayhem!
thanks!!
I didn't read your reply fully, but from what I saw you don't seem to
make the distinction that religion is a special type of world-view
which includes supernatural agency (ie. god, spirits, soul, etc).
for the purposes of my response, i said that "religion" at its most
basic level is the system or set of beliefs by which we relate to the
universe, inquire into the universe, and seek a way of being in the
universe that seems in harmony with the universe the way we've perceived it.
Yes but only if that set of beliefs (things you hold to be true)
involve a diety of some kind.
Encarta:
"Religious: relating to belief in religion, the teaching of religion
or following the practises of a religion."
"Religion: people's belief's and opinions concerning the existence,
nature and worship of god, a god or gods, and divine involvement
in the Universe and human life"
If the set of beliefs do not involve a diety then they are secular
beliefs surely?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pea Hicks" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
30 Aug 2005 11:22:09 AM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
for the purposes of my response, i said that "religion" at its most
basic level is the system or set of beliefs by which we relate to the
universe, inquire into the universe, and seek a way of being in the
universe that seems in harmony with the universe the way we've perceived it.
Yes but only if that set of beliefs (things you hold to be true)
involve a diety of some kind.
Encarta:
"Religious: relating to belief in religion, the teaching of religion
or following the practises of a religion."
"Religion: people's belief's and opinions concerning the existence,
nature and worship of god, a god or gods, and divine involvement
in the Universe and human life"
If the set of beliefs do not involve a diety then they are secular
beliefs surely?
here's some relevant paragraphs from the original gaynor article:
****************
In 1965, the Supreme Court removed God from the definition of religion,
in United States v. Seeger. The defendants were conscientious objectors
who had been convicted in federal district courts for refusal to submit
to induction after Selective Service officials had rejected their claims
for exemption. All three men had similar worldviews, and none had a
traditional concept of God. Seeger, for example, said that he was
uncertain of whether a Supreme Being existed, but that his "skepticism
or disbelief in the existence of God" did "not necessarily mean lack of
faith in anything whatsoever." His, he stated, was a "belief in and
devotion to goodness and virtue for their own sakes, and a religious
faith in a purely ethical creed."
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Congress had not intended to
restrict the exemption for conscientious objectors only to those who
believe in a traditional God. The expression, "Supreme Being," rather
than "God," had been employed by Congress "so as to embrace all
religions" while excluding "essentially political, sociological, or
philosophical views." The test of belief required by the act, the Court
held, being "whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful
occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by
the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the
exemption." The Court specifically found the beliefs of the three
defendants to be "religious" within the meaning of the Selective Service
Act.
Congress was displeased by the Court's expansive interpretation of
"religious training and belief." Congress obviously had intended to
limit conscientious objector status to those who held a traditional
belief in God. The Court, however, rather than ruling that the statute
was unconstitutional, grounded its decision in an erroneous reading of
congressional intent. Congress then went along with the Court's ruling
by removing the "Supreme Being" clause in the new Military Selective
Service Act of 1967, although the new provision retained the restrictive
phrase which ruled out inclusion of "essentially political,
sociological, or philosophical views, or a merely personal moral code."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
31 Aug 2005 05:08:31 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:22:09 -0700, Pea Hicks <phix@optigan.com>
wrote:
Les Hellawell wrote:
for the purposes of my response, i said that "religion" at its most
basic level is the system or set of beliefs by which we relate to the
universe, inquire into the universe, and seek a way of being in the
universe that seems in harmony with the universe the way we've perceived it.
Yes but only if that set of beliefs (things you hold to be true)
involve a diety of some kind.
Encarta:
"Religious: relating to belief in religion, the teaching of religion
or following the practises of a religion."
"Religion: people's belief's and opinions concerning the existence,
nature and worship of god, a god or gods, and divine involvement
in the Universe and human life"
If the set of beliefs do not involve a diety then they are secular
beliefs surely?
here's some relevant paragraphs from the original gaynor article:
****************
In 1965, the Supreme Court removed God from the definition of religion,
The writ of the US Supreme court does not run here.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: my response to the "atheism is a religion" thing |
31 Aug 2005 09:04:03 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:22:09 -0500, Pea Hicks wrote
(in article <mI%Qe.150682$E95.53957@fed1read01>):
Les Hellawell wrote:
for the purposes of my response, i said that "religi | | | | | |
