Further to: If atheism is not a religion, in a meaningful sense, why are there atheist chaplains at U.S. colleges now?, Gray had commented at the Guardian,
It has often been observed that Christianity follows changing moral fashions, all the while believing that it stands apart from the world. The same might be said, with more justice, of the prevalent version of atheism. If an earlier generation of unbelievers shared the racial prejudices of their time and elevated them to the status of scientific truths, evangelical atheists do the same with the liberal values to which western societies subscribe today – while looking with contempt upon “backward” cultures that have not abandoned religion. The racial theories promoted by atheists in the past have been consigned to the memory hole – and today’s most influential atheists would no more endorse racist biology than they would be seen following the guidance of an astrologer. But they have not renounced the conviction that human values must be based in science; now it is liberal values which receive that accolade. There are disputes, sometimes bitter, over how to define and interpret those values, but their supremacy is hardly ever questioned. For 21st century atheist missionaries, being liberal and scientific in outlook are one and the same.
It’s a reassuringly simple equation. In fact there are no reliable connections – whether in logic or history – between atheism, science and liberal values. When organised as a movement and backed by the power of the state, atheist ideologies have been an integral part of despotic regimes that also claimed to be based in science, such as the former Soviet Union. Many rival moralities and political systems – most of them, to date, illiberal – have attempted to assert a basis in science.
To make matters worse, “liberal” values today largely mean “progressive” values, the key difference being that the progressive has little or none of the traditional liberal’s interest in civil liberties or due process. So even supposed liberal values become illiberal. People are fired, charged, bankrupted, or possibly jailed for refusing to honour dismissing progressive pieties.
Darwinism, diminishing as a useful interpretation of change over time in biological life, sees a new life as the creation story of progressive culture. A culture to which it is admirably suited.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
As the current adage has it “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.”
In fact, the assertion that atheism is a religion is arguably a violation of your much-cherished law of identity, which holds that a thing cannot be both itself and something else at the same. A religion cannot be both the belief in the existence of a god and the denial that such a god exists.
As for the “atheist chaplain”, he simply wanted those pragmatic benefits of a faith without the entailed doctrine:
And John Gray should understand that the fact that people have justified doing bad things in the name of atheism is no more valid a criticism of that position than the fact that people have done bad things in the name of their chosen religion is necessarily a valid criticism of the faith itself.
Or that the flawed case that the Nazi movement was largely founded on Darwin’s theory, even if it were true, has any bearing on whether his case was sound.
Thousands of stamps Seversky, which is your favorite? Obsessing over and reading about every stamp ever printed is a hobby for sure. Being angry at stamps, angry every day, blogging and tweeting about stamps – is an unhealthy hobby.
Atheism is a Religion though, not a hobby. An unhealthy Religion.
A few related notes as to ‘Atheism is a religion’.
Since science is impossible without God to provide a basis for reason, (CS Lewis, Argument From Reason; Plantinga, Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism), then it is not surprising to learn that Darwinism is reliant on bad theological premises in order to provide its foundation in science:
Moreover, Charles Darwin’s degree was in Theology. Thus, not so surprisingly, his arguments in Origin were primarily Theological in nature, not mathematical or scientific (in fact I’ve heard it said that Darwin hated math):
And again, not so surprisingly, the conservative Church of England ‘scientific establishment’ of Darwin’s day reacted against Darwin’s book whilst the liberal, and unscientific, Anglican clergy accepted it:
Here is an excellent lecture, based in part on Dr. Cornelius Hunter’s book, ‘Darwin’s God’, which exposes the theological core, i.e. God would not have done it that way, of Darwinian thought:
to this day, bad theology, not science, is integral to Darwinian theory (i.e. God would not have done it that way therefore Darwinism must have,,,):
Verse and Music:
Dawkins preaches “Together we can cure Religion”. Doctor heal thyself lol.
ISIS wants to eliminate all Religion but one. Dawkins takes it a step further. Scary.
>A scientist that wants to educate people on understanding that bronze age ignorance is not as valid as actually understanding things.
>Militant fundamentalists willing to kill unbelievers and apostates *because* their bronze age ignorance tells them to.
Yeah, I see no difference…
i think both ISIS and Dawkins are misguided.
All those locals who do not share ISIS’s extreme beliefs will eventually react to the threat by forming a coalition against the group that will slowly crush them. We are seeing the beginnings of that process already with the successes of the Kurdish Peshmerga forces and now the Iraqi army beginning to make headway with the support of local militias and, apparently, some Iranian involvement. ISIS’s extremism is what will bring about their own destruction.
And religions – not just one particular faith – will continue to flourish precisely because they provide the practical benefits to people described by the atheist chaplain. Faith can provide comfort, support and the strength to get through the worst individual tragedies and social disasters. Atheism can provide none of that, which is why it will not supplant religion in the foreseeable future. That doesn’t make religion right, but it does make you feel better. Like Marx wote:
Afterlife as a “Long Comfy Nap” is the opiate of the Atheist, Seversky. Note that there is a difference between the “long” of an Athiest and the Eternal of a Theist. Infinite difference.
Hey y’all,
Coming monday, John Gray will do an interview/conversation at the public library of The Hague, the city where I live. Check the link.
http://www.writersunlimited.nl.....aal=engels
I had already planned to attend this event before I red the article. I don’t know if there will be an Q&A session, I hope so. I’m still thinking about what i’m going to ask him. So, I’d appreciate if some of you guys could provide with some ideas for the questions I could ask him.
bornagain77 @ 3
Whatever their beliefs, neither Lewis nor Plantinga have established that a god is indispensible to science. The justification for relying on reason is that it has been found to work well thus far. That is the only warrant it needs.
Again, whatever Darwin’s early beliefs, or later lack of them, they have no role in his theory of evolution through natural selection. The theological commentary was included because it was expected by – and intended to appeal to – what he knew well to be a religiose audience. It was also intended to anticipate and forestall religious criticism of his theory. But the fact is theology had no more direct bearing on his theory than did alchemy on Newton’s physics.
Any argument appealing to an unspecified god’s supposed purposes and methods is unsound. But if Christians, for example, make claims about what their particular God would or would not do we can construct valid arguments concerning incongruencies between His alleged attributes and powers and His behavior as described in the Bible.
Darwin’s theory of evolution doesn’t rely at all on any of this, of course.
as to “The justification for relying on reason is that it has been found to work well thus far. That is the only warrant it needs.”
Actually, since you are trying to, in fact, explain the origination of mind and reason through your atheistic evolutionary narrative, then of course you cannot take the existence of mind and reason as a given since you are in fact trying to explain the origin of them:
Moreover, due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
as to:
actually, as was already referenced in detail, bad theology, not science, is crucial to Darwinian thinking, even to this day.
Here is an excellent lecture, based in part on Dr. Cornelius Hunter’s book, ‘Darwin’s God’, which exposes the theological core, i.e. “God would not have done it that way, therefore Darwinism did’, of Darwinian thought:
Seversky
A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Atheism is a belief and a world view that relates humanity to an order of existence.
That’s right and atheism isn’t “an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence” it’s simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. You can have any number of “beliefs, cultural systems, and world views” that are atheistic in nature and you can call them religions if you want but it doesn’t make atheism religion by any stretch of the imagination.
This is so frustrating. Why this continuing conflation of atheism – the lack of a belief in a God – with the small, fairly vocal (but non-violent) new atheist movement which has some (but not all) of the attributes of a religion? John Gray doesn’t make the error:
Seversky
I think it does make atheism a religion. It’s a statement of a theological nature. So, it’s not like stamp-collecting. It’s more than that. It’s an opposition to stamp-collecting. To conclude that God does not exist requires more than what one would say if they didn’t collect stamps. To decide on the non-existence of God is a religious conclusion. One would necessarily need to investigate religion in that case. The same is not true of a person who doesn’t collect stamps.
Beyond that, there’s certainly a widespread ‘atheist community’ that shares beliefs and culture. Atheism is, necessarily, a worldview since it takes a distinct position on a particular order of existence. Atheism is restrictive with regards to various possibilities – and since it expresses a denial of the existence of God, it’s a belief system. An atheist needs to have answers against the many arguments that support the existence of God. To take no interest in such things would be a position of indifference – so agnosticism, not atheism.
Atheism is like someone who thinks that music does not exist. Not only will that person not be able to sing or go to concerts, but that worldview is in opposition to the belief that music does exist.
I think people are speaking in general terms. There are always exceptions – but I don’t think the new atheist movement is the smaller part of atheism. Or at least we could say, since the more militant atheists are the more vocal, and tend to dominate many internet discussions – people generalize in this way.
But that does run the risk of misrepresentation. There is a range of beliefs in atheism – as with theism. When we talk about ‘atheists’, it’s difficult because anybody can describe themselves with that term. There doesn’t seem to be any way to be excommunicated from the atheist community. There doesn’t seem to be any membership requirements either.
When I visit atheist websites or blogs I very often find a lot of hostility towards religion. People seem to take a lot of joy in mocking people, ridiculing prayer and things that are sacred to others (would they laugh at people praying at a funeral service?). I find that frightening and barbaric – but I’m sure they think the same about me, so I guess we’re even.
Seversky,
While this may be a correct definition of the word “atheism” from a linguistic perspective (apparently “antitheist” is just too much trouble to say), in practical and common usage atheism does not mean a “lack of belief” (agnostic), but rather a positive belief that “there is no God”.
By affirming the non-existence of God, atheism becomes a religious belief. You could make the argument that agnosticism was not a religious belief, as it posits no right or wrong viewpoint on the existence of God – but not atheism (in its common usage – I’ve never met anyone who called themself an “atheist” when they meant “agnostic”).
SA
I think that is what is going on is that those atheists who have an anti-religion attitude are the ones that get involved with internet discussions about religion. Why would someone who just happened not to believe in God want to get into a debate or discussion about it? I think you will find there are plenty of people mocking and ridiculing atheism – starting right here at UD. It is a feature of internet debate more than anything – people write things they would never say face-to-face.
Silver Asiatic @ 16
As I said, it’s possible to frame a definition of religion that would include atheism and no one could say it was wrong. Definitions of words are more or less accurate descriptions of current usage. They do not preclude using a word to mean anything you choose.
From my perspective, it is quite possible for me as an agnostic/atheist to hold a belief about a theological claim such as the existence of a god without that belief rising to the status of a formal or even informal religion. Religions involve beliefs, yes, but holding a belief about something does not necessarily entail belonging to a particular faith.
I agree that there are atheist groups and organizations that share many of the attributes of a faith or perhaps ideology. They have gone beyond a simple position of doubt or disbelief to prescribing that belief as beneficial to society and promoting it as such, much as believers proselytize their faith.
The burden of proof is held to rest with the claimant. People who proclaim the existence of God, for example, have that duty if they are concerned about persuading others that their position has merit. Exactly the same is true for anyone who claims that God does not exist.
Atheists don’t deny the existence of religion any more than they deny the existence of music. They’re just not persuaded that any of them are true. Which, for some reason reminds me of one of my favorite sig lines, “”Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don’t even think Phil Collins is a good drummer.” –J. Carr …”
Ppolish #7
“”Afterlife as a “Long Comfy Nap” is the opiate of the Atheist, Seversky. Note that there is a difference between the “long” of an Athiest and the Eternal of a Theist. Infinite difference.””
Now only that but when I brought the evidence of a patient in doctor sam parnia’s peer reviewed study to Chartsil, and showed him where an nde experiencer for the first time was timed at having a veridical nde (and recalling everything that happened in his operating room, even outside his field of view)without a functioning brain , instead if saying the evidence for survival is strong his resp.
His response was that he would only believe it once a patient brings back information like next weeks super lotto’s winning numbers..
This is classic cultist thinking that throws away rationality , reasoning and intellect in order to hold with blind faith his atheistic , materialistic cult beliefs.
Chartsils atheism is a religion of complete blind faith.
And he has yet to give a materialistic response to the evidence .
Plus I found out a few days back that the patient who experienced this veridical nde had a sheet over his groin area which was even blocking one if the nurses from his field of view , and yet he described this nurse perfectly from his veridical nde experience .
He had no chance whatsoever of seeing her with his physical eyes .
Yet Chartsil will find a way to wiggle out if answering to the evidences , but is simply too emotional to follow the evidence logically.
Doctor sam parnia who headed this study is not a Christian . In fact he is an agnostic . He is very well respected in hs field and instituted strict protocols . His study is also peer reviewed .
This is why I continue to believe that atheism is an emotional and not intellectual worldview.
There are plenty of “lapsed Christians” who are no longer Religious but still love the Lord. They classify themselves “NonReligious” but still love and thank and pray to Jesus.
I’m sure there are plenty of “lapsed Atheists” too. Don’t believe in gods as they go about their lives. They don’t think about gods anywhere near as much as the Militant Atheists, the New Atheists.