It annoys me to no end when religious people claim that atheism is “a religion” or that atheism is just as “dogmatic” as religious beliefs. This will be the subject of a much longer article at some point, but until then, let me share a quick aside on this topic.
Here’s a key difference between atheists and religious people:
Atheists don’t need any mechanism of reinforcement for their beliefs. Since we draw our beliefs from the natural world, we don’t need to appeal to imaginary beings and reassure ourselves that they exist, despite overwhelming evidence that they don’t. We don’t need to speak empty words into empty air every day, while banging our heads against the floor. We don’t need to congregate in a large room for a session of mutual emotional masturbation where a charismatic leader (who actually refers to us as a “flock”) assures us that our beliefs are infallible and questioning them is pointless or even dangerous.
We never need to switch off our rational minds, or even put them in the back seat for the purpose of indulging ourselves in believing things that our ignorant barbaric ancestors tell us to believe. Perhaps the words “ignorant” and “barbaric” are too harsh; our ancestors did the best they could. The point is, the ignorance of our ancestors is forgivable. What’s unforgivable is clinging on to that same ignorance in our modern world. Even less forgivable is considering it a virtue to perpetuate such ignorance.
We are capable of drawing feelings of spirituality from the grandeur and complexity of the natural world. Instead of using our imagination to invent more intricate ways of deluding ourselves, we use our imagination to improve the quality of life for current and future generations, since we know that this life is the only one we get, which makes it all the more precious and fragile.
How true and well stated. I’d add that the process of believing creates the power. If ppl worshipped a stone from the beach and gave it infinite power, knowledge and love, the process of believing in it is what will give them the same results as believing in a deity. Second, when ppl gather and focus themselves they empower themselves just as in religion – or dare I add: team, mob, gang, or scout troop. Ta
Yes, this is the only life we get, so let’s make it right, without superstition. I do challenge your tip-o-the-hat to “spirituality”… that is just more superstition. We have the sense of “wonder” programmed into us by evolution. Let’s not tread lightly around rejection of religion by admitting to “spirituality”. Humans are themselves complex systems (in the mathematical sense), and a gathering of humans is more so. This leads to unpredictable behavior. Where is Hari Seldon when you need him.
CHC,
I’m glad you picked up on my usage of “spirituality,” because I use that word with much hesitation. I hope it’s clear that I use “spirituality” to refer precisely to the natural “wonder” to which you refer, and nothing more. I think my goal is to demonstrate that religion does not have a monopoly on “spirituality,” and the same kinds of feelings of “wonder,” “enlightenment,” and “mystery” can be derived from purely natural sources.
It’s extremely annoying when certain physicists and cosmologists use the word “God” to refer to “the universe” or some unifying law of physics (e.g. “God doesn’t play dice”), and I agree that this misleading usage should be discouraged, because it invites religious apologists to quote the scientists out of context.
However, I think the word “spirituality” can still be salvaged as a purely secular metaphor for those feelings of awe and inspiration that you and I get from nature. I also think that using “spirituality” might make our arguments more palatable for readers who are on the fence, or those who have been taught to vilify atheism as a philosophy that’s devoid of “meaning” or personal fulfillment.
DB, seems to me your 3rd paragraph contradicts your 2nd. I would substitute “spirituality” for “God” in the 2nd paragraph. I think that the usage of “spirituality” invites religious apologists to maintain that there is a “spirit” — this just puts the camel’s nose in the tent, so to speak.
The etymology of “spirit”: originally literally breath, then metaphorically used to describe the animating force of life, then eventually being used to refer to a “ghost” agent. I think it is hard to return to the “breath” meaning at this point because the word has been commandeered by belief-promoters. I would abandon it and use words like you used, “wonder”, “meaning”, “fulfillment”, “inspiration”. Just my two cents, not intending to get pedantic about it! Thanks for the article.
You need to post more often!
I agree 100%. I will use this article to explain my own position.
Thank you very much, Dmitry
“You say you’re not religious, therefore you are religious”. Nope, doesn’t work for me.
On the other hand, I have no doubt that _some_ extreme atheists are just as dogmatic as _some_ extreme “people of faith”.
BTW, you say “Since we draw our beliefs from the natural world…” Well, if I were a “person of faith” then I would honestly believe that this applied to me. There are similar problems with the rest of your post – “I don’t appeal to imaginary beings”, “I don’t need reassurance that He exists”, “Just because people knew something millennia ago doesn’t make it wrong”, “The Big Bang seems very like God just _touching_ His universe” … you get the idea.
Let’s face it, most people “believe”. That is their absolute right. However, I expect a similar courtesy from them in return – that they will not try to impose their beliefs on me. (Of course I recognise that this is a vast oversimplification – on what grounds can I say murder is wrong but it’s OK to “take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain”?)
Looking forward to that longer article!
Regards,
David.
In a discussion in line with my posts in your other topic with my wife yesterday, we have arrived at an interesting point which draws a line between ANY sort of religious person and atheists and essentially reinforces the fact that atheists are not “religious”.
The point is quite simple really. Scientifically minded atheists have the necessity and responsibility to justify their actions using reason, logic and proof, preferably BEFORE they commit the said action.
Religious people do not have that necessity, for either they get told what to do and not do, or feel it is their right to tell other what to do and not do.
E.g. the requirement in the UK to have no facial accessories on the passport photo is well justified. The counteracting pushing force from a religious muslim community to allow their full face masks has no justification but alluding to their holy book and teachings.
Religious people are people of un-reason (I think Dawkins used that well before me), while the world we live in has to rely on reason to continue improving..