Freedom of Religion or Freedom From Religion

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Aww. c'mon. You don't have to be a good Catholic to have this kind of fun with her.

Ditto.

It can be, depending on what one wants to replace it with.

There is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed: atheism and religion are not antonyms. One can be atheistic (or nontheistic) and religious. Traditional, classical Buddhism is nontheistic. There are atheistic (or nontheistic) Jews, atheistic/nontheistic Toaists, certainly atheistic/nontheistic Unitarian-Universalists and atheistic/nontheistic many-other-relgions.

Dictionary.com defines "religion" as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." The Wiki defines it as "a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values." Frederick Streng (a founder of the Society of Asian and Comparative Philosophy) defined it simply as "a means of ultimate transformation." The line between philosophy and religion isn't always a clear one.

While the belief in a Supreme Being (or Supreme Beings) is certainly part of many if not most religious systems, especially in the West, it's not a necessary part by any means. Again, look at Buddhism, Taoism or, depending on the definition of "religion" used, Confucianism. So I think it is entirely reasonable and accurate to say that while some atheists are opposed to religion and seek to have religion of any kind suppressed (antireligious), and while some atheists simply live with an absence of religion (irreligious), other atheists seek to replace theistic religion with atheistic/nontheistic religion.

Again, not necessarily. Buddhism doesn't really fit into the description of the worship of some thing or ideal.

All that said, I think an argument can be made that folks like Dawkins and Hitchens make a religion out of science or out of human reason.

And in case I'm not clear, I don't mean this as disparaging of atheists at all. That's not what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that the typical discussion of "atheism vs. religion" is limited by a very Western (and American) understanding of what religion is. Per the Dalai Lama:

I'm Buddhist, I'm a Buddhist practitioner. So actually I think that according to nontheistic Buddhist belief, things are due to causes and conditions. No creator. So I have faith in our actions, not prayer. Action is important. Action is karma. Karma means action. That's an ancient Indian thought. In nontheistic religions, including Buddhism, the emphasis is on our actions rather than god or Buddha. So some people say that Buddhism is a kind of atheism. Some scholars say that Buddhism is not a religion — it's a science of the mind. . . .

I even consider Buddha and some of his important followers like Nagarjuna (one of Buddha's leading disciples) to be scientists. Their main method is analytical. Analyze, analyze — not emphasis on faith. And these masters are not magicians.

(And yes, I have known of a few Greeks who consider their ritual their religion. I remember an essay in an old edition of Baird's where it was discussed in those very terms.)

I would not consider Buddhism a religion as classically considered either, but unlike atheism, there are definitely ideals and thoughts in Buddhism that adherents try to live by. I'm very good friends with a practicing Buddhist. There is no worshipping, but there is definitely a following of the Buddha and his teachings.

As for Greeks having their rituals as their religion, that is pretty rare and bizarre as to border on unheard of. To then use that reference from Baird's to then espouse that Greek organizations are religions is ridiculous. Maybe you are being the devil's advocate, but as previously stated on other threads, he doesn't need one. Are there atheists who take it too far? Sure. I'd say they are more political than religious, however. Is republicanism or democratic membership a religion? Some people take it way too seriously, but it's not a religion.

As for

All that said, I think an argument can be made that folks like Dawkins and Hitchens make a religion out of science or out of human reason.

I don't think this is anymore true than any scientist. People are passionate about their work. A evolutionary scientist who truly believes in evolution is making a religion out of science just because they don't believe the religious version of the beginning of the world? Or is it because Dawkins and Hitchens dare to write about it?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AnotherKD

I think my only issue with that I don't see how a "traditional atheist" (I know, but that's all I can think of to call them right now) would view their not wanting to participate in organized religion as their own religion. I don't think that there is really a subset of atheists that have a set moral code and "a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values", because, that kind of goes against the feeling that there is *nothing* out there.

I see where you're coming from, and this is the reason I said upthread that, to the degree atheism could be considered a religion, is a very disorganized and individualized religion.

Beyond that, I'd say two things: First, that a large part of what I'm trying to say is that maybe there is no such thing as a "traditional atheist," or that what we think of as "traditional atheism" betrays our own relatively narrow experience.

Second, it is certainly true that there is no single worldview that can be described as "atheistic." In my experience, most atheists have replaced it with nothing/indifference (irreligion) or with some form of humanism, whether religious or secular. That's why I've been trying to be careful not to say that atheism is a religion, but rather that being atheist does not mean not being religious.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I would not consider Buddhism a religion as classically considered either, but unlike atheism, there are definitely ideals and thoughts in Buddhism that adherents try to live by. I'm very good friends with a practicing Buddhist. There is no worshipping, but there is definitely a following of the Buddha and his teachings.

I see Buddhism as a prime example of where the line between religion and philosophy can get very blurry.

As for Greeks having their rituals as their religion, that is pretty rare and bizarre as to border on unheard of. To then use that reference from Baird's to then espouse that Greek organizations are religions is ridiculous.

Careful there. I didn't say Greek organizations are religions. I said (and I really meant it as an aside, not an actual argument, so my apologies if that wasn't clear) that I have heard more than one person (inlcuding that writer in Baird's) say that their Greek organization/ritual was their religion. BIG difference. I too think it's bizarre. (And one of the people I knew to say that was himself bizarre.) But they did say it.

People are passionate about their work. A evolutionary scientist who truly believes in evolution is making a religion out of science just because they don't believe the religious version of the beginning of the world? Or is it because Dawkins and Hitchens dare to write about it?

No and no, at least not to my mind. It has nothing to do with making a religion out of evolution (and I really don't want to go off on a tangent about evolution vs. religion -- as has been said many times, the two are hardly mutually exclusive), nor does it have anything to do with them daring to write about it. (Really? Don't you know me better than that?)

When I say an argument can be made, I mean just that: an argument can be made. Not that it is an argument that will convince many people or even most people, but that an argument can be made. Sorry, maybe it's a professional hazard. When I say an argument can be made that folks like Dawkins and Hitchens make a religion out of science or out of human reason, I mean that an argument can be made that they place their faith/reliance in science (or human reason) in a way similar to the way some place faith or reliance in a god; that they accord science or reason the authoritative role that other religions accord their scriptures, myths, leaders, _______; and that they can appear to be just as dogmatic in their positions as some religious people. In otherwords, that science (or reason) informs their worldview -- the cause, nature and purpose of the universe and the implications of that for how people relate to one another and to the world/universe/whatever -- in the same way that other religions do for other people.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I see where you're coming from, and this is the reason I said upthread that, to the degree atheism could be considered a religion, is a very disorganized and individualized religion.

Beyond that, I'd say two things: First, that a large part of what I'm trying to say is that maybe there is no such thing as a "traditional atheist," or that what we think of as "traditional atheism" betrays our own relatively narrow experience.

Second, it is certainly true that there is no single worldview that can be described as "atheistic." In my experience, most atheists have replaced it with nothing/indifference (irreligion) or with some form of humanism, whether religious or secular. That's why I've been trying to be careful not to say that atheism is a religion, but rather that being atheist does not mean not being religious.

I see Buddhism as a prime example of where the line between religion and philosophy can get very blurry.

Careful there. I didn't say Greek organizations are religions. I said (and I really meant it as an aside, not an actual argument, so my apologies if that wasn't clear) that I have heard more than one person (inlcuding that writer in Baird's) say that their Greek organization/ritual was their religion. BIG difference. I too think it's bizarre. (And one of the people I knew to say that was himself bizarre.) But they did say it.


No and no, at least not to my mind. It has nothing to do with making a religion out of evolution (and I really don't want to go off on a tangent about evolution vs. religion -- as has been said many times, the two are hardly mutually exclusive), nor does it have anything to do with them daring to write about it. (Really? Don't you know me better than that?)

When I say an argument can be made, I mean just that: an argument can be made. Not that it is an argument that will convince many people or even most people, but that an argument can be made. Sorry, maybe it's a professional hazard. When I say an argument can be made that folks like Dawkins and Hitchens make a religion out of science or out of human reason, I mean that an argument can be made that they place their faith/reliance in science (or human reason) in a way similar to the way some place faith or reliance in a god; that they accord science or reason the authoritative role that other religions accord their scriptures, myths, leaders, _______; and that they can appear to be just as dogmatic in their positions as some religious people. In otherwords, that science (or reason) informs their worldview -- the cause, nature and purpose of the universe and the implications of that for how people relate to one another and to the world/universe/whatever -- in the same way that other religions do for other people.

Ha. Just continuing the debate! It's kinda interesting. I think lots of people don't think about the fact that there really are people who work with them, that they actually know who don't believe in God. I've seen some signs on the sides of buses for an atheist group saying, "Don't believe in God? Me neither." So that atheists don't think they're alone. I've seen some really benign conversations at work turn UGLY when people decide to convert the atheist in the room. I know quite a few non-believers in the medical profession. In Maryland, there was a huge conversation in the Doctor's lounge one day. More than half of the physicians reported they were atheists/agnostics. Not a single one was intent on converting a believer into a non-believer.