How should we define — and assess — atheism?

How should we define — and assess — atheism? July 21, 2014


Is it becoming possible to be religious without believing in god? (the lower-case “god” is Daniel’s usage)


This is partially a repeat from March 22, 2013, when The Guy posted “Is atheism a ‘religion’? Is the Pope Protestant?” That headline indicated the idea seems ludicrous on its face. Yet, as the item explained, things are actually somewhat complicated.

The Guy won’t repeat that material here. Meanwhile there’s intense interest not only in definitions but in atheism’s role in society, to judge from the 69 lively comments posted in response to The Guy’s June 21 item on the unhappy “track record when atheists wield political power.” As an admitted theist, The Guy would like to thank all atheists who responded. These matters obviously deserve another look.

First, can people be “religious” without belief in God, or a god, or gods? Yes, absolutely. This is not “becoming possible” now but has long been true. The Buddha lived perhaps 26 centuries ago and everyone agrees Buddhism is as much a religion as, say, Islam. The Buddha Dharma Education Association, among others, states flatly that true Buddhists do not “believe in a god.” Yet teachers like Kusala Bhikshu tell us “a lot of Buddhists believe in God” while others don’t.

Or consider the modern Unitarian Universalist Association, self-defined as a “religion” yet creedless. It explicitly welcomes atheists as members in good standing alongside those with a God-concept. Humanistic Judaism likewise designates itself as a “religion” but eliminates the Jewish God.

However, those are obvious exceptions. Most atheists have no involvement with “religious” groups, don’t consider themselves “religious,” and may feel the label is a slur.

One comment distinguished between ordinary atheists with a live-and-let-live attitude toward belief versus atheists who turn “religious” in their zeal to oppose “religion.” This referred to the recent “new atheist” authors and activists who not only argue against God but may demean religion and religionists as stupid or evil, or seek limitations on religious rights commonly recognized by democracies.

Since devout religion and convinced atheism wrestle with the same issues, The Guy suggests everyone call a truce and speak of atheism not as “religious” but as a “philosophy” or “ideology” or “worldview” or “metaphysical stance.” Comments?

On to the June question and answer about the historical facts when atheists exercise political power, which were calculated to provoke discussion and certainly succeeded!

Political atheism first became a reality with 20th Century Communism and raises such questions as: Is it fair to blame atheism for Communism’s atrocities? Was political atheism superior to, as bad as, or worse than, political Christendom? Has political atheism been unusually vile? Should atheists apologize for the behavior of atheistic regimes the way Christians have for past belieers’ sins? Has any devoutly atheistic regime respected human rights? Oh, and was The Religion Guy a “dishonest” journalist in attempting to compare notable Christian and Communist death tolls? (As The Guy noted, atheists argue that Communism’s stupendous slaughter reflects the past century’s larger populations and modern technology.)

Some comments sought to pretend that atheism is incidental to Communism rather than central. But this global movement demands rigid materialism and godlessness, relentlessly propagandizes against religion, shows intolerance toward believers, and otherwise employs state power to foster what’s considered the inevitable disappearance of this “scourge.” However, Communists do differ on how much religion’s demise should be pushed forward by imprisonment, torture, and murder of clergy and lay believers in various world religions.

As The Guy noted, it’s important that although all (good) Communists are atheists, most atheists aren’t Communists. Thus atheists tend to absolve their worldview of any responsibility for Communist atrocities and see no need to apologize for them. Some atheists say Communism is the “religious” brand of atheism, seeking to make “religion” rather than atheism to blame for Communist horrors.

Fairly applying that approach to world religions would mean, for instance, that German anti-Semitism was a particular version (or, better, perversion) of Christianity not embraced by Christians today. It would also mean believers collectively don’t bear blame for the current mayhem from certain Muslim factions. But atheistic propaganda is apt to blame “religion” in general for any and all misdeeds by any religionists past or present.

For further exploration, see “Doubt: A History” (2003) by poet-author Jennifer Michael Hecht, and “The Twilight of Atheism” (2006) by Alister McGrath. He’s especially interesting as a onetime atheist and Oxford professor with doctorates in both science and religion. McGrath thinks Communist evils fostered atheism’s alleged loss of credibility but says atheism’s challenge helped cleanse the church.

Another Brit, Nick Spencer, is just out with another history, “Atheists: The Origin of the Species.” Spencer, research director of the Theos think tank and University of London fellow, contends that though atheists see non-belief as the inevitable result of philosophy and science, the atheistic movement actually arose largely in response to socio-political developments in Europe.


Please leave your questions for Richard Ostling in our comments pages or go to his site and leave them there!

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

Close Ad