In an September 1973 Ensign article entitled ?¢‚Ǩ?ìWhat Every Freshman Should Know,?¢‚Ǩ¬ù Boyd K. Packer makes the claim that atheism is a religion.
There is a crying need for the identification of atheism for what it is, and that is, a religion?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùalbeit a negative one, nevertheless it is a religious expression. It is the one extreme end of the spectrum of thought concerning the causation of things.
He goes on to state the following:
It is equally ridiculous to separate theism from atheism and claim that they are two separate matters, particularly when we condone, in some instances encourage, the atheist to preach his doctrine in the college classroom
and:
Atheism, as theism, is divided into many sects?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùcommunism, agnosticism, skepticism, humanism, pragmatism, and there are others.
Is atheism really a religion? Are atheists defined more by what they are not (believers in God) than by what they are (everything else)? Is someone who does not believe in God automatically going to fall into one of the “sects” Elder Packer lists? Is it possible to separate theism and atheism?
Both atheism and religion are beliefs (or systems of belief) with respect to the existence and nature of God.
Atheism by itself is not a religion, because there isn’t a single set of beliefs that unite all the members.
It’s like saying that everyone who likes cheeseburgers is a religion.
Here BKP is playing loosy-goosy with his language just like McConkie was when we called philosophy an atheistic religion. ‘Religion’ is not another word for worldview. True, religions do provide worldviews, but religion is more or less a set of beliefs including supernatural entities whom are meant to be pleased or served in some form or another. I know, there are exceptions to this, but that’s the basic idea.
Atheism is not a religion, but it instead the rejection of religion in general. Just like the astronomers rejection of astrology is not an astrological claim, but is instead a rejection of astrology altogether.
I actually posted on this here:
http://stopthatcrow.blogspot.com/2006/03/do-you-believe-in-god-no-not-that-god.html
Rick, it’s different from a group of those who like cheeseburgers, because the liking of cheeseburgers is not a belief as to the existence or nature of God (or of gods).
Jeff, do you think it’s entirely unreasonable to define “religion” as a set of beliefs with regard to the existence and nature of God (or of other divine entities)? Is it ridiculous to say that a belief in the nonexistence of divine entitities fits the definition?
On the other hand, it may be true that President Packer is not seeking to be scientifically or sociologically accurate in his description (or in your rather less deferential terms, “playing loosy goosy”). He may simply be analogizing atheism to religion, in order to illustrate certain similarities which he finds important.
Kim asks, “Are atheists defined more by what they are not (believers in God) than by what they are (everything else)?”
Are theists defined more by what they are not (believers in God’s nonexistence) than by what they are (everything else)?
No ltbugaf, it has nothing to do with gods because atheism is the default.
If someone has not been exposed to religious thought at all, it is what they are.
So atheists are a group which may become religious, but they are not a religion unto themselves.
“No ltbugaf, it has nothing to do with gods because atheism is the default.”
Atheism has nothing to do with gods? Atheism, by definition, and as indicated by the very word itself, is a belief in the nonexistence of God. How does this have “nothing to do with gods”? And how is the one choice at the extreme end of the spectrum of beliefs concerning gods a “default”?
“If someone has not been exposed to religious thought at all, it is what they are.”
I honestly can’t make sense of that. What do you mean?
“So atheists are a group which may become religious, but they are not a religion unto themselves.”
I’m not discussing groups. I’m discussing beliefs. (Although, of course, many atheists do associate with each other in atheist organizations.) If a person believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ but doesn’t join a group, he is nonetheless a Christian. He may be viewed as a member of that class of persons who hold a certain belief on a religious question. So may all atheists. They all, by definition, hold a certain belief regarding a religious question: They all conclude that there is no such thing as a god.
Yikes–this is one of those moments when I wish I could edit my comments. OK–now I’ve reread your statement and realize that it said, “if someone has NOT been exposed to religious thought at all…” (I missed the “not.”)
So, bravely onward:
Atheism is not the same as having no belief one way or another about the existence of divine beings. It is a conclusion–that there is no such thing. “I’ve never thought about whether there is a god” is not equal to “I believe there is no god.”
(Again, sorry about the confusion.)
From Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist )
“Among modern atheists, the view that atheism means “without [or, polemically, “free of”] theistic beliefs” has a great deal of currency. This very broad definition is justified by reference to etymology as well as consistent usage of the word by atheists.”
If you are born and raised on an island, by monkeys – you are an atheist by definition.
You don’t have to know about any Gods in order to not believe they exist.
I am perfectly capable of not believing in all sorts of things of which I am unaware, as are you.
Rick, ignorance of a thing is not equal to rejection thereof. Atheism is not a mere absence of having ever thought about religious questions. It is a rejection of a particular conclusion (that there is a God), and an embracing of the opposite conclusion (that there is no God).
…surely the modern atheists alluded to by Wikipedia aren’t claiming never to have been confronted with religious ideas? Are they saying, “I’ve just never had occasion to think about God, so I’m an atheist”? Obviously, they have been exposed to religious beliefs and adopted contrary beliefs–beliefs on religious questions.
I completely disagree with you ltbugaf.
You are defining atheism based on *your* viewpoint. Contrariness is not required. This picks up on the negative connotation that BKP plays with.
The absence of a belief in God is indeed atheism.
I suppose if this is boiling down to a game of “dueling definitions,” I should offer the following from Merriam-Webster:
ATHEIST
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
Itbugaf:
Existence is not a property of an object, but is instead a prerequisite for an object to have properties. Such, while Theism speaks of God and his properties, Atheism denies the existence of anything which exists and therefore does not speak of anything, literally.
By your view it would seem impossible to deny any kind of belief because a denial of a given belief involves that belief in the definition of such a view. In fact, I hereby declare theism to be atheistic since it is simply the denial of atheism. Surely you see the problem with such a line of reasoning.
Actually, Rick, I’m not defining it from my viewpoint. I’m defining it as defined in the most general usage of the term in the English language—especially as used at the time President Packer made his remarks. It is atheists who are playing with the definition.
If it is true that “atheism” now has more than one acceptable definition, then it is also very clear what kind of atheism President Packer is discussing: The kind that flatly concludes there is no such thing as a God. And since that is obviously what he’s talking about, there’s no good reason to quibble over what his remarks might imply if he were discussing a different definition.
Jeff, with due respect, I think you’re being silly.
If I hold a belief that belief X is untrue, then I have a belief concerning the topic of X. If I deny that the moon is made of cheese, then I have a belief regarding astronomy. It is an astronomical belief. I can’t deny having any astronomical beliefs.
“Atheism denies the existence of anything which exists…”
Really? The atheists I know don’t deny that their cars exist. They don’t deny their families exist. They don’t deny that microscopes exist. They acknowledge the concept of existence and don’t seem to have any discomfort with it.
(Just to be clear, the Merriam-Webster definition I gave is from Merriam-Webster online, and I didn’t edit anything out of it.)
“I hereby declare theism to be atheistic since it is simply the denial of atheism. Surely you see the problem with such a line of reasoning.”
Yes, Jeff, I do see the problem. The problem is that you’re defining the scope of the topic too narrowly. You’re describing thought as either atheistic or theistic. That’s fine as far as it goes. But it ignores that both theism and atheism are beliefs within a spectrum of beliefs on a unified topic. The topic is God, or the concept of God. Both beliefs address this topic. They have a common subject. They reach opposite conclusions on the common subject.
You may want to check out the etymology section in the wikipedia entry … your use of the word is extremely narrow.
Even using your definition, I don’t think atheism can be categorized as a religion unto itself.
Right, but that is the point. Atheism rejects the entire topic as illegitimate as pure language game. While this is certainly a metaphysical claim, it is not a religious claim. It is a claim about religion, meaning that the nature of the topic is religious, not the nature of the claim. It is only be conflating these two that BKP’s comments even appear true.
Rick, the point Elder Packer was making is that atheism, just like theism, is a conclusion regarding the topic of God. One of his concerns is that belief systems that incorporate a denial of God are fostered, taught and encouraged in schools, whereas belief systems that incorporate an acceptance of God are often rejected, ridiculed, shunned or outlawed in the same classrooms.
… as they should be since they have no bearing whatsoever on the scientific method.
Regarding my 14, you knew what I meant. Atheism denies that any GOD (not anything) exists and therefore all God-talk is simply meaningless.
Addtionally, your claim regarding the moon being made out of cheese is comletely different than the case at hand. A better parallel would be if people went into serious investigations regarding the exact kind of cheese that the moon was made out of and some people simply dismissed this entire question as absurd and meaningless. Remember, existence and properties are quite different. The question of the existence of God is very different in nature than the question of whether the moon (which all involved parties agree exists) is made of cheese or not.
“While this is certainly a metaphysical claim, it is not a religious claim.”
It is a claim regarding the concept of God. Surely Elder Packer is using the word “religious” in this sense.
Atheism is a belief regarding the question of God. That is a metaphysical question. It is also just as reasonable to call it a religious question:
If I deny that there are any heavenly bodies, and claim that the whole field of astronomy is mere superstition, I am making an astronomical assertion—an assertion regarding the topic of astronomy.
Similarly, if I deny that there are any gods, and claim that the whole field of religion is mere supersition, I am making an assertion on the topic of religion—a religious assertion.
Rick, re: #22, Elder Packer obviously wasn’t just talking about science.
Jeff: “Regarding my 14, you knew what I meant.”
No, I sincerely didn’t know what you meant, except by trying to take you literally at your word.
Jeff, re: #22, you seem to be saying that “religious” beliefs concern themselves with God’s properties but not with the questions of his existence. Am I understanding you right?
Rick, to continue #25, “communism, agnosticism, skepticism, humanism, pragmatism” are philosophies, not sciences, as far as I understand.
sect is not equal to philosophy, so does this mean that you are disagreeing with Packer?
I think he’s using the term “sect” in a looser sense than “formally organized religious group.” He’s using it as an analogy to religious sects. Just as Theism has subdivisions, and Christianity has subdivisions, and Methodism has subdivisions, so too does atheism. There are various philosophies that incorporate atheism into their foundations. These he refers to as “sects” by way of analogy.
Not that it really makes a difference one way or the other because… who really cares? But all this arguing over whether or not atheism is a religion made me think it’s a lot like arguing over whether zero is a number or not.
And re: #24
I just want to point out that “a religious assertion” does not equal a religion.
Obviously. But since atheism is a belief about a religious topic, atheism is, in an important sense, a “religious” belief. This is what Elder Packer is pointing out—that theism and atheism are two beliefs on the same topic, and that it’s somewhat absurd to shun, outlaw and disqualify only one of those views just because it’s religious in nature.
Rick, what terms do you use to differentiate those who have never heard of the idea of God from those who have heard of the idea and reject it?
atheist vs agnostic
…or my personal favorite ignostic
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
You can also be an atheist after hearing about the idea of gods, but my point is that atheism is the default.
Just as I can be a non-smoker because I’ve never seen or heard of tobacco, or I choose not to smoke.
Well, I used the terms atheist and agnostic, too. But you seem to insist absolutely that agnosticism is just a form of atheism. I think they’re discrete categories.
I also think the commoner definition of an agnostic is, a person who has considered the question of God and reached the conclusion that he cannot know its answer. That’s not the same as a person who’s never heard of God.
And haven’t you characterized yourself as an agnostic, on this blog? Surely, you don’t claim that you’ve never heard of God.
No, you’ve misunderstood.
The agnostic is the one who has heard of God and chosen they can’t believe (yet, or at all).
The atheist is the person who has never heard of gods.
The atheist is the natural state (default).
If “the atheist is the person who has never heard of gods” then you haven’t provided a term for a person who has heard of gods, and has concluded, not that their existence is unknowable, but that they definitely do not exist.
Here’s my lexicon for the three categories:
1. A person who has considered whether God exists and has decided the answer is no. Term: atheist.
2. A person who has considered whether God exists and has decided the answer is unknowable. Term: agnostic.
3. A person who has never considered the concept of God. The best term I can come up with for this is “ignorant.”
An atheist is both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not.
It’s the default. It’s comprehensive.
It’s the ‘everyone who isn’t a god believer’ group.
Then how do you differentiate my category 1 from my category 2?
#2 has decided it’s unknowable, #1 has decided gods don’t exist.
How this has anything to do with their being a religion unto themselves is beyond me, though.
I’ll continue to humour you, though, since it’s such a slow day on the blogs. =)
Yes, Rick. I know that #2 has decided it’s unknowable and #1 has decided gods don’t exist. I already told you that. What I’m trying to figure out is what terms you have for them. Do you just call them all the same thing, erasing any definitional distinctions between “atheist” and “agnostic”?
As to why Elder Packer uses the term “religion” in referring to them, I’ve already discussed that amply above. If it’s still beyond you, then either re-read or ask some questions.
Is there a difference between saying:
I don’t believe there is a god.I believe there is no god.
Essentially they are the same thing. #1 is a clear statement that the person does not believe. To say that #2 is a belief about a religious topic, thereby making it a religion, is frankly, disingenuous, probably motivated on undermining what the atheists consider their intelligent evaluation of the evidence (or lack thereof) of the existence of deity.
Atheism is not a religion.
Are we speaking the same language here?
Your definitions for #1 and #2 are exactly the same as mine.
I also hold that your ‘ignorants’ are atheists, as well.
Your argument that atheism is a religious topic is akin to me saying that vegetarianism is a Hinduist topic since they both deal with the slaughter of animals for consumption.
It makes no sense.
Atheism unto itself is not a religion.
Let’s get everyone who holds an opinion on issue X into a room to discuss it. Only first, to ensure objectivity, let’s disqualify everyone who believes that X is true. Once they’re out of the room, we’ll be able to have a balanced, rational discussion.
This is essentially what happens when everyone who believes in God is disqualified from speaking because they’re introducing religion, and everyone who doesn’t believe in God is encouraged to go on speaking. That’s Elder Packer’s concern. It’s not stupid, it’s not disingenuous, and it’s not invalid.
The point is that in order for a rational discussion to take place, you must remove the irrational.
Believing in something regardless of any facts is irrational.
Believing in something regardless of any facts is faith.
Since you dismiss all people who exercise faith as irrational beings, I continue to be amazed at how much time you choose to spend arguing with them.
I continue to stand in awe of my ability to amaze you.