Court rules atheism a religion

[Bri]

Yes, generally it’s impossible to prove a negative. It’s up to the ones that postulate the existence of a god to prove one actually exists.

The question wasn't upon whom the burden of proof lies or even if there is evidence of any god, but rather whether not beliving something because it is unfalsifiable constitutes faith.

-Bri

 

[toddjh]

It seems like you're confusing belief and knowledge.

I don't see any difference between the two. What is the difference between "believing" something and "knowing" something, except perhaps a matter of degree?

You have no knowledge of whether life exists on the planet or not. Your belief is that there is none, because you believe that life on that planet is improbable. Or perhaps you believe that there is life on the planet. Or perhaps you admit that you simply don't have a belief one way or another.

The latter. When it comes to gods, I have absolutely no opinion about whether some kind of supernatural being exists outside the universe (although I have stronger feelings about particular gods from specific religions).

But, just as I'm not about to submit an article to Nature about the biology of hypothetical Tau Cetians, I see no reason let my uncertainty about deities affect my everyday behavior. Pondering potential gods gives me no useful information to act upon, and so, for all practical purposes, I might as well act as if I believe they don't exist.

My understanding is that atheistm and theism refer to belief in a diety, whereas agnosticism and "gnosticism" refer to knowledge of a diety.

The problem is that the words are used in many different ways by different people. To many, an agnostic is one who just isn't sure whether there's a god, while to others an agnostic is one who believes that it's impossible to determine the existence of a god. Very different ideas. That's why I prefer to avoid that term.

It seems as though there are only three possibilities for beilef in a diety: I believe a diety exists, I don't believe any deity exists, or I have no opinion.

I believe it's simpler: I have a belief that a deity exists (theism), or I do not have a belief that a deity exists (a-theism). It's a logical complement: every person falls into one group or the other. Whether you go further and claim that god definitely does not exist is really a separate issue.

I prefer the "paper test" for determining atheism: take a piece of paper and write down every god you believe exists (if you don't have a name, write down a description). If, after you're done, the paper is empty, then you're an atheist. It really is as simple as that.

Furthermore, it seems like "I have no opinion" would leave open the possibility of a diety existing, so this stance would necessarily be an agnostic position ("I don't know if a diety exists"). Does "weak atheism" mean "agnostic atheism?"

As I said, I prefer to avoid the term "agnostic," due to confusion over what it means and, to me, no good distinction between belief and knowledge (honestly, I don't understand the difference between the two).

Understood. But my argument is just that the court might have a basis for deeming atheism a religion.

For some definitions of religion, sure. But if "religion" simply means "a position accepted on faith," then an awful lot of organizations are going to be claiming tax exempt status. I think any definition of "religion" that includes atheism is too broad.

That said, I would like to see equal protection granted to atheist organizations; otherwise, it amounts to government promotion of religion over non-religion, which is a big no-no.

Jeremy

Edited for clarity

 

[Bri]

This statement doesn’t logically follow the other. There is no reason proof of the existence of god would destroy/remove free will.[/B]

My explanation of the argument was overly simplistic because I'm not sure how relevent it is to the topic of the thread. The explanation goes something like this: If we were to know that God exists, we would not be able to freely choose to do wrong because we would know for certain of the repercussions. It is similar to the argument that if I hold a gun to your head and give you the choice to either steal something or die, this takes away your freedom to choose. Morally, you're no longer responsible if you steal under these circumstances. Similarly, if someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to do a good dead, you're not doing the good dead by choice, but because you're being forced to do so. Since God presumably wants us to freely choose to do good over evil, so it would make sense that God would choose not to allow us to know of his existance.

Why would god be beyond the laws of nature? How did god go about creating the universe? What created god? It’s nothing more than special pleading and a deliberate attempt to create a gap then fill it with god.

If God created nature and the laws of nature, then why would you assume that God would be governed by the laws of nature? The rest of your questions don't seem relevent to the discussion (and I don't know the answers).

How do you know that my "attempt to create a gap then fill it with god" is deliberate? That sounds almost like a personal attack.

-Bri

 

[gnome]

Regarding Atheism as an act of faith... i feel that if it is so, it is a trivial act of faith. Let me explain how I see it.

You're standing in a room with a door that's closed. Someone wonders what's on the other side of the door. An act of faith is to speculate (and feel confident) that (fill in the blank) is on the other side of that door. A typical atheist won't state with certainty what is blocked from view by the door, but will generally not spend any time (in the absence of clues) entertaining the notion that anything extraordinary is there. If you think that is an act of faith, then you are cheapening the kind of faith present in those who follow most religions. You are making every decision made with limited evidence an act of faith.

 

[Bri]

If you are talking about my example of the elephant in my office, you are assuming wrong. In fact, I have told you explicitly that the elephant is not detectable.

Thus, it puts it right at the same level as "god outside of nature."

Then that elephant is a god. If the elephant has some affect on the world, then it is a consequential god, and to say that it does not or cannot exist would be a position based on faith (unless you have proof).

-Bri

 

[pgwenthold]

Then that elephant is a god.

????

 

[Steve]

Regarding Atheism as an act of faith... i feel that if it is so, it is a trivial act of faith. Let me explain how I see it.

You're standing in a room with a door that's closed. Someone wonders what's on the other side of the door. An act of faith is to speculate (and feel confident) that (fill in the blank) is on the other side of that door. A typical atheist won't state with certainty what is blocked from view by the door, but will generally not spend any time (in the absence of clues) entertaining the notion that anything extraordinary is there. If you think that is an act of faith, then you are cheapening the kind of faith present in those who follow most religions. You are making every decision made with limited evidence an act of faith.

Well said, Gnome. As I generally understand the concept of religious "faith" as presented by deists it is a very strong concept that is crucial and central to the adherents commitment to their religion. The hair splitting by Bri and dictionary war that has gone on in this thread seems to trivialize the word to a point where it can be applied to any concept whatsoever and is consequently meaningless. Instead of supporting her/his (perceived) position that atheist faith = deist faith, Bri has managed to render a crucial component of all religions irrelevant. In the terminology of my favorite sport, soccer, this is known as an "own goal". One point for our side!

 

[pgwenthold]

And if it can be proven that believing God does exist is logical, then it is justified as well, correct?

Yes, but then it ISN'T FAITH!

Remember, you asked why an atheists belief that god doesn't exist isn't faith. If there is a logical basis for it, then it isn't faith.

Again, many believe that God does affect the world, so that argument doesn't hold.

Huh? It exactly holds. If God _does_ affect the world, then there should be signs of his actions. If that is the case, the absence of such signs is evidence against. The problem is evil is evidence against.

It is the "god who does not affect the world" that makes this argument moot.

Explain what you mean by "manifests itself." Does magnetism manifest itself? If by "manifests itself" you simply mean that it affects the world, then God "manifests" himself according to many beliefs.

Please demonstrate anything that is a "manifestation" of God. Seeing Mary in a taco salad doesn't count.

Blame Mr. Webster for that. I don't know what the difference between "firm" and "infirm" belief in something means. Does someone not have faith if they have an infirm belief in something?
[/B]

Actually, my point is that according to your favored definition, someone who does not have "firm" belief would not be considered to have faith.

Of course, you admit that, like me, you don't know the difference between a firm and not firm belief. Isn't it fairly disingenious of you to insist upon a definition when you don't even know what it means?

 

[Bri]

Atheism is not a belief in ‘no deity’.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity.

I personally don't believe that elves exist. When I explain this belief to others, I say "I believe that there are no elves" or "I believe that elves do not exist." I don't usually say "I have a lack of belief in elves" or "I have a lack of belief in the existance of elves."

If you're saying that atheists have a "lack of belief" in the existance of a diety rather than a belief in "no diety" then why are they perfectly happy to say that they don't believe in elves but are reticent to say the same about God?

What else (besides God) do people hold a "lack of belief" in but not a belief that it doesn't exist?

Please explain how a lack of belief in something isn't the same as believing that the something doesn't exist.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Regarding Atheism as an act of faith... i feel that if it is so, it is a trivial act of faith. Let me explain how I see it.

You're standing in a room with a door that's closed. Someone wonders what's on the other side of the door. An act of faith is to speculate (and feel confident) that (fill in the blank) is on the other side of that door. A typical atheist won't state with certainty what is blocked from view by the door, but will generally not spend any time (in the absence of clues) entertaining the notion that anything extraordinary is there. If you think that is an act of faith, then you are cheapening the kind of faith present in those who follow most religions. You are making every decision made with limited evidence an act of faith.

I like this example. However, it's an "I don't know" position rather than an "I don't believe" position. I thought that agnosticism was an "I don't know" position as opposed to "I don't believe" position (which I thought was atheism).

That is not to say that you can't both "not know" and "not believe" but your example sounds like an agnostic to me.

Someone akin to an agnostic theist in your example might say "I believe there is a dragon with a key behind the door because, though there is little evidence for it and I might be wrong, that would explain who put the door there, why the door is so hot, and why we can't open the door." Someone akin to an agnostic atheist might say "There is no evidence that there is a dragon behind the door, and because there may be other explanations of where the door came from, why the door is hot, and why we can't open the door, I believe that there is not a dragon behind the door, although I could be wrong."

Both of these seem to be positions of faith (both are beliefs in something for which there is no proof). Both are actually positions based on reasoning, and I wouldn't consider either to be irrational per se.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

????

A supernatural being.

-Bri

 

[toddjh]

If you're saying that atheists have a "lack of belief" in the existance of a diety rather than a belief in "no diety" then why are they perfectly happy to say that they don't believe in elves but are reticent to say the same about God?

I'm happy to say the same about God: I don't believe in him. That's not the same as saying that I believe he doesn't exist.

"I don't believe there is a God" = lacking belief; weak atheism.
"I believe there is no God" = belief in God's absence; strong atheism.

I don't understand how that is confusing?

What else (besides God) do people hold a "lack of belief" in but not a belief that it doesn't exist?

Tons of things. Aliens. Psychic powers. A diamond as big as my head. P=NP. The idea that the universe is spatially finite.

In short, anything which cannot be disproved but for which there is (for now) insufficient evidence.

Please explain how a lack of belief in something isn't the same as believing that the something doesn't exist.

It's not the same philosophically, for the reasons given above, but it is usually the same practically. A person who doesn't believe in God and one who believes there is no God will probably behave the exact same way, all else being equal.

Jeremy

 

[Steve]

I like this example. However, it's an "I don't know" position rather than an "I don't believe" position. I thought that agnosticism was an "I don't know" position as opposed to "I don't believe" position (which I thought was atheism).

That is not to say that you can't both "not know" and "not believe" but your example sounds like an agnostic to me.

Someone akin to an agnostic theist in your example might say "I believe there is a dragon with a key behind the door because, though there is little evidence for it and I might be wrong, that would explain who put the door there, why the door is so hot, and why we can't open the door." Someone akin to an agnostic atheist might say "There is no evidence that there is a dragon behind the door, and because there may be other explanations of where the door came from, why the door is hot, and why we can't open the door, I believe that there is not a dragon behind the door, although I could be wrong."

Both of these seem to be positions of faith (both are beliefs in something for which there is no proof). Both are actually positions based on reasoning, and I wouldn't consider either to be irrational per se.

-Bri

This appears to be a typical deist response. You have added several parameters to gnome's scenario that were not stated and based your position on these paramaters rather than the original scenario. It was not stated that the door was hot, or locked, or that it was placed there by anyone other than a mundane human builder. A completely irrelevant response to gnome's post.

 

[Bri]

Well said, Gnome. As I generally understand the concept of religious "faith" as presented by deists it is a very strong concept that is crucial and central to the adherents commitment to their religion. The hair splitting by Bri and dictionary war that has gone on in this thread seems to trivialize the word to a point where it can be applied to any concept whatsoever and is consequently meaningless. Instead of supporting her/his (perceived) position that atheist faith = deist faith, Bri has managed to render a crucial component of all religions irrelevant. In the terminology of my favorite sport, soccer, this is known as an "own goal". One point for our side!

You make many, many assumptions here. I never said that "atheist faith = deist faith" and in fact have said the opposite (that both are based on very different reasoning). Your soccer analogy characterizes the discussion as having two sides, and that I am on the opposite side of the discussion as you are, which is not only a gross assumption, but if my guess as to which "side" you're on is correct, it's an incorrect one.

Whether I am trivializing faith or not is inconsequential to the purposes of this thread, which is whether or not atheism can or should be considered a religion. The implications of that are also certainly within the topic of the discussion, but whether or not faith is a "crucial component of all religions" seems to be off-topic.

I'm not sure why so many are upset by the concept that faith may have little to do with rationality (although certainly the thought leading to that faith might, which could lead to a rational or irrational position), and I'm not sure why so many are upset at the possibility that (at least some forms of) atheism might be based on faith.

It is not my intention to get into any "hair splitting" or dictionary wars, seriously. I find that as boring as the next person.

I am interested in knowing what the difference is between an atheist and an agnostic for the purposes of this discussion. I'm also interested in knowing the difference between a "weak atheist" and a "strong atheist" and why some have said that most atheists are "weak atheists" even though I've heard a lot of statements such as "I believe that God doesn't exist any more than the tooth fairy exists." That statement seems to be one based on faith since it attempts to assert a negative (that something doesn't exist), which cannot be proven.

A more "agnostic" atheist position, such as "We don't [or can't] know the truth, but I believe that there is no God" might also be considered a position based on faith, since this position admits a lack of proof but nonetheless proclaims a belief (the very definition of "faith").

Pgwenthold suggested that having a lack of evidence where we would expect there to be evidence might itself be considered evidence. This would explain why we don't consider it "faith" not to believe in elves and pink zebras, but it could be argued that this doesn't hold for gods, especially those that might have the means and motive for not wanting to be explained by science.

I'm very open to other suggestions as well, and would be happy to come up with another way of characterizing atheism, faith, or religion so that atheists would be afforded the same protections as religions are.

-Bri

 

[toddjh]

I am interested in knowing what the difference is between an atheist and an agnostic for the purposes of this discussion. I'm also interested in knowing the difference between a "weak atheist" and a "strong atheist" and why some have said that most atheists are "weak atheists" even though I've heard a lot of statements such as "I believe that God doesn't exist any more than the tooth fairy exists." That statement seems to be one based on faith since it attempts to assert a negative (that something doesn't exist), which cannot be proven.

A negative can be proven if it is addressing something that is logically inconsistent (for example, "there are no married bachelors"). Many atheists (myself included) believe that to be the case with the Judeo-Christian God, for several reasons: the problems of evil and free will, the failed prophecies, and flat-out contradictions in the Bible.

Usually, when you hear atheists say things such as "there is no God," they're referring to that particular deity, since that's the one that is most likely to be discussed in Western cultures.

In other words, most atheists are "weak" regarding the abstract concept of a supernatural being, yet many of those are "strong" regarding Christianity. You have to be aware of the context to determine which of the two they're talking about.

A more "agnostic" atheist position, such as "We don't [or can't] know the truth, but I believe that there is no God" might also be considered a position based on faith, since this position admits a lack of proof but nonetheless proclaims a belief (the very definition of "faith").

That's an odd "agnostic" position, since it sounds an awful lot like strong atheism. Generally, people equate agnosticism with weak atheism.

I would also still like to hear your explanation of the difference between belief and knowledge. For the life of me, I just can't figure out why people regard them as separate things. What is knowledge other than a very firm belief?

Jeremy

 

[Bri]

Yes, but then it ISN'T FAITH!

Remember, you asked why an atheists belief that god doesn't exist isn't faith. If there is a logical basis for it, then it isn't faith.

OK, I might be willing to go with that, except that whether something is logical or not is a matter of opinion. Belief in God doesn't have a logical basis because...?

Huh? It exactly holds. If God _does_ affect the world, then there should be signs of his actions. If that is the case, the absence of such signs is evidence against.

Why should there be signs of his actions? If he created the world, then surely he can affect the world without leaving signs of his actions.

The problem is evil is evidence against.

Evil is evidence against what?

It is the "god who does not affect the world" that makes this argument moot.

Again, I agree, that the god who does not affect the world is inconsequential, so quit talking about that god! Let's talk about gods who do affect the world!

Please demonstrate anything that is a "manifestation" of God. Seeing Mary in a taco salad doesn't count.

What do you mean by "manifestation?" Do you mean show you an affect of a god on the world? I probably can't if that god didn't want himself known. Presumably, a god who created nature would easily be able to prevent us from knowing of his presence.

Actually, my point is that according to your favored definition, someone who does not have "firm" belief would not be considered to have faith.

That's not my favored definition, it just happens to be Webster's definition, and therefore a "common" definition. I'm open to other definitions that would meet your (apparent) goal of showing that atheism isn't based on faith if you want.

Of course, you admit that, like me, you don't know the difference between a firm and not firm belief. Isn't it fairly disingenious of you to insist upon a definition when you don't even know what it means?

I didn't insist on it! You conceded it, so I said "OK, let's use that definition." Here is your exact quote:

I could quibble with your chosen dictionary definition (I prefer the old Am Her definition, "belief held without the basis of material evidence or logical proof" - doesn't have to be "firm" and empirical "proof" is a difficult concept in the first place), but dueling dicos are boring. I still think the logical basis even qualifies given your more stringent definition.

Please don't use personal attacks against me. I haven't attacked you personally, and that's not very constructive to the discussion. If you prefer to "quibble with [my] chosen dictionary definition," then we can go that route.

My point was simply that by at least one common definition of "faith" atheism could be seen as being based on faith. That said, I'm willing to discuss other definitions if you like.

-Bri

 

[pgwenthold]

Pgwenthold suggested that having a lack of evidence where we would expect there to be evidence might itself be considered evidence. This would explain why we don't consider it "faith" not to believe in elves and pink zebras, but it could be argued that this doesn't hold for gods, especially those that might have the means and motive for not wanting to be explained by science.

But if that is the case, it puts "god" on the same footing as an infiinite number of other possible beings that can in principle exist but for which there is no scientific evidence.

Do we hold out the possibility that all of these might exist? Because logically, if you allow for one (god), then you have to allow for all (including the elephant in my office).

I have argued that it is rational to just reject them all as meaningless. Unless they have some interaction with the universe, they are as good as non-existent, anyway.

BTW, I really don't understand why you insist that elves are any different from gods. In principle, any sufficiently powerful being could act outside of science, and does not have to be a god. The "child science experiment" analogy demonstrates that. Perhaps our universe is just a test tube in a child's science experiment. From our perspective, that child would be god (created the universe). However, what about his pet goldfish? Is the creator's pet goldfish a god? Completely outside of the universe, but not god.

Perhaps elves are just the houselves of god himself?

IOW, as has been noted, your attempted distinction between god and elves is nothing but special pleading.

 

[pgwenthold]

Why should there be signs of his actions? If he created the world, then surely he can affect the world without leaving signs of his actions.

Then he isn't affecting anything.

If I take a book and accelerate it toward the floor at 9.8 m/s/s, am I affecting the actions of the book?


Since you like to use dictionary definitions, let me throw this one out:

af·fect1 v. –tr. af·fect·ed, af·fect·ing, af·fects. 1. To have an influence on or effect a change in: Inflation affects the buying power of the dollar

Thus, if god is affecting the world, he must be having an influence or effect a change. If he isn't effecting a change or having an influence, things we can observe, then he isn't having an influence.

My point was simply that by at least one common definition of "faith" atheism could be seen as being based on faith. [/B]

And you didn't make that point at all. You claimed it, but, when pushed, you admitted you didn't know what a "firm belief" was, meaning that you could not legitimately claim that atheism had it.

 

[Steve]

You make many, many assumptions here. I never said that "atheist faith = deist faith" and in fact have said the opposite (that both are based on very different reasoning). Your soccer analogy characterizes the discussion as having two sides, and that I am on the opposite side of the discussion as you are, which is not only a gross assumption, but if my guess as to which "side" you're on is correct, it's an incorrect one.

Whether I am trivializing faith or not is inconsequential to the purposes of this thread, which is whether or not atheism can or should be considered a religion. The implications of that are also certainly within the topic of the discussion, but whether or not faith is a "crucial component of all religions" seems to be off-topic.

I'm not sure why so many are upset by the concept that faith may have little to do with rationality (although certainly the thought leading to that faith might, which could lead to a rational or irrational position), and I'm not sure why so many are upset at the possibility that (at least some forms of) atheism might be based on faith.

It is not my intention to get into any "hair splitting" or dictionary wars, seriously. I find that as boring as the next person.

I am interested in knowing what the difference is between an atheist and an agnostic for the purposes of this discussion. I'm also interested in knowing the difference between a "weak atheist" and a "strong atheist" and why some have said that most atheists are "weak atheists" even though I've heard a lot of statements such as "I believe that God doesn't exist any more than the tooth fairy exists." That statement seems to be one based on faith since it attempts to assert a negative (that something doesn't exist), which cannot be proven.

A more "agnostic" atheist position, such as "We don't [or can't] know the truth, but I believe that there is no God" might also be considered a position based on faith, since this position admits a lack of proof but nonetheless proclaims a belief (the very definition of "faith").

Pgwenthold suggested that having a lack of evidence where we would expect there to be evidence might itself be considered evidence. This would explain why we don't consider it "faith" not to believe in elves and pink zebras, but it could be argued that this doesn't hold for gods, especially those that might have the means and motive for not wanting to be explained by science.

I'm very open to other suggestions as well, and would be happy to come up with another way of characterizing atheism, faith, or religion so that atheists would be afforded the same protections as religions are.

-Bri

Apologies for my flippancy. Your (perceived on my part) persistence in trying to force–fit atheism into a system of belief reminded me entirely too much of the all-too-common deist argument cum put-down of "atheism is a religion too". The discussion as per the OP does indeed have two sides - can/should atheism be considered to be a religion - yes or no. I am firmly in the NO camp.
I do not think that whether "faith is a crucial component of religion" is completely off topic. Without faith the vast majority of religions would not exist and the subject would be moot. I do think that the issue of differences between atheists and agnostics, both weak and strong, is largely irrelevant to this discussion. They all come under the loose umbrella of "non-believers" and would be covered by the court ruling referenced in the OP.
I have never understood why religions should be afforded any particular protections that non-religious groups or individuals are not entitled to. Although I do not agree with the court's reasons, this ruling appears to be a non-trivial step towards equality in this regard. Of course there will now be theists that will point to this ruling and say "athesim is officially a religion and therefore no different than our beliefs".

 

[Bri]

I'm happy to say the same about God: I don't believe in him. That's not the same as saying that I believe he doesn't exist.

"I don't believe there is a God" = lacking belief; weak atheism.
"I believe there is no God" = belief in God's absence; strong atheism.

I don't understand how that is confusing?

You don't? It seems clear that if you're saying that atheism isn't a belief at all, then it doesn't meet Webster's definition of faith, which only pertains to a belief. Not offering a belief one way or the other certainly doesn't qualify.

A strong atheist does seem to be offering up a belief, so that would qualify as a belief based on faith. Since religion has to do with a system of beliefs, it would seem that weak atheism wouldn't be a religion, but that strong atheism might be.

Now, I think you wrote that most atheists are weak atheists and not strong atheists. Is that true? Do so many people really not state a belief one way or the other as to whether God might exist or not? The weak atheist position would then be that God might exist or God might not exist. If true, why do so many get upset when someone suggests a belief that God might exist, when in fact this is exactly the weak atheist's view? Some even go so far as to use words like "irrational" when describing theism, and compare it to belief in things that they obviously believe don't exist, such as elves and the tooth fairy.

Tons of things. Aliens. Psychic powers. A diamond as big as my head. P=NP. The idea that the universe is spatially finite.

All of those are things that people often believe exist or not, and are willing to state those beliefs: I don't believe that aliens have visited earth, but I do believe that aliens may exist. I believe that people who possess psychic powers do not exist. I believe that I will never see a diamond as big as my head, although I believe it possible for one to exist. I don't have an opinion about the universe being spacially infinite because I don't know enough about the topic to form a belief.

What do most weak atheists believe about the existance of God? Why would those who hold no belief one way or the other think that believing in God would be irrational since they themselves admit that they don't know what to believe?

In short, anything which cannot be disproved but for which there is (for now) insufficient evidence.

[/QUOTE]

How is that different than agnosticism ("I don't know if God exists")?

-Bri