But as I know several atheists who are ordained ministers in the UU Church and other sects/denominations and who consider that a core part of their religion and ministry, you may have to come up with an Option Three.
FTR I fall more into the “if it walks like a duck” school personally. What percentage of atheists practice it as a religion, I won’t even hazard a guess. But clearly some of them do and do so quite intentionally.
There are issues that affect atheists qua atheists, so I understand the need for atheist organizations to exist (just as I understand the need for the NAACP to exist). But I don’t need to meet up with my fellow atheists regularly to discuss the stamps I didn’t collect in the past week.
When you say that people practice atheism as a religion, what do you mean?
I know atheists who are practicing reform Jews, Unitarians, and secular humanists. But those are all organized bodies that share a set of beliefs and/or morals within the body of members. Those people are atheists AND something else.
I also know atheists who don’t practice any religion, or anything like a religion.
What I don’t know is anyone who “practices atheism like a religion”.
We can get community and social contact in lots of ways that don’t involve us pretending to go to church. If people want to do this, fine, but the news articles and op ed pieces see this as the future of atheism.
There have been lots of articles on atheism in the Times. All of them miss one slightly important point - that atheism involves lack of belief in any god. Period.
But I think making that point gets you labeled as an angry atheist.
Since most atheists (in the United States, at least) identify themselves as such out a specific rejection of what they call ‘religion’, I don’t find it very productive to bring them under the umbrella of religion in popular discourse. This tactic is too often used as an unfair tool of delegitimization. Even if I disagree with the popular definitions of ‘religion’ in society, they do have power and rejecting them as they are is often a liberating act.
That said, I would argue that the various atheist popular and intellectual movements should be considered in context with ‘religious’ movements for the purposes of academic discourse, since you can’t separate them from the religio-cultural contexts from which they emerged. For example, the dynamic mentioned in this thread between some atheists looking to local religious traditions for meaningful practices like weekly meetings, some not being interested but not minding it, and others more hostile to it - it does have some interesting parallels on its face with the varying Christian attitudes toward ‘pagan’ practices like holidays, some saint figures, cultural practices etc. It would be really interesting to do a large-scale study to see what the relationship is there, if any.
Another one I like is “Atheism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby”.
Regarding the subject of social gatherings for Atheists: Even though I agree that for most things. having a group for people who are not interested in some specific thing seems silly, it doesn’t strike me as quite so silly for Atheism, at least not in this country.
In the US, especially in some areas, being an Atheist can make you something of a social outcast. Either people know and reject you for it, or they don’t know and you have to be constantly guarded and try to avoid certain conversations, even about such mundane things as what you do with your Sundays.
Meeting with others in the same situation, sort of like a support group, could be very helpful. I see no reason for adding religious trappings to such a gathering, but just getting together with like minded people could be very comforting.
I can understand some atheists wanting to socialize among their own. In the past, atheists couldn’t do that except under the umbrella of some local political organization that wanted to sue the county to remove the Xmas creche from the courthouse lawn. So I don’t see a problem with social gatherings of atheists as such (or gatherings of secular humanists–the article tends to conflate the two groups).
But I don’t think those Sunday Assembly meetings are nearly as popular as the article paints them. The assemblies tend to show up as listings at Meetup.com. A local group tried to get one up and running in a liberal NE city near me; it should have been fertile ground for such a thing, and I was curious to check it out. But it never got off the ground due to a lack of interest. I kinda get that vibe about the Sunday Assembly movement in general: Its intended audience is lukewarm to the idea at best. It’s just a group of strangers socializing, and not everyone has time for that.
I will assume you were asking me. And my apologies for the snip; we seem to know many like people.
You probably do know people like I describe but never thought of them in those terms.
I could fall back on Mr Webster and say:
“4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”
because under that atheism is, at least, a minor form of religion or at least religious in nature. But it goes beyond that. That is more “small a” atheism and “small r” religion and what we are probably discussing is more the large “R” version the cited article alludes to.
That comes down to how the person identifies themselves; how important is it to your sense of self and how important is it to you to convince others that atheism isn’t simply right but that any other belief is wrong.
Picture a sliding scale of 1 being *very important * and 5 being not at all important. From 3-5 you are pretty clearly a simple atheist; different from the average christian in this country but sharing much in common as well. To (possibly unfairly) call on the part I snipped, such a person would probably identify themselves to others as “an X who is also happens to be an atheist”.
The closer you get to being a 1, the closer you come to being an Atheist - to practicing it as a Religion. There you would probably fall closer to saying “I am an atheist who happens to also be X”. Your goal isn’t simply to believe “with ardor and faith” but to be in a movement to convince others as well. To join with others who feel as you do to support each other in that cause. You seek a pulpit in one form or another to achieve that goal. Once you feel not just right in your belief but overwhelmingly right (and anyone else being both horribly wrong and stupid) you are starting to turn that letter into a capital.
I guess if I had to put it in one world for where the difference happens, I would probably pick “evangelism”. But that I could debate even with myself.
Even as a young child, I recognized our congregation for what it was: More than a simple social get-together, it’s a group-think experience. The congregation recites memorized prayers in unison, some of it in a foreign language. Or they engage in “responsive reading”, where the group leader reads a pious statement, then the congregation reads the next pious statement, and so on, the leader and congregation reading alternate pious statements. Everybody stands up for certain prayers, and bows their heads for certain other prayers.
It seems to fill the need for people to be part of a social group of like-minded people, who engage in a series of overt like-minded rituals to openly demonstrate their like-minded like-mindedness to one and all.
A lot of people seem to need that, but don’t see the need for it to be a god-fearing religious experience. So they invent these social group-think quasi-religious sorta-god-free religions like UU to fill that need.
Okay, by that definition, I have known one person who evangelized atheism. She eventually got a job teaching Sunday school at a UU church, though, so she falls into my category of practicing UU.
Hmm, I also know a Humanist Celebrant who says he used to be an atheist, but decided to define himself by what he does believe, rather than by what he doesn’t. He’s still rather strongly anti-God-hypothesis, but again, he is practicing a positive thing these days, not a lack of a thing. But perhaps he would have met your description back in the day.
So, even if I accept that that is something very like a religion, I believe it is extremely rare among atheists. I guess I should add that I know a LOT of atheists.
Okay, to me, that’s another example of being a disciple, in Alan Watts’ definition: getting an A in the course but missing the whole point.
To me, being an atheist means I don’t fucking waste any time, at all, ever, on “religion.”
Filling the church/anti-god void with a “celebration of life” ritual, ceremony, whatever is very, very much parading around with a chrome dome, asking everyone to tell you what they think of your new hair style.
IMVHO.
Nicely put.
That phrase drives me crazy. I didn’t get up for church when I was still nominally a believer and I didn’t have a “church-shaped hole” anywhere.
Also, if anyone subjects me to “Walking on Sunshine” in the morning, I’m out of there.
More than I do without a question. I may associate with more than the average Christian but I can count the ones I have close contact with on both hands at most. But I do know a LOT of people who identify themselves as Christians and I would debate that many of them are no more members of a religion, or practicing a religion, than the atheists you know. They may approach it but they fall short when you look at the specifics. We can debate how rare or common it is but that is as much for fun as for the actual exchange of information. Our definitions don’t quite match so chances are our percentages won’t either.
Again though, we seem to come full circle back to where I first joined this thread; we aren’t as different as we would like sometimes - as we would prefer. As you describe the Humanist you know, I can use the same words to describe a man I know who is both an atheist and an ordained minister in one of the Christian denominations. His path through this life has been fairly similar to what you describe. Right down to my saying he is practicing a positive thing these days and not a lack of a thing. The universe is just a funny place like that sometimes.
I do this! I call the people my friends, and we meet at a bar.
I don’t even see the purpose of “humanist celebrants.” At least not in the U.S., where requiring a marriage to be solemnized with the trappings of religion seems pretty blatantly in violation of the First Amendment.
There is no such requirement. In most states, in fact, it’s the couple that marries one another, with an appointed and recognized “referee” - who can be any of a number of completely secular forms. (Judges, notaries public, town clerks… I’d bet there are others. Religion is traditional, even if it’s an agnostic “minister” who says not a word about deish things, but I don’t know of a single US jurisdiction where only a person of God’s cloth can perform a wedding.
ETA - actually, I suppose you could have a totally silent wedding, without a word spoken by clerk, couple or witnesses. Just motions and sign the documents.
My Big Fat Mime Wedding?*
In some cases, getting ordained in a no-god(s)-required church may be the quickest and easiest way to obtain authorization to perform the official duties associated with a wedding. (I’ve never tried to become a notary or justice of the peace, but I doubt it’s easier than being ordained by the Universal Life Church).
*If it hasn’t been done yet, it will be. It’s only a matter of mime.
This. Atheism defines what I DON’T believe, not what I DO believe. I’m wondering what the people in these atheist groups actually have in common . . . except their desire to emulate the trappings of religious groups.
Probably as much as any religious congregation has in common.
I find it hard to be against excuses for social communion in our very isolating world, and sometimes wish there were better choices for getting together. However, I think weekly atheist gatherings with a formal structure rank somewhere below Mensa meetings in meeting this goal. (And no one makes assumptions about Mensans being a “religion” because they get together to exchange their Sacred Personal Numbers.)