Guest Blog: Is Atheism a Religion?

Hello, my name is Jordan, and I was intrigued by the prospect of a blog which examines religion. Tina (in her infinite wisdom and beauty) graciously allowed me to contribute this post concerning Atheism, and whether it should be considered a religion.

Many in the media have claimed that Atheism is actually a religion, despite what many atheists may say (see Fox News, creation.com, Ceinkowsky, and many others). The people who claim that Atheism is, in fact, a religion, as doctrinal and faith-based as any religion, make compelling arguments. The people who claim that Atheism is a religion point to humanism, claiming that the Humanist Manifesto as setting up a value system for all Atheists to abide by, assert that evolution is the atheist creation story, and claim that atheists worship logic, rationality, and science in place of a god. So are they right? The short answer is no. These claims show a failure to understand Humanism, the Theory of Evolution, and science.

Atheism and humanism are NOT the same thing. Although many atheists choose to live a life that is ethical, not all atheists are humanists and not all humanists are atheists (types of Humanism). Before researching critiques of Atheism, I had never heard of Humanism, and I didn’t make any effort to memorize (or read) the list of beliefs I supposedly have. I believe that I am generally a “good” person, but I don’t believe that I require any sacred code of conduct to keep me in line. Like many atheists, I do not believe that I need the threat of eternal damnation to act morally. I treat my own moral decisions as very personal, and I don’t believe in a universal and absolute rights and wrongs.

The Theory of Evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin is admired by many atheists and religious people alike. Evolution is, to the best of current scientific understanding, the most likely explanation for one of the questions that creation stories try to answer, “How did we get here?” But Evolution is not a typical creation story. Evolution does not give purpose to our lives. Evolution does not say that humans are special, but that we are simply a member of the Animal Kingdom. The Theory of Evolution is constantly under review, and the On Origin of Species is not considered absolute truth. With the discovery of DNA, the previously unknown method by which evolution occurred was determined. Darwin is not considered a prophet. His book is not considered the word of a god. His book presented a new explanation for part of the answer to how things came to be the way they are (evolution through natural selection), evidence supporting the new explanation, and methods by which to test the explanation. And his ideas happened to be consistently supported by and expanded/adapted to fit new discoveries. Darwin unified the life sciences and he is rightfully admired in the scientific community. However, the modern evolutionary theory continues to develop with new discoveries, and happens to be backed by a ridiculous amount of concrete evidence, which makes the theory distinctly different from religion.

The definition of religion states that religion is either the service and worship of deity(ies) or the supernatural, an institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices, or a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheists do not worship a deity. There is no system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices adhered to by all atheists. And scientific theories are not held to with ardor and faith. In fact, as the example of General Relativity demonstrates, even the most basic-seeming theories (like Newtonian gravity) can be entirely rewritten when a better explanation for “Why things are the way they are” is offered, extensively tested, and supported. Yes, atheists who seem to “worship” science are skeptical to different ideas and explanations, but the most exciting and awe-inspiring thing about science is that science is not afraid to be wrong (read more), adjusts itself to new information. Religion, on the other hand, does not adjust itself and refuses to even consider the possibility that it may be wrong.

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in god, and is NOT a unified group. The arguments of Humanism, the comparison of evolution to a religious creation myth, and the “worship” of science do not hold up under examination. For more on this topic, check out these fabulous articles by Richard Dawkins, Austin Cline, Jacob Fortin, and Bill Maher.

Feminism and Religious Faith: Are They Compatible?

     You might not think that feminists' religious convictions can be influenced by such intellectual pursuits as their own feminist ideologies. Or perhaps you'd like to believe that all feminists are equally deterred by most world religions, especially western religions, because they perceive them as inherently patriarchal. Surprisingly, a diverse spectrum of perspectives on organized religion are harbored by feminists. While some indeed do reject religion(s) because of their conviction that religions were created to reinforce male dominance, others, including "Christian feminists", subscribe to religion because they believe it to have overarching merit. Yet others characterize the relationship between their faith and feminism as having a different dynamic. Feminism at its core is a doctrine that seeks to advocate women's rights, and establish political, social, and economic equality between women and men; however, how this doctrine truly affects the personal lives of its advocates varies.

      The advocacy of equal rights between men and women leads some feminists to mostly or wholly reject religion. They do this on the condition that most religions have male gods and women often play a less central role in worship than men, and that religious societies often marginalize women, to the detriment of the women. Generally, this group of feminists views religion as a "patriarchal institution", as an informative web page about feminism explains.

This illustration represents either
a a headstrong feminist or perhaps
seeks to be cynical or comical in
its stereotypical depiction of feminists

      In an article for the Guardian, writer Cath Elliot expresses such a perspective in delving into how feminism and religion are antithetical. "Religion means one thing and one thing only for those women unfortunate enough to get caught up in it: oppression. It's the patriarchy made manifest, male-dominated, set up by men to protect and perpetuate their power." She later dubs religion as a mere mechanism for dealing with the hardships of life; for her own purposes, she would rather turn to a means of alleviating daily stress that doesn't involve the oppressive, liberty-denying sexism she believes is characteristic of religion. She in fact brings up a drug as her personal method for alleviation of emotional lows. "We probably all need something to help us get by in this life: I've chosen nicotine as my particular opiate, but whatever floats your boat." Later, she asserts that the oppression of women, which in certain places in the world leads to unequal educational opportunities and inadequate attention to women's health issues and epidemics blamed on women, has strong underpinnings in religion.

      Yet other feminists do subscribe to a certain faith, and some are fundamentalists. A Guardian article written by Julie Burchill briefly mentions that she considers herself a Christian Zionist, socialist, and feminist, later delving into how she came to be religious after harboring an atheist mindset until having to deal with the consecutive deaths of her parents as a young woman. When practiced correctly, she explains, religion allows a person to "transcend the self" rather than focus inwardly on oneself. In Burchill's case, Christianity has an overarching appeal to her--transcending her self--and among other reasons for her faith, this compels her to believe in the Bible and its teachings, irrespective of their arguable patriarchal nature.

A graphic depicting the symbol of
feminism surrounded by symbols
of the most common world religions

      While Burchill's religiosity may seem unconventional of a feminist, there also exist feminists who have become Christian fundamentalists. There was an interest in the reasons that any woman would join a religious fundamentalist movement among feminist writers after fundamentalism became a compelling topic for scholarly discussion in the 1970's. Some research studies since then have shown that some women feel a greater sense of security after undertaking traditional roles in a constantly changing world (as they would do after becoming fundamentalists); yet other studies demonstrated that some young married women, including feminists, latched on to the "pro-family ideology" of fundamentalist Christianity and saw it as a way to solve their marriage problems. An informative web page on feminism, however, explains that many of such young converts to fundamentalist Christianity "traded formal authority for their husbands' emotional expressiveness and involvement in family life." Thus, this group of women, some of which were feminists, slightly adjusted their applications of their fundamentalist Christianity to stress their religion's emphasis on family rather than exploiting the religion's arguable patriarchal teachings.

      Some feminists who are religious may practice "equal" religions, or overtly woman-centered religions. An example of an equalizing religion is the Bahá'i faith. In terms of woman-centered religions, many of those created by women themselves in hopes of escaping conventional religions rooted in their culture are small and not very well-coordinated. A women's spirituality movement also exists, and spirituality in itself is another religious outlet for many feminists.

      Overall, the degree to which a person's feminist doctrine primarily influences their religious preference seems to be a matter of priority--those for whom feminism is more important may adopt a religious preference (including agnosticism/atheism) that properly addresses that concern in their lives. However, the interplay between feminism and faith is so complex within individuals that it shouldn't be generalized.

What do you think about this topic? Would being a feminist in itself be sufficient to change your religious preference? Do you believe in any doctrines (like feminism) that influence your religious preference?