Philosophy for a Dime

Today at work some interesting philosophical questions arose during lunchtime. For example, does atheism constitute a religion. Like most things in life, I believe this is first of all, a matter of semantics. What do we define as “atheism”? and what about “religion”? Well, I’d gladly quote Wikipedia, but since people might claim it is not a necessarily neutral or solid source, I’d turn to the dictionary

Let’s see, Atheist (noun):

1. “a person who does not believe in God” – Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary
2. “one who believes that there is no deity” – Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

Clearly, the very meaning of the term is disputed. Let’s see what other terms we have at our disposal which perhaps might be of better use: Infidel, Heretic, Godless, Agnostic, Skeptic. The first three are obviously derogatory and bear a negative connotation. However, Agnostic and skeptic won’t fit either.This is because an agnostic is someone who claims that it is impossible for man to know whether there is a god or not. In short – it’s a guy who just shrugs at the question. A skeptic, on the other hand, is closer to the term we’re looking for. A skeptic bears critical thought on all doctrines or decrees. But again, the problem with this term is that 1. It associates an “activity” with disbelief in a deity, and 2. It is often used to describe someone who rebels against what is commonly believed and known, some sort of paranoid who is distrustful towards anyone.

What we’re looking for is a simple term to describe a simple situation. A lack of belief in any deity (god, for example). As it turns out, it’s not a contradiction that the two dictionaries above contained two different meanings to this term. In the philosophical lingo of today, Atheism is usually divided into two sub-categories. One, which is called: “Strong Atheism”, describes an explicit belief that there is no deity. The second- “Weak Atheism” – describes a simple lack of belief in any deity.

So, back to our original question – it’s obvious that we cannot associate “Weak Atheism” with religion, because it is – by definition – the lack of it. Personally, I feel it should be the “default” meaning of the term “atheism” simply because lingually, it makes more sense. “a-” is a common prefix which means “non, not, lacking”, like in “asymmetrical”. Hence, “a-theist” would mean, not a theist, or – lacking theism.

“Strong Atheism”, on the other hand, does seem to fit well into the “religion” category, since it is – by definition – a belief that there is no god. However, a religion usually implies more than just a set of beliefs. The term also entails rituals, sacred books, items or places, worshiping, praying and perhaps even more importantly — people of the same religion usually see themselves as part of the same self-defined group. “Strong Atheists” aren’t a part of any such group, nor do they necessarily have any common practices (or anything in common for that matter).

Just to make things clear, the logic I used to deduct that “weak atheism” is not a religion is the same one that allows us to state the following:

1. Health is not a type of disease (but the lack thereof).
2. Darkness is not a form of light (but the lack thereof).
3. Silence is not a type of sound (but the lack thereof).

Perhaps in my next post I’d explain why a tree that falls in a forest does not make any sound 🙂