Not A Religion?
22Nov. 09
A technique used in religious debates that’s particularly annoying is the claim by a follower of religion X that “X is not a religion”. Some examples:
- Christianity: Christianity is not really a religion; it is a relationship with God. Source.
This is the classic one, so you might be surprised to learn most religions don’t seem to be religions! - Judaism: Judaism is not a religion even though it has a substantial religious aspect. For example, a religion does not tell you how to tie your shoes, how to sleep and how to go to the bathroom. For us, G-d is not something we believe in, by the by, but a complete, everyday reality. Source
- Islam: I believe Islam is not a religion as the Western understand it. Islam is a Ad-Deen. Ad-Deen means the way of life” Source
- Buddhism: Is Buddhism a Religion? To many, Buddhism goes beyond religion and is more of a philosophy or ‘way of life’ Source
So apparently, each religion is not a religion but a “way of life” or “relationship”. This is probably at its most ridiculous if the same person is then claiming that “atheism is a religion”. Although I’ve yet to see both claims made side by side!
Part of the annoyance is that it tries to piggyback off there being a lot more backlash against religion today than, say, in the 1600s. It takes advantage of the bad name that much religious activity has, and is especially blatant in the claim made by some Christians that “God hates religion”.
Another annoying thing is that it arbitrarily defines religion so as to place the religion of the practitioner outside it. Religion is defined as something vacuous which lets a believer place their own beliefs above it. This especially highlights how believers are well equipped to see the absurdities in every religion but their own. This tactic is the most blatant example of special pleading for your own case.
But the most annoying thing to me is the legalistic nature of the argument. The argument implies that there is some inherent, “true”, formal definition of religion and that’s all that matters. To the person making the argument, the definition can not change because of history or consensus; and is certainly not dependent on social context. This is similar to creationists believing that species must be fixed by definition, thereby ruling out any transitional fossils in principle.
Both of these are examples of religious thinking assuming truth is something dictated from an external authority (eg. “the dictionary”, whatever that is). It is essential to the argument that the definitions of social concepts like religion not be fuzzy (which they are), that the boundaries be crystal-clear (which they aren’t). In other words, the assumptions that underlies the “X is not a religion” statement are the same rigid, dogmatic assumptions that underlie the religious belief itself.
And that’s pretty annoying. In any case, based on a non-formalistic, social consensus of what a religion is, your religion is probably a religion.
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
@ Joanna
I understand your argument, but i still take issue with it based on what I perceive to be flaws in it.
Killing Hitler was OK because he killed innocents that had done no harm (read: To kill a mockingbird). No absolute truth about killing being wrong is necessary. Everything in life is relative, and every rule has exceptions.
While we do try to avoid extremes such as killing, because we like to think of ourselves as intelligent and civilized, sometimes these things are necessary.
Keeping a sense of humility is of course important in all aspects of life, but if something regrettable had to happen, there is no sense in beating yourself up over it. It isn’t a case of not being able to understand a lesser of two evils, we’ve been doing that for ages. It’s simply self re-assurance that the actions we took were necessary, and sometimes this is needed for our own mental well-being.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:19 pm
[…] have a new post up at Young Australian Skeptics. Here’s the […]
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:15 pm
They should all be paying tax then, these not-religions.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Ah, multiple pages of comments. Only saw number 11 initially. Strange layout!
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Hi ZenonC,
“Killing Hitler was OK because he killed innocents that had done no harm (read: To kill a mockingbird). No absolute truth about killing being wrong is necessary. Everything in life is relative, and every rule has exceptions. ”
The thing is that you have established a moral absolute — just a different one — one that says that killing innocents os wrong. How about we agree that unnecessary killing is wrong? I believe that we should never cause unnecessary suffering or death when such things can be avoided but I do see that as a moral absolute, even though the exact circumstances require discernment and judgement. I think it is a bit like this — in order for grey to exist you must have black and white for it to make sense. The ratio of black to white is what makes grey grey. But if you say there is no black or white, only grey, then nothing can be discerned at all.
Your statement “Everything in life is relative, and every rule has exceptions.” is itself an absolute statement and as such it is a contradiction. We have to agree on some absolutes or axioms for anything to make any sense at all, such as that it is good for things to make sense, that life is preferable to death… the meanings of words… and so on.
I don’t really have any major disagreement with the other things you said — they seem like balanced common sense — I’d just be a little wary of how far to take self re-assurance because people who had done really bad things could use that to justify their actions to themselves and I think we need to reach agreement on the moral foundations of our culture so that people know that certain actions are not going to be tolerated.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:26 am
Anyway, it is probably best if I stop posting here, especially given how much space the other thread I got involved with took up. I don’t really belong here as this is evidently a space for young Australian skeptics to share ideas with each other and I’m not young, Australian or skeptic. Anyway, good luck with everything — I think skepticism is a useful mental tool and can be a force for lots of good. I’m sure we’d all agree that we should sweep away superstition, habit / ritual, pseudoscience and protoscience and keep intelligence alive and ever forward-looking. I just don’t think replacing religion with relativist thinking is the way forwards as it threatens to simply replace Classical Western thought with Classical Eastern thought and I think people need to be more careful and discerning than that. Take care :) Joanna
November 24th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Thanks Joanna, appreciate your input!
November 24th, 2009 at 12:38 am
One last thought that has just occurred to me — if as many atheist scientists think morality is entirely a product of physical phenomena such as chemicals, bio-electricity etc. then perhaps morality IS as subject to firm facts and truths as any other aspect of material science. That’s something to think about, I think :{
November 25th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Indeed, Joanna, I think that’s close to the stance Sam Harris takes on morality — he states at least in The End of Faith that he finds it plausible that through scientific investigation we may uncover moral truths.
I personally think that’s not as plausible as he makes out — but if that’s the way things go, I’ll certainly change my opinion.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Fascinating stuff — I think that’s an exciting prospect.
Please permit me one more philosophical post — I’m only posting it because I think you might find it mentally stimulating — I am going after this (so it would be really helpful if none addressed any further questions or comments to me specifically, if that’s OK).
Your comment, Richard, made me think of how at times in religious history people have declared that above all else “G_d is Love” or else “G_d is Truth”. Sometimes people have said “G_d is Justice”. From an atheist perspective, one might conclude that these people have simply “made G_d in their own image” by highlighting their own top priority and calling it G_d: deifying their main priority. Now whether or not we formally call this top priority “G_d” we evidently each have our own motivations that we prioritise. I think many atheists might see themselves as placing truth at the top of their priority list, however stark that truth is. This is seen as a valuable and even a brave stance to take and I would not argue otherwise.
For myself, it might appear (to myself also) that I fluctuate between dual priorities of truth on the one hand and goodness or benevolence on the other (perhaps an indication of the pre-enlightnement world-view that faith and reason must work in tandem). From this it might seem that when I’m emphasising the benevolence priority, I would be prepared to believe something that was less true, or to “bend” the truth until it fit my personal emotional / faith agenda that there must be a specifically benevolence-orientated conclusion at the end of it.
But I think in my own defence I would argue that I have faith that the truth is in itself good and could therefore never come into conflict with benevolence. One could view this in a “chicken and egg” kind of a way. I think the truth dictates and defines what is good, so if the two things appear to clash we need only alter our perception of what good means. On the other hand, one could reject a stark truth on the grounds that it was not good and the truth must be good, otherwise, why would we place such value in it?
So it is an act of faith on my part that should the truth ever appear stark, it is because it is not the truth and benevolence is a truer truth — the benchmark we must measure truth by (placing moral or philosophical “evidence” above material “evidence”). At any rate, faith and reason must not clash, so just as reason should never (in my view) allow itself to wander down the path towards moral evils, so faith must never make itself unreasonable by insisting on believing anything that is contrary to scientific fact.
Take care,
Joanna