"Everyone has a religion"

[struggle4progress]

When I make such an assertion, I am indicating something about the way I use the term religion

Words do not have independent meanings: they are used concretely to indicate facts or somewhat more abstractly as parts of sentences that occur in various collections. These collections differ from person to person; these collections of sentences in which a person uses a word define the semantics

Apparently, some people feel that it is very offensive for me to use a sentence such as "Everyone has a religion." It is not always clear to me why a person regards such a sentence as offensive. In my case, for example, the sentence is not linked logically to the sentence "Atheism is a religion." On my view, atheism might not be a religion for one sincere atheist but might be a religion for another atheist.

In those few cases, for which I think I understand why the person regards "Everyone has a religion" as offensive, the offense appears to lie in the person's opinion that "religion is only for weak, irrational, superstitious, and unscientific people." In other words, the offense appears to result from the person's conclusion that I am calling him/her weak, irrational, superstitious, and unscientific. Although I will agree that a number of weak, irrational, superstitious, and unscientific people profess some religion, I do not hold the opinion that "religion is only for weak, irrational, superstitious, and unscientific people." Moreover, in such a context, any insistence that I agree that the claim "Everyone has a religion" is prima facie an insult, is essentially an insistence that I must implicitly agree with a claim that I do not agree with -- and even a sort of insistence that I must humbly agree with the allegedly-offended persons implicit claim that I am weak, irrational, superstitious, and unscientific. I naturally find that distasteful, of course

I have little doubt that whenever in the future I make this claim "Everyone has a religion," I will encounter some shrieks that I am being insulting and disrespectful. The sentence, however, has a semantic meaning for me, which appears to me to differ from the semantics that are attached by someone who is insulted by it

The proper resolution of this "conflict" is, I think, simply to recognize that there is no universal semantic: exactly the same words can mean different things to different people. Recognizing this last fact explains the entirely unsatisfactory character of most philosophical discussions

[ret5hd]

1. Well, that's a lot of words telling me what you don't mean...

why don't you use a few telling me what you DO mean when you say "Everyone has a religion"?

ret5hd, an atheist without a religion.

[stahbrett]

2. Huh?

You claim that atheism is a religion for some atheists and isn't a religion for other atheists. If we assume for a moment that you're correct, what religion do the atheists in the second group have?

Here are two of my favorite sayings, for what it's worth:

If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[patrice]

3. Everyone believes in something.If we were as rational as some people insist they are

we would graze and copulate and try to keep either warm or cool. End of story.

Anything beyond the moment you're in is a belief of some sort and we make up all kinds of stories, including rational "reasons", to connect ourselves to those beliefs.

[Dogtown]

7. Eating mushrooms?

I'm sure you think that made sense, but it's a bit ethereal.


Those small light brown ones w/ the "nipple" on the cap are *not* Enoki...

[patrice]

9. get a dictionary. nt

[Dogtown]

12. fill in the gaps

Or say something original.

Maybe you're the OP's sock-puppet; you both wish us to "understand" you, BUT YOU AREN'T SAYING ANYTHING!

"Anything beyond the moment you're in is a belief of some sort and we make up all kinds of stories" is a clumsy and sticky chunk of prose without any real substance.


Just beyond the moment *I'm* in is a teapot whistling that my frenchpress water is ready to pour. Are you telling us that the teapot is a "belief"? Beliefs aren't tangible, but if I don't use a potlatch I'll get scalded.
And beliefs can't scald you, can they, patrician?

And what story am I making up here?

You vomitted on the keyboard. It made a mess.
I'm just trying to help you clean up.

[Evoman]

38. Yes, but not everyone believes in god or a religion.

That's what makes the word religion so useful. It is a way of categorizing people who believe in religion, and those who don't. Some people obviously find issue with that.

[Dogtown]

4. Pontification

and obfuscation.

It doesn't matter what you say, only what you mean.

So you won't be offended when I say, "only sexual deviants and child molesters have a religion" because YOU understand that there is no universal semantic.


Patronize your flock, preacherman. The free thinkers here won't allow you to bend the rules.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. I do not have a religion

I have opinions about religion, sure. But unless you can make the case that apatheism meets Merriam-Webster's definition of religion, then you are flat out wrong. You are making a whole heap of assumptions about what I believe and yes, I find that offensive.

[patrice]

6. Your point about semantics is: The semantic of a given proposition can be absolutely relative.

That's a semantic contradiction, and, therefore, meaningless.

I am not certain as to whether there is a universal semantic (I expect that there is, but it is more phenomenological than language), but if I accept the proposition as a hypothesis, it doesn't rule out nearly universal semantics and various subsets thereof (not my idea, but something related to Chomsky's Transformational Grammar(s)).

So, there are meanings held by various sizes of groups of meaning-makers. One chooses which group one wishes to relate to or chooses to be a "group" of one. Even in that case, the meaning is not absolutely relative, because the meaning of meaning is a shared concept.

[HamdenRice]

8. I'll agree to a certain extent. I have a box on my desk right now -- what's in it?

I agree that although it may be objectionable to some atheists, on a philosophical level, almost everyone can be said to have a religion -- depending on the definition of religion.

One definition that many literary types use is from the Bible, but has been adopted as a kind of short hand by both some theologians and some secularists:

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1

Of course, the writer of Hebrews meant something completely different from the literary/philosophical use of the phrase today, which is something like, "If you make ontological claims about things that cannot be seen (or more properly, proven), then you are engaged in faith (ie religion)."

Almost all religions and religion-like intellectual constructs (like Buddhism) make claims about "things not seen" -- God, karma, the afterlife, reincarnation, and so on.

It seems to me that if you say, "I know for for a fact that there is not god," you are making a claim about "things not seen," which is, in essence, a religious claim. That's because while no one can prove the existence of god, no one can prove the non-existence of some concept of god, either.

I have a box on my desk right now. It is about 2 inches by 1 inch. I could ask everyone to guess what's in the box. If someone guesses that the box is empty, they are nevertheless making a claim about what's in the box.

[Silent3]

10. If you're trying to equate atheism...

...with a strong, positive, unyielding assertion that the box on your desk is empty, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[HamdenRice]

17. It depends on the atheist

I suppose that according to the definition I used, only an agnostic could be said to have no religion whatsoever because the agnostic makes no ontological claim at all.

But it does seem to me that if you make "strong atheist" claims or fundamentalist atheist claims, you are making an ontological claim about the existence or non-existence of god, which by the definition is a form of "faith."

[uberllama42]

22. So you're using 'religion' and 'ontology' interchangeably?

Am I reading that correctly?

[HamdenRice]

27. No.

I am using "religion" (or more precisely "faith") interchangeably with "ontological claims about god" -- whether those claims are that he does exist or that he doesn't exist.

[Silent3]

42. Even in the case of a strong atheist...

...there's a huge difference between denying the existence of a deity, by any particular strong definition of "deity", which is an extraordinary thing requiring extraordinary evidence, and being silly enough to declare a random box one has never seen or examined to be empty, since being non-empty is trivial and unsurprising.

There are universal ramifications to whether or not a deity or deities exist. Whether the box on your desk is empty or contains breath mints or postage stamps or toe bones from your victims, nothing general about the world at large informs any reasonable possible conclusions. Any deity whose obvious impact on the world at large is less than the impact of whether or not your box contains a tube of toothpaste isn't much of a deity, and likely not worthy of being called a deity.

[notesdev]

13. In the box

> I have a box on my desk right now. It is about 2 inches by 1 inch. I could ask everyone to guess what's in the box. If someone guesses that the box is empty, they are nevertheless making a claim about what's in the box.

Do we get 20 questions?

Any sounds come out of the box if you leave an open can of tuna next to it?

[HamdenRice]

18. This could be fun!

No it does not make any sounds.

[notesdev]

24. Ah, well that's easy then.

It's Bush's brain in the box.

[HamdenRice]

26. LOL! nt

[TZ]

14. are babies born with religion?

I think not. Religion is culturally taught. Not genetic. So no, not everyone has a relgion.

[HamdenRice]

19. Irrevelant to the OP and my post, but

Babies have no thoughts. But even babies raised in atheist households tend, as they develop thought, to have supernatural, magical ideas.

So religious ideas are not just taught.

[Jim__]

11. “When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean.” - Humpty Dumpty

I agree that language is complex and the meaning of words can vary from user to user. But, your post gives no hint as to what the term "religion" means to you. And, you seem to be claiming that no one can disagree with your claim because no one knows what you mean. Sounds like we're in Wonderland with Alice.

[moggie]

15. "struggle4progress is a flaming idiot"

Words do not have independent meanings. When I write "flaming idiot", I mean "a person who says things about stuff". Apparently, some people are offended when I call them a flaming idiot, but I can't understand why. I can only conclude, loftily, that they must use language in a crude, pedestrian way, bound by such mundane concerns as wanting to be understood. I pity them (by "pity" I of course mean "admire them in an almost carnal way").

[HamdenRice]

20. This surely isn't helpful or respectful is it?

It's a serious OP. Why respond like that?

[moggie]

23. It's precisely as serious and helpful as the OP

By the way, have I mentioned how much I admire you? By "admire" I of course mean "am indifferent about", no matter what dictionary-clutching pedants may claim it means.

[HamdenRice]

25. The OP is serious and helpful. You just disagree with it

It's a hallmark of a certain kind of thought process in this forum to react with fear and loathing to ideas that are disagreed with.

[Evoman]

28. Moggie, why are you such a stupid, fucking idiot child.

By stupid I mean that you have a large brain full of intereting information, by fucking I mean you are strong and virile, by idiot I mean you don't suffer fools gladly, and by child I mean your innocent and full of wonder.

I'm tired of people taking it wrong when I call them stupid, fucking idiot children. I know what I mean by the words and I don't care the "correct" usage that dictionary nazis assume they mean.

To those nazis, I have only one thing to say. Your outstanding hand flakes encounter stupid idiot child sandwiches of ant restoration.

[uberllama42]

29. You made one mistake

You actually explained what your definitions are. The OP declined to do that, instead assuming that we can guess the meanings of words merely from context, even though we have obviously failed to do that in the past.

I like that. I think it shows a genuine attempt to foster rational discussion. You should learn from it.

[Goblinmonger]

30. You latino, beaner, piece of shit

of course I don't mean by that a comment against latinos. Some people think it is an insult, but as I use it, it isn't.

[Evoman]

35. .........

:rofl:

;)

Thank you for the compliment. It has been awhile since someone has called me a beaner. My gf doesn't say it too me anymore....even when I say it to her first :(

[notesdev]

16. You should specify

that you are using the word 'religion' in its broadest context, referring to any set of beliefs about how the world came to be, what its ultimate destination may be, and what meaning, if any, the life of an individual human being has in that context.

In that sense, you are correct.

Everyone has some sort of belief system, whether it be worship of a diety, or certainty that no such diety or dieties exist.

Where it gets interesting is when people who deny any sort of supernatural influence then go ahead and insist on such a thing, while denying that their belief is supernatural in any way.

Personally, I like most the people who are humble enough to admit they have no real certainty as to what the truth might be, and rational enough to admit that there is no conclusive proof of any particular faith - including atheism.

[More Than A Feeling]

21. We already have words that mean what you are suggesting.

Words like "worldview" or "ideology". Religion is something more than a default, "this is what I think" option. To me, it signifies conscious commitment to a system of sacred symbols that bind a community together morally. That, not-so-coincidentally, is the definition of religion used by the Church of Reality, which I now consider myself a part of. So you could say I have a religion, but it isn't "atheism"-atheism is just a side-effect of my real religion: Realism, the conscious commitment to pursue knowledge of reality as sacred in order to move humanity forward.

[Goblinmonger]

31. "Everyone has a boner"

Listen, if we get to just make shit up about what words mean and use them in ways that is completely incongruous and distinctly different from the way everyone else uses that word (yes, this applies to fundamentalist, too), than language is completely pointless and communication is impossible. I mean, this isn't high-end, grad school communication theory, here.

[HamdenRice]

32. Point of information that a lot of people seem to be missing re your OP

To say that words have unstable or multiple meanings (your point) is different from your saying that words can mean anything or have no meaning (the strawman being used, very poorly, to deride your post).

The word "door" can be the part of the house that swings open and shut in front of a portal; or it can mean, metaphorically, a means to an desired goal ("education is a door to learning"). But that doesn't mean that "door" can mean "zebra."

This seems such a simple, well accepted idea in the real world, that it's amazing to me that some people don't understand it.

Religion can mean "organized churches," or religion can mean spirituality or religion can mean any effort to make ontological claims about God. John Boswell used to argue that around the time of the rise of Islam, no one would have used "religio" (loosely, at that time, an "order") in respect of Christianity, Judaism or Islam, but would have referred to people of the "law of Jesus," "law of Moses," or "law of Mohammed."

Even today, some would say Buddhism or even Islam is not a religion; but that depends on the way the word is used in context. Some orthodox Muslims would say Islam is not a religion, because it is not a belief system you voluntarily subscribe to, but Allah's order for the universe and man to which you either submit or sinfully rebel. But to us Islam is a religion, and moderate Muslims in America routinely refer to it as a religion.

So I agree with most of what you have to say about semantics. Words, and the word "religion" in particular, get their meaning from context.

[Goblinmonger]

33. If you are going to use the term religion

to mean something that everyone has, then you are just making shit up. It is a meaningless word then.

Even in your description, you say that religion could mean "any effort to make ontological claims." That is just ridiculous. So when I say that I have no belief in any gods, that is religion because it involves ontological claims? Come on, words have to mean SOMETHING.

[HamdenRice]

34. You are mischaracterizing what I wrote

I said one definition is religion is "ontological claims about God" -- and upthread, I explained whether those claims are for his existence or non-existence.

Either way you are making claims about things that not only are not proven, but cannot be proven or disproven.

You may disagree, but in the real world, that is one way theologians and secular philosphers talk about "faith." A less loaded term might be Cornell West's use of the expression "God talk." Whether you claim God exists or claim he doesn't exist, you are engaging in "God talk."

Obviously words meaning something, but in different contexts mean different things.

[Goblinmonger]

36. I know it was one definition

but that definition makes the word meaningless.

Additionally, I would argue that "faith" and "religion" are completely different terms as used in society. "God talk" would at least be appropriate for a statement that I do not have a belief in any gods. The problem I have is that when confronted with atheism, the initial reaction of many theists is that "it's a religion, too" because they don't seem like they can come to grips with someone who doesn't believe and not that they are using it in some ontological or metaphorical way.

If my lack of belief in gods is a religion, then the word is meaningless.

[Evoman]

37. So then non-religious people are religious.

:crazy:


Man...we should totally make a list of the words we use in our language. I don't know...maybe in some sort of book, where we write words in alphabetical form with meaning and prounounciation written beside it.

I think that sort of book might be helpful in communication. Someone should get on that.

[Evoman]

39. And moreover, why would you even WANT to use the word religion to refer to atheism?

I mean, what's the point? Why not just accept what the word means, and what 90 percent of the population accepts as the meaning of the word?

When someone says, "I am religious" or attempts to explain to you what their religion is, the last thing that comes to mind is atheism. Because unless you really bend and scrape the word religion, it doesn't really fit atheism very well at all.

So what is your motive? Why bother categorizing atheism as a religion? Not only that, but if you insult half the atheist population by telling them they're religious, it would seem even more of a motive not to use it.

Maybe...just maybe...instead of asking other people to accept your semantic meaning of a word that most people don't use, you should write a little more clearly and conform to the language as most of us tend to use it. It makes communication a lot easier.

[Imperialism Inc.]

40. I love the smell of absurdist semantics in the morning... smells like... Victory!

When religious people play this atheism is a religion game I just smile. It is a defacto admission that non-believers are right about how to obtain knowledge. An acknowledgment that the route they have taken to get to their belief in God or Jesus or whatever is not a valid way to arrive at a belief. Why else try to paint their opponents as the same as they are? It is basically saying, "you're right , it isn't a very good way to arrive at a belief but, umm , you do it too so there."

[uberllama42]

41. I saw that pointed out to a theist on this board once

I can't remember who it was. They were genuinely surprised, having never thought about the implications of that line of reasoning.

[cosmik debris]

45. I sure wish the OP would answer this.

And tell us about the pure and innocent motives for his position.

[Silent3]

43. Changing meanings of words to imply false equivalence

I can see certain contexts where it might be appropriate to classify atheism as religion. If I'm in a book store, looking for a copy of "The God Delusion", and I see sections for Home Repair, Science Fiction, Personal Finance, Romance, and Religion... yes, I'll go looking in the Religion section. If I worked at that store, and was stuck with those broad categories, Religion is where I'd file the book myself. The book is most certainly a commentary on religion, even if it does not promote a specific alternate religion.

I'd say the general context where I can accept the idea of atheism as a religion is one of broad taxonomic classification. Bald isn't a hair color, but if you're forced to fill in hair color on a form, filling in "bald" makes more sense than filling in red or brown or blond or whatever hair color you might have had at one time, and is more informative than leaving the space blank.

When an atheist is accused of having a religion, however, (and this is often done in a blatantly accusatorial fashion), it's generally done to try to paint the atheist as a hypocrite. The person making the accusation doesn't need to feel themselves that having religion is a bad thing when making this accusation. A black man might do some digging into the ancestry of a Klansman, turn up a black ancestor, and then confront the Klansman with this information. That certainly doesn't mean the black man thinks being black is a bad thing, does it?

The point of a black man showing a Klansman that the Klansman has black ancestry is, "If you hate black people, you hate a part of yourself! Is that what you really want to be doing?"

Similarly the point of the theist in classifying atheism as a religion is generally done (at least in my experience) as way of trying to say, "How can you be against religion since you've got one yourself?", "You've got a religion, and it's just as much faith as mine!", etc., etc.

In that context, trying to call atheism a religion is just a game of playing up false equivalence.

[DeSwiss]

44. Taking at face value....

...your assertion that:

"Words do not have independent meanings: they are used concretely to indicate facts or somewhat more abstractly as parts of sentences that occur in various collections."

Then the "concrete" meaning of religion is define thusly:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion">re·li·gion –noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Religion being connected with the idea of "superhuman agency or agencies," maybe then be the reason why people take offense to your statement when they may not hold nor accept such a view(s). The idea of atheism being a "religion" is nonsensical on its face since it is the opposite of such an idea. It is the disbelief in religion(s) and/or those "superhuman agency or agencies."