Frightfully non-secular this blog seems to be getting. Perhaps it’s the recession, or the forthcoming Ice Age, or something.
Longrider, with whom I almost always agree, takes issue with leg-iron, with whom I almost always agree, about the definition of atheism.
leg-iron:
Atheism, by the way, is now officially a religion with Dawkins as its prophet.
Longrider:
No, no, no. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It is not – despite what the righteous might try to say – a belief system or a religion.
I am inclined to come down on the side of leg-iron in this. Though Longrider would be right that the term ‘atheism’ is, and has been for some time, commonly used to imply a simple lack of belief in any gods, the word (Greek: ‘No god’) implies a clear ‘faith’ that there is definitely No God. Atheism can certainly be elevated to the status of a religion, as it was by the Communists (who permitted soldiers in the Soviet army to possess very little except their immediately necessary kit and a ‘textbook of scientific atheism’, which, one supposes, substituted for the Bible they might once have been issued by the Tsar).
I suspect that the missing word might be ‘agnosticism’ (Greek: ‘No knowledge’).
To be fair, my disagreement with leg Iron is minuscule and is about playing into the hands of the righteous. I do not use the word agnostic because the agnostic is fence sitting; there may be a god but we do not know. I am not saying that. I am saying that I lack belief in gods – all of them. That makes me atheist. There are those who would define me a weak or passive atheist. So be it.
Atheism certainly isn’t a religion. There are no priests, no holy books, no myths, legends or organisation. Organising atheists is like herding cats; only for the infinitely patient. Atheists have only one thing in common; their lack of belief and they have difficulty agreeing on that. Hmmm… maybe you do have a point there ;)
Dawkins makes some interesting points, but he isn’t a saint or high priest – just another man with an opinion.
I have to confess that I haven’t read Dawkins; it was only the ‘textbook of scientific atheism’ that sprang to mind. I suspect that this is a specific, Marxist use of the term (though there are a lot of Marxists about, I believe). The current usage, as you describe, is generally understood. I was hoping to suggest that it might be leg-iron, rather than yourself, who might find the term ‘agnostic’ useful.
I wondered how long I could discuss ‘religion’ without crossing someone’s hawse. We’ve already established the precedent with ‘politics’. If I knew anything about it, I suppose I might try for ’sex’ next, in order to collect the set.