One of the most powerful aspects of religion, well organized religion, is the sense of community. Religion seems to be the exception that proves the rule of the wisdom of crowds. If you are surrounded by people who all believe something, it’s very easy to just go along with it. It’s like peer pressure in school. People like to be in crowds, its an aspect of our evolution. Strength in numbers.
Of course, we know from organised religion that going with the flow is not always wise. It sometimes has disastorous effects. For example, where people are staring into the sun after being told an image of The Virgin Mary had appeared there. Like with most organised religious groups, where there is also a distinct lack of common sense, the outcome isn’t good. Around 50 people lost their sight in the incident. Some would surely argue that if they had opened their eyes to the madness around them, this could have been avoided.
So please, don’t just blindly follow, question everything.
Hi
‘Religion seems to be the exception that proves the rule of the wisdom of crowds’ – with respect, what do you mean exactly?
‘If you are surrounded by people who all believe something, it’s very easy to just go along with it’ – true. And the exact same can be said of atheists.
‘It’s like peer pressure in school. People like to be in crowds, its an aspect of our evolution. Strength in numbers’ – the exact same can be said in anti-religious (‘religion is the opium of the masses), atheistic Soviet Union.
I have to agree with Joshua, following the crowd (for good or evil) is a human experience, not necessarily a religious one.
However, it is true that Atheists are much more prone to be skeptical, even of fellow skeptics, scientists and especially emotional crowds/groups/cultural traditions/etc.
Therefore the religious person has more to learn from this moral than a non-religious person, though again it applies to everyone (but the religious person needs it more).
Joshua, you make a good point. Atheists are, just like everyone else, prone to a group, or pack, mentality. The key difference between Atheists and subscribers to religion is that Atheists are free to join in with those groups or not. Whereas, knowing the power of peer pressure, most religions mandate some form of group worship at regular intervals.
I am a bit puzzled by your separation of atheists and religionists. Of course, I understand perfectly what you are saying, but my perception of all belief systems is that they may properly be called religions. Let me underline that just for fun. Since proving something does not exist is the most impossible of all proofs, then the atheist is forced to base his opinion about the absence of a god upon circumstantial evidence and deprived of any possible proof. Hence his opinion is a belief. This belief, or faith, makes an atheist a believer (in the absence of divine beings, of course). Don’t we usually call a belief system a religion?
In fact, (hmmm, this is getting fun) since the atheist has no hope of ever proving his position he might well be called the most faith-full of believers which might make the atheist the most religious religionist.
Hooey – wasn’t that cool? I just think we need to be deeply honest about whatever we believe so we need to understand thoroughly where we stand and where we don’t stand.
I think you’re a bit misguided in your presumptions there Jackson. If, for example, I claimed that one day the moon will be replaced in the night sky by a jelly donut, I wouldn’t claim that you needed more faith to believe that it wouldn’t happen than I required to believe it would. The fact that there was no evidence to backup my claim would lead reasonable people to assume that your position (i.e. not believing) was the default position and it would, in fact, require very little faith to believe that it wouldn’t happen. The same can be applied to the existence of a God. There is no proof, there isn’t even circumstantial evidence to support God. If someone claims something that is, to a reasonable person, ridiculous and without any evidence to support it, it is not the job of the disbeliever to disprove it. It all comes down to the burden of proof, and it should always lie with the parties making the outrageous claims.
Of course, the other interesting aspect to your comment is that of branding atheism as a religion. This is something Hermant over at Friendly Atheist has spoken about on a couple of occasions. Those with religion seem to use it as a form on insult. By claiming atheism is a religion, atheists are somehow being lowered to their level, which just isn’t the case. I always see it as a sign that deep down, they know that their beliefs aren’t right.
I would like to focus on the issue of whether atheism is a religion. While I admit to sometimes using a flat bladed screwdriver to drive a philips screw, (and I think we all do a bit of that in our use of words), the Merriam-Webster dictionary says that half the definitions of the word religion are to denote belief in some opinion. The fourth definition is this: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Clearly the atheist believes there is no god and obviously many adhere to that opinion or belief with great ardor. So I see no difficulty in saying that atheism is a religion. After all, it is impossible to prove that position so it has to be held with faith.
I suppose that the atheist may want to distance himself from the word in an effort to totally avoid any color of belief in god, but I contend herewith that certainly, at least in the technical sense, atheism is a system of belief in the absence of deity and in that sense is a religion.