DEFINING ATHEISM: THE MODERN 'OPIUM OF THE MASSES?'
That time I actually got to write about something interesting for a class!
Last quarter, I took an intro to sociology class which kind of skirted around the topic of religion quite a lot. The teacher, a vietnamese catholic, was very kind and I found no difficulties participating in her class, despite pretty much everyone else being eyes-glazed-over zombies who were obviously only there because they were required.
This essay was our final for the class, and I decided to put in a bit more effort than I normally do for “intro” classes, yet I feel like I never really got my answer: does Atheism really serve the same function as Religion today? I’d like to believe so, but I never really found anything concrete that would back my theory up. Of course I would never admit that in the essay, but whatever. It helps that the professor was Catholic, at least in name. I attribute my struggles to trying to do a Literature Review on a topic that is not well researched to begin with.
Also, I slipped in a baste quote that the teacher didn’t seem to notice, which I hope will make you chuckle.
SECTION 0: ABSTRACT
Through this observational paper, I seek to answer a question about Atheism: despite defining itself as a rejection of Religion, does it still function similar enough to Religion to be considered as such?
I use a Functionalist lens to first identify these Religious traits, then explore Normative definitions of Religion to further the understanding on what sets a Religion apart from other social movements. Then, I explore Atheism and what separates it from non-theistic Religions. After that, I draw similarities between Religion and Atheism, and then tie in their modern, highly politicized, existence. Finally, I conclude with my thoughts on the future of Atheism and Religion.
"Try to define religion and you invite an argument."
– Patrick H. McNamara
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
I am not an Atheist. I consider myself Religious, and fundamentally oppose the argument that ‘there can be no God’, and other arguments that ‘Religion is bad for Society’. With this stance, it is frankly no wonder that I have written this essay in defiance of what contemporary Atheism considers itself to be. From my observations as someone who attends Mass on Sundays, engages in Theological discussion and debate, and would otherwise consider myself very integrated with Christianity: Atheism behaves quite similarly to many Religions, has similar functions in Society and for its followers, and it could easily be categorized as a Religion by sociological standards.
I believe assigning Atheism to this category is important for a few reasons. Primarily, it would enable Sociologists to (more) easily identify and explain general behavioral patterns among Atheists. It would also serve to identify a general moral code which could explain potential justifications for actions taken by an individual or group of Atheists. Finally, it would create consistency in sociological classification – as it stands, all world faiths are categorized under Religion, all except for Atheism. Everything ranging from Orthodoxy to Baha’i is compared, studied, and evaluated based on factors such as divinity, religiosity, symbolism, concepts of afterlife, and much more – while atheism typically gets appended to the end as a ‘lack thereof’’, and that is that. I see this as wholly inadequate and a function of an increasingly secular field unwilling to look inwards at itself, out of fear of what it might see.
The elephant in the room is that science, in today’s age, is overwhelmingly dominated by Atheism. Faith and worship in anything other than science itself is considered a sign of stupidity, and ironically, a lack of faith in Atheism. Almost all contemporary scholars write with the assumption that there is no higher power, and that their readers believe that there is no higher power. When an Atheist sociologist looks into Atheism, he sees nothing of note, nothing needing explanation, because he lives like an Atheist, surrounds himself with Atheists, is writing for and to Atheists, and evaluates everything from an Atheist lens buried so deep in his subconscious he can never truly separate himself from it. Like a fish unable to see the water it swims through, this hypothetical scientist is unable to see his modus operandi, much less definitively categorize it as such. And so, he lives in a state of cognitive dissonance without even knowing it. As a sociologist, he is acutely aware of the effects of religion on others, how their morality and faith will dictate their actions, and ultimately how that outlook will dictate their life experiences – but cannot identify the effects of atheism on himself! He cannot objectively evaluate his morality and how it effects his actions, he cannot see himself as he sees religious others.
The difference between an Atheist evaluating Atheism and a Religious scholar evaluating his own faith is that the Religious scholar is well aware of his own morality and bias. He has accepted concepts like objective morality, divinity, and miracle; and therefore, can identify these things within himself and how they can affect his worldly behaviors. This acceptance brings the faithful peace of mind (I can testify to this from personal experience), and ultimately serves as a resonant factor to his life. Obviously, there will always be bias when someone evaluates their own position. One cannot firmly hold a belief that they don’t see as superior to others in some way, just as one cannot prefer a certain flavor of ice cream without seeing it as tastier than the rest. Someone who only ever eats honey lavender ice cream may not be an expert on other flavors, but at least can comfortably speak on why honey lavender ice cream tastes good. However, someone who has never meaningfully tried ice cream cannot convincingly argue that ice cream tastes bad, or that ice cream itself is fake, or that ice cream freezes people’s brains.
This cognitive dissonance is what I seek to expose, and hopefully resolve, through the course of this paper.
“Religion is but only the sentiment inspired by the group in its members, projected outside of the consciousness that experiences them, and objectified.”
– Emile Durkheim
SECTION 2: DEFINING RELIGION
Religion, in some form or another, has been thoroughly intertwined with the human experience throughout all of history, with crude spiritual Rituals being identified as far back as 3 million years ago – well before Hominids gave way to Sapiens. For many, Religion serves to explain the unknown, soothing our hyperactive minds and giving us a sense of purpose in the world.
Sociologists use several different methods to define Religion, the most popular of which is Functionalism. Functionalism is the belief that Sociologists should evaluate things solely based off of their observed effects on people or society, disregarding aesthetic and doctrine. For example, one would evaluate violent Conversions as a negative effect on the converted – even if the Religion passionately believes that they are acting benevolently, saving the spirits of those converted. Additionally, what Functionalists use to identify Religions from other social movements are the unique effects Religion has on the society it inhabits. Emile Durkheim, a prominent Functionalist in the 19th century, identified four Functions that Religion has in society:
Firstly, a religion serves to instill discipline – encouraging individuals to prioritize the needs of the society over the needs of the individual. Whether this takes the form of moral or material, the end goal is to encourage collaboration and selflessness. Secondly, a religion is cohesive – it brings multiple individuals together to form a community. Through their shared beliefs, they form strong interpersonal relationships. Additionally, religion is vitalizing – ensuring its traditions are passed down to future Generations and its values remain integral to society. Finally, religion has a ‘euphoric’ function – the feelings one experiences when initiating and professing their faith is only describable as euphoria, ensuring that all members of the faith enjoy engaging in their faith and community.
Durkheim concluded that, irrespective of what is ‘nominally’ being worshipped in a faith (God, Jesus, Mohammad, etc.), the actual effect is that the believers are worshipping society itself (Durkheim, n.d.). People desire unity and kinship with their neighbors, so engaging in shared Rituals with them is the reason they are faithful. This is why religion tends to either completely dominate a society or form powerful enclaves within a society – when people experience the euphoria of their faith, they subconsciously prefer interacting with others they have that connection with. This leads to the desire to convert others or retreat into homogenous, gated communities surrounded by believers.
Another way to define Religion is through Normativity, which is the Theory that since all human societies designate similar actions as good and bad (helping others = generally good, murder = generally bad), there must be some underlying objective truth behind human morality that we inherently ‘know’ (Wade, 2016). In society at large, these understandings manifest as social norms that are imparted on all participating members. Religion, as a normative phenomenon, creates and enforces norms where social movements do not, pushing all believers towards a homogenous set of values and behaviors. Religion decides what ideal behaviors are valued in society and serves to judge members based on their behaviors in comparison to ideals.
Finally, I simply consulted a dictionary. The generally accepted definition of Religion is as follows: “Religion is a collection of… belief systems and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and… to moral values. Many religions have narratives, Symbols, traditions, and Sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to answer questions about life and the universe” (Wikipedia, 2001). Effectively, this definition asserts that Religion seeks to explain the unexplainable, and although not all religions believe in an afterlife or creationism, they still attempt to answer these questions. Buddhism fits the definition of a religion despite not having a god-figure, because it is heavily symbolic and asserts that there are objective morals, and living not in accordance to these morals will lead to cosmic punishment. This definition is quite broad and inclusive, and already one can picture which tenets of Atheism fall in with this definition. But first, we need to define what Atheism actually is in the modern world.
“Religion is the price we pay for being intelligent, but not intelligent enough.”
– Aldous Huxley
SECTION 3: DEFINING ATHEISM
Atheism is a lot less defined. Or, perhaps, it is so simple that it is impossible to strongly define it. Nominally, it solely means a rejection of theism, such as “apolitical” means a rejection of politics. Theism is the belief in God or gods, however, doesn’t necessarily mean Religion in and of itself. Bringing up the example of Buddhism again, it is a Religion that doesn’t believe in any gods, it is a-theist. However, it is still different from the Atheism we can observe today. Obviously, this necessitates further defining of what Atheism ‘actually’ is. To avoid adding unnecessary confusion, I will call the absence in belief of a god-figure as non-theism, which in a hypothetical Venn-diagram, would be that middle circle shared between Atheism and Buddhism.
So, Atheism is nontheistic, and so is Buddhism. What differentiates the two? Well, for starters, Atheism as a doctrine insists that nothing explicitly proven (that is, something we can observe or logically deduce to be true) cannot exist and therefore is disproven. Non-theism, however, does not hold these beliefs. Buddhists believe in the force of Karma, which although cannot be scientifically disproven, it also cannot be scientifically proven (as it is an Axiom) – therefore, to the Atheist, it should be regarded disproven. There is some validity to this line of reasoning: someone claiming ‘there is a monster that always follows you around, but you can never see it because it is invisible and doesn’t make any noise’ cannot be proven wrong, as there is no observable difference between if his statement is true or false. However, seriously believing in that claim is absurd.
Additionally, Atheists are materialists. They assert that matter is fundamental, and the only ‘thing’ that exists. Nothing can meaningfully exist (that is, interact with the material world that we live in) without being made of matter, and things made of matter follow extremely strict rules that would preclude a divine creator, or any immaterial ‘spirit’. This too relates to the original axiom that unprovable things are proven false, as we cannot prove the existence of a force that exerts its will on the material world from outside it. However, this materialist outlook demands extremely nebulous facets of the human experience (such as consciousness, higher thought, and subconsciousness) to result from matter and its interactions with other matter – implying consciousness is physically stored or ‘coded’ into the brain, something that has yet to be proven.
Another fundamental principle of Atheism is, due to a lack of deity, there is no one to ‘decide’ what is moral and immoral. This is the concept of moral relativism, which asserts that all morals are equally valid and only a function of society. What we perceive to be ‘objective’ morality is, to the Atheist, akin to convergent evolution. Humans are born without morals, but society necessitates that all people take on certain morals to both function within society, and for the society itself to function. Societies, like organisms, will have a trial-and-error period where destructive morals will lead to the death of a society and constructive morals will lead to the continued existence of a society – with the ‘best’ morals to eventually emerge with the most powerful or otherwise successful society. Some Atheists believe in true moral relativism, in that all morality (and immorality) is equally valid and should not be judged, though most would concede that there is a specific set of morals necessary for beneficial participation in society, and those who do not comply with these morals should be treated as dangerously as they are under theistic society. An Atheist may concede that Christian morals are desirable or effective, but would typically argue that the morals emerged first, and God was shoehorned into justifying these morals after the fact.
Finally, a quick evaluation of Atheism through a Functional lens brings up some key differences, which manifest as almost exact opposites to the functions of religion. Where Catholicism brings people together through collective worship, Atheism should theoretically drive people apart through moral relativity and individualism. This inversing of certain religious functions is a product of the conflict inherent between Religion and Atheism as political forces, which I’ll discuss later. However, it should be noted that Atheism as a real-world political force differs greatly from Atheism as a philosophical concept – as many ideologies often do.
“All Religions, arts, and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations [serve to] ennoble man’s life, freeing it from a state of mere existence.”
– Albert Einstein
SECTION 4: COMPARISONS
To begin, I will primarily be comparing Atheism with Christianity. This is because I am a Christian, and am the most familiar with Christian functions, norms, and morals. I feel like Christianity is similar enough to most Abrahamic religions that my comparisons should hold up in a broader context; and will reference Eastern Religions when needed.
Firstly, the similarities: Religions seek to explain questions that are at the fringes of our understanding, like ‘what happens after death?’, and ‘what happened before the beginning of everything?’. These questions are inherently unanswerable, and therefore rely on ‘unprovable’ conjecture. Atheists, despite theoretically requiring ‘proof’ to believe in things, tend to make exceptions when it comes to these questions – despite this being extremely hypocritical and logically inconsistent. Christianity asserts that the answer to the question of Afterlife is Heaven and Hell. Atheism, on the other hand, asserts that the answer is ’nothing’, a complete cessation of all feelings, senses, and cognition. This appears to be at odds with Christianity and has led to many a heated debate. However, when considering that Atheism considers only material existence, both of these answers can be true. When the spirit leaves the body for an Afterlife, any Afterlife, the material form is completely discarded and rendered lifeless. Atheists are correct that cognition will never return to a dead person, but Christians also agree that a spirit will never return to its dead body. Additionally, Atheism asserting that they can know with absolute certainty that what happens after death is annihilation of the conscience is based upon faith, belief without evidence. There is no way to objectively prove that something inherently undefinable like consciousness truly exists to begin with, so asserting that it will cease to exist does, in fact, require faith.
Next, the answer to the beginning of everything. This one should be obvious: for Christianity the answer is Creationism, and for Atheism the answer is typically the Big Bang Theory. To go into a bit more detail, Christians believe that a divine figure (God) willed all matter into existence. This creator then chose one specific planet to populate with all (known) living things. For Atheists, an equally absurd proposition is brought forth: “in the beginning there was nothing, and then there was light” – and by that, there is obviously no connection to religion (why would you even suggest that?!): they are referring to the Theory that all matter just popped into existence some 4.5 billion years ago, as observations would indicate that all things are moving away from one singular point. This implies that at one point of time, all matter was focused on one singular point, containing every single thing in existence from what would become a galaxy, to this very Essay. How this is any different from a divine figure willing matter into existence, I do not know. In my opinion, these theories only differ for the sake of being different, and both require the same blind faith in that something we could not have possibly observed, and will never observe, happened long before we were born that created everything we see today.
There are a few more obvious parallels, but for now I would like to focus on the key ‘difference’ (other than the God question), and how it is actually more similar than one might think. Functionalists commonly point out that Atheism and Religion have differing goals regarding society. This is commonly described as a Positive or Negative function on society, which is essentially whether a Social Institution promotes or opposes value consensus and judgements, social hierarchies, and societal cohesion. Christianity functions highly positively for society, both determining and promoting value consensus via the Bible, as well as modeling governmental hierarchies through the Catholic Papacy. Atheism, on the other hand, has tended to function quite negatively in the West, through disrupting social hierarchies, promoting individualism, and generally disavowing objective morality. However, this opposition tends to stem from Atheists having differing worldviews – and looking at examples when Atheism was the status quo, it quickly filled the role of Religion quite nicely: quickly becoming de-facto state-worship, simply replacing a traditional value consensus with its own.
“We must settle accounts with this Christianity, this greatest of plagues that could have happened to us in our history… We must overcome it within ourselves.”
– Heinrich Himmler
SECTION 5: POLITICAL ATHEISM
To start, I would like to make something clear: Religious and Atheist politics are so broad that my conjectures will almost certainly have notable exceptions on both sides. My assertions stem from the observations and interactions I have had throughout my life, with a specific ‘type’ of Atheist, and a specific ‘type’ of faith. So, when I bring up Atheism as a political force, it should be noted that I am almost exclusively bringing it up as a postmodern, secular and progressivist force in the that is heavily associated with the political Left in the West, and not the political Atheism that was popular in the 20th century for justifying Völkisch, Communist, Anarchist, and other ‘unjustifiable’ political movements in a Religious sense. Although the logic from these movements can be found in modern Atheist arguments, this is wholly outside the scope of this essay.
To start, we should take a look at the Christian/Atheist struggle for power within American politics. This, to me, is what immediately comes to mind when I think of Atheism, and likely what you do as well. Christianity outlines strict hegemony and hierarchical structures in Government and society at large. It asserts objective morals, and America’s founding fathers outlined America’s from a largely Christian perspective. Because of this, Christianity has been a positive function for American society from day one. Additionally, that means to oppose the ‘system’, one must also oppose Christianity. This has manifested in a largely Atheist-versus-Christian conflict, with social progressivism closely attaching itself to Atheism, and conservatism to Religion. It is perhaps for this reason that Atheism has taken on a certain ‘feel’ in the 21st Century, with an entire political Ideology springing up that is, in all effects, anti-Christian – taking an opposing stance to Christianity at every possible opportunity. To be Atheist is a political statement more than it is a Religious statement. It is to say, ‘I stand for universalism, equity, and tolerance’. To actively choose to be Religious is to say the opposite, ‘I stand for tradition, hierarchy, and morality’.
Perhaps because of this conflict, Atheism has begun to take on more and more ‘organization’ as both a political and religious force, as it has gained prominence and political clout over the past two decades. Because of its close relationship with the political left, Atheism (despite being theoretically apolitical) has become as much as a political force as Christianity, gaining its own positive functions on society. This manifests as the left-wing’s value consensus, collectivist economic principles, and even Rituals. These Rituals are typically mimics or subversions of Christian Rituals, intended to mock their religious enemies as well as assert their own political dominance – from swearing on a stack of gay porn in place of a Bible (Rosiak, 2023), to the creation of ‘inclusive prayer’, which lead to the ‘amen and a-women’ debacle (KUSI News, 2021).
Now, as the political Left has gained more power, so too has Atheism grown in popularity and influence. Inversely, Christianity has lost much of its influence as well. Within the past 20 years, we went from a society where gay marriage was unrecognized simply due to Christianity not recognizing them, to a society in which Christians are not allowed to not recognize gay marriage or gender transitions (Slevin, 2023). Atheism, in a sense, is replacing Christianity as a political and social force. It is now no longer enough to simply be a rejection of the social order that Christianity proposes, because Atheism (or at least Secularism) now has to create its own social order in its place, and lacking a moral code by definition, has to create its own justifications, too. These are the ultimate functions of Religion, according to Durkheim.
"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed Him."
– Frederich Nietzsche
SECTION 6: CONCLUSION
With the decline in prominence of Religion, and in particular Christianity, from Western society, there is the rise of a new faith. A faith without a holy book, a religion without a church. A faith that claims to be faithless, a religion that prides itself on the rejection of God. Atheism functions as a Religion, in a Durkheimian perspective. Atheism has established its own Norms and Values, like a Religion. And above all, Atheism claims to have the answers to the inherently unanswerable questions of life. Despite vehemently disagreeing to be anything similar to the Religions it hates, Atheism is assuming that role in society.
I see no reason to why Atheism should be treated any differently, especially as Atheism becomes ‘mainstream’. Every day the Political and Religious march of progress unwaveringly continues, and a Godless future seems almost set in stone. Perhaps there might be a future resurgence of Religion, or the introduction of a completely new religious movement that takes the nation by storm, but at least in the United States, Atheism as a political and religious institution is looking like the future.
Ultimately, I hope this essay has helped convince you that Atheists are a bit more faithful than you might have previously thought. Perhaps that does not change your mind on the appeals of Atheism, but perhaps it does. I hope that, if you are an Atheist, you have come to terms with the fact that you are not arguing from a truly ascetic and objective standpoint, but are fighting for specific social and political goals, and that is okay. However, recognize your bias. If your belief system is truly self-evident and impartial, and truly required no ‘faith’ to believe, there would be no reason to proselytize so intensely. So, step off that high horse, won’t you?!
"If you do not ask me what my 5+ scholary sources are, I know; if you ask me, I do not know."
– Me (adapted from St. Augustine)
SECTION 7: REFERENCES
Contributors to Wikimedia projects. (2001, November 17). Religion - Wikipedia. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia; Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Durkheim, É. (n.d.). Émile Durkheim - Biography, Works, and Influences. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy | An Encyclopedia of Philosophy Articles Written by Professional Philosophers. Retrieved March 22, 2024, from https://iep.utm.edu/emile-durkheim/#:~:text=Religion%20is%20society%20worshipping%20itself,of%20a%20society%27s%20symbolic%20network.
KUSI News. (2021, January 4). Democrat Rep Cleaver ended the opening prayer for the 117th Congress by saying, “Amen and Awomen.” YouTube.
Rosiak, L. (2023, December 14). School Board Member Sworn In On Stack Of Gay Porn Instead Of Bible | The Daily Wire. https://www.dailywire.com/news/school-board-member-sworn-in-on-stack-of-gay-porn-instead-of-bible
Sehat, D. (2018, March 20). POLITICAL ATHEISM: THE SECULARIZATION AND LIBERALIZATION OF AMERICAN PUBLIC LIFE | Modern Intellectual History | Cambridge Core. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-intellectual-history/article/political-atheism-the-secularization-and-liberalization-of-american-public-life/2A3F8AB92492443AAFE4972E1553A3EA
Slevin, C. (2023, October 3). Colorado Supreme Court to hear case against Christian baker who refused to make LGBTQ-themed cake | PBS NewsHour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/colorado-supreme-court-to-hear-case-against-christian-baker-who-refused-to-make-lgbtq-themed-cake
Wade, L. (2016, September 23). Norms, Normality, and Normativity - Sociological Images. The Society Pages. https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2016/09/23/norms-normality-and-normativity/
Did you actually quote himmler on the essay that you turned in? Hahahahaha
This is the best extrapolation on secular atheism as a modern religion that I have stumbled upon. Excellent work!