Religion Is there such a thing as "atheist religion" ?

[Maciamo]

The definition of atheism is "not believing in the existence of god(s)". There is no limitation on spirituality or morals. Indeed, there are atheistic religions. There are numerous schools or Buddhism, some with gods (imported from Hinduism), others without. The original Buddhism does not have gods, and Buddha never considered himself a god either. However, Buddhism is clearly a religion, as it has a structure, rules, temples, etc.

Another interesting case is Shintoism, Japan's "original religion". It is considered by some to be more a gathering of traditions rather than a proper religion, as it lacks rules or a clear aim. Yet, it is organised, has shrines, priests, festivals, etc. Many people will say that Shinto has in fact many gods or deities (called "kami"), but these are not gods by the definition of monotheist or polytheist religions. A kami can be anything... a tree, a stone, a waterfall, a human being that has died... It is better translated as "spirit". Shintoism is recognised as an animist religion, and animism comes from Latin "anima" meaning "spirit". Thus, we could say that Shintoists do not believe in gods but in spirits, and most do really "believe" in them anyway. They can make them up, decide what is a kami and what is not. It is purely spiritual, not divine. In that sense, Shintoism is an atheist religion too.

 

[kumo]

Atheism by itself can't be a religion. That would be like saying bald is a hair colour or that "healthy" is a kind of disease. Like you said, there are some atheist religions, but they are much more like philosophies than a "real religion" in the western sense.

Something I can't understand is why so many theists like to call atheism a religion. It's like they want to say " yes, we are illogical but it's impossible to be otherwise". Seriously, can't they see that by saying this they are actually offending themselves? Atheists would know better than to fall for such an obvious logical fallacy.

EDIT: It seems like I kinda misinterpreted the first question :sorry:

Basically, I agree with your definitions of Buddhism and Shintoism, and would add that purely Pantheistic religions too are not really any different from atheism (what meaning is expressed by the word "god" that is not found on the word "universe", why make up nonsensical terms?)

I need to go to sleep now. I'll try to write a better response tomorrow :wave:

 

[Maciamo]

Atheism by itself can't be a religion. That would be like saying bald is a hair colour or that "healthy" is a kind of disease. Like you said, there are some atheist religions, but they are much more like philosophies than a "real religion" in the western sense.

This is also what I thought at first, since atheism is usually incomptatible with religion. But even being atheist, Buddhism has its temples, monks, priests and set of rules, which philosophies do not have. I think that most "stong atheist" have grown up in a monotheist society, and have a tendency to assimilate the word "religion" with either "monotheism" or "polytheism". "Weak atheists" just don't care about religion, so for them too there is no link between atheism and religion. Yet, when one thinks about it carefully, by definition atheism only rejects the idea of god(s). Most atheist may also criticise the purpose of religion, but that is not a prerequisite to be an atheist. Likewise, many theists think that atheists have no moral code because they reject either god or religion as a whole. This is also untrue. Most "strong atheist" have strong moral values based on reason or their own feelings.

Therefore, it is important not to confuse the acceptance or rejection of these 3 separate factors : god(s), religion(s) and morals. As monotheist religions accept the 3, they their followers too simplistically believe that if somone does not accept/follow one of them, they automatically dont't accept/follow the other two. This is a typical mistake of reasoning due to oversimplification.

- Deists believe in god, yet not in religion. They may or may not have a fixed moral code (even inherited from one or several religions).

- Atheists don't believe in god, but may or may not accept the concept of religion (e.g. Buddhists) and may or may not have a fixed moral code.

- Animists (e.g. Shintoists) don't believe in god but in spirits. They may or may not follow an established religion (Shintoists do, but most others don't). They may or may not have a fixed moral code (I don't know any example of animist-based moral code though).

- Polytheists believe in gods and have an established religion, but may lack a fixed moral code (e.g. Egyptian, Greco-Roman or Norse religions).

Basically, I agree with your definitions of Buddhism and Shintoism, and would add that purely Pantheistic religions too are not really any different from atheism (what meaning is expressed by the word "god" that is not found on the word "universe", why make up nonsensical terms?)

Exactly. That is what I said in the thread Evolution of religions since prehistory and relations between religious beliefs.

 

[kumo]

I must admit that I don't know a lot about Buddhism, but it seems to me that it doesn't have any fixed set of rules like in western religions, but simply recommendations as to how to live. Because Buddhism has no dogmas, you can even question these recommendations and think for yourself to find the 'truth'. Taking this in consideration, Buddhism is even 'more free' than ascribing to a school of thought like humanism, and if you consider monks and temples as equivalents to a philosophy teacher and universities, I think Buddhism could be considered purely as a philosophy (only the atheistic branches, of course).

I just think Buddhism is so different from most religions that it is kinda absurd to put them in the same boat. Maybe we could consider it a middle point between religion and philosophy?

Of course, I could just be wrong...

 

[Maciamo]

Please have a look at the daily routine of Zen Buddhist monks at Eiheiji Temple in central Japan (look at the schedule and clothing). This shows that some forms of Buddhism does have fixed rules.

All Buddhists share the five precepts (simlar to the 10 commandments) :

1. To refrain from harming living creatures (killing).
2. To refrain from taking that which is not freely given (stealing).
3. To refrain from sexual misconduct.
4. To refrain from incorrect speech (lying, harsh language, slander, idle chit-chat).
5. To refrain from intoxicants which lead to loss of mindfulness.

It is true that only monks and nuns have to commit to a strict discipline of life (and it can vary a lot from one sect to another). But there is a book of rules for these monks and nuns called the Vinaya. In Japan so forms of Buddhism (like Jodo and Jodo-Shin) have changed so much from the original Buddhism that they have no monks/nuns, and believers are just expected to say the name of Amida Buddha to be "saved". Other brances use Hindu gods, and have thus become polytheism. So they have lost most of its philosophical significance in exchange for more irrational beliefs. Esoteric Budhism (like in Tibet) includes elements of Shamanism, which again cannot fit in as "philosophy". The Theravada Buddhism found in Sri Lanka or Thailand is the closest to the original Buddhism.

For more information on Buddhism, check the Wikipedia page.

 

[kumo]

Thanks for the links

From the same Wikipedia page:

Buddhism is a religion and philosophy based on the teachings of the Buddha.

What I understand by this is that Buddhism -by itself- is only a philosophy, while the various branches of it we have today are organizations that took that philosophy and added a set of rules and mythical elements, thus making it a religion.

Looking up philosophy in the oxford dictionary we also have "a set of theories of a particular philosopher" (in this case Buddha), wich seems to fit non- organized Buddhism.

One could say that even original Buddhism has its own share of mythical elements, but I still think that the philosophical characteristics of it outweighs the religious part. So, even if it's a religion, it's not even close to its western counterparts in the "religiosity" part.

I agree with you that today's Buddhism sects should be considered a religion, but I don't think that is a characteristic inherent to Buddhism per se.

About the five precepts, from wikipedia:

The Five Precepts are not given in the form of commands such as "thou shalt not ...", but rather are promises to oneself: "I will (try) to...".

I don't think this would automatically qualify Buddhism as a religion, even because they are far from being crazy or irrational ideas or having base in supernatural concepts. Again, it just seems like a recommendation of how to live.

 

[Maciamo]

Yes, I agree. I have always sad that original Buddhism or Buddhist ideas alone were not a religion if it lack an organisation.

In the same way, we could say that the moral teachings of Jesus, once we remove the references to god, miracles and other mythical elements, could be just a philosophy (or, more specifically, a moral code, as it would be incomplete as a philosophy).

Anyway, polytheist religions (from the Greco-Roman one to Hinduism) also lack strict rules at least as much as the five Buddhist precepts. I don't think the Greco-Roman or Norse mythologies even have fixed moral rules. Yet, they are religions (or maybe shall we just call them mythologies, but what about Hinduism that has the same roots and added philosophical and spiritual elements ?).

Let's analyse the characteristic of each religion or philosophy, determining what element they have or lack.

- mythical elements : myths of creation, attributes of god or the gods, mythology...
- ritual elements : prayers, mass, sacrifices, ritual objects and garments,
- spiritual elements : meditation, relation of humans with nature or the universe, transcendence, connecting with god, believe in supernatural powers or powers not understood by reason...
- moral elements : code of behavioural rules
- philosophical elements : view of the world based on reason and logics.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam => have mythical, spiritual, ritual, moral elements but hardly any philosophical elements.

Egyptian, Graeco-Roman and Norse mythologies => only have mythical and ritual elements.

Hinduism => has mythical, spiritual, ritual, moral and philosophical elements.

Mahayana Buddhism (like in Japan and China) : has mythical, spiritual, ritual, moral and philosophical elements. Sometimes lacks philosophical elements.

Theravada Buddhism : same as above, but lacks mythical elements.

Shintoism : only has mythical, ritual and spiritual elements.

All of them have a dogma, are organised/institutionalised, have places of worships and priests. As we saw, they all have ritual elements, which philosophies lack.

Western Philosophy : has only moral and philosophical elements (sometimes also spiritual).

Original Buddhism (Buddhism per se) : has moral, spiritual and philosophical elements.

So what clearly differentiates philosophies from religions is mainly the presence or absence of ritual elements, including places of worship and priests. Philosophies also lack mythical elements, but so does Theravada Buddhism, which therefore sits halfway between religions and philosophies, hence the confusion.

NB : Hinduism, the world's oldest organised religion in existence to this day, is the most 'complete' of all religions, as it incorporates all the elements. It is more complete than Mahayana Buddhism in that is has a god of creation (Brahma) and consider Buddha has just an avatar of the god Vishnu, thus considering all Buddhists actually as Hindus. That is why Buddhism has virtually disappeared from its birthplace, India.