Controlling your bias

God and religion is such a huge part of some people's lives that they can't imagine anyone thinking differently. Their god is so real to them, and their dogma such a driving force in their lives, that they can't even conceive that someone really truly doesn't believe in any gods or need a religion to guide them. So the conclude that atheists hate god, or that something else is their god, because after all, everyone must have a god of some sort to drive them. The need atheism to be a religion, so they insist that it is, even if that requires redefining the word.

Brutal Mustang said:

One of the definitions of religion in my old Webster dictionary is this: something which has a powerful hold on a person's way of thinking, interests, etc.

Under this definition, yes, atheism is a religion. Atheism affects a person's beliefs and ways of thinking, just as a Buddism, or Christianity, etc. may affect another person's thinking and beliefs.

Click to expand...

Since atheism can include utter indifference to theism and theistic rituals (so there's nothing to actually think about), I think that 'powerful hold' may be a stretch. For the historical meaning of the term religion, please see below:

www.etymonline.com said:

religion c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.

"To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name." [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]​

Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1530s. Religious is first recorded early 13c. Transfered sense of "scrupulous, exact" is recorded from 1590s.

Click to expand...

An old friend would sometimes put forward the quote that atheism is no more a religion than baldness is a hair-style.

Under that broadly defined approach gender would be a religion, as would nationality, the scientific method, musical interests and age.

I think it is theo-centric to equate any strong and important beleif with religion. I have many beleifs, philosophies, interests and personality traits. But I have no religion.

As with Rhys I think fullbookjacket got it right for me by saying something like: put the writing aside after a month and reread, which probably most of us do as routine.

The atheist thing is probably slightly off-topic, although it is a consideration for Rhys, inasmuch it seems to me -atheist = religion / not a religion- is an ongoing etymological problem that hasn't been solved, or probably 'clarified' which appears to be in evidence here, with arguments (or questions) going both ways.

So I think etymologies need to be clarified and updated. Having written a good deal about it -unpublished- here's my style of approach which I hope is useful:

Do religious folk have traits that can be recognized in all peoples worldwide, even atheists? I think so, so step one is probably: do you believe that your beliefs are right?

Presuming your answer is yes, then whatever you believe is a belief. Sure there are shades of belief, I'm not questioning that, only that you have belief. Whether it's strong, weak or middling - backed by proof; logical deduction; or an Almighty is not in question either. So sure, 'there are shades of belief,' but the question is: do you have belief? I could refine that, but I hope you see what I mean.

Probably: of course you have belief. I think belief is a human trait. But, whether the belief is strong, weak middling would be a secondary categorization. And whether it's right or wrong belief is whole other category...

So I'd say there are two ways to approach the atheist is religious / not religious question which is why confusion arises. There's the bones of my position, which is human have traits, belief is one of them. Then there's studies of the etymologies we already have, which is another approach.

Concluding I'd say both were correct: 1/ Yes humanity has common and indeed variable traits. 2/ Yes we have recorded etymologies. However I think that etymologies are based on actual human traits, and I think those need updating and clarifying.

Updating and clarifying etymologies would be useful in separating the obviously controversial I'm right, you're wrong position from human's have traits.

Is dogma, for example, (...principles laid down by an authority incontrovertible -UED 11thED) a worldwide human trait?

I'd say dogma is a common human trait. Even if it's only that many people are tightwads with money and their incontrovertible authority is their upbringing. They absolutely will not phone for a pizza because... Oh but puleez, pretty puleez?
No, no and absolutely no!

There are many reasons for absolutely no, but again they are not in question, only the stance which cannot be reasoned with, or is: incontrovertible according to some authority or other, maybe only the nay pizza sayer themselves.

So again, rights and wrongs of the stance aren't questioned only the root etymology, which as I've said I think is vague. In this day and age etymologies should be updated, so that more refined conclusions could be achieved rather than the school yard 'I'm right, you're wrong,' or the grown up version, war.

SLake said:

it seems to me -atheist = religion / not a religion- is an ongoing etymological problem that hasn't been solved, or probably 'clarified' which appears to be in evidence here, with arguments (or questions) going both ways.

Click to expand...

Historically, the people who invented the language for classifying belief were primarily Christian drawing from classical thought and this continues to skew our thinking.

Atheism for example, is a term coined by 16th century Christians* to describe heresies that rejected God. In consequence the term has only ever been meaningful from a theocentric viewpoint. Ask what Christian believes and you'll have a fair idea, but asking what an atheist believes is fraught with the same ignorance as asking what coloured people eat. Atheism is not a single belief any more than 'coloured' is a single culture. But to theists it can look like a single belief because they don't bother to understand what atheists actually think.

* Borrowed from the ancient Greeks in fact, from the word atheos meaning 'godless'. The Greeks equated rejecting state gods with a kind of sedition against the state, and it was the charge of atheism that saw Socrates killed off in around 399BCE.

Atheist beliefs are very diverse. Some don't believe in the supernatural; others do, but don't believe in gods. Some believe in gods but reject them. Others believe that the questions are meaningless or refuse to entertain theistic claims for a wealth of other reasons... So we can't call atheism a religion because it's not even a single belief.

The same sort of theocentric thinking has underpinned our definition of religion, by the way. Historically, 'religion' has been held to mean any code of belief or practice that looks much like Christianity -- with worship and rituals and belief in the supernatural... But this gives sociologists and anthropologists headaches because (for example) some forms of Buddhism class as religion, while others don't. So over time, scientists have been moving away from Eurocentric and theocentric definitions, and trying to grapple with what else religion might mean.

On the anthropological front, two fairly foundational descriptions of religion come from Clifford Geertz (1966) and Anthony Wallace (undated, but post 1950)

Cliffort Geertz said:

Religion is "(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic

Click to expand...

Anthony Wallace said:

1. Individualistic: most basic; simplest. Example: vision quest.
2. Shamanistic: part-time religious practitioner, uses religion to heal, to divine, usually on the behalf of a client. The Tillamook have four categories of shaman. Examples of shamans: spiritualists, faith healers, palm readers. One who has acquired religious authority through one's own means.
3. Communal: elaborate set of beliefs and practices; group of people arranged in clans by lineage, age group, or some religious societies; people take on roles based on knowledge, and ancestral worship.
4. Ecclesiastical: Most complex. Incorporates elements of the previous three.

Click to expand...

If we ask 'is atheism a religion' the answer is clearly no, for the same reason that a waste-paper bin is not a filing cabinet. But if we ask, 'could an atheist be religious' then I think that the answer can be yes... Rejection of deities does not preclude religious involvement by either definition above.

So linking this back to Rhys' question... atheism has no signature bias in the way that (say) Christianity has a signature bias. But atheists can have individual beliefs which may or may not offend and alienate others. Every culture has dominant views, and heresy against those views risks offence, as Socrates discovered.

Rhys Cordelle said:

I am an atheist but I am very interested in religious thinking and practices. My question here, for those of you who write fiction with religion and/or atheism as a theme, is how do you control your personal bias? How can I avoid "preaching" about atheism?

Click to expand...

I don't think you can pull it off and keep it believable. If you can, you'd be a genius. Stuff like this always comes across as preachy, IMHO. I suggest finding a person who holds this other position and have them teach theirs to you, and just uncritically write it in the book, but translate it to "alieny". I studied the Bible together with a well educated Jehovah's witness for three months, just to get inside his head. I'm not remotely Christian... I have never been. Never been even slightly tempted. When I studied the Bible with him, I politely sat down and turned off all critical thoughts and only asked questions a person who honestly wants to learn more would ask. It worked out great. That writing project is still maturing (indefinitely ) but I think it's a solid piece.

I think your only two options is either giving them a fair hearing, and doing your best to avoid preaching, and count on sneaking it in subconsciously. Or go all the way, and just let your atheism hang out. Both can be just as enjoyable to read.

Zadie Smith in White Teeth does something like what you're describing. She doesn't defend Islam or Jehova's witnesses, but she does explain why ordinary and reasonable people would hold those beliefs... which IMHO, is the interesting thing to explore about faiths. Just to hide her bias, she has twins who each chose a different path, atheist and Muslim... and her atheism still shines like a beacon off the pages. It's damn hard to hide.

An old friend would sometimes put forward the quote that atheism is no more a religion than baldness is a hair-style.

Click to expand...

I always liked "if atheism is a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby."

asking what an atheist believes is fraught with the same ignorance as asking what coloured people eat.

Click to expand...

Great line.

So we can't call atheism a religion because it's not even a single belief.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you here. Atheism is a single belief, just one – there are no gods. That's it. There's nothing else, and that confuses the hell out of people who think it's a religion. Religions provide a plethora of beliefs, rules and rituals. Atheism has one belief and no rituals and no rules.

But if we ask, 'could an atheist be religious' then I think that the answer can be yes

Click to expand...

You'll find some atheists at Unitarian churches and synagogues, looking to enjoy the fellowship and/or the rituals. I know a very, very few atheists who have mystical ideas. But we're getting back to definitions here. I celebrate Christmas, but it's just for fun – there is no Christ in my Christmas. Does that make me religious? I don't think so. I'm just in it for the presents and the lights and the decorations and having fun with the family.

You'll also hear some atheists describe themselves as "spiritual." I hate that word – it's so imprecise and fuzzy it can mean anything. Is experiencing a sense of awe while watching a stunning sunset or smoking a great cigar (or doing both at the same time) a spiritual experience? Is music that involves you enough to put you in a trance spiritual? Is dealing with something emotionally instead of rationally spiritual? How about falling in love? Bleah, give me a word that has at least a solid center, some core meaning. "Spiritual" is a bead of clay surrounded by fluff. Anyone can give it any shape or structure or meaning they want, which makes it a useless word.

I don't think you can pull it off and keep it believable. If you can, you'd be a genius.

Click to expand...

Is J. Michael Straczynski a genius? (Yeah, probably.) Babylon 5 was full of religion. It was about half the show, and it never got preachy or disrespectful. It was very detailed, often very subtle, and beautifully done. JMS is an atheist.

"I think it behooves us to treat our characters' beliefs with some measure of respect, whatever he believes in.
I mean I'm an atheist myself, but I don't have to believe in Minbarri to write about Minbarri. I think if that person is a religious character, then you have to treat them with integrity and deal with them properly. As a result, this show is very popular with a lot of religious folks."
- JMS

Click to expand...

I studied the Bible together with a well educated Jehovah's witness for three months, just to get inside his head.

Click to expand...

That's a dangerous place to be. Their entire goal is to for you to get into their mindset and lock you in so thoroughly there's no way out.

Hittman said:

I have to disagree with you here. Atheism is a single belief, just one – there are no gods.

Click to expand...

What is a god, and how do you know it's that? If two atheists can't agree on definition of a god or why they think there aren't any, then I'd suggest that atheism is not a single belief.

I think 'atheistic' is a description of disbelief, not belief.

Ruv Draba said:

What is a god, and how do you know it's that? If two atheists can't agree on definition of a god or why they think there aren't any, then I'd suggest that atheism is not a single belief.

I think 'atheistic' is a description of disbelief, not belief.

Click to expand...

Even there, there's the "negative/weak" atheism, claiming a simple lack of belief, "I do not believe there is a god" versus the "positive/strong" atheism stating a firm belief in the nonexistence of (any) god, "I DO believe there is NOT a god."

I've seen other posts on AW reacting negatively to this distinction, but it seems clear and logical to me. Someone who has never heard of leprechauns would OF COURSE not believe in them, and be a "leprechaun atheist" in the first sense. Someone from Irish culture who knew those who believed in the existence of leprechauns but despite others' claims choose not to believe could positively, after hearing about leprechauns all his life, state "I do NOT believe there are ANY leprechauns."

One might argue that to be a negative/weak atheist one would have to have gone one's whole life without hearing of the concept of god, in which case one could say all atheists are of the positive/strong type.

Rhys Cordelle said:

Yeah spiritual is vague. I usually ask people to explain what they mean. Generally it seems to mean belief in an afterlife of some kind.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, an afterlife is not a part of Alcoholics Anonymous, but members are always talking about how it's a spiritual (especially "spiritual, not religious") program. There is indeed great emphasis on "turning one's will and life over to God (as we understood Him)."

AA itself may be an abberation in its internal meaning of spiritual, but I do believe it (and the many other "anonymous" and "Anon" programs based on its 12 steps) has had an influence on the use of the word spiritual to mean something separate from religion: religious being "organized religion," a group of people getting together to honor or praise God (and a man-made group at that - many in AA, ironically, are biased against "organized religion"), and spiritual, meaning an individual's personal connection or relationship with God.

As to the original question:
Even though I now (apparently) should describe myself as a mostly agnostic semi-theist, religion and it's derivative belief structure does play a role in my trilogy. My own beliefs (or lack thereof) impact it from the standpoint that I sympathise with the characters religious belief, because I think religion is fundamental (and necessary) to human nature. And yes, I write about humans, even though the genre is fantasy. They believe what they believe in the absence of other knowledge.

And for what it's worth, I'm writing my (effectively first, as in the previous two years I only wrote a couple thousand words) NaNoWriMo novel, and in recent weeks and days my MC is waxing poetical about his belief or lack thereof (his beliefs and experiences seem quite remarkably similar to mine - perhaps I should call him "Ben Sue"), mostly to his teenage son to whom he hadn't opened up about religion until now. His wife had taken the son to church regularly but is in long-term hospital care. What prompted all this is the devoted-Christian wife asked the son to go to church on his own while she remains in the hospital, and with that coming up the MC found this a convenient time to "dump it all out" on his son while the wife is away.

I'm enjoying "not controlling my bias" - maybe I'll get some of "it" (the tendency to "preach atheism" in my writing) out of my system, but I'm sure I'll come back to the topic of religion in later writings. It was a big part of my life, as it is in so many people's lives.

But as discussed in another thread, sometimes religion is "avoided" in novels for the same reasons bathing or getting dressed or cutting tonails is/are avoided - there are many, many parts to life, and only so many of them can be included in a novel of reasonable length.

benbradley said:

Even there, there's the "negative/weak" atheism, claiming a simple lack of belief, "I do not believe there is a god" versus the "positive/strong" atheism stating a firm belief in the nonexistence of (any) god, "I DO believe there is NOT a god."

Click to expand...

The first version seems meaningful to me, but I'm not sure what the second could possibly mean: what is this god which we believe is not, and why must it be that?

Ruv Draba said:

What is a god, and how do you know it's that? If two atheists can't agree on definition of a god or why they think there aren't any, then I'd suggest that atheism is not a single belief.

I think 'atheistic' is a description of disbelief, not belief.

Click to expand...

I'd even say "disbelief" is too active. I prefer non-belief. I have no belief and I don't think about it at all. It doesn't occupy any of my time during the day unless I enter a discussion like this.

Shadow_Ferret said:

I'd even say "disbelief" is too active. I prefer non-belief. I have no belief and I don't think about it at all. It doesn't occupy any of my time during the day unless I enter a discussion like this.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I only feel atheistic when someone's religious belief enters my purview -- in which case my nonbelief switches to disbelief. But 'atheism' is a theistic construct. On a planet where nobody believed in deities they'd never invent the word. It's my disbelief then that makes me an atheist; I see my nonbelief is entirely unremarkable.

But I think you highlighted a key to Rhys' problem, O Mustelid of the Umbra... If we write about nonbelief we're not presenting atheism at all; if we write about disbelief, we are.

I'm not sure that 'presenting' is 'preaching', but literarily, disbelief requires explanation while nonbelief doesn't.

Rhys Cordelle said:

If it's necessary to human nature then how do non believers function?

Click to expand...

Now that could be a subject for a whole other thread ...

What is a god, and how do you know it's that? If two atheists can't agree on definition of a god or why they think there aren't any, then I'd suggest that atheism is not a single belief.

Click to expand...

A god is a spirit of some sort. Beyond that there are thousands of definitions and descriptions.

I think 'atheistic' is a description of disbelief, not belief.

Click to expand...

You're right, that's more accurate, although Strong Atheism could be classified as a belief.

I've seen other posts on AW reacting negatively to this distinction, but it seems clear and logical to me.

Click to expand...

It is, but it's also trivial. I've never known an atheist who cares about it.

If it's necessary to human nature then how do non believers function?

Click to expand...

Horribly. We eat babies, squirt heroin into our eyeballs, burn down our neighbors houses, dance naked in the streets, rob, steal, rape, murder, and that's just our day to day existence. On special occasions we really go nuts.

In reality, though, here's a interesting statistic that says a lot about atheism: Percentage of US citizens who are atheists: about 10%. Percentage of prisoners who are atheists: .2%.

I'd even say "disbelief" is too active. I prefer non-belief. I have no belief and I don't think about it at all. It doesn't occupy any of my time during the day unless I enter a discussion like this.

Click to expand...

That's a key point lots of believers can't get their heads around. It's trivial. It has very very little to do with who we are and how we behave. It's no more important than our favorite breakfast cereal. The only reason it's an issue is because we're surrounded by religion.

Rhys Cordelle said:

That's just because we're better at being evil and don't easily get caught ^^

Click to expand...

Yep... So evil are atheists that we manage to hide our witch-burnings, stonings, crushings, rackings, drownings, defenestrations, persecutions and genocides far better than any other ideology.

You guys should come to Sweden. At my job, (a standard middle-class kind of place) nobody would ever reveal being religious. It's kept very secret. If they would tell anyone we'd all talk slowly and loudly, and use simple words. Sweden is a very atheistic country. Not atheistic as in rejecting belief in God, but more like, rejecting having a strong opinion about it. Anybody with strong faith in anything metaphysical is treated like a complete moron. It's a cultural trait of sorts. We're very accepting of apatheism, but intolerant about nearly any other position. If people visiting here, wouldn't have pointed it out, I would never have understood. It's really quite subtle.

Swedes who say they tolerate other religions, tend to be racist. They accept that lesser races hold stupid and backward beliefs. Which in my opinion, isn't a particularly virtuous position....or tolerant. Swedes tend to think Americans are naturally dumb, and therefore accept Americans being religious. I find that quite offensive, but over here nobody really reflects about it... which I think is really weird. Once one starts pressing the point it really becomes apparent.

So basically... if you're an atheist, you'll be most welcome here. If nothing else, you can get a taste of being a majority oppressing a religious minority

zornhau said:

Not if your atheism is a product of your rationalism.

Think of it this way: your disbelief in Thor is a product of your Christianity.

So, yes, call Rationalism a religion. I can see advantages to that.

Click to expand...

Many people who are rational believe logic points to a higher power, so I don't see how rationalism can be a religion. But a set of beliefs certainly can be a religion, even the simple silly stuff, like what some people have mentioned in this thread. Religion is broad and blurry. And quite frankly, there should not be sharp lines drawn between human beings, like what some are trying to do here. Whenever atheists get the intolerant "us and them" mentality, they are no different than the religious fundamentalist sectors in humanity they scorn. They become just another judgmental group in the mix of humanity, causing friction and suffering among people.

DrZoidberg said:

You guys should come to Sweden. At my job, (a standard middle-class kind of place) nobody would ever reveal being religious. It's kept very secret.

Click to expand...

Sounds awkward! True acceptance of others is not colorblind, but rather a place where color is just a color, and people can talk about it openly and comfortably.