follow-up

going back to the post on atheism... wow, lots of comments! of substance! joy. i've been having a wonderful time reading your thoughts, comparing them, and revisiting my own in light of yours.

i guess it's only fair, since i asked for your opinions, that i clarify my own position. i've been known to play devil's advocate on these questions more frequently than i express actual opinions or beliefs. admittedly, this is in part because my beliefs about and opinions on this subject change frequently -- in minor fashion, but enough to prevent me from being so definitive about atheism as i am about, say, the absolute evil of not using one's turn signal.

i'm a word person (which is what got me into the whole religious inquiry mess in the first place), so i'm going to borrow caro's method of going after this.

re li gion
-noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

a the ism
-noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

now that those are out there, i'd like to explain why i find the atheism one to be inadequate.

it has often been stated, in somewhat minimalist fashion, that the divergence between science and religion is the result of one addressing what's there (science) versus addressing why it's there -- its cause (religion). likewise, the difference between science and atheism is that science addresses what's there and atheism addresses what isn't its cause. by definition, then, atheism in its various forms claims some other cause -- that is, science, reflexively. natural selection, biological necessity or chance is the "why." in this sense, atheism is absolutely "a set of beliefs concerning the cause ... of the universe," as well as, i'd say, its nature. (natural selection, by the way, is indeed something i'd classify as "superhuman agency," just as readily as i'd classify something i am unable to identify in the sky as a UFO.)

as for the purpose of the universe and the moral code bit, this is where denominations come into play. this is, so far as i can tell, the number one reason so many philosophers classify themselves as atheists: the challenge of grappling with this question is just too great to resist, and the freedom to do so is restricted in most theistic religions, despite virtually none of those religions supplying adequate answers to such questions.

while we're still somewhere near the subject, i should mention that i am perpetually in argument with myself over the differences between philosophy and religion. there is so, so, so much overlap that it's almost absurd to attempt to separate them. my general feeling is that, if the two form a Venn diagram, atheism falls in the crossover space and very rarely just to one side or the other.

if my views conflict, i blame either biology or brilliance: the NIH tells me i've got another few years before my brain's fully developed, and f. scott fitzgerald tells me that "the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." (take THAT, science!)