Non-Theism
A quick thought for tonight… Something that my partner, Janet, and I like to say is that we are “non-theists” rather than “atheists”. Certainly we are atheists in a technical sense—we do not believe that god(s) exist. But right or wrong, atheism has come to mean more than that simple statement. For many, I suspect it also indicates an anti-religious attitude or at least an absence of religion. And those things do not quite describe us.
I make the distinction because I agree with religion professor Loyal Rue when he asserts that humans acquire meaning in the form of narratives. As such, religions can be seen as more than systems of beliefs and practices, but as cultural narratives that provide meaning, guidance, and a sense of identity. For example, it isn’t enough to simply have a list of things that are important—religions must also tell stories that explain why they are important. And on a deeper level, religion tells the human story, the narrative of who we are as a people and how we fit in the larger world.
I might be a non-theist, but I am not non-religious. I believe that it is possible to develop a robust system of ideals, practices, ethics, and narrative meaning that serve all the primary functions of religion without any need for supernatural elements. In fact, that is exactly what we are trying to do with Sacred River, and what has already begun with the bourgeoning Religious Naturalism movement.
This is not to say that I do not respect those who apply the term atheist to themselves. By some accounts, there are as many as 700 million to one billion non-believers out there. That’s a lot—by comparison, there are approximately 900m Hindus, 375m Buddhists, and 14m Jews. Technically, I am of their number, but I want to see religion reformed rather than abolished. And a big part of that will be spreading the perspective that religion does not need God.
While doing research about Schopenhauer I discovered the importence of this distinction and how easy it is to miss it. For Schopenhauer it meant years of not being properly researched by philosophers of religion and theologians, because they all thought of him as an Atheist, while the truth is that religion and especially mysticism always remained important to his philosophy. So, thanks for making that thing clear!
The term atheism really has become a stick to hit people with…it somehow seems to discredit someone. Attached to this is the idea of having faith being a great virtue. If that is so, then not having faith must be some kind of vice. It is an insidious cultural meme that I would love to help turn around.
Thanks for you comments…
I would conclude it is hard to practice Religion without God/Goddess since throughout the centuries thats where most has been developed; around a supernatural entity. It appears you like some of “ideals, Practices and ethics” which are the foundation of most religions but you have this insatiable need to forego a God/Goddess basing it solely on humanism and I applaud you for it. However Ideals, practicies and ethics are not really “religious” it is more or less a structure to be developed in order for us to live in harmony…based on another form of law and ethics.
Warmest regards,
T
I’m not sure that a Buddhist or Taoist would agree with this argument, unless you do not think those traditions are religions. No one really agrees on what religion is, but most theologians do seem to agree that worship of a deity is only one common element of religion. At the same time, there is an argument that religion has nothing to do with god(s) at all; that it is all about manipulating our brains to achieve various effects, such as those things I list in “The Religious Experience”, i.e. establishing a sense of safety, connectivity, agency, understanding, and meaningful profundity. Religious Naturalists in general argue that it is possible to achieve these things without leaning on a belief in the supernatural. In other words, we hold that we can have all the riches of religion without paying the cost of abandoning reason or a maturing understanding of the universe as informed by empirical inquiry.
All the labels which define me exist in a sort of reverse telescopic arrangement. So while “atheist” is one lens it is a smaller one than “nontheist.” I am a nontheist for exactly the same reason you are: that atheist connotes anti-religious, which I am not. I am a religious naturalist, which is even a larger lens than nontheist.
People have told me that calling myself a nontheist is being evasive, cowardly even. Now I live in the South and work with local law enforcement. How cowardly could I be if it let it be known that I’m a socialist, pro gun control, pro-choice, a Yankee, a Jew, and gay? I don’t think not calling myself an atheist is any kind of cop-out!