'Are you religious?' is a strange question. The adjective 'religious' is a strange word; it comes from the word 'religion', obviously, and that is practically impossible to define in a way that suits every phenomenon we apply the word to. I get the feeling that when someone asks if I am religious, what they really mean is, are you Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, and so on. That is, do you belong to a recognisable, organised institution of people with a certain set of beliefs about the supernatural: something I can understand and pinpoint in my mind. Have you labelled yourself?
This understanding of 'religion' is breaking apart in our current societies, however, which gives rise to the painfully overused response of 'I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual.' That is, I have a set of beliefs about the supernatural, but I have not taken them (as a whole) from any organised institution. Even of those who do label themselves, I would think a lot would fall into this category; the majority of people in developed societies feel free to pick, choose, edit and alter little snippets of belief from any number of religious traditions. So you have Christians who believe in reincarnation, or ignore parts of the Bible that paint a picture of God that goes against their individual conviction. Their beliefs are no less valid. There are as many religions as people on the planet.
But what of atheists, agnostics, humanists? Once again, these are labels that people apply to themselves on the basis of their stance towards the supernatural. And like the 'religious'/'spiritual' distinction, you have (it's a struggle not to use a label) people who believe the supernatural does not exist who do not self-identify as belonging to any of the specific branches of secular faith, like atheism or humanism.
Of course, unlike in the 'believer' case, these labels do not by and large refer to organised institutions. But they can; often the term 'life stance' is adopted as a subsitute for 'religion'. A good example is Humanism (with a capital H) which actually refers to an organised body of people, with publications, events, an ethical code and a statement of beliefs. And other strands of non-belief are beginning to crystallise: the fiery, dogmatic, ethically arrogant style of atheism touted by the likes of Richard Dawkins (a professional atheist, I'm sure) separating itself from the gentler styles of more tolerant atheism. Dawkins, through his website, books, public lectures and notably the Out Campaign, is shaping himself as something of a charismatic leader in the atheist community; and as the history of religions shows, the views of successful charismatic leaders are eventually routinised and channelled into institutional forms. Will we eventually have Dawkinsian sermons and bishops to accompany his canonical literature?
A friend once argued to me that calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour. I still beg to differ: if we stop looking at religion and spirituality and messy words like those, and start talking about stances toward the supernatural, then clearly atheism stands alongside Christianity, Buddhism and the rest as an equal. 'There is no supernatural' is, to me, an identically worthy claim as 'the supernatural affects my life in the following ways'.
Additionally, there is a distinction between people who actually think about, dwell, question, and decide upon their stance towards the supernatural, and those whose beliefs make absolutely no difference to them. This is what we really should be asking each other: not what religion you belong to, if any, but if you actually care. And if you do care, you could be Dawkinsian or agnostic just as validly as you could be Hindu or Islamic. Perhaps, just to confuse people terribly, I should begin answering that awful question with, 'Yes, I'm an atheist.'
No comments:
Post a Comment