I agree on Atheism not being a religion. At least by 50% of the definitions out there. But a “binary position on belief in gods” sounds like a fancy way of saying you either believe or do not believe there is a god, either way you believe one or the other.

Everything you have said so far makes sense, except for what i’ll refer to non-religious belief systems. I think our definitions of a “belief system” do not jibe.

When I talk about belief systems, I am talking just as much about what one believes, as much as how they go about verifying that belief, and how they use that system to interpret and understand the world around them. I don’t think it makes any sense to separate the two. Science seems, to me at least, to fall under that description.

How do you define a “belief system”?

Yes, you are correct, I understand that part, however beliefs generally do not exist in a vacuum. They are usually supported by some paradigm, some system, or school of thought, something that provides a way of explaining the rationale of those beliefs.

This is why I do not subscribe to the idea of belief as a purely binary position on something, as you have described it. There is always more to it than that. There is always a framework within which a person believes what they believe. And that framework is what I am referring to as a belief system.

I love your post about Richard Dawkins. I really like that way of looking at things. He states what he believes to be true, based on the evidence provided, but also recognizes that we cannot know anything with 100% certainty, and is willing to accept any evidence that stands scrutiny.

Now THAT is what I call rational, objective science. THAT is how science is supposed to operate. It is indeed the most objective, intellectually honest stance available, and I wish all scientists could be that clear and honest.

Obviously we can’t say the same of religion, since religion is a belief system that is not based on objective science, empirical proof or corroborating evidence. But then again, religion was never meant to be scientific, so it would be an unreasonable expectation.

But I also think that both ways of thinking fall within the framework of what I consider a belief system. IE, I believe “X” because of “Y” and “Z”. “Y” and “Z” do not necessarily have to make sense in all belief systems, only the one to which “X” belongs. And in that sense, both science and religion are belief systems. Diametrically opposed belief systems, yes, but belief systems just the same.

Well I see your point with everything else, except for most “hard atheists” falling into an “agnostic atheist” stance. That has not been by experience. Many of the ones I run into are the “I *Know* there is no God because of SCIENCE(tm)! And anyone who believes differently is mentally impaired!” type.

I do agree with you that a great many disservices have been done to the human race in the name of religion. However it is also true that many great acts of good have also been performed for the same reason. Being unable to tally these in any objective fashion, since the bad would be vastly more public knowledge than the good, I do not think I can accurately ascertain the net result religion has actually had on humanity.

But I would argue that the negative application of religion has been only one of many symptoms of human irrationality in general. I’ve observed that, regardless of theistic or religions position, humans are afraid of what they do not understand, greedy, selfish, irrational and oftentimes emotionally unstable. I think Religion is often used as an easily justifiable outlet for the negative expression of these traits.

In fact I would go so far as to say that even if we had no religion, humans would still come up with any number of other trifling reasons to behave irrationally, emotionally and violently. So I honestly don’t think trivializing religion will have the desired effect.