Is atheism a religion?

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,924
Romania
No, of course not, but they arre only part fo that understanding. If you look at the link in post #409 it explains it better than I can, but basically laws describe what happens, it is the business of theories to try and explain why and how it happens (I think).
You can't understand a game without understanding its rules, and the scientific laws correspond at their level to the rules of a game.

To give an instruction, to organise,
Christianity believes that God is actively present in everything, it doesn't believe like deism that God just put the world in movement and left it to run itself according to certain laws.
 
Jun 2016
1,831
England, 200 yards from Wales
You can't understand a game without understanding its rules, and the scientific laws correspond at their level to the rules of a game.
This is the distinction I was making, about why I think the word 'law' in this case is misleading. The rules of a game are chosen by someone (or several of them) to describe what should happen, but it may not always be what does happen (eg people cheat), like a law in the human, legal, sense of the word.
Whereas a scientific law simply describes what happens. If there is an exception it doesn't just mean the law (rule) is still valid but it was broken, but rather the whole law is called into question, it may be wrong or incomplete, but it is in doubt as a description.

Christianity believes that God is actively present in everything, it doesn't believe like deism that God just put the world in movement and left it to run itself according to certain laws.
I understand that the Christian God is not the distant mathematician God of the Deist universe, but is the way the universe behaves, and thus these laws, not dependent upon him?
 

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,924
Romania
This is the distinction I was making, about why I think the word 'law' in this case is misleading. The rules of a game are chosen by someone (or several of them) to describe what should happen, but it may not always be what does happen (eg people cheat), like a law in the human, legal, sense of the word.
Whereas a scientific law simply describes what happens. If there is an exception it doesn't just mean the law (rule) is still valid but it was broken, but rather the whole law is called into question, it may be wrong or incomplete, but it is in doubt as a description.
An analogy has its limits, this is why I wrote "at their level", but I hope that you understand the difference between a description and a rule concluded through induction.

I understand that the Christian God is not the distant mathematician God of the Deist universe, but is the way the universe behaves, and thus these laws, not dependent upon him?
Are dependent on Him the same as the miracles (in the true meaning of "miracle") are.
 
Feb 2019
345
California
The number of people who check off none when asked about religious orientation has risen dramatically. For those who identify them selves as atheists. Has atheism become another form of religion that does not have some form of god?
No. Caveat---anything can be "made" into a religion---witness Alcoholic Anonymous, for example, whereby former alcoholics make alcohol their life-long religion. "Progressiveism" or "liberalism" is definitely a religion without a god---so such can exist. Generally speaking, however, "atheist' means "I believe that there are no gods" which is pretty much the antithesis of a religion...........
 
Jun 2016
1,831
England, 200 yards from Wales
An analogy has its limits, this is why I wrote "at their level", but I hope that you understand the difference between a description and a rule concluded through induction.
Depends what you mean by 'rule'. I suppose it starts with descriptions of individual events, induction extrapolates from them a 'law' that this is what normally happens, but it is still description, with the conclusion that it is generally applicable.
That is another matter from theories about why and how the things happen - Newton's law of gravity (inverse square law?) still works, but haven't Einstein's ideas quite changed the theory about how it works, the nature of gravity? (My apologies to more scientific readers, please feel free to correct that or express it better).
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
33,640
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Newton's law of gravity (inverse square law?) still works, but haven't Einstein's ideas quite changed the theory about how it works, the nature of gravity? (My apologies to more scientific readers, please feel free to correct that or express it better).
Newtonian physics still works on a smaller scale. Once you get to the larger scales you find in space, Newtonian physics is no longer accurate, as relativity needs to be taken into account.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
33,640
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Newton's law of gravity (inverse square law?) still works, but haven't Einstein's ideas quite changed the theory about how it works, the nature of gravity? (My apologies to more scientific readers, please feel free to correct that or express it better).
Newtonian physics still works on a smaller scale. Once you get to the larger scales you find in space, Newtonian physics is no longer accurate, as relativity needs to be taken into account.
 

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,924
Romania
Depends what you mean by 'rule'. I suppose it starts with descriptions of individual events, induction extrapolates from them a 'law' that this is what normally happens, but it is still description, with the conclusion that it is generally applicable.
That is another matter from theories about why and how the things happen - Newton's law of gravity (inverse square law?) still works, but haven't Einstein's ideas quite changed the theory about how it works, the nature of gravity? (My apologies to more scientific readers, please feel free to correct that or express it better).
This world is not made by you, but you can know more or less about it and you can grow in your knowledge.
 
Jun 2016
1,831
England, 200 yards from Wales
Newtonian physics still works on a smaller scale. Once you get to the larger scales you find in space, Newtonian physics is no longer accurate, as relativity needs to be taken into account.
Isn't it true that space-craft trajectories can be plotted on a Newtonian basis, the working of gravity is understood well enough for that.
What I meant is that although the law still works (within a certain range), yet ideas of how gravity works I believe are wholly changed from the mysterious Newtonian attraction to Einsteinian curvature of space/time? So the theory is developed, yet the basic inverse square law still works independent of that (in that range of size and speed).
Which is maybe what I meant about law being description of what happens, and a theory that explains how and why is a different thing.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
33,640
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Isn't it true that space-craft trajectories can be plotted on a Newtonian basis, the working of gravity is understood well enough for that.
What I meant is that although the law still works (within a certain range), yet ideas of how gravity works I believe are wholly changed from the mysterious Newtonian attraction to Einsteinian curvature of space/time? So the theory is developed, yet the basic inverse square law still works independent of that (in that range of size and speed).
Which is maybe what I meant about law being description of what happens, and a theory that explains how and why is a different thing.
I was taught that the difference between a theory and a law was that a law has been found to hold true under all known circumstances and exceptions are well understood. Hence we have laws of gravity and thermodynamics, while Einstein's relativity remains a theory for now, as there are parts of it that have not been tested and proved.

I would agree that laws are a description of what happens, not an explanation of why in and of themselves.
 

Similar History Discussions