Sure, Atheism Is a Religion, to which Neil deGrasse Tyson and Cosmos Seek Converts

Evolution News and Views ^ | October 28, 2014 | David Klinghoffer

[Heartlander]

Sure, Atheism Is a Religion, to which Neil deGrasse Tyson and Cosmos Seek Converts

David Klinghoffer October 28, 2014 1:46 PM | Permalink

Some Twitter correspondents objected to my comment, in connection with our new book The Unofficial Guide to Cosmos, that "Cosmos is not appropriate for public schools, where you're not supposed to advocate any religion, including atheism."

But of course Tyson-style atheism counts as a religion. As I'm hardly the first to say, it has almost all the trimmings that religions commonly do: An account of origins (panspermia and Darwinian evolution), a philosophical commitment to a certain way of understanding of what the fundamental substrate of reality is (materialism), a conversionary agenda (the whole point of Cosmos, now launched into the public schools), warnings of an apocalyptic future for the unrepentant (see our chapters on Episodes 11 and 12 of Cosmos).

Atheist counselors in the role of clergy are rare, but they exist. "Humanist chaplain" Bart Campolo at the University of Southern California has praised Neil deGrasse Tyson for being as "inspiring as any preacher I've heard."

A primary purpose behind the Cosmos series was to cast a rival faith, Christianity, in a bad light, as "anti-science." One religion throwing dirt at another faith -- you've never heard of such a thing before? Not least when it comes to science, atheists have increasingly assumed the role of censors and inquisitors -- even as other religions in the West have learned to live tolerantly, even lovingly with fellow citizens who disagree with them.

Every religion tells a story that frames its worldview. So does atheism. Cosmos unspools that narrative over the course of its 13 episodes. What's missing?

A stand-in for God, a god, or gods? Not every religion has one. So again, what exactly qualifies atheism for an exemption here? That it's proved by science? That is the claim of atheist apologetics, but the fact that some people claim it doesn't make it true. You don't get to cite one dubious atheist assertion as evidence in support of another dubious atheist assertion.

As Casey Luskin has shown in the past, courts have treated atheism as religion as well, and reasonably so ("For First Amendment Purposes, Is Atheism a Religion?").

Atheists who think their faith deserves the special treatment of being exempted from categorization among other faiths need to argue more persuasively for their insistence on that point.

I'm on Twitter. Follow me @d_klinghoffer.

[RIghtwardHo]

Why on Earth does it matter what we call it? It doesn’t. That is unless you want to give it First Amendment religion protection. The specter of Hobby Lobby.

[Heartlander]

From the first sentence - "Cosmos is not appropriate for public schools, where you're not supposed to advocate any religion, including atheism."

[AustinBill]

Actually, the biggest objection to what Cosmos preaches is that is it unscientific.

What most popular "scientists" like Tyson preach is materialism, which is a remnant of 19th-century philosophy that has nothing to do with real 21st-century science.

Many people are vaguely aware that the discovery of quantum physics in the early 20th century changed our understanding of reality profoundly in ways that are incompatible with what might be called "naive materialism". But what few are aware of is that within the past five years we've seen an even more profound understanding of the implications of quantum physics emerge that conclusively debunks materialism at its core. See Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism for a short video about some of this eye-opening information (with citations for those who want to dig into the published scientific literature).

The emerging reality is that real cutting-edge physics, not pseudo-science like popularized creationism, has already proven the existence of God. Few want to admit it, but science has been wrestling with that question by implication for the past century and the results really are in: Science can today prove the existence of God.

Now before anyone gets too jumpy, science has not proven any particular religion's understanding of God. And in fact, I suspect that many religions will find what science is actually saying even more disturbing than the babble that contemporary atheists spout. But at this point no one can really call themselves a scientist if they subscribe to materialism.

[Zionist Conspirator]

At least atheists are consistent when they reject “G-d the magician.” Can’t say that about everybody, now, can we?

[VietVet]

Perhaps I should have said that you cannot prove a negative by logic alone. By demonstration (e.g. turning out your pocket) you can negate a positive statement of fact ( in your example, “you have a gun in your pocket”).