There has been much talk lately, or perhaps there always has been, of atheism, religion and atheism as a religion. There are various arguments for why it is and why it isn't and of course I have my own view, which I will share. I would also like to outline the relationship between atheism and Humanism.
Simply put, atheism is the absence of belief in the gods. That's it. If you don't believe in the gods, you are an atheist. The word-cell "a" indicates negation or opposition. The root "theos" refers to god(s). Thus a-theism indicates non-belief in the gods. It doesn't seem that there would be anything else to add, but interestingly there are a few varieties of atheism. Those who don't profess to know for certain, or even assert that certainty is impossible, are agnostics. One can still hold the opinion that the gods do not exist, an agnostic atheist. This is similar to the weak atheist, who does not believe that the gods exist, as opposed to the stong atheist who believes that the gods do not exist. Yes, it is subtle, go ahead and re-read the preceding sentence. Strong atheists are also called gnostic atheists. "Gnosis" from the root meaning knowledge. They know the gods don't exist (whether they are right or not is beside the point).
Some theists are so strong in their assertion that the gods are self-evident, that they respond to skepticism as if it were simply another variety of faith. If you are open-minded, let's just ignore what the subject of belief/skepticism is for the moment since it is typically such a contentious topic, the claim doesn't seem outrageous. If you start with no knowledge or opinion on any subject, you consider it and then decide one way or another, isn't that an exercise of faith?
But, once you get past the shoulder-shrugging "it takes as much faith to be an atheist/evolutionist/round-earther" phase, the premise starts to fall apart. Firstly, the method by which religious belief and rational opinion are formed are normally quite different. Commonalities exist in the weight given to personal experience and testimony of others and the branch of theology called apologetics even apes many of the conventions in formal logic and secular philosophy.
As a methodology, rationalism thrives on doubt. The most carefully constructed hypotheses, the most meticulously worded conjecture, the most painstakingly crafted publications are one and all subjected to criticism. And this is not the shame of the method, but its glory. Repeated logical assaults upon a sound theory do it no harm, but greatly augment the confidence we can place in them. Similarly, erroneous teachings can be demonstrated as folly and dispensed with. This is how the aether, celestial spheres, miasma, humors, four elements and many other scientific or quasi-scientific answers have been replaced by explanations that better fit the observable data.
The greatest gulf between religion and rationalism is when it comes to factual claims. Scientific knowledge is accumulated piecemeal in jumps and starts. Claims are fronted, debunked, argued, modified and eventually become verified so repeatedly that everyone assumes they were always evident. Contrast that with religion, which typically attempts to explain the entire Cosmos, albeit with rather broad strokes, in one text or an oral tradition that can be conveyed in a mere few hours or days. But, the concise nature, not to mention the accuracy, of this narrative is only possible because of strong taboos against questioning it. Religions are famous for the brutality with which they attack those contradicting dogma. Human nature being what it is, people can be tribal, fractious and even petty. Scientists are no exception and one's life work may involve an emotional investment similar to religious faith. But,that said, when the system is working as intended, the scientist is expected to reveal his discovery and the rest of the community is supposed to attack the veracity of its claims. If it is true, then its truth will become more evident by being tested rather than being eroded by criticism.
So, if atheists typically arrive at their stance via reason and theists at least occasionally do, does atheism constitute a non-theistic religion? I would say, no. I would regard atheism as a philosophy, or more properly, merely one facet of a broader philosophy or system of belief. Atheism, monotheism and polytheism are the result of a divine accounting. One numbers the gods and falls into one of these categories depending upon his answer. But, that hardly constitutes enough information to be regarded as a religion.
Specific religions typically exhibit a somewhat internally consistent character with regard to their stance toward ethics, social responsibility, nature and origin of the cosmos and the nature of the gods. Two religions may be radically different from one another even though they may agree on the number of the gods. One would not consider Norse and Greek pagans as practicing the same religion. Nor do modern Christians, Jews and Muslims consider themselves as all belonging to the same faith, even though they agree on Monotheism (and some even acknowledge worship of the same god).
Similarly, wildly divergent philosophies can emerge from atheism. One of the favorite accusations theists hurl at atheists is that they believe in "nothing". No valid basis for morality, ethics or values exists without the gods. This might actually be true of nihilists. But, it is not true of Humanists. The differences between the two systems are even more pronounced than the contrasts between theistic faiths even though nihilists and Humanists may agree on the mythical status of the gods.
But, the most significant reason for my personal view labeling Humanism as a religion and atheism as not a religion is this; religions express a perspective on the nature of ethics, the supernatural and the cosmos. Atheism does not make positive statements about these, rather it make a statement about what one does not believe. If queried about hobbies, few people would relate that they do not collect stamps, do not fly kites or do not belong to a fantasy football league. In short, atheism is a logically negative stance. Not negative in that it is unpleasant, incorrect or harmful, but negative in that it does not make a statement on what one does believe, but on what one does not believe.
In order to answer a query on one's faith with useful information, I answer with "Humanism" not "atheism". Humanism makes a statement on what my values, beliefs and ethics are, not what they are not. Most people who embrace the label "Humanist" are also atheists. Humanists brooking some belief in the supernatural typically append something to the term Humanist, Religious Humanist or some such construct. But, it does not follow that all atheists are Humanist. Rather Humanists are a subset of atheists. I do not deny my atheism if asked and it typically comes up pretty early in my explanation of Humanism if I'm asked details of it. But, when I am asked what I am, I reply with what I am, not with what I am not.
