When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already…What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.” –Adolf Hitler

“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.” –Joseph Stalin

Szent-Gyorgyi, Albert (M.D., Ph.D., Nobel Laureate for Medicine), The Crazy Ape, The Universal Library, 1970

What we call “education” is nothing but the programming of the brain at an early stage when it is still malleable. The future on mankind depends on education, a system of programming which can be changed. Human history reflects, in essence, the gradual change in this programming, and if you compare yourself with a savage cannibal you may find that the only essential difference between the two of you in the educational programming the two of you underwent. It follows from this that education is one of the most important activities of mankind. It opens the door to wonderful possibilities, but it also exposes mankind to terrific dangers, for any dictatorial system can, through education, transform society according to its interests and, if desired, can transform decent people into savage killers, as we have seen happen repeatedly within the present century.

– Szent-Gyorgyi, Albert (M.D., Ph.D., Nobel Laureate for Medicine), The Crazy Ape, The Universal Library, 1970, p.23

Theoretically the possibility exists, through education, of changing the course of history with one stroke, replacing today’s narrow nationalism by human solidarity. Practically, however, there are enormous difficulties, for who is capable of teaching the young? It is the older people who have to teach the young, but older people tend to transmit to their students the world in which they have grown up themselves. Who should teach the teachers, then, and what sort of world is it we are aiming at? If we could answer these questions we would be half way on the road to solving the problems of the world.

– Szent-Gyorgyi, Albert (M.D., Ph.D., Nobel Laureate for Medicine), The Crazy Ape, The Universal Library, 1970, p.24

Max Planck, one of the greatest scientists of human history, the father of the quantum, wrote in his autobiography that is impossible to convince people of anything new. All that one can do is to give them time to die. The young generation will then embrace the new truths.

– Szent-Gyorgyi, Albert (M.D., Ph.D., Nobel Laureate for Medicine), The Crazy Ape, The Universal Library, 1970, p53

Whatever man does he has to do it first in this mind, and the mechanism underlying the mind is the brain. There can be no action without an underlying mechanism and a mechanism can only do what its structure allows it to do. A cow could never lay an egg, however hard she tried; nor could a gramophone type letters, or a typewriter make music. Man, too, can do only what his brain allows him to do. Thus, when discussing human action we must have a look at the brain and see what sort of organ it is and for what purpose it was shaped by nature.

In their struggle for life some animals grew fangs, others claws or tusks, while still others produced poisons. Man grew a brain, and it is a curious fact that this semisolid blob of matter proved to be a more formidable tool than fangs, claws or poison, and insured man’s supremacy. Man’s brain was not developed by nature to search for truth, but to search for food, safety, and the like; to search for advantage, to help man get through the day alive. It is an organ of survival. Human action is motivated by need or desire, and the brain is the instrument of human gratification.

In primitive societies this must have been all there was to it. In more sophisticated societies the brain developed a second function: to find arguments, mostly high-sounding ones, to justify deeds or desires. This our brain does so promptly that we kid ourselves into believing that we are actually motivated in our actions by these arguments.

… Our whole nervous system developed for one sole purpose, to maintain our lives and satisfy our needs. All our reflexes serve this purpose. This makes us utterly egotistic. With rare exceptions people are really interested in one thing only: themselves. Everybody, by necessity, is the center of his own universe.

… These traits of the human mind have remarkable consequences for social structures. Man creates institutions to satisfy his social needs in accordance with his philosophy. Individuals join these institutions and make their personal interests fuse with those of the institutions, on whose wealth and power their own prospects depend. What follows is that very soon these institutions begin to serve their own interests rather than social needs. As time goes by the social needs and philosophy change, but the institutions don’t; they remain fighting for their own interests until they are swept away by revolution, often at the price of much suffering, bloodshed and devastation. Man is like a snake, bursting his skim periodically.

– Szent-Gyorgyi, Albert (M.D., Ph.D., Nobel Laureate for Medicine), The Crazy Ape, The Universal Library, 1970, p.19, 20, 21

Konrad Lorenz, the great student of animal behavior, hatched goose eggs at the foot of a chair, and the goslings recognized the chair as their mother for the rest of their lives. When put under the chair a few hours after hatching, there was no such reaction. The point of this experiment was to show that things can be imprinted into the brain at an early age only; the brain freezes up later and is no longer malleable. In dogs this freezing up occurs around the sixth month. If you want a dog of the wolf family to recognize you as his master, you must train him before his is six months old. This freezing up, in man, seems to occur around the fourth decade, after which the brain is increasingly unable to assimilate new ideas.

– Szent-Gyorgyi, Albert (M.D., Ph.D., Nobel Laureate for Medicine), The Crazy Ape, The Universal Library, 1970, p53

In sex, the sublime and the vulgar are separated only by a hair’s breadth. Christian religions could never find a consistent attitude towards it, making it a sin before marriage and giving it their sanction after marriage. Overlaying it all was the residual feeling that anything having to do with fornication was evil – this is the legacy that has been passed down to us by religion.

– Szent-Gyorgyi, Albert (M.D., Ph.D., Nobel Laureate for Medicine), The Crazy Ape, The Universal Library, 1970, p57

My mother was an enlightened agnostic who just smiled when people talked about religion; but if any of her sons were in trouble, she hastened to church to bribe St. Peter with a dime so that he would lobby for her. The impressions of her early childhood were undeletable; later impressions constituted but a thin layer which peeled off easily.

– Szent-Gyorgyi, Albert (M.D., Ph.D., Nobel Laureate for Medicine), The Crazy Ape, The Universal Library, 1970, p53

The world… is not the old world in which mankind was born. It is a new world, and it demands new ideas, leaders and methods. That we have not yet come to this realization – that we have conceived no “new” ideas, have developed no “new” leaders, have devised no “new” methods – is made depressingly obvious by the fact that we are still acting like man of thousands of years ago.

– Szent-Gyorgyi, Albert (M.D., Ph.D., Nobel Laureate for Medicine), The Crazy Ape, The Universal Library, 1970, p.18

(My Lai massacre, March 16, 1968) The army will try to polish its tarnished image and will try to show its innocence by shifting blame to a few individuals, especially to Lieutenant Calley. What frightens me about Calley is not that he allegedly killed, but that, according to witnesses, he is a decent fellow who was a good student and a good soldier – he apparently always did his duty and never revealed any traits of criminality. This frightens me because it shows how terribly brutalizing wars and military life are, how they are capable of turning decent fellows into mass murders who can shoot women and children down in cold blood. The culprits are those who turned Lt. Calley into a murder. If I were his judge, I would dismiss the case, exonerate Lt. Calley and his fellows, and pass a severe judgement on the society which created the institutions that made murders out of decent people. After all, the main object of prolonged military training is to teach men to obey orders without questioning. This, it appears, is exactly what Lt. Calley did. He was being a good soldier.

– Szent-Gyorgyi, Albert (M.D., Ph.D., Nobel Laureate for Medicine), The Crazy Ape, The Universal Library, 1970, p81

We are all tattooed in our cradles with the beliefs of our tribe; the record may seem superficial, but it is indelible. You cannot educate a man wholly out of the superstitious fears which were implanted in his imagination, no matter how utterly his reason may reject them. – Oliver Wendall Holmes, Sr.

(Belief: conviction of the truth of some statement. Something we regard as being true.)

• Religious thinkers “believe” the universe was created and is being controlled by a supernatural entity called god.
• Secular thinkers “believe” the universe was created and is being controlled by the laws of nature.

This is the fundamental difference between religious thinkers and secular thinkers.

Their are plenty of facts to “prove” either position. But it is the fundamental assumptions we inherited through our birth culture that generally determines whether we “believe” in god, or “believe” in the laws of nature.

• No
• Hell no
• That depends on how you define “religion”

Atheism

It’s easier to find agreement on a definition of atheism than on religion. I think most people would agree with one or both of these definitions of atheism:

• the lack of belief in god
• the belief that there is no god

That’s it. No mention of doctrine or sacred texts. No temples, churches or places of worship. No worldviews. No position on morality or ethics. No rituals or cerimonies. No priests, leaders or gurus.

Religion

Religion is usually defined to include a belief in a deity or god with supernatural powers.

• generally a belief in a deity and practice of worship, action, and/or thought related to that deity.

There are 2 ways to define atheism as a religion…

• remove the belief “in” a god or deity from the definition
• talk about what atheists believe, and not about atheism

When we remove the belief “in” god, we get…

• Religion is any belief “about” the nature of god

And since atheism is about the non existence of god, this definition makes it a religion.

Atheism is simply a belief about the non existence of god. “Atheists” on the other hand, the people who believe in atheism, do have world views, positions on morality and ethics etc. But atheism does not. Similarly, humanism is a set of beliefs held by some atheists, but not by atheism. All humanists are atheists, but not all atheists are humanists.

So if your definition is not just about “atheism” but also about “what some atheists believe”, then you get many definitions that (also) include atheism. For example:

• any structured set of beliefs (Darwin’s theory of evolution)
• a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe (the big bang theory)
• a cause, principle, or activity pursued (collecting stamps)
• anything pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion (a boyfriend or girlfriend)
• a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects (chemistry)
• any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief (secular law and order in general)

Any of these definitions could include atheism. But they’re also so broad as to diminish the usefulness of the definition.

Religion vs atheism

Another way to identify a religion is by its major features or characteristics.

By this comparison its hard to classify atheism as a religion as it has none of the significant features that the major or even minor religions share.

So why do some people claim that atheism is a religion?

• Ignorance: Many people genuinely do not know what atheism is about.
• Political: If one can successfully argue that atheism is a religion, then they can argue that creationism can also be taught in the public school system along with evolution.

Some other interesting definitions of atheism

• the denial of the existence of god

This definition implies that god exists but that atheists simply refuses to believe or acknowledge him (or her?).

• belief in false gods, no gods, or doctrines that stand in conflict with an established religion

I’m amused with this definition because it is so broad that it includes everyone on earth. Of the hundreds (thousands) of gods that are worshiped, most people believe in only one. Thus denying the existence of the other gods. Christians and Jews are atheists in the eyes of Muslims for believing in a false god. Muslims are atheists in the eyes of Christians and Jews, Jews are atheists in the eyes of Christians… etc. The list is endless. We are all atheists in someones eyes.

So in summary…, “Is atheism a religion?”

Again I reply:

• No
• Hell no
• That depends on how you define “religion”

“One obvious question which must strike any one who sees or reads of magical [religious] practices must be: Why do they exist when they rest upon principles which often run counter to those we know to be true? Why has the savage not perceived the fallacy of his magic? Long ago Edward Tylor pointed out four reasons for this. First, some of the results aimed at by magic do actually occur, though for other reasons, or because there may be some real virtue in what is done or in the medicine used; secondly, in some cases trickery may be practiced by the magician to deceive his fellows – though on the whole the magician believes as firmly in his magic as so others; thirdly, positive cases count for more than negative cases – even in our own experience we often ignore things which run counter to theories in which we believe; fourthly, there is the belief in the existence of counter – magic. If a rite fails to produce its end, then it is argued that the proper conditions have not been observed, or that some one else has magically conspired against it.

…A …general function which has been stressed my Malinowski is that magic tends to make for confidence in those who employ it. The sphere with which it purports to cope is essentially that of the unknown and the unpredictable – of rain and drought and insect pests in agriculture, of the winds and storms and perils of the sea in sailing, of the desires and feelings of a trading partner, or the vagaries of the heart of one who one loves. Productive magic asserts man’s power over Nature, and allows him to go forward with his aims in the conviction that through his own efforts he can command success. From his point of view magic cannot be overthrown by any mere demonstration of its fallacy. It is too deeply interwined with the fundamental springs of human emotion.

… A great deal of what can be said about magic also applies to religion. It is founded on assumptions from beyond the sphere of reason, it uses manual rites and verbal formula and the condition of the performers is frequently held to be proper to the success of its appeal. But a number of points for distinction between them have been put forward. As examples we may mention Frazer’s formal criteria, which have been widely adopted, of magic being an assertion of man’s control over Nature by the commanding power of the spell, and religion as his reliance on spirit powers through the appeal of the prayer. Then there is Malinowski’s functional criteria of magic being a simple belief in the definite effects of man’s power of using spell and rite, limited in technique and directed to a definite, practical end; and religion as a complete set of beliefs and practices, united not in the form of its acts or subject matter, but in the function which it fulfils, self-contained, and finding its fulfillment in its very execution. Piddington, again, takes a cross-classification of religion as the ideology of the supernatural, and magic as its application to practical affairs, so that in activities which are ordinarily regarded as essentially religious there would be on his definition a magical component. Other writers have stressed the difficulty of drawing such a distinction, and prefer to speak of the magico-religious sphere as a whole. Linked with this are two further points. The practices of magic are frequently individual, with one person opposing his interests and his emotions to those of his fellows, creating disharmony rather than resolving it. Those of religion are essentially social, often partaking of the ritual of church, with the basic aim of adjusting individuals to their social environment, leading them to find peace within themselves, and reconciliation with others. From this comes the moral classification of magic as something frequently bad from the social point of view, and religion as something good and socially valuable. We speak of black magic but never of black religion.

Using any criterion singly the distinction between magic and religion can be easily drawn. But when they are considered in conjunction, the two spheres cannot be so clearly demarcated. …[many] elements ordinarily considered to magical can be found in rites ordinarily considered as religious, and vice versa.

…Within the Christian Church prayer may be used to secure immediately practical benefits… The basic attitude in prayer is that of appeal. But many of the forms of prayer by their phraseology alone are commands, and it has even been held that the persistent prayer will inevitably bring a response. The idea that God answers prayer is in a way an assertion of the power of the spoken word to bring the results we desire.

…It is not necessary today to prove, as Taylor had to prove half a century ago, that all known peoples, however primitive, have a religion. This “religion” may not be of the type to which we are accustomed, but it is none the less real and fills an important place in their lives. It may include acts that shock and horrify us – headhunting, cannibalism, human sacrifice, mutilation of the body. It may include beliefs that seem childish and absurd, in the power of stones and trees to move and to talk, in veneration for animals and birds, taboos against simple ordinary habits, beliefs in contaminations which the human body can suffer. Yet it includes, too, beliefs of considerable imaginative power and even beauty, cults of fertility and of vegetation, personification of natural phenomena, and tales about them. Strangely assorted as they may seem, these things can be found linked together in the religious life of a single people.

…The most common rite is one of public assembly. So much is this true that Durkheim has given its extreme expression in his theory that religion essentially connotes a church, and that the idea of God is really that of society deified.

It appears that in every society men believe in the existence of spirit entities and spirit powers which influence human activity. This impressed Taylor so much that he based his minimum definition of religion on what he called animism, and described as a belief in spiritual beings. When we think of a religion we usually think of a god or gods.

…Magic is… only one form of cultural response to situations of uncertainty. Other responses may be a reliance upon a beneficent God, a reliance upon the theory of probability – which is another name for science, or a simple fatalism which rejects both science and God. The reason for the different distribution of the magical and other responses in different types of society is something which as yet anthropology and psychology have not been able to fully explain. An answer commonly given, that it is due to historical processes, still leaves unsolved the problem of why the pattern of action took just this historical form.

…This brief sketch of magic and religion has been able only to hint at some of the most important scientific problems they present and their role in human life. What has emerged, however, is that they are intimately related to other aspects of human culture, to economic, to technology, to social grouping, to art… They also bear on basic human emotions, concerned with the nature of personality and the existence of the individual. What these beliefs and practices which may be termed irrational do is to give a firmness to much rational behavior, to provide a set of absolutes to which conduct can be referred. In their provision of a sanction for conduct, of a rallying point for man’s view of life and the universe, for his relations with his fellows and for his hope for the future, lies much of the explanation for the tenacity with which they are maintained, even when experience would seem to have proved them fallacious.”

–Raymond Firth, Human Types: An Introduction to Social Anthropology, 1958, p.128-147

“This does not deny that there is a certain extent to which individuals, in all cultures, are free to develop as they wish, but that freedom itself is in large measure culturally determined, for we are born dependent. Independence and freedom are qualities that we have to learn, and one of the major differences that we will find between our way of doing things and the ways that others do the same things is that whereas we carefully teach the values of freedom and independence, other cultures equally carefully teach the merits of bondage and dependence…” –Turnbull, Colin (Anthropologist), The Human Cycle, Triad/Paladin Books, 1985, p.10

“Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implications and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference.” -Michael Schiven and Richard Paul

Critical Thinking is “the careful, deliberate determination of whether we should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim, and the degree of confidence with which we accept or reject it.” Moore and Parker, Critical Thinking

“Critical thinking is best understood as the ability of thinkers to take charge of their own thinking. This requires that they develop sound criteria and standards for analyzing and assessing their own thinking and routinely use those criteria and standards to improve its quality.”– Elder, L. and Paul, R. “Critical Thinking: Why we must transform our teaching.” Journal of Developmental Education 18:1, Fall 1994, 34-35.