a religion in the sense that it addresses the big questions that our familiar religions do
It addresses one big question that our familiar religions do. The others it leaves alone (beyond rejecting one specific claim that’s alleged to answer several of them.) What is the nature of right and wrong? Where do human beings come from? Do we have anything like souls and if so can they survive (or be restored after) death? Is there a purpose to our existence (individually or collectively) and if so what?
There are lots of possible answers to those questions that don’t involve gods.
(I think it’s probably true that most atheists in present-day Western society have similar answers to most of those questions. If so, I think that indicates not that atheism is really a religion but that there are other things besides atheism pushing us towards those answers. For instance, actual evidence that they’re right; or historically contingent groupthink; or other possibilities that will readily occur to the imaginative reader.)
That’s a very good thing to ask, but it happens not to be the point actually at issue in this discussion.
(Is it churlish to point out that the remainder of the paragraph you quoted really ought to make it abundantly clear that I’m aware that the answers could be right or wrong and that it matters which?)
It addresses one big question that our familiar religions do. The others it leaves alone (beyond rejecting one specific claim that’s alleged to answer several of them.) What is the nature of right and wrong? Where do human beings come from? Do we have anything like souls and if so can they survive (or be restored after) death? Is there a purpose to our existence (individually or collectively) and if so what?
There are lots of possible answers to those questions that don’t involve gods.
(I think it’s probably true that most atheists in present-day Western society have similar answers to most of those questions. If so, I think that indicates not that atheism is really a religion but that there are other things besides atheism pushing us towards those answers. For instance, actual evidence that they’re right; or historically contingent groupthink; or other possibilities that will readily occur to the imaginative reader.)
The real point, however, is to ask whether they’ve got the right answers to those questions.
That’s a very good thing to ask, but it happens not to be the point actually at issue in this discussion.
(Is it churlish to point out that the remainder of the paragraph you quoted really ought to make it abundantly clear that I’m aware that the answers could be right or wrong and that it matters which?)