Religion & Ethics: Content from Across the ABC

How does this site work?


What do atheists mean when they talk about religion?

Rowan Williams ABC Religion and Ethics 13 Apr 2012
Atheists in the present discussion have wrongly identified what they are talking about when they talk about "religion," because they ignore the self-description of religious believers.



In Dostoevsky's novel The Idiot, the tormented and indeterminate hero - or rather, anti-hero - Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin is asked at one point whether he believes in god or not, and his reply is characteristically inconclusive. But, he says, what troubles him is that the atheist always seems to be talking about "something else."

"The essence of religious feeling does not fall under the province of any reasoning, or any crimes and misdemeanours, or any atheist doctrines; there's something else here, and it will always be something else, there is something that atheist doctrines will eternally glide over and they will eternally be speaking of 'something else'."

I want to try here to identify what that "something else" is that atheists seem to be talking about. In other words, what do they think it is that they are talking about when they talk about religious belief and practice? Because I don't think it is very much use carrying on with the current discussion unless we have clarified what they think they mean.

Let me suggest that there are two things that atheists think they are talking about, and two ways in which they construe the notion of religious belief and practice. The first is that religion is a kind of strategy; the second is that religion is a kind of explanation.

First, religion as a kind of strategy. This refers to the way certain kinds of "neo-Darwinian" views on science and its decisive place in intellectual discussion would say that every intellectual position is a strategy - that is, a way of coping with the circumstances in which one lives. It is about the survival benefits entailed in what we say we believe; what enables us to maximize our chances of getting through a complex and rather threatening world.

Now, there may be a trivial sense in which our intellectual systems and responses are strategies for coping; we have to think about the world we're in, in order to navigate from one place to another. But there is obviously a question, not just about religious belief, but about belief in general.

If we say all intellectual activity is strategy and no more, then such beliefs have nothing very much to do with truth, because what changes our belief can't be different beliefs about what is true, but only different beliefs about what is advantageous.

The second thing, religion as explanation, assumes that religious belief is meant to explain the strange things that happen in the world. And, of course, religion has proven to be a very bad explanation of strange things that happen in the world, for now we have much better ways of explaining what happens in the world. So religious belief ought not to be possible, precisely because it is a bad explanation that has been superseded.

Now, both of these ways of understanding religion are complicated by the fact that religious belief does not show a great deal of evidence of fading away, even when people tell it just how bad its explanations are. Therefore, it sounds rather oddly as if religious belief, despite being a bad explanation, remains rather a good strategy in some people's eyes.

But without elaborating too much on those points, let me say why I think both of these understandings are "something else" than what the religious person is actually talking about.

Let me deal first with strategy. Obviously, it could be said that religious belief is a way of coping, in the sense that every statement we make about the world is a means of finding our way around in it without bumping into too many things. We learn our way around and construct imaginative worlds as we go because, you might say, of the bruises we have from bumping into things.

And that sense of trying to come to terms with what is there - never mind what we would like to be there - is part of the intellectual effort for most people. So religion is a strategy, yes, but perhaps only in a very thin sense.

But then, of course, in many religious traditions, there is the rather curious element in religious belief and language that seems to cut against survival benefits.

What about those kinds of religious language that are about openness to gratuity, receptivity to the overflowing pointlessness of things - which is the source of wonder - or about risk undertaken for the sake of truth?

What about those kinds of religious language that are about coping with darkness and meaninglessness, or even inviting darkness, entering into the night - as some of the writers say - of contemplation, in order not to allow any strategies, any images, any fantasies to arise between yourself and the truth?

I put it in those rather broad terms because a good deal of such language applies not only to Christianity but also to traditions such as Buddhism. Something is going on here about the need, in order to allow the truth to be present to you, to let go of the security of the ego.

So, just what kind of "strategy" are we talking about when this is how some of the self-aware and sophisticated exponents of religious language see it? Surely this suggests that there is "something else" going on.

As to explanation, there is a widespread view that the doctrine of creation is an explanation. Just as the explanation of why a kettle is boiling is a mixture of my putting it on and the electrical system that keeps it going, so somehow belief in God is like believing in somebody throwing the switch and letting the current flow. But explanations are always things that go on within the system of the world.

An explanatory hypothesis is about how one thing leads to another. And of course, in classical theological language, God is not one thing, nor is the universe another. It's not that you have one thing called the universe and you wonder where it came from, so you postulate this other thing that threw the switch.

What the doctrine of creation says is that there is a relationship between everything, every set of circumstances, every phenomenon, and what we can only call a fundamental act that sustains everything. It's not an explanation - it's more like a location of what we're talking about in another context.

One doesn't need to believe there was a first moment; all one needs to say for the doctrine of creation to work is that what is depends, that it is not simply there of its own action. "Creation" is thus not an explanation, nor a puzzle, nor a loose end to tie up - but something else.

Let me suggest that these are two things about religious language and practice that seem to point to something else, something other than what the atheists are talking about when they talk about religion.

There are, as I've pointed out, aspects of the language of religion that sit rather oddly with talk of survival strategies. And while religion is not an explanation, because it is not setting itself up as a rival way of identifying the things that make other things happen, it certainly does make a bold bid for locating the universe entirely in relation to an unconditional act, a gift or initiative. But that act or gift is not just another part of the story, one thing among others.

To say that atheists in the present discussion have wrongly identified what they are talking about when they talk about "religion" does not mean that atheism is nonsense, any more than my alternative explanation represents a definitive response.

But I hope we can at least clarify our terms a bit by asking how the self-description and self-understanding of the religious believer comes into any argument about the validity of religious language. And by becoming aware of just how susceptible we are to the fundamentally political temptation to gain power in an argument by defining for somebody else how they really are.

Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Comments (42)

Add your comment

  • ltrev :

    29 Apr 2013 10:17:13am

    Dawkins, in 'The God Delusion', observes of cargo cults 'The independent flowering of so many independent but similar cults suggests some unifying features of human psychology in general'.

    Dawkins sees in cargo cults a susceptibility to religion whereas it seems obvious that it is a desperate attempt to understand the world - to find out how it works.

    Williams denies religion is essentially about explanation and survival, yet it seems obvious that traditional religious ideas and practice are products of human attempts to succeed in the world.

    The response of Dawkins and Williams to cargo cults suggests neither is able to empathise with people in this situation. It seems that Dawkins has had the good fortune to have never been ignorant; Williams has had the good fortune to be unaffected by ignorance.

    When Williams writes "And while religion is not an explanation ... it certainly does make a bold bid for locating the universe entirely in relation to an unconditional act, a gift or initiative." we are right to be offended by his 'gift' metaphor and we are right to be amazed that the creation story out of the blood and guts Old Testament is refined to a hint of almost nothing. Williams demeans explanations as "always things that go on within the system of the world." But he must surely know that his writing still has explanatory intent and that his method of transcending the problem of world-bound explanation is through the use of metaphor: 'bid' and 'gift', which are also of this world as indeed is 'metaphor' itself. If Williams is bold then we will not have much use for the word 'timid'.

    But ironically, in his haste to retreat from the real, Williams misses the most central of religious concerns. Religion is not about what is seen, it is about what sees. Religion consists of language maintained by selves and its central concern is about those selves - what are they, what is their relationship to the real world, what becomes of them when they die? And it is on this question I think religion depends on an illusion. When it asks "What happens when you die?" it promotes a paradoxical question that contains the premise that one is both alive and dead. From this contradiction it produces a self considering itself dead: - it creates the illusion of an omnipresent self. The immortal self is just a trick, and when I see deeply suffering people resort to it I see insult added to injury. Well may Williams ignor the afterlife - he is part of a powerful afterlife industry that has an anti-interest in a true understanding of the relationship of our selves to the world.

    Unlike Dawkins and Williams, I think religion has always tried to be rational and understanding of the world - and that it would be if it could.

  • Razzles :

    25 May 2012 6:36:04pm

    "Because I don't think it is very much use carrying on with the current discussion unless we have clarified what they think they mean".

    This reminds me of the time when one of my kids said:"I don't believe in God, like you do!" I replied: "No, I don't believe in the god that you think I believe in either!"

    I believe it may be foolish/unwise for someone to just presume that they know what someone else is thinking!

    I also believe that we need to develop an informed awareness of other people’s perspectives by listening to each other and really hearing what the other has to say, then reflect upon what they say, and not be afraid to embrace diverse perspectives and consider alternatives.

    These are some small steps towards dialogue, which in my opinion is preferable to using more confrontational ways of communicating.

    BTW, 'peace, love, respect and freedom' as mentioned earlier reminds me of two well-known verses:

    Galatians 5.22-26 "...the fruit of (God's) Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control"


    1 John 4:7-8 " ... let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love".

  • Cynicure :

    18 May 2012 7:20:06pm


    You mean, like the way you're trying to define what atheists are and how they think for them? (As if they all thought the same things!)


  • Kimba :

    21 Apr 2012 3:41:00pm

    This article makes me wonder if it’s even possible for modern Christians to describe their beliefs using plain and simple language. Bertrand Russell’s “History of Western Philosophy” describes some very subtle ideas using beautifully clear prose, so a senior Christian like Rowan Williams has no excuses. Religious fundamentalists can state their (absurd) beliefs unambiguously but religious moderates can’t or won’t. If your beliefs can’t be expressed clearly (or are obviously false or lacking content when they are) then it’s time to take a deep breath and find some better ones. It is morally wrong to propagate ideas that you think are reasonably likely to be false.

      • Raf :

        20 May 2012 9:18:27am

        Morally wrong? Says who?

          • Kimba :

            21 Jun 2012 1:49:38pm

            Says me -- obviously! Though I think you're making the point that without God there’s no absolute morality, so in that case morals would have to be based on things like compassion and well-reasoned arguments rather than God's authority. But atheists like me can say the same thing back to theists -- morally wrong according to which God? Mohammad owned slaves so presumably the Muslim God thinks slavery is OK, but I don't think slavery sits very well with Christian morality. So until we know which god is the one true one among all the false gods, people who think that morality should be based on God's will don't even know if slavery is right or wrong...

  • jpopovaclark :

    19 Apr 2012 12:07:57pm

    Hi Rowan, Thankyou for telling us atheist what we think religion is. As a practicing atheist, let me enlighten you:

    1. Just as there are many brands of religion, there are many brands of atheist. We believe different things about religion. Can't generalise...sorry.

    2. About the only thing we atheists can all agree about religion is that every religion's claims about their god(s) are not true. That's it.

    Other than that we just get a bit annoyed about how you guys treat us (and many care about innocent others, like naive children). Leave atheists (and our collective governments, schools, universities and legislation etc)alone and let us live our lives without being prejudiced against and we'll pretty much shut up and leave you alone to enjoy your fantasies with the other fanatics. Deal!

  • SomeGuyCalledGuy :

    18 Apr 2012 1:27:30am

    G'Day Mr Archbishop
    Hope you get to read this, because I think you might've got confused about the description of theism as a strategy. The point of natural evolution is that it is horrendously dumb. We are the species most in control of ourselves, but we're all each enacting natural selections adaptions it blindly gifted us. For a good scientific guess at the why religion exists, take a read of "The Moral Animal". Fascinating book

  • Anderson :

    17 Apr 2012 11:36:17am


    That would be "Please leave me alone. You live your life how you choose and please stop telling me how to live my life."

    It's not that hard, atheists don't believe the religious claims that the people preaching at them do, any more than a follower of Islam believes Christianity and vice versa.

    And the ongoing failure of some (certainly not all) religious people to be able to tolerate other faiths or atheists is quite a damning condemnation of those individuals.

    On the other hand lately annoying political-preaching is much more common than annoying religious-preaching nowadays and I find myself in many more heated political discussions than I do fending off over-zealous preaching people.

    I'd say that anyone who can't respect another person because of their religious (or political) beliefs or lack of religious beliefs is a pretty poor person. And let's be honest, there are MANY topics atheists and theists could be discussing other than religion.

      • Murray Alfredson :

        17 Apr 2012 5:20:00pm

        Just three points here, Ms or Mr Anderson.

        1. There are atheists about who are just as obnoxious as in-your-face god-botherers in foisting their views on to other people, even onto other atheists who are more laid back than they.

        2. And yes, political (and economic, for that matter) dogmatism is just as obnoxious as religious.

        3. I assure you it is quite possible for reasonable atheists and religious people to share thoughts about religion. Actually, atheism and religion are quite compatible -- there are major atheistic religions in this world.

  • James Picone :

    16 Apr 2012 6:18:03pm

    Things can have multiple aspects - religions certainly have had, at various points in time for different religions and for different people, explanatory aspects. Consider creationists, for example.

    There's a viewpoint here of religion as truth claim - regardless of what religion means, personally, to a believer, if their religion makes truth claims those claims can be assessed by someone else for truth or falsity.

  • In :

    16 Apr 2012 2:18:37pm

    "The essence of religious feeling does not fall under the province of any reasoning." Nor language. Both sides are merely dealing with the frustration at not being able to conceptualize or communicate our common origin and purpose.

  • science something something :

    15 Apr 2012 9:22:58pm

    christians and atheists share many beleifs

    they just name them differently, the concepts are exactly the same

    one prays for salvation from an all powerful being, which the church assures them exists. the other hopes for contact with hyper intelligent aliens, which science assures them do exist, along with extremely advanced technology solving all the earth's problems

    christians pray for eternal life in heaven, atheists know that modern medicine and scientific breakthroughs will give them "their version" of heaven within a decade or two

    both expect the other to be damned in the future, atheists by the judgement of an angry god, christians by an unwillingness to participate in scientific medical breakthroughs that "defy god"

    ironically, both view it not as a punishment upon the other, but a regretful "leaving behind" of those unwilling to be saved

    when atheists mean when they talk about "religion" in a general sense, what they're referring to, is the set of ideas put forth by religions which "satisfy" this fundamental need for optimism, ideas that everything will turn out fine, the ideas set forth in the previous paragraphs, which both christians and atheists share

    christians cannot comprehend how atheists live their lives happily without those ideas, and atheists cannot comprehend why christians would ascribe to something they cannot be absolutely sure is true, when they take all those assurances from knowledge of science, and the continuation of industrialisation and technological progress. which as a trend, is impossible to ignore, and can only increase in the forseeable future

    atheism has been growing recently, largely due to the massive increases in the "plausibility" of a future utopia built on science

    religions gather followers in times of crisis, atheist philosophy gathers followers as its methods pay dividends in terms of technology and productivity, todays society is proof of the power of technology

    atheism may not be completely holeproof, but it sits atop secular society as a common understanding that religion is not neccesary, that it is harmful, while christians claim the exact same things about atheism

    but it matters little which is correct. the children of today grow up in a world of technology, the ones which arent indoctrinated into religion early, will see no reason or need for religion, taking confidence in the scientific establishment which educates them

    this is not the world of the 1990s

    i wonder which side will recognise the similarities first

  • PT Moore :

    15 Apr 2012 1:34:40pm

    Using a work of fiction as a starting point to define the atheist view of religion...hmm, I see a parallel in using a better-known work of fiction to define the theist view. Oh wait, perhaps that's already been done

  • pippa :

    15 Apr 2012 12:42:46pm

    It is not for you to define the atheist view of religion and to challenge or dispel that view. As an atheist, my belief is grounded firmly in the lack of evidence of the existence of any god whatsoever, and religion is merely a byproduct of history - and a very destructive one at that. The sooner the people of the world are made free of the shackles of religion, then the sooner our lives can be truly lived in peace, love, respect and freedom.

      • david :

        15 Apr 2012 11:24:25pm

        I don't think that the Archbishop was trying to define what atheism means to atheists (far from it), the whole point of the article was to encourage all concerned to be clear about what we mean by what we say - which is standard academic practice. You are, by the way, exhibiting an astonishing degree of naivety in thinking that the end of religion would usher in a period of 'peace, love, respect and freedom.' I don't mean to sound rude, but was this mean to be a joke?

      • Bruce :

        16 Apr 2012 7:07:49am

        So Pippa, what do you understand religion actually does for people? What do you mean by "byproduct of history"? Are all people who embrace religion wanting to be destructive? Do all religious people see themselves as shackled? Are all religious people devoid of "peace, love, respect and freedom"? What _does_ religion do for them?

          • Unbeliever :

            16 Apr 2012 12:05:31pm

            To answer your questions.

            yes, it would seem so.

  • Lucy :

    15 Apr 2012 1:08:44am

    How strange that Rowan Williams final sentence is the most suitable comment that could be made about his whole article.

    This is exactly what Williams is doing after declaring, "I want to try here to identify what that "something else" is that atheists seem to be talking about. In other words, what do they think it is that they are talking about when they talk about religious belief and practice? "
    I, for one, do not think that religion is a "kind of strategy" nor do I think that it is a "kind of explanation".
    The dictionary tells me:
    "religion |riˈlijən|
    • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance : consumerism is the new religion".

    I think that we perhaps should leave it to the psychologists/neurologists/brain scientists to investigate why a person believes in one or other of the Gods on offer or no God at all. Nature and nurture would seem to be good starting points.

      • david :

        15 Apr 2012 11:31:03pm

        You've missed the point. What williams is trying to do is to bring to our attention that what we mean by things is not always the same as what other people think we mean by things. So, when a Christian talks about atheism she may have a very different idea of what atheism means than does a an actual atheist; and - Williams' point - visa vers. His point is not about trying to dominate atheists politically, but to remind them that what they think religion is ain't necessarily so. Once that minor point can be put to one side a proper debate can emerge. Otherwise the debate endlessly circulates in misunderstanding.
        As for your comment that 'we perhaps should leave it to the psychologists/neurologists/brain scientists to investigate why a person believes in one or other of the Gods on offer or no God at all', I can only assume that you think such discourses of power-knowledge are wholly objective and neutral. Good luck with thinking that, by the way!

  • Dom :

    14 Apr 2012 2:18:36pm

    "If we say all intellectual activity is strategy and no more,.."

    "So religion is a strategy, yes, but perhaps only in a very thin sense."

    So religion can be a strategy and something else, but a naturalistic view of intellectual activity can't, because you slip these assertions into different paragraphs? That's all you've got? And you're the head of one of the most influential churches in the world?

  • Murray Alfredson :

    13 Apr 2012 10:28:55pm

    1. I am not sure that Dr Williams' distinction between strategy and explanation altogether holds up. I see this more as a continuum, between the two poles Dr Williams posits.

    However, I found myself while reading this essay thinking of George Kelly and his theory of personal constructs, which posits man the scientist trying to make sense of the world around us. We all build up our own world of thought and live within it. To the extent that there is commonality between people's worlds and constructs, communication can happen.

    And, of course, 'strategy' and 'explanation' constitute in Dr Williams' thought a Kellyan bipolar construct.

    2. I do wonder whether (understandably) Dr Williams makes an assumption that equates or at least strongly and necessarily associates 'religion' and belief in God. Buddhism along with a number of other religions of Asia is not premised on such an assumption. I can speak only for Buddhism, but here we find a system of method, teaching and practice that appears very like religion of the West, devotion, even worship, ethical teaching, meditation and even monasticism. This last brings me to what I think of as the fundamental meaning of the word, 'religion', discipline and binding to a way, regardless of deity or no deity. Thus we follow our practices in life 'religiously' in this sense, that we are regular in doing these things. This is the sense that underlies some of our deepest moral sayings, such as 'My word is my bond.'

  • a country gal :

    13 Apr 2012 6:38:38pm

    Thanks for that Rowan, i don't give much thought to needing an explanation anymore. I got that over and done with in my early teens.
    So I don't spend much time on it, probably recently with the convention in Melb & the poor debate on Q&A has reignited the opportunity for more of these articles.
    I'm happy in my own non believing skin, thanks all the same. I predict the need for the man made construct that is religion will be all but gone in OZ & some western cultures before too long.
    You may be able to fool the uneducated and the insecure but the brainwashing should soon be obsolete to the educated thinkers.

  • Paul Tyson :

    13 Apr 2012 5:49:15pm

    Religion, according to Talal Asad, is equally “something else”. That is, the way people understood ‘religion’ in medieval Christendom, and how modern Western Christians understand ‘religion’ today are not the same thing at all; and that is within one ‘religion’ and one geo-cultural location. The modern anthropological notion of religion is just one understanding of religion (which can be seen by atheists as a strategy or whatever), and one which has no particular claim to universal validity. So an atheist who attacks ‘religion’ is a greater believer than I (who am a Christian) that the word ‘religion’ has a clear and obvious meaning. With Rowan Williams and Dostoevsky’s beautiful idiot, I am comfortable to live within things I do not understand (or perhaps one only understands what one stands under, at least within the epistemology of love) so, like Rowan Williams, I get the sense that New Atheism simply doesn’t get what God (who is no thing amongst things to orthodox Christian belief) is to a believer, nor do they get what religion is, at all. And how can one dismiss or critique what one does not even get?

  • John :

    13 Apr 2012 3:08:48pm

    Perhaps a better question is what do the defenders of what is usually promoted as religion mean by religion?

    All religion is a theatrically conceived magic show of suggestive ideas and make-believe performances, specifically intended to divert, entertain, and either with or without mutual agreement and consent, deceive - although the institutionalized justification for the playful deception is the compassion-rationalization that if makes people FEEL better.

    All religion is a playful effort to console by means of deception - much as parents do with young children (by exercising the faculties of fantasy, until the child hopefully grows up and, inevitably, and rightly, ceases to believe in the nursery stories of childhood's time of playful nurturing.

    The proposing of religious myths and illusions has a traditional function in the domain of childhood - but the world of truly and responibly adult life intrinsically requires a mature and truly civilized culture, founded in Realty Itself.

    The religious culture of childish illusionism is the culture of make believe, engaged for the purpose of pacifying primitive infantile human emotions, and, especially, the infantile fear of death.

    Religion is a form of pious, but, nonetheless, childish consumerism, full of posturing, bargain-hunting, haggling, and deceitful practices of all kinds, whereby the presumed separate client-like ego, wheter as an individual or as a socially defined cultural collective, seeks to acquire what, from thge egoic point of view is desired (or whatever presumed to be objectively defined condition, thing, or state the proprietary "God" can provide to satisfy the wanting-demand of the presumed separate ego.

    The religious form of the consumer ego wants and seeks, as if in a marketplace of unlimited supply, what it can beg, take, somehow earn, or otherwise acquire from the presumed storeowning shopkeeper "god".


    In general what the human world wants, and, therefore what religious insitutions tend to provide, is consoling social associationsd and optimistic talk about "God". Therefore, in the modern world, instead of cultures of comprehensive right practice, there are religion businesses that provide naive essentially childish, and even infantile consolations.

    The modern human world is a fragmented world, full of individuals who regard their presumed separateness and independence as absolute, who demonstrate no profundity, and who are not moved by profundity. Indeed conventional exoteric religion actively prevents any kind of access even to the very possibility of such profundity.

      • dagcar :

        16 Apr 2012 5:17:10pm

        John, do you have an 'infantile fear of death' or perhaps you don't fear death at all?
        Incidentally, can you suggest what a' mature fear of death' might look like, if there is a third alternative? perhaps stocism?

  • Astonished :

    13 Apr 2012 1:52:16pm


    Only if you look at religion through the eyes of someone sitting outside it. I'm not aware of a religion that doesn't posit some kind of rewarding or desirable after-life. People believe that it's there and then religion, whatever its attitude towards survival benefits in the real world, offers a strategy to obtain that "greater" survival. Work now, reward later, which is language that's very much a part of Christian and other theologies, words I've heard used directly by believers.

  • him wots sick of the slings :

    13 Apr 2012 11:58:56am

    Can i suggest it is up to the athiests to express what they mean when they talk about religion? Wouldn't they express a better understanding of what you can only guess at?
    How about doing something novel like preaching tolerance rather than speculating on what atheists believe.

  • IB :

    13 Apr 2012 10:13:49am

    I don't know about other atheist contributors to this site, but I really enjoy Rowan Williams' thoughtful essays. It is indeed very important that we talk about the same things if we really want to understand each other. I too am a great fan of Zen-Buddhist philosophy, which I appreciate because there is no need for supernatural beings. I am interested in a deeper meaning to intelligent life, but watching my children grow is all I need. If there is more then all the better. Above all, I am looking to spend time with fellow travellers in time who are making a positive contribution to make the world a better place for all.

      • Murray Alfredson :

        13 Apr 2012 10:10:19pm

        I, too, am an atheist, IB. And I also like to let myself be challenged by Dr Rowan Williams, and not simply because I have a soft spot for Wales.

        I also share an enjoyment of Zen Buddhism, perhaps because it is the closest the northern Buddhist schools come to the simplicity of the Theravada.

        But in one point I should like to correct a reading of Buddhism (including Ch'an/Zen) by many westerners. Buddhism, it is true, is a very rational religion, though it does not let its rationality interfere with the sense of Path. However, if by 'supernatural' you refer to realms of 'being' outside our material ken, or even beings dwelling within those realms, to my awareness all schools of Buddhism do recognise such, though I prefer not to use the word 'supernatural'. Such beings, even gods (devas) are viewed as beings caught in the same world of samsara, the round of birth suffering, aging and dying, as we ourselves. Such beings do wax larger in Asian consciousness than in western. So we westerners can ignore those cultural aspects of Buddhism. I have never seen any sign in Buddhism, however, of a creator god. Any notion of an Almighty was not so much denied by the Buddha (insofar as we can read his teachings in the Pali scriptures) but ignored. The central teachings of the origins and the way out of suffering depend in no way on such a notion; the Buddha would set such questions aside as unprofitable or even meaningless. Dispute over them is a distraction from the purpose of the ending of suffering.

  • Hudson Godfrey :

    13 Apr 2012 9:56:25am

    Dear Mr Stephens,

    Isn't it about time we'd an article on atheism by an actual atheist. They might at least know what they mean by it.

    Maybe it's just the headline which peeves me because Williams here gives a great account of what he thinks religion is, or should be. I say that respectfully noting that he speaks well as he might for his on faith, but what of the faiths of others? What of the cultural impact of sectarianism and inter faith rivalries.

    This is not all religion means it is just what he idealises it to be. Were that it could always be the case that one is opposed for simply not believing a thing by tolerant deists I might have far less to complain about. But I think we're also bound to face up to the more confronting and less acceptable side of faith based ignorance and bigotry in the world and be opposed to that. It may well be that we share some of that disdain for bigotry with religious people who follow Williams lead. It would be remiss of me not to mention religious belief isn't always bigoted, but you see I make the point about some of that bigotry because when it is expressed some of it is directed against me.

      • A non-theist :

        13 Apr 2012 3:14:03pm


        Dawkins is in Melbourne, why not ask him to define what it is that "atheists" think?

        If you do surprise me by asking, and he were to be kind enough as to write something for us, I'd not be surprised if he were to point out that atheists aren't bound by a single mindset. Just as there are a multitude of ways to believe and differing levels of belief, there are a multitude of ways to not believe and differing levels of disbelief.

        If Williams wants to write another essay, could he possibly explain, for the atheist audience what "faith" means for people who have it. It's never really sunk in for me and I am sure that "the ability to believe wholeheartedly in things for which there is (totally)insufficient evidence for and(overwhelming) evidence against" isn't a definition that he'd agree with.

      • Agnostic :

        13 Apr 2012 3:21:53pm

        I agree. Weird to get an archbishop to explain what atheists think religion is.
        Maybe ABC had no choice because they could not find an atheist who cared enough about the topic to take the time to write.
        I do not have enough faith to be an atheist so I an an agnostic. Religion = a story around a thinking power that can influence the lives, and deaths, of people.

      • Go the Brights :

        14 Apr 2012 3:02:45pm

        Rowan Williams was made a Fellow of the British Academy at the age of 40.

        He is no intellectual lightweight, and knows what he means by the term "atheist".

          • Lucy :

            15 Apr 2012 2:28:54pm

            So, a Fellow of the British Academy at the age of 40 knows what HE means by a particular word (ie atheism). That would seem to be a reasonable assumption.

            But this Fellow then writes an article claiming to know what some hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of other diverse people who describe themselves as "atheists" mean by that description, even thought there may not be an indoctrinating Creed that all atheists subscribe to, unless we assume that aChristians subscribe to,
            "I do not believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and Earth etc" an aCreed, or perhaps an agnostic aCreed, "I do not think that it is possible to prove that there is a God the Father almighty etc ..."

            Anyway, there is no longer any compelling reason to buy into religious belief, (like not being a lost soul by not-buying a ticket on the Titanic), because a Cardinal, head of the Catholic church in NSW, told us, last Monday night on Q & A, that "good" atheists go to Heaven. Bingo, there goes the need for deathbed conversions. He further told us that there was no Adam and Eve, no serpent, no Garden of Eden. Whacko, there goes Original Sin. Holey Moley, there goes the need for atonement through the crucifixion. Shucks, there goes the incentive to be an atheist.

          • Hudson Godfrey :

            15 Apr 2012 9:33:59pm


            Agreed! He does know what he means by the term atheist and by god as well. Not everyone whether they're Hindu, Buddhist or even from within Anglican ranks would always agree with his interpretation of that. Thus I thought it as relevant to say the same of his interpretation of atheism.

      • Rob72 :

        14 Apr 2012 6:32:29pm

        Wouldn't that be novel, if atheists wrote about atheism instead of about religion.

          • Lucy :

            15 Apr 2012 2:32:12pm

            Are you suggesting that atheism is not about religion.

            Next you'll be telling us that a campaign against smoking is not about the tobacco industry.

          • Hudson Godfrey :

            15 Apr 2012 9:27:55pm

            Okay Rob,

            I'll grant you that there's not much to say about one without mention of the other, but the ABC is notorious for its sense of balance so I thought it may be a pertinent question under the circumstances.

          • Steely Dan :

            16 Apr 2012 9:49:49am

            @ Rob72, But we do. I think what you're seeing is affected by selection bias.

            My atheism has absolutely nothing to do with my views on conservation policy, drug labelling or the umpire decision referral system, so I don't announce myself as an atheist for context before I talk about these topics. When I talk about religion, my atheism is relevant.

      • Murray Alfredson :

        16 Apr 2012 10:43:32am

        Angling for an invitation, Hudson? That will be the day when Scot invites any dangerous voice on to this blog.

          • Hudson Godfrey :

            17 Apr 2012 10:10:14am

            I'm angling for William's job actually!

On the Wider Web

Greece and the birth of fiscal colonialism

Maurice Glasman and Jon Cruddas, New Statesman


In Polls We Trust

Robert Wuthnow, First Things


Best of

Pluto's youthful surface




on Twitter for the latest Religion & Ethics updates.



Manage My Subscription

How Does this Site Work?
