The first step to solving this conundrum is to unpack the different components of religion. In my own work, I have argued that all humans, even young children, tacitly hold some supernatural beliefs, most notably the dualistic view that bodies and minds are distinct. (Most Americans who describe themselves as atheists, for instance, nonetheless believe that their souls will survive the death of their bodies.) Other aspects of religion vary across cultures and across individuals within cultures. There are factual beliefs, such as the idea that there exists a single god that performs miracles, and moral beliefs, like the conviction that abortion is murder. There are religious practices, such as the sacrament or the lighting of Sabbath candles. And there is the community that a religion brings with it—the people who are part of your church, synagogue, or mosque.
-- Does Religion Make You Nice? Does atheism make you mean?
We see here a sign that "religion" is about a lot more than God per se. When you talk about "religion," most will suggest that you are talking about God in some fashion, or perhaps the spiritual realm, since Buddhists and the like might not accept the traditional understanding of "God." And, this as a general matter, is often true. But, not in some important ways, and for some, not at all.
Why is one let's say a Catholic? Is it a result of some deep contemplation of the various options out there, resulting in a conclusion that its dogma is the best for them? No. It is more a result of family and other issues. In fact, for many evangelicals, there is a search for a church that fits. This fit is a mixture of belief, the minister and faith community involved, the resources the church offers, and so forth. The belief in God is only a relatively small aspect of all of this. Don't get me wrong. It is a fundamental aspect that provides a deep basis of the faith of many. But, still, I think it is not something that guides members on a day to day basis at all. Or, do we follow the commandments on a daily basis with the constant thought "must do it ... God says so!"
What is "religion" after all? I can believe there is a God, but does this really make me "religious?" Loads of people believe in God and aren't religious in any real way. Religion ultimately is practice. It is about dogma, ceremonies, rituals, things we find sacred, and so forth. In some special way, it is about the meaning we supply to our life and existence, and the plan we follow to live this out. It is more than -- if this is a key aspect -- than conscience and morality.* It is those things in action. Such things exist if we believe in God as a deep direct presence, as a more general one that is more akin to the "nature's God" of Jefferson (who spoke about life after death even when not believing in Jesus' miracles), or talking about the ways of nature and our place within it.
Religion more about practices and ceremony, the sacred and profane, than belief in God per se. [For many Jews and Muslims, unlike many Christians, religion is not about prayer and church per se, but everyday actions. Actions some do even though they are in effect atheists.] This is so even if many take as a given that God exists. Being a member of a congregation of believers [this includes belief in a cause or ideology, so can be done on one's own as well] provides a certain purpose to many people that is most often directly felt in tangible ways. The "sacrament" of birth or marriage has a holy aspect that is not limited to the God often cited in "ceremonies" involving them. A marriage ceremony need not be at a church to have a sacred flavor, one absent at City Hall. Just as one need not believe in God to think abortion is murder, or need not to believe in God to think abortion is a just choice in certain cases.
[Fact is, ideas about abortion and homosexuality underline that "God" alone isn't the final question. It is telling that people say we were created in the image and likeness of God. One might argue the reverse.]
It is this "ceremonial" aspect, not the supernatural itself, that is key to religion. And, it is the purpose and special, yes, "sacred," value given to various things (including humanity) that is often key to happiness. I reject the idea that "atheists" per se don't have such things, especially since many who believe in God are much more empty in this regard. But, perhaps, "religion" writ large does matter here. It is not just about God after all. In fact, in its most important aspects, many it is not necessarily about God at all. The stereotypes about atheists don't help, surely.
Care with terms works across the board. "Religion" is a dirty word for some, but if belief in the supernatural is but a part, maybe not even the most important (or even necessary, which is where I lean), it should be looked at with care even by atheists. In fact, some -- like Sam Harris -- do at times accept that some aspect of the term can apply even to atheists.** Harris notes at one point, for instance:
But we can have ethical and spiritual lives without lying to ourselves and to others and without pretending to be certain about things we are clearly not certain about.
He also noted: "I am not criticizing faith as a positive attitude in the face of uncertainty." Also, contra to another post in reply to this article, he later notes: "I don't know what happens after death." Speaks of "mystical experiences" and the "value of community." See also, here. Religion without all of that would be of little beneficial value. Surely, he repeatedly is opposed to "religion" as generally understood, but that is my point here. Our stereotypical view as compared to what is the case in actuality.
Maybe, we need a new word? It's like when someone says you are "christian" and really they are saying you are a good person. For many, this includes believing in God, for others, it helps, for some, it is not quite what they mean at all. Same thing when trying to determine how to be "nice."
---
* Religious freedom would include making choices regarding God and not favoring those that choose to model morality and such on God, but matters of conscience are probably also a necessary aspect ("penumbra" if you like) even if seen as a freestanding matter. As Justice Douglas (in a dissenting opinion also making the equal protection point) once noted:
It is true that the First Amendment speaks of the free exercise of religion, not of the free exercise of conscience or belief. Yet conscience and belief are the main ingredients of First Amendment rights. They are the bedrock of free speech as well as religion. The implied First Amendment right of "conscience" is certainly as high as the "right of association" which we recognized. Some indeed have thought it higher. Conscience is often the echo of religious faith. But, as this case illustrates, it may also be the product of travail, meditation, or sudden revelation related to a moral comprehension of the dimensions of a problem, not to a religion in the ordinary sense.
Citations omitted. On that general subject, atheist pro-life sorts like Nat Hentoff notwithstanding, many would agree that certain positions are not "secular," putting aside the fact that they do not necessarily rise or fall on the existence of God.
** For instance, some atheists are part of Unitarian Universalism, which is here defined as "not an atheist movement, but a religious movement into which some atheists may comfortably fit."