It’s a little bit of an oversimplification of the history of atheism, but it’s funny anyway…and the diagram for religious history is also grossly simplified.
People have actually tried to argue to me that science is so complicated, but “god” is simpler and should be the preferred explanation…but isn’t “no god” even simpler than “god”?
That… is simply beautiful.
I have to dispute the linear progression from early atheism to modern atheism, wherein you had the disputed council of … oh wait, that was the church … never mind.
The restorationists will be ticked off by the dashed line representing their fantasies relating to their connection to “original” Christianity. They’re really just another offshoot of the Protestant Reformation, but they fancy themselves the one authentic strain of Christianity. Too bad there are so many others!
But where are all the transitional forms???
re: the restorationists
The one think I don’t like about this is the implication that Christianity was a simple straight line until around 400 CE. There ought to be a tangle of lines representing the Jerusalem church, Paulism, Gnosticism, Arianism, Marcionism, and so on, tied in a neat little bow perhaps at the Council of Nicaea but diverging again thereafter. The straight line feeds the fantasy (shared by many Protestants) that there was ever a single “pure” primitive Christianity to which they could return.
But if atheism is simpler, why are there PYGMIES+DWARFS???
This does show that religion isn’t the eternal unchanging force that its adherents make it out to be. Fortunately for humanity, religion and morality evolves and changes with the times. Today’s touchy-feely Christians have little to nothing in common with the Christianity of past centuries.
the chart doesn’t show more recent branches of Christianity such as Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses (the two belong on a single branch called Annoyisms, as well as the seventh day adventists and Christian scientists which have never managed to capture the public imagination.
Does anyone have a link to a more complete “family tree” of religions? It would be a great resource…
BTW- this is not an example of Occam’s razor (at least in the sense that I understand it).
I imagine that (e.g.) high energy physics underwent a few thousand dead ends and false starts before it got to its current position. It’s also fantastically obtuse and complicated, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
Occam’s razor is used when picking the simplest possible explanation that explains the available data. Religion fails because it’s not an explanation at all, even though some of its stories are quite simple.
Technically, I’d say the atheists should show some branching. Maybe into the “nice atheists” and the “mean atheists”. And the “nice atheists” would split into “agnostics” which line would run right up close to the chart of christian forms.
I’m an atheist, but this comparison is ridiculous. If atheism is simply the denial of God’s existence, of course there won’t be differences in doctrine. There are many kinds of God and many possible doctrines about him. There is only one way for God not to be. Duh.
The proper comparison would be between religion and the positive philosophical alternatives to religion. And there, you will find just as much diversity and splitting in secular worldviews as you do in the religious. What you’ll have is the history of philosophy, starting from the ancient Greeks.
But it’s just as well, because we don’t judge the merits of a belief system based on the simplicity of its history. We judge it on how well it conforms with the facts.
Maybe the post is mainly in jest, and I am overreacting. But I think it is important to underscore the fact that atheism is not an ideology. It is the absence of an ideology. For this reason, atheism is nothing to celebrate in and of itself. If we don’t like religion, we need to offer the world a positive philosophic alternative.
I think that many here have missed the point: the pic is funny. Sure, it’s not entirely accurate, and is a bit of a misrepresentation of Occam’s Razor, but it’s still good for a laugh. Much needed, I might add, with the news of cdesign propoentists museums proliferating…
Chris: Yes, it’s funny and light-hearted. Sorry for being such a pedant. Still- it’s an interesting jumping off point for discussing Occam’s razor, which is frequently misunderstood, even by atheists (and probably by me).
Not a perfect application of the razor, but this illustration best answers: “Which belief system has been consistent over time?”
The “god is simpler” argument is one that really irritates me. First, it isn’t even an argument in itself; it’s merely an unsubstantiated assertion that, in my estimation, would require some serious argumentation to support it. Second, if it could be established (or at least argued to the point of plausibility) that “god” is simpler than “no god,” one must realize that all ‘other things’ here aren’t equal; there is substantial evidence for natural phenomena progressing undirected in accordance with the properties of our universe, yet there is nothing comparable to support the speculation that any intentional agent was ever involved. Third, the “god is simpler” assertion stands at odds with another theist favorite (that the complexity and extravagance of the universe can only be attributed to an omnipotent being, which would seem to imply that such a being is astoundingly complex itself… so how does this help?).
This reminds me of the ‘science is just another type of faith’ contention, where the theists try to argue by falsely attributing to our position an actual shortcoming of theirs… can’t these people ever be bothered to think?
They’re all in the “Restorationism” branch (check the Wicki article… I had to look it up). The design would benefit from including them, since Restorationism isn’t something most people have heard of.
It seems that even the atheistic cladogram is boring.
All religions have a penchant for cleaning up the family tree, but atheism looks more successful than some. Still, I think that anyone interested in the origins beyond the coining of the term in 16th century France might want to consult this Wikipedia article. They, at least, find a bit of variety in the versions found in “existentialism, Objectivism, secular humanism, nihilism, logical positivism, Marxism, [and] feminism.” Most here, I guess, would be in the scientism synod.
Capitalist Pig: It seems inaccurate to claim all of those are “versions” of atheism — Wiki itself currently only claims that “Atheistic thought found recognition in” these philosophies (emphasis added). Feminism at its core has nothing to do with religion (except to suggest that deities, should any exist, might be female rather than male); and the only “clergy” Secular Humanism has ever had was Orson Scott Card (until the Mormon church threatened to excommunicate him). Not exactly varieties of atheism so much as philosophies that allow for atheism. I know less about the other mentioned philosophies, but my understanding is that they at most include the assumption that religion is unhelpful and God irrelevant to their causes.
Which have also schismed. There are numerous offshoots of the Mormons, Reformed Mormon plus all the polygamist cults. Same thing with the Lutherans and other mainstream protestant sects. I lost track of all the Lutheran schisms, must be 4 or 5 main ones.
And where are the Moonies? Several branches of Xianity are extinct, such as the Taiping Rebellion version.
Half-off topic — but the leaders of Green Bay who put up a Nativity scene now have, in addition to a Wiccan symbol, a Festivus pole to contend with. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WI_FESTIVUS_NATIVITY_WIOL-?SITE=WIFON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Heeheehee
Rachel L – I’m not sure that I called those varieties of atheism. I think I said that the Wikipedia authors found “a bit of variety in the versions found in “existentialism, Objectivism, secular humanism, nihilism, logical positivism, Marxism, [and] feminism.”
Later in their article they do distinguish some flavors, based on philosphical context. Of course any negation tends to be structureless, since it doesn’t matter what the details of the opposite are. Atheism denies the existence of benevolent gods, malevolent gods, and blue gods with pink polka dots all in one swoop.
Well, this is just silly. If atheism as a movement had a significant amount of political or economic power associated with it over the years, I dare say it would have schisms galore. There is no reason that I can see that the personal habit of thinking critically would be universally applied about all claims, nor that differences of opinion would not arise, nor that these differences would remain academic.
To take just one example as instructive, consider Ayn Rand, who managed to construct a personality cult around her thought that Uncle Joe would’ve envied. Or would Rand not be considered a True Atheist(TM)?
I don’t know . . . that chart looks designed.
Or would Rand not be considered a True Atheist(TM)
There is no such thing as [A]theism nor are there any {A]theists. Capitalizing the word is merely the tarring of the lack of belief as belief by believers. The chart makes a spelling error which PZ does not commit in his comments.
The original Randroid was without belief in gods, so she was an atheist. Are theists so inclusive in their definition of religion that they would say that being surrounded by mindless sycophants makes one a god?
Oh, and thanks for the Molly nom, Scott!
Little piggy, while some feminists are atheists, feminism is not a form of atheists. I have gotten so tired of goddess this and goddess that. You have to do better than that.
I like that diagram. Do you have a larger, clear version? It’d make nice wallpaper.
Hmm, I can’t quite accept this… can I see a bootstrap analysis?
Still- it’s an interesting jumping off point for discussing Occam’s razor, which is frequently misunderstood, even by atheists (and probably by me).
Occam’s razor is used when picking the simplest possible explanation that explains the available data.
Yup, you got it slightly wrong. ;-)
Occam’s Razor doesn’t state that the simplest is most likely, it states that the one with the least entities is most likely (and ultimately the simplest). Occam’s Razor always finds in favour of atheism, because “Nature” is one less entity than “Nature plus God”.
Occam’s Razor doesn’t actually say that one is more likely. It says it’s to be preferred, which is a slight, but I think imporatnt, difference.
On the differences in atheism, the ones mentioned are really just differences in other things ateists believe. Atheism is simply not believing in god. Any of the others are other things outside of atheism.
OTOH, religion obsesses over trivialities. They have different sects (and violent arguments) over what hat the presiding official should wear. Get a grip, it’s a hat.
“science is so complicated”
“isn’t ‘no god’ even simpler than ‘god'”
You’re conflating science and atheism again.
A branching lineage of scientific theories would be vastly more complicated and interlinking (and difficult to research and plot) than the lineage of the Christian church, but the complexity of the lineage still wouldn’t have anything to do with Occam’s razor.
Reminds me of the official music video for Rush’s song Malignant Narcissism:
“Of two equivalent theories or explanations…”
This is obviously a misapplication of Occam’s Razor, because Xianism and atheism aren’t equivalent in any sense.
Besides, the Xian tree has two glaring omissions: its original form Judaism, and its evolved form Islam.
“Of two equivalent theories or explanations…”
This is obviously a misapplication of Occam’s Razor, because Xianism and atheism aren’t equivalent in any sense.
Besides, the Xian tree has two glaring omissions: its original form Judaism, and its evolved form Islam.
Graculus: I feel a schism coming on….
Scott, I disagree. Disbelief in gods is disbelief in gods; it is a singular position. Anything else espoused by a particular atheist is in addition to their atheism, and ‘schisms galore’ regarding other matters already exist, along with our lack of political and economic power (alas, reports of the efficacy of our conspiracy are greatly exaggerated).
Ken, you’re right about the capitalization of “atheism” in the context of Scott’s post, but in the context of the chart, I suspect the capitalization would have been used for aesthetic reasons, whether or not the designer was aware of such particulars. On an unrelated matter, I have to say that I was very confused when I first saw your name here, since this is the Ken Cope I was familiar with…
Janine, I don’t see where CIP made any implication that feminism is a “type” of atheism; if I understand him, he is claiming that the linked wiki entry notes some differences in the way atheism manifests in the context of various philosophical systems (though I don’t see that supported in the article, myself; I’m not even sure how that could be).
Robert, isn’t the conflation made by the theists who put forth the ‘argument’ PZ refers to? I agree that Occam’s Razor does not apply.
I’d also like to clarify that in my post above, I did not mean to imply that all theists are unthinking; only those who put forth the silly ‘arguments’ I was discussing.
And as I feel obligated to mention on occasion, I’m not related to PZ; it’s a common last name, and I never thought up a good handle.
pz, is this a test?
why, that tree of christianity looks positively cladistic, wouldn’t you say? and THEN to go on to say that christianity (implying “god did it”) and atheism (necessarily without god, and generally strongly associated with acceptance of evolution) are somehow “equivalent explanations…” well that’s just not like you at all. not only does this equate your stance with religion, but the ridiculed example at the top is highly analogous to evolution. neither of which are arguments in your playbook.
not to mention that it is a complete misuse of ockham’s razor, which states that small variables that have little or no noticeable impact on the outcome of a mathematical equation might as well be removed. that “simpler explanation” stuff is apocryphal nonsense, and i’m sure you know that. evolutionary biology is actually a rather complex explanation of origins, one that someone such as yourself can devote their entire lives to studying only a small portion thereof. but the fact that darwin’s “on the origin of species by means of natural selection” is a much longer and more complex book than the first chapter of genesis in the bible, and doesn’t even cover the same range of topics, does not mean that darwin was wrong, and the priests of ancient judah were right. and it certainly doesn’t mean that darwin’s explanation is “equivalent” to the religious one.
I ran into a strange inverted (with regards to complexity) argument against atheism on campus the other day, which stated that ‘Atheists don’t think about where stuff comes from’.
Why do these people show up around finals? Do they think that we would turn to god to get an A on our statistics exam? (Hum…that might be worth looking into, if said divine intervention had a less than 5% probability of being due to chance.)
The various Christian denominations are groups of people that are related to one another by real historical links. If the atheists in the diagram represented entities of the same data type, the various actual atheist groups (positivists, Marxists, metaphysical materialists, etc.) would also be represented by a branching tree. Indeed, many atheist groups would appear as branches on the Christianity tree.
Of course if you define atheist as just anybody who doesn’t believe in god, you don’t get any trees at all, not even straight ones since what you are talking about in that case is analogous not to species but to what biologists sometimes call guilds, i.e groups of organisms that aren’t necessarily very closely related, but make their living the same way as, for example, the various kind of anteaters.
I am just waiting for a Christian to say:
“This shows that you biologists should go for Christianity… unlike atheism, it has evolved.”
Maybe the post is mainly in jest, and I am overreacting
Ayup.
J. Myers:
Scott, I disagree. Disbelief in gods is disbelief in gods; it is a singular position. Anything else espoused by a particular atheist is in addition to their atheism, and ‘schisms galore’ regarding other matters already exist, along with our lack of political and economic power (alas, reports of the efficacy of our conspiracy are greatly exaggerated).
Yes, and belief in the supernatural is belief in the supernatural. Anything else is in addition to same.
You are right, I did misread that. It seems that little piggy is trying to make the case that all of those things he refers to show more variation then does atheism. If that is the case, his argument is even sillier then I first thought.
It seems silly to have to keep pointing this out but atheism is hardly a monolithic mass. Get all of regulars here together to discuss any other subject but atheism and religion and I am sure there will be disagreements aplenty. How many different forms of political thought will there be? But the comforting thing is this, even with great disagreements, no one will be accusing the other of blasphemy.
In every variety of people; artists, scientists, social workers, military personal and every other category one can place an individual in, you will find atheists. The only thing that connects them is being an atheist. Implied in that is no time is spent organizing through a lack of believe.
When the religious have a difference of opinion, they need to try and back it up with some appropriate interpretation of their holy text. Others see their interpretation on this point as heretical, and they end up with a huge messy split with no possibility of reconciliation.
Atheists, on the other hand, just have arguments, and recognise that disagreeing on one aspect (for example, how to deal with religion) doesn’t overall mean that they think vastly different things. The `appeaser’ thing has led to a bit of snarky in-fighting, but I can’t see anyone in 200 years time saying “And, yea, this was where the Pharyngulite breakaway sect was formed, leading to many years’ brutal war with the Appeasers.”
Sorry Scott, but I do have to disagree with you here. When one indicates a negative, all other beliefs are separate, because they are not linked to the first. When one makes a positive assertion, all other related assertions are predicated upon the first. As such, you can refine a positive statement (I believe in god, a happy god who loves flowers and puppies and…) but not a negative statement (I do not believe in god).
To clarify the last sentence above, “I believe in god” is the core belief. To this, we attach a number of attributes (“he is happy”, “he loves puppies and flowers”) The attributes do not stand alone. On the other hand, when we make a negative statement, we have a different sort of view.
“I do not believe in god”
-“He is not happy” makes no sense, but we can say:
“I do not believe in a happy god”
“I do not believe in a happy god who lives puppies and flowers.”
Hopefully this isn’t too rambly.
I think the picture would be better if it was Theism and Atheism. The theism side could still have different views of gods. I think that would illustrate how even though a lot of people say they believe in a god they aren’t all talking about the same thing.
J. Myers wrote
and Scott Hatfield, OM replied
There is a clear difference in the agnostics’ absence of belief in gods and the atheists’ belief in the absence of gods, but can anyone point to a single difference between one atheist’s belief in the non-existence of gods and another’s?
I have to side with Myers and Myers on this one.
I also agree with QrazyQat that if larger, it would make a nice wallpaper.
Branespace: I agree with you about Scott’s comment,
When you beleive in the supernatural, there are a number of positions you can take – xtain, JW, LDS etc – these are all variations on the theme, and the believers are picking and choosing from the supernatural smorgasboard – nobody is simply ‘believing in the supernatural’ in an unqualified manner
When you don’t beleive there is only one position, disbelief in the supernatural (Maybe two if you want to make the strong/weak athiest distinction).
I feel a schism coming on….
Christianjb: I think they have an ointment for that nowadays.
(athEIst, dammit)
Stevie and ifeel,
LOL. Good to see some here in the Church of True Believers have a sense of humor about it.
#46:There is a clear difference in the agnostics’ absence of belief in gods and the atheists’ belief in the absence of gods, but can anyone point to a single difference between one atheist’s belief in the non-existence of gods and another’s?
As I understand it, that is not what “agnostic” means. Agnosticism is indeed a belief, that the existence or non-existence of god is inherently unknowable. That is very different that just a lack of belief.
Also, as I understand it, “atheism” is indeed lack of belief in the existence of God. Rationality does not allow us to declare the non-existence of something simply because of lack of evidence. However, when there is no evidence, there is really no reason to believe it does exist. The two statements are really quite different.
It is not that atheists believe that god doesn’t exist. Atheists believe that there is no reason to think god does exist. Lack of belief is not agnosticism.
The ‘christian’ branch seem too simplistic as it leave out the Jewish branch entirely. Jesus was teaching to the Jews, not trying to create a new religion. There are are least 3 branches of Judaism. Add to this the lack of Christian Heretic branches that actually have end points.
Ken Cope:
There is no such thing as [A]theism nor are there any {A]theists. Capitalizing the word is merely the tarring of the lack of belief as belief by believers.
I agree. My point, taken in jest, was that any attempt to uncouple the tendency to schism from atheism would lead to atheism being defined as a belief system. More seriously, as soon as power is involved, even the absence of belief is likely to become part of a belief system, and the jockeying for power within that system will lead to schism.
The original Randroid was without belief in gods, so she was an atheist. Are theists so inclusive in their definition of religion that they would say that being surrounded by mindless sycophants makes one a god?
This theist can distinguish between faith-held beliefs in general and those which specifically invoke the supernatural. Ken, I’m not saying you’re doing this, but it seems to me that non-believers often want to have it both ways when they are confronted with toxic examples of atheism. Soviet-style communism didn’t start out as a belief system, but it certainly became one. Rand, whose rejection of Soviet-style communism was foundational, probably didn’t intend to create a belief system when she began, either. But Rand certainly became the object of a personality cult once her celebrity carried a certain amount of economic and political power power.
Oh, and thanks for the Molly nom, Scott!
Thank you for fascinating correspondence!
Good to see some here in the Church of True Believers have a sense of humor about it.
CIP, you forgot the trademark.
Poppycock, Zeno. If restorationists came from protestants then WHY ARE THERE STILL PROTESTANTS!?!1!
Thank you SeanH! That is one of the biggest laughs I have had in a while.
as soon as power is involved, even the absence of belief is likely to become part of a belief system
I’m still laughing at the notion of atheists with political power; as if there were more than a handful of bloggers who can tell the difference between uppity atheists and accommodationist appeasers. [M. Python]Splitters![/M. Python]
faith-held beliefs in general and those which specifically invoke the supernatural
You are, presumably, excluding atheism from this spectrum, as we agree that atheism is neither a belief, nor a faith. As has been said around here many times, atheism is a conclusion, not a premise, and one that’s provisionally held at that, although only formal agnostics are holding their breath at the prospect of observation and evidence for any brand of theism eventually turning up.
non-believers often want to have it both ways when they are confronted with toxic examples of atheism
How could atheism be any more or less toxic than any other conclusion about nature? Any toxicity around the rejection of theism has more to do with the person and how and why they reached that conclusion than with any purported toxicity around the word that designates the absence of theism. Don’t go post hoc propter hoc on me.
Soviet-style communism didn’t start out as a belief system, but it certainly became one.
I was just reading that as the next Shenzhou mission will place 3 Chinese crewmembers in orbit, they are entitled to convene and conduct the business of a Communist Party of China branch. Whenever three are gathered…
What people do with power and allegiances is still primate politics.
Rand, whose rejection of Soviet-style communism was foundational
Again, nothing about atheism is foundational. Anybody who reaches the conclusion of atheism then has to look around and figure out how to deal with all the people who haven’t rejected theism. Most of those people don’t want us to exist, to talk among ourselves, or out loud at them. In America, atheism is in competition with Islamofascism as to which is the biggest boogeyman. What to do about the social consequences of the conclusion any atheist makes about reality, if we want to be honest with ourselves and those around us, is a guaranteed source of conflict, not least among atheists.
I can’t predict whether an individual atheist, by virtue of his or her atheism, will act to promote or forestall the toxic abuse of power, but then atheists have seldom had access to the scale of power that theism has employed, for good or ill. To borrow the trick of conflating non-belief with belief, when so-called atheist regimes are criticized for their toxicity, the nature of that toxicity is ideological: the toxicity has a religious taint. Sycophants belong to a cult of personality. America’s Constitution is without theism: are we doomed to toxicity?
Maybe another approach is to show how folklore, myth and superstition decreases when new knowledge, advance in medicine and ideas increases.
An example is this chart:
Native American origins
It shows that as we accumulate knowledge regarding Amerindian/native American origins, in that they came from Asia via crossing a land bridge to Alaska, instead of by boat e.g. the Noah’s ark approach, then the story of Native Americans coming from the middle-east decreases.
Just saying
From Slactivist – http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2007/12/council-of-1879.html
To an outsider like me, it seems like a lot of the schisms are over nothing that I could consider important (Green! Purple!) Oh, well. I guess that’s why I’m a heathen.
Ockham’s Razor actually says that the preferable explanation is the one that uses the fewest unsupported entities. Like God.
It seems to me that my many interlocutors here are missing the point. I don’t disagree that theism is ‘a positive premise’ upon which things are added to, and that atheism per se can* simply be the absence of a positive premise, rather than a ‘negative premise’—But that is not the end of the matter, is it?
Because, once a person claims an absence of belief (all well and good, mind you), they must still answer this question: ‘Given that there is no such thing as God or gods, how then shall I live? In particular, how should I respond to those who claim that God or gods exist?”
It is my experience here that there is no unanimity of response to such questions here. And so, even from this very font of atheism (in fact, especially so, given the skeptic’s willingness to critically examine all claims), we see the potential for schism arise. And, again, my point is that we would see far more schism if the stakes (worldly power) were higher. It is only the absence of high stakes that allows the more Pollyannish non-believer to perceive atheism as a unified thread in a seamless garment, fellas. I suppose it might still be a simplifying move as far as Occam’s concerned, though.
there is no unanimity of response to such questions here
Precisely so.
we see the potential for schism arise
Among atheists, it’s all schism, except for the atheism! There has never been anything else but schism among those who have in common only the single thread of atheism. It is because the reasons to reject theism and the resultant landscape of personal choice and responsibility are endless that atheism can only be a single thread. Those of us who have learned to value the utility of science, skepticism, reason, honest self-examination and communication, have issues that find commonality even with those who retain their theism. Those values are clustered around the choices that often lead to atheism, and serve well the choice to live without theism–in that sense atheism is more of a symptom than a positive premise. Such attributes are not generally polished among those in pursuit of power for its own sake.
/tongue-in-cheek simplification of actual theories follow:
Occam’s Razor, as understood in statistical learning theory simply states that the gap between empirical and true risk is proportional to the capacity of the learning (regression) function; since you can only minimize empirical risk, using the simplest (in terms of capacity) learning function gives the best bound on true risk.
That said, if the descriptions of God are true, he is a function of infinite representational capacity, which precludes any meaningful learning from observation, a point clearly illustrated by many faithful persons.
The word god is merely a container for a nearly infinite amount of additional entities and complications. Theists think that because the word is short, it must be simple.
#51: “As I understand it, that is not what “agnostic” means. Agnosticism is indeed a belief, that the existence or non-existence of god is inherently unknowable. That is very different that just a lack of belief. … Lack of belief is not agnosticism.”
I’ll admit that I stretched the meaning of the word, agnostic, but not as far as the people who use it as a synonym for atheist. I was wrong, Ambrose Bierce was right, “An agnostic does not know the true nature of god and doesn’t believe that you do either.”
“It is not that atheists believe that god doesn’t exist. Atheists believe that there is no reason to think god does exist.
I’ve run across quite a few atheist posters on some blog or other who were quite definite about the non-existence of gods, and I recall reading a rather long and surprisingly heated exchange on “Strong atheism” versus “Weak atheism” and which group were the True atheists.
The point that I might have been trying to get to is that the only distinguishable difference of opinion on the subject of gods that atheists have is how confident they are in the non-existence of them.
Just consisting of straight lines doesn’t make it a cladogram… a cladogram is the outcome of a cladistic analysis.
(That said, a cladistic analysis of denominations could certainly be done. It would just be a waste of time.)
Just consisting of straight lines doesn’t make it a cladogram… a cladogram is the outcome of a cladistic analysis.
(That said, a cladistic analysis of denominations could certainly be done. It would just be a waste of time.)
I dunno, I sometimes wonder if it would be possible to make a list like birdwatchers use, using a cladistic analysis. Religionwatchers?
It could make for some amusing arguments:
“Hm, he claims to be a Southern Baptist, but I could just swear he said something that sounded like Arianism.”
“That’s ridiculous, of course he’s a Trinitarian.”
“Maybe there’s a Jehovah’s Witness in his memetic line?”
“What does he say about transubstantiation, anyway? If he says that it’s Papist idolatry, I think we’ll be able to rule out a whole swath of possibilities.”
And I bet if you asked them they were equally definite about leprechauns and unicorns, much less orbiting teapots. In other words, they were as definite as one can be about such things, given that the probability of any such entity is never zero.
Actually, a more honest version of the chart would show multiple starting points for religions, including both proven and possible links to prior systems, showing the convergence of all the pagan stuff into Christianity, the borrowing of some Christian BS into others, and the general pretzel that belief systems get tied into when you actually know how they got to be what they are. And, it should be clear that some branched died off, like the Kali worshipers, etc. Atheism would be much the same. A lot of different examples of atheism, converging on something close to the central concept, but with most of the branches dying off *before* they ever converge into the central strand.
This isn’t like a genetic population, where the final result is a branching from a single ancestor, for *either* atheism or theism, its multiple creatures that try to breed into each other, and where some, like Christianity, are successful, and others die off, never producing any offspring. The problem of course is that it doesn’t matter how you show it. If you show some offshoot of religion forming a branch of Stalinist ideology, which tries to converge on atheism, they will call you a liar for claiming, no matter how clear you make it, that some sort of religious view formed it. If you show it as a break from the main atheist line, which died off (and I don’t think that is at all valid anyway), then they will go, “Ah ha! I told you.”
The reason I think it is a branch of religion, instead of atheism though is not just due to the similarity in the dogma used to enforce it, but because it smacks of god-king, kind as chosen one, and/or emperor-descended-from-god type thinking. So, its a natural offshoot of a flimsy strain of religion, which manages to survive, like a virus, which spread through a population, until the infection runs its course, nearly every living organism has gained resistance, and all the ones it infected and spread through quickly have died from it.
It is one thing to point out that there is no credible evidence for such things and another to deny the possibility, no matter how small, that some such evidence might be discovered. Some atheists are a little more definite about the non-existence of gods than the (lack of) evidence supports.
As Bertrand Russell said of his hypothetical, admittedly impossible to disprove Celestial Teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars:
You may excuse me if I waste no further braincycles getting exercised over the non-zero possibility that my dismissal of the incoherent notion of gods may someday prove to have been rash.