Hmm. This is actually a very modern thing, or at least that is what we are taught in Early Modern History (which is, admittedly, a subject dominated by post-modern academics). I'm not sure what the established position is, or whether there even is one, but these are my thoughts as inspired by what I have encountered in my studies:
It might be the case with believers in our culture today, but I would assume that that is influenced by a reaction to modern thought. A Christian today might say that they believe in "something more than just this material world", but that is not at the heart of Christianity. Rather it is a role into which religion has been placed, especially in the realm of the 'born-again' worshippers who have come to religion after growing disillusioned or disheartened by the emptiness that they perceive in modern existence.
My understanding is that the change to modernity, and the rise of modern science, was centred upon a reshaping of the 'natural' to be something that is purely empirical and physical. To a late medieval Christian, God was part of the world, part of nature. Evil, in certain understandings, was the subversion and rejection of the natural laws, and the 'supernatural' of 'superstitious' beliefs were those involving witches, demons, old wive's tales, and pagan monsters.
And whilst we are on this line of thought, let us talk of 'faith': what does it mean? As some other posters have commented in this thread, many believers would argue that they have access to evidence of comparable, or indeed greater, validity. Who is to say that the Bible is not a valid source of information about creation?
What you are effectively saying is that 'faith' and the 'supernatural' are, respectively, a form of knowing, and a level of existence/experience, that do not conform to the commonly accepted modern metaphysical understanding of the 'true' and the 'real'.
Personally I don't believe 'atheism' (in the strict definition of believing there is/are no God/s) and religion are mutual exclusive. But that all depends on what you mean by 'religion'. Whether 'a religion' is a particular metaphysical system of beliefs, or merely a group of people who believe in something existing within, and in some way irrespective of, the particular metaphysics of a society. Belief in a certain interpretation of the Christian God can exist within the framework of science, but the question remains as to whether this would indeed be a religious belief.
DISCLAIMER: It should be pointed out that I actually believe that Science is a religion, and I follow the tenets of it as I go about my day to day life. However, as I am actually pretty apathetic about how exactly this world exists, it doesn't bother me whether science is right or wrong. I am more concerned with meaning and mental qualia, two things that I believe empirical investigation will never explain.
Hopefully I have expressed these thoughts in a way that makes some sense
Hmm. This is actually a very modern thing, or at least that is what we are taught in Early Modern History (which is, admittedly, a subject dominated by post-modern academics). I'm not sure what the established position is, or whether there even is one, but these are my thoughts as inspired by what I have encountered in my studies:
It might be the case with believers in our culture today, but I would assume that that is influenced by a reaction to modern thought. A Christian today might say that they believe in "something more than just this material world", but that is not at the heart of Christianity. Rather it is a role into which religion has been placed, especially in the realm of the 'born-again' worshippers who have come to religion after growing disillusioned or disheartened by the emptiness that they perceive in modern existence.
My understanding is that the change to modernity, and the rise of modern science, was centred upon a reshaping of the 'natural' to be something that is purely empirical and physical. To a late medieval Christian, God was part of the world, part of nature. Evil, in certain understandings, was the subversion and rejection of the natural laws, and the 'supernatural' of 'superstitious' beliefs were those involving witches, demons, old wive's tales, and pagan monsters.
And whilst we are on this line of thought, let us talk of 'faith': what does it mean? As some other posters have commented in this thread, many believers would argue that they have access to evidence of comparable, or indeed greater, validity. Who is to say that the Bible is not a valid source of information about creation?
What you are effectively saying is that 'faith' and the 'supernatural' are, respectively, a form of knowing, and a level of existence/experience, that do not conform to the commonly accepted modern metaphysical understanding of the 'true' and the 'real'.
Personally I don't believe 'atheism' (in the strict definition of believing there is/are no God/s) and religion are mutual exclusive. But that all depends on what you mean by 'religion'. Whether 'a religion' is a particular metaphysical system of beliefs, or merely a group of people who believe in something existing within, and in some way irrespective of, the particular metaphysics of a society. Belief in a certain interpretation of the Christian God can exist within the framework of science, but the question remains as to whether this would indeed be a religious belief.
DISCLAIMER: It should be pointed out that I actually believe that Science is a religion, and I follow the tenets of it as I go about my day to day life. However, as I am actually pretty apathetic about how exactly this world exists, it doesn't bother me whether science is right or wrong. I am more concerned with meaning and mental qualia, two things that I believe empirical investigation will never explain.