There’s been much discussion surrounding the question of determining whether or not Bitcoin is a religion. To truly understand the depth of this question, we must discuss belief, religion, organization, and dogma. Let’s answer this question beginning with a linguistic lens, and then continue through a philosophical discussion. WHAT IS RELIGION? This seems a simple question, but the solution is full of character, and definition is required for the sake of categorization. If we mean to categorize, or not categorize Bitcoin as religion, it must be defined. Formally, Merriam-Webster defines religion as “an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.” Informally, they define it as “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.” Archaically, it is referred to as “scrupulous conformity.” Linguistically speaking, we can rule out the formal definition of religion in regard to Bitcoin, as there are no gods affiliated with Bitcoin. Though, some may make claims to its story of creation; of God and gods, there are none, though we will return to this definition to speak on organization. Archaically, there are many descriptors I would associate with Bitcoin, however “conformity” is not among them. Satoshi’s Whitepaper begins: “A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.” At its heart, the creation of Bitcoin was meant to separate currency from financial institutions. Considering conformity is viewed as compliance with particular systems, rules and regulations, and Bitcoin means to nullify the necessity of legacy financial institutions and systems, we can agree that Bitcoin is not “scrupulous conformity.” Then we are left with the informal interpretation of religion as a belief, interest, or activity that is important to a group of people. On the surface, one could be forgiven for following a logical path that describes Bitcoin as a system of beliefs that are important to a small portion of the public. But that is an oversimplification, and not even remotely close to the actual answer. UNDERSTANDING BELIEF In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, when speaking on what belief is, Eric Schwitzgebel in “Belief” said  “Contemporary Anglophone philosophers of mind generally use the term ‘belief’ to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.” This depiction of belief is quite revealing when it refers to the act of believing an idea as an action of “attitude.” Attitude is a choice made from perspective and subjectivity. Attitudes are not considered truth, or objective information regarding any particular idea. Attitudes are a subjective experience only understood by the perceiver at the time of experience. In this depiction we can see that belief requires subjectivity in the understanding of a particular ideology. Let’s look at some common beliefs of Bitcoiners: · Money Printer Go Brrr. Most, if not all Bitcoiners will tell you that the central banking systems of the world are allowing a minority to benefit from the endless increase of monetary supply resulting in the debasement of global currencies, and Bitcoin prevents these institutions from being able to do this. · Small Blocks Win. In the Block Size Wars, two factions within the Bitcoin community went to civil war over the data size of blocks in the blockchain. Most in Bitcoin now will explain that smaller blocks allow for low-cost entry and keeps the nodes decentralized by not having massive hardware requirements. · Not your keys, not your coins. Bitcoiners will often speak to sovereignty in reference to storing bitcoin off of exchanges, with the belief that one day bad actors might act maliciously, from their own intent or the government’s, or suffer attacks from security breaches, resulting in the loss of your bitcoin. None of these beliefs are Bitcoin. They can certainly be defined as “propositional attitudes,” as Eric outlines in “Belief.” In short, a propositional attitude is presented as (SA that P): S for subject, A for attitude, and P for proposition. “Ahmed [the subject] hopes [the attitude] that Alpha Centauri hosts intelligent life [the proposition].” Here Eric outlines our subject, the attitude they have towards a given ideal, and the proposition (or thing to be believed). Shall we create one? Larry [subject] agrees [attitude] that the Federal Reserve Board central banking system has printed money and debased the value of the U.S dollar [proposition]. This can be categorized as a belief. It is an attitude towards a specific ideal. Bitcoin is not an attitude. WHAT IS BITCOIN? Is Bitcoin a blockchain? No. While its data structure is a blockchain, that does not mean we identify it as only that. Many other platforms use decentralized ledgers to store data, known as blockchains. This is not unique to Bitcoin, so we cannot claim that Bitcoin is a blockchain as its defining factor when others utilize the same data structure. Is it currency? No. Bitcoin, the asset, can function as a currency and is most assuredly going to continue down a path of adoption. But it does not exist as a currency, that is a function that can be used if others accept its premise. This is a belief. Is it a hedge against inflation? No. Using the exact same logic above, the belief that one can use Bitcoin as a hedge does not make Bitcoin a hedge. You can choose to utilize this as a function you believe, but it does not make it true or remove the perpetuation of the ideal from being anything more than belief. We must remove the subjectivity of our attitude and ideals to understand what Bitcoin is. BITCOIN IS SOFTWARE, BELIEF IS WEAK Programmatic objectivity based on a consensus model. While a consensus model does not necessitate truth, it does necessitate agreement. The history of Bitcoin exists and is wildly available to anyone willing to learn. All of this may sound simple, but it does