News1 min ago
Religion for Athiests
102 Answers
In his new book of this title (Hamish Hamilton), Alain de Botton writes that 'atheism should not hector people about the error of super-natural belief: this is "boring". The real task is to recycle elements of religion for secular use. These elements must be "dislodged from the supernatural structure within which they were first conceived" It is not just ideas that must be dislodged, but the practices that ground them. We need ways of reminding ourselves of our ideals and frailties. All of culture should serve this end.'
He implies that this must be done in a spirit of emotionally intelligent playfulness, only by such methods can we rebuild from the ruins of religion.
Is this approach worthy of consideration, or should religious observance remain within inherited, authoritative traditions?
He implies that this must be done in a spirit of emotionally intelligent playfulness, only by such methods can we rebuild from the ruins of religion.
Is this approach worthy of consideration, or should religious observance remain within inherited, authoritative traditions?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
V; you have absolutely no idea in what I believe, as I have never stated this anywhere on this site, and yet you are prepared to fabricate a construct out of a hotch-potch of religious bigotries, attach it to me, and then launch an attack. This topic is 'Religion and Spirituality' but it seems (beso on this thread excepted) impossible to hold a calm, rational, discussion. This constant claiming that atheists can be 'good' is self-evident, and to use de Botton's word; "boring", and has never, as I see it, been contested here.
Khandro, you stated on this site that you are a Buddhist, so your beliefs are known - and actually I object to you 'excepting' only Beso in your assessment of the discussion on this thread. Where have I not held a 'calm and rational' discussion - or are you simply ignoring everything I've said here, as you often do?
there are a few religious people who strangely believe that without religion people would not know right from wrong and need to be told by the bible...
i have even heard the words 'but how do you kow how to be good if you arent religious' !
it sounds like this person my be attributing goodness and good behaviour to being god-fearing.. that only for the bible are people good - and is suggesting those are the bits we take from it...
the fact that he thinks that puts his words on shaky ground
i have even heard the words 'but how do you kow how to be good if you arent religious' !
it sounds like this person my be attributing goodness and good behaviour to being god-fearing.. that only for the bible are people good - and is suggesting those are the bits we take from it...
the fact that he thinks that puts his words on shaky ground
@ Khandro - You still haven't given us any details of what, exactly, De Botton proposes that we take from religion to improve society.(from your OP "The real task is to recycle elements of religion for secular use. These elements must be "dislodged from the supernatural structure within which they were first conceived""[i)
Please point out where I have been anything other than calm, polite or rational? According to you , all but Beso are the opposite. ([i]"This topic is 'Religion and Spirituality' but it seems (beso on this thread excepted) impossible to hold a calm, rational, discussion."[i] )
You ask ] "rather than you correcting us about our misunderstandings of spirituality// Where have I done this? " <br/> <br/> I would have said here [i "Your love of Mozart has absolutely nothing to do with it, having no more spiritual significance than your passion for fine wines and Belgian chocolates"] - which read very much like a patronising put down to me.
You take the view that an atheist worldview is an exclusively material one,and when it comes to cause and effect of events and the workings of the body and the brain - yes, I think that is broadly true, although there will always be exceptions.
Secondary to this though, is a further assumption, tied in to this one, that those with a religious belief somehow have a connection, a feeling about the universe around them that transcends "mere" materialism, which I have labelled in my posts "spirituality". Here there is a divergence of view. Raw feelings, strong emotions and strong responses to emotions, appreciation of genuinely creative or beautiful natural phenomena or created phenomena, such as truly majestic works of music - these phenomena have often been described as this "spiritual" or non-material response.
If this is not your definition, lets have your definition, rather than trading misunderstandings!
Your response to Beso's post would indicate at least a sympathetic view of mind-matter duality, and here I would definitely differ - mind is an emergent property, not a seperate, immaterial entity.
If you want a serious discussion about this sort of stuff, lets have concrete examples of what De Botton thinks we should take from religion, lets have at least some definition from you of exactly what it is that the religious experience that atheists allegedly cannot.
Please point out where I have been anything other than calm, polite or rational? According to you , all but Beso are the opposite. ([i]"This topic is 'Religion and Spirituality' but it seems (beso on this thread excepted) impossible to hold a calm, rational, discussion."[i] )
You ask ] "rather than you correcting us about our misunderstandings of spirituality// Where have I done this? " <br/> <br/> I would have said here [i "Your love of Mozart has absolutely nothing to do with it, having no more spiritual significance than your passion for fine wines and Belgian chocolates"] - which read very much like a patronising put down to me.
You take the view that an atheist worldview is an exclusively material one,and when it comes to cause and effect of events and the workings of the body and the brain - yes, I think that is broadly true, although there will always be exceptions.
Secondary to this though, is a further assumption, tied in to this one, that those with a religious belief somehow have a connection, a feeling about the universe around them that transcends "mere" materialism, which I have labelled in my posts "spirituality". Here there is a divergence of view. Raw feelings, strong emotions and strong responses to emotions, appreciation of genuinely creative or beautiful natural phenomena or created phenomena, such as truly majestic works of music - these phenomena have often been described as this "spiritual" or non-material response.
If this is not your definition, lets have your definition, rather than trading misunderstandings!
Your response to Beso's post would indicate at least a sympathetic view of mind-matter duality, and here I would definitely differ - mind is an emergent property, not a seperate, immaterial entity.
If you want a serious discussion about this sort of stuff, lets have concrete examples of what De Botton thinks we should take from religion, lets have at least some definition from you of exactly what it is that the religious experience that atheists allegedly cannot.
Khandro, you say I’m imputing ignorant religious notions to you; I am not. You say I’m attacking you; I am not. The fact that you believe so shows that I have expressed myself poorly. Apologies for that..
What little I do think I know about you is that you think there is a spiritual dimension to life which gives it meaning and purpose which can’t be accounted for by a materialist philosophy, and I infer from your citing of de Botton’s book and your own responses on this thread that you think religion in some[/any/all?] of its guises has something to teach us. That at any rate is what I think it says on the tin. All of which suggests that, whatever else you are, atheist/materialist you are not. Please correct me if I’ve got this wrong.
I referred to the Christian/Muslim notions of an after life and man’s ultimate destiny because of their especial absurdity, not because I thought in any way that they represent your views (that would be adding a lack of sophistication to my other defects), although, you will admit, many people in the “spiritual” camp do believe these things or vague approximations of them. I repeat my question: what from your spiritual (and presumably cheerful) point of view do think is the purpose of life?
I’ve started reading the de Botton book and look forward to learning what he thinks religion can teach us. Thus far I’ve got the initial premise: <We invented religions to serve two central needs which secular society has not been able to solve with any particular skill: first, the need to live together in communities despite our … selfish and violent impulses. And second, the need to cope with terrifying degrees of pain which arise from our vulnerability to professional failure, to troubled relationships, to the death of loved ones and to our decay and demise>>
I wonder if other readers will find both the contents and the ordering of his list of woes as bizarre as I did.
PS: I see LazyGun's post covering some of my points has arrived while I was composing my reply. Khandro, most of us try to be rational.
What little I do think I know about you is that you think there is a spiritual dimension to life which gives it meaning and purpose which can’t be accounted for by a materialist philosophy, and I infer from your citing of de Botton’s book and your own responses on this thread that you think religion in some[/any/all?] of its guises has something to teach us. That at any rate is what I think it says on the tin. All of which suggests that, whatever else you are, atheist/materialist you are not. Please correct me if I’ve got this wrong.
I referred to the Christian/Muslim notions of an after life and man’s ultimate destiny because of their especial absurdity, not because I thought in any way that they represent your views (that would be adding a lack of sophistication to my other defects), although, you will admit, many people in the “spiritual” camp do believe these things or vague approximations of them. I repeat my question: what from your spiritual (and presumably cheerful) point of view do think is the purpose of life?
I’ve started reading the de Botton book and look forward to learning what he thinks religion can teach us. Thus far I’ve got the initial premise: <We invented religions to serve two central needs which secular society has not been able to solve with any particular skill: first, the need to live together in communities despite our … selfish and violent impulses. And second, the need to cope with terrifying degrees of pain which arise from our vulnerability to professional failure, to troubled relationships, to the death of loved ones and to our decay and demise>>
I wonder if other readers will find both the contents and the ordering of his list of woes as bizarre as I did.
PS: I see LazyGun's post covering some of my points has arrived while I was composing my reply. Khandro, most of us try to be rational.
The idea that the ‘mind’ and thence ’soul’ is somehow separate from the ‘mortal’ body appears to have come about before we had any idea how the brain works. We now know a little better and don’t need to invoke a mysterious process operating in a way disconnected with the material world. Just as evolutionary scientists are dotting the Is and crossing the Ts of the understanding of the development of life, so neurophysiologists are beginning to understand the processes that give us our intellect.
We are kidding ourselves if we think our conscious thinking is all there is, Most of our brain’s activity is unconscious and automatic. Just as we are not aware of the blind spot in our eyes our brain fudges over the gaps in our understanding so that we are ignorant of that of which we are ignorant. We are just another form of mammal and think like mammals, All animal life forms are self aware to some degree we are just another example of the variety of those life forms. There is nothing special about self awareness. It doesn’t need philosophical treatment, cats and dogs seem to manage quite well without worrying about their spirituality (if indeed they don’t)
We are kidding ourselves if we think our conscious thinking is all there is, Most of our brain’s activity is unconscious and automatic. Just as we are not aware of the blind spot in our eyes our brain fudges over the gaps in our understanding so that we are ignorant of that of which we are ignorant. We are just another form of mammal and think like mammals, All animal life forms are self aware to some degree we are just another example of the variety of those life forms. There is nothing special about self awareness. It doesn’t need philosophical treatment, cats and dogs seem to manage quite well without worrying about their spirituality (if indeed they don’t)
jomifl, you state; //The idea that the ‘mind’ and thence ’soul’ is somehow separate from the ‘mortal’ body appears to have come about before we had any idea how the brain works. We now know a little better and don’t need to invoke a mysterious process operating in a way disconnected with the material world.//
Since the philosophers of ancient Greece, the concept of mind, has always been an issue of signal importance, and so it still is, being particularly inconvenient for those who assert materialism. This is to me extraordinary, and should be testable, where is the evidence for this claim; that the mind is nothing but the activity of the brain ? We may now have a greater understanding through neuroscience of the manner of how the brain functions, but no one has ever seen a thought or an image inside someone else's brain.
LG, Re. de Botton; I do not now have a copy of the book (though v_e appears to) but from memory he proposes that the humanities should be restructured for the teaching of practical wisdom, restaurants in which to commune with strangers, even a carnival day on which the restraints of sexual fidelity are thrown to the wind. (Is he joking?)
The story of one philosopher saying to the other "What! you want to go to dinner, and we have not even established whether or not God exists", may be apocryphal, but I shall now retire to prepare Napoleon's favourite dish; Chicken Marengo.
Since the philosophers of ancient Greece, the concept of mind, has always been an issue of signal importance, and so it still is, being particularly inconvenient for those who assert materialism. This is to me extraordinary, and should be testable, where is the evidence for this claim; that the mind is nothing but the activity of the brain ? We may now have a greater understanding through neuroscience of the manner of how the brain functions, but no one has ever seen a thought or an image inside someone else's brain.
LG, Re. de Botton; I do not now have a copy of the book (though v_e appears to) but from memory he proposes that the humanities should be restructured for the teaching of practical wisdom, restaurants in which to commune with strangers, even a carnival day on which the restraints of sexual fidelity are thrown to the wind. (Is he joking?)
The story of one philosopher saying to the other "What! you want to go to dinner, and we have not even established whether or not God exists", may be apocryphal, but I shall now retire to prepare Napoleon's favourite dish; Chicken Marengo.
Khandro, I dare say if you open up your computer you won't find any images,text or music. Our brains encode images and thoughts, they don't store images as we believe we see them. What you see as an old master oil painting is just an impression, a coded list of angles,lines and colours. That is why we can recognise images without being able to reproduce them. We simply do not store enough information to do that unless we make a special effort. Your implying that thoughts cannot just be chemical changes so there must be some higher process going on is a bit like theists saying that the universe couldn't have happened by itself. This just begs the question of where did the creator come from? If you are going to dismiss a perfectly valid and partly demonstrable theory of how the brain/mind works you will have to come up with a better one together with more nuts and bolts than the current theories. The Greek philosopher's explanations of the mind were based on little or no information, we have moved on from there and can actually show the brain responding to stimuli and thinking just using electronics with no metaphysics involved.
jomifl; Your analogy of computers just doesn't pass muster; the computer and everything within it is a product of human thought and imagination. If I ask you (because it's close at hand) to imagine Napoleon Bonaparte eating chicken marengo on the Isle of Elba, an image comes to your mind, this image is different from my, and everyone else's image - where does that come from and where does it exist in the material world.
The human body is made of cells which are continually replacing themselves at varying frequencies, the longest, deep in the teeth, taking about 7 years. This means that physically you are a completely different entity from the 'jomifl' of ten years ago, so the only thing that connects you with that being is what? - your memory. No doubt you will now state the the cells in the brain replicated themselves with these memory traces before departure, which would be yet another of your unsubstantiated assertions attempting to prop up materialism. If I told you something which is provable; that a butterfly can memorise something from its earlier existence as a Caterpillar, what would your response be?
The human body is made of cells which are continually replacing themselves at varying frequencies, the longest, deep in the teeth, taking about 7 years. This means that physically you are a completely different entity from the 'jomifl' of ten years ago, so the only thing that connects you with that being is what? - your memory. No doubt you will now state the the cells in the brain replicated themselves with these memory traces before departure, which would be yet another of your unsubstantiated assertions attempting to prop up materialism. If I told you something which is provable; that a butterfly can memorise something from its earlier existence as a Caterpillar, what would your response be?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Only The A F D Can Save Germany
News2 mins ago
Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
