News0 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.
It is quite clear from previous contributions in this section, that any devout religionist can not be reasoned with and they can only be saved when they see the error of their ways by themselves. One sees here repeatedly that anything remotely areligious is replied to with a bombardment of tedious and irrelevant C&P with unsubstantiated tomes of misinformation.
It surely is clearly apparent that considering the abundance of global murdering, rape, torture, infant and accidental deaths, that any omnipotent god who we are told is good and forgiving, is not someone who should be worshipped or trusted.
There, I feel better now.
It surely is clearly apparent that considering the abundance of global murdering, rape, torture, infant and accidental deaths, that any omnipotent god who we are told is good and forgiving, is not someone who should be worshipped or trusted.
There, I feel better now.
It is an interesting idea but I wonder how much of the 'elements of religion' that are useful probably pre-existed religion anyway. I am not sure that a gentle disengagement from religion resulting in a soft landing is possible. People either believe in a deity or do not, I can't help thinking that what is needed is a cathartic process resulting in 'scales falling from eyes'. To use your architectural analogy, it is necessary to clear away the ruins and rebuild on new foundations that are underpinned by reality. The good thing about reality is that all the bits fit together without compromise(so far).
de Bottons perspective presumes that these elements we are supposed to adopt are the exclusive product of religion and that they are worthy of beiing taken up by secular people.
Spirituality can mean many things and despite the absence of a deity many atheists already have a sense of spirituality far more developed than the crippled and corrupted version served up by the church like a burger from a fast food store.
The sense of community provided by the church is also often cited as something we should adopt. Well too late. Many atheists already have wonderful relationships with the people around them. And, God forbid, both men and women are able to share in that kind of intimacy with each other without rules about what is allowed for each based on their sex because some misogynist old lechers decided it was "God's Will" taht women be treated like second class citizens.
Much of the sense of unity in the church comes from singing together. I get that to in the band that I sing in. The difference is we don't limit ourselves to boring songs exalting an imaginary god.
Spirituality can mean many things and despite the absence of a deity many atheists already have a sense of spirituality far more developed than the crippled and corrupted version served up by the church like a burger from a fast food store.
The sense of community provided by the church is also often cited as something we should adopt. Well too late. Many atheists already have wonderful relationships with the people around them. And, God forbid, both men and women are able to share in that kind of intimacy with each other without rules about what is allowed for each based on their sex because some misogynist old lechers decided it was "God's Will" taht women be treated like second class citizens.
Much of the sense of unity in the church comes from singing together. I get that to in the band that I sing in. The difference is we don't limit ourselves to boring songs exalting an imaginary god.
I am not sure I would agree with his assertion at all. If I understand his point of view correctly, he says, in essence, that we should take God and the Supernatural out of religion. No such thing, but we can learn from the ritual and sense of community that the church promotes, or has.
Well, I would disagree with that in its entirety. If you remove the supernatural, remove God, from religion, you are left with a bunch of bearded old men meddling in everyone elses lives, telling them how to live, except without the authority of the ultimate being they say they have.
What can secular society learn from religion? What do you think, specifically, Khandro, that secular society could use to improve society? I mean, this whole concept that somehow the church and religion and the religious have some sort of level of connection, of understanding, of experience of the cosmos that secularists don't is a hypothesis totally lacking in any quantitative assessment.
You will see secular communal events all the time, from book clubs to business breakfast meetings, to village fetes, to golden jubilee flag waving days - all these foster a sense of community, and all available without having some priest spouting in your ear about original sin, or a stream of sanctimonious platitudes.
And where secular society does wish to adopt a religious ritual, in an effort to remove division and reduce phobias, The church rejects gay marriage out of hand - but fail miserably to make any sort of rational case for doing so.
Mr de Botton sounds to me like a kind of "cant we all get along" accomodationist, rather like Chris Mooney in the US. There is little positive that religion can give to secular society, and little to be gained from accomodating bizarre beliefs, particularly if they impact upon lifestyles of others in society....
Well, I would disagree with that in its entirety. If you remove the supernatural, remove God, from religion, you are left with a bunch of bearded old men meddling in everyone elses lives, telling them how to live, except without the authority of the ultimate being they say they have.
What can secular society learn from religion? What do you think, specifically, Khandro, that secular society could use to improve society? I mean, this whole concept that somehow the church and religion and the religious have some sort of level of connection, of understanding, of experience of the cosmos that secularists don't is a hypothesis totally lacking in any quantitative assessment.
You will see secular communal events all the time, from book clubs to business breakfast meetings, to village fetes, to golden jubilee flag waving days - all these foster a sense of community, and all available without having some priest spouting in your ear about original sin, or a stream of sanctimonious platitudes.
And where secular society does wish to adopt a religious ritual, in an effort to remove division and reduce phobias, The church rejects gay marriage out of hand - but fail miserably to make any sort of rational case for doing so.
Mr de Botton sounds to me like a kind of "cant we all get along" accomodationist, rather like Chris Mooney in the US. There is little positive that religion can give to secular society, and little to be gained from accomodating bizarre beliefs, particularly if they impact upon lifestyles of others in society....
Jomifl and L.G. I tend to agree with what you say, but I note of late, the appearance of more and more books on this subject; some I haven't read -'Reasonable Atheism' (Prometheus) written by atheists, Aikin and Talisse, and some I have; 'Beyond Religion' (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt) by H.H. The Dalai Lama, in which he outlines 'Ethics for the Whole World' within a sort of spiritual philosophy.
It seems that there is an increasing need in many people for something which materialism alone cannot provide. Some (not all) atheists, having killed of the God of the philosophers, - that is the God accessed by reason alone, feel an absence of direction and meaning within themselves, and have an aspiration to fill this void.
It seems that there is an increasing need in many people for something which materialism alone cannot provide. Some (not all) atheists, having killed of the God of the philosophers, - that is the God accessed by reason alone, feel an absence of direction and meaning within themselves, and have an aspiration to fill this void.
@ Khandro. Yes, I would agree that there are more titles being published offering a kind of accomodationist viewpoint - a fairly natural counterpoint to the naughties, when there were many books being published with a very clear and uncompromising atheist message.
See, i think there is something of a false equivalence here. There is an assumption being made that atheism = exclusively materialism, and that atheists cannot experience anything other than materialism, whereas those of a religious persuasion can.
This is an equivalence that I think is totally wrong, and is why I think there is little to be gained from acquiesing to religious inspired behaviours in an effort to accomodate everyone. All that does is allow distasteful and, in some cases downright barbaric practices to proceed largely unchallenged and infect yet another generation with its message....
Alain De Botton - Isnt he the same guy that proposed some sort of "atheist temple" in London, or something? Didnt think a lot of that idea either :)
See, i think there is something of a false equivalence here. There is an assumption being made that atheism = exclusively materialism, and that atheists cannot experience anything other than materialism, whereas those of a religious persuasion can.
This is an equivalence that I think is totally wrong, and is why I think there is little to be gained from acquiesing to religious inspired behaviours in an effort to accomodate everyone. All that does is allow distasteful and, in some cases downright barbaric practices to proceed largely unchallenged and infect yet another generation with its message....
Alain De Botton - Isnt he the same guy that proposed some sort of "atheist temple" in London, or something? Didnt think a lot of that idea either :)
