Atheist Place of "Worship"

marty1985

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/atheists-temple_n_1231848.html?&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

From Huffington Post:

Atheists have long criticised devout followers of faith. But now it seems Atheism is stealing from that very religious tradition by erecting a temple of worship.

Author Alain de Botton announced plans to build an Atheist temple in the U.K., reports DeZeen magazine.

A collaboration with Tom Greenall Architects, the structure will be built in the City of London.

Dedicated to the idea of perspective, the black tower will scale 46 meters (150 ft), with each centimeter honoring earth's age of 4.6 billion years, notes Wired.

But a place of worship isn't the only attribute from organized religion that Atheists can benefit from, says de Botton. In his newly released book "Religion For Atheists," the author points to design, art and community to inspire and attract a following.

Though de Botton has yet to announce a final date for opening the temple, he hopes to create a network of such buildings across the U.K., according to ArtsInfo.

It obviously raises the question of what exactly it is a temple to? The idea of building a monument to things people value is obvious. Our architecture usually tells us what matters to citizens, such that creative genius is lavished upon them to show how worthy they are. In a city like NY, Grand Central Station can be viewed as a monument to freedom, Central Park to leisure, St. Patrick's Cathedral to religion, the Chrysler to the economy, the UN Plaza to politics, the Guggenheim to art, etc. So I wonder, does the use of this sacred space metaphor in landmark architecture extend to atheism? I think a good case can be made that it might, but I wonder yet if it's a good idea. It is reported with so many religious overtones that will obviously lead to debate over whether atheism is a religion in itself, which is not the point of this thread, so I wonder if this is a publicity stunt or something else?

Newaglish

Seems like a stupid idea. I strongly suspect that there is some sort of financial incentive for him to do this.

GLaDOS

As stupid as the church of atheism Idea

Gregor Samsa

marty1985 wrote: »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/atheists-temple_n_1231848.html?&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

It obviously raises the question of what exactly it is a temple to?

The Guardian asks that very question (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/jan/26/alain-de-botton-temple-atheists?newsfeed=true)

His answer:

"You can build a temple to anything that's positive and good," he continues. "That could mean: a temple to love, friendship, calm or perspective."

To me, it sounds like an architectural rather than a philosophical/atheological project. Either that or a gimmick to promote his book. Although maybe they would be good venues for humanist/non-religious ceremonies such as baby naming, marriages and funerals? But there's already secular places you can do those (funerals are probably the ones that are most difficult to find a venue for), so I don't really see the point. The obvious downside is, as already pointed out, that the "atheism is a religion" accusation will be once again trotted out by those with that tired agenda.

Penn

Stupid idea. Use the money and site to create something which can teach about science and history, rather than have that as a by-product of "There is no God! Let's celebrate that!"

Don't build a place to celebrate the fact there is no God. Build a place to celebrate what there is instead; a place for science, history and philosophy.

Gregor Samsa

Dedicated to the idea of perspective, the black tower will scale 46 meters (150 ft), with each centimeter honoring earth's age of 4.6 billion years, notes Wired.

46 metres is only 4600cm. So he's missing 4,599,995,400cm. Maybe every 10 nanometres is doing the honouring. I wonder will it grow a tiny amount each year?

sbsquarepants

The whole idea is ridiculous.
Smells of a plan to sell a book, i wouldn't be one bit surprised if this "temple" is never built at all.:mad:

Penn

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The whole idea is ridiculous.
Smells of a plan to sell a book, i wouldn't be one bit surprised if this "temple" is never built at all.:mad:

Same thoughts here, especially with the way his books is called 'Religion for Atheists'

Sonics2k

How very stupid.

ShooterSF

This is the Atheism 2.0 guy is it not? Shouldn't the link deal with his group Atheist 2.0s (I can't imagine there is many) rather than us vanilla atheists?

this is a stupid idea

the "atheism is a religion" idea is already so prevalent, this is not going to help convince anyone otherwise

MrPudding

Whatever about his temple, he responds to emails really quickly and seems quite nice.

MrP

Arcus Arrow

2 days ago in London IQ2 hosted a debate:
THE WORLD NEEDS RELIGION EVEN IF IT DOESN'T NEED GOD

Alain de Botton was speaking for the motion as was Grayson Perry.
.

Temples are for worship. Atheism is not based on worship it's based on the opposite: relentless questioning. Of course not everyone who calls themselves an atheist is adverse to worship or automatically disposed towards relentless questioning.

marienbad

I think we have been here before with the Temple of Reason in Revolutionary France. All old hat and Da Vinci Code ****e. Helps sells books though.

Zombrex

I always considered atheist's places of "worship" to be the libraries, museums, lecture halls, laboratories etc etc. Places of learning, education and critical discussion that both cultivate and inspire civilisation.

While I'm all for monuments, monuments for the sake of monuments seem a bit silly. As does saying well religion has these things, so should we. And I'm sure cost a fortune.

He wants to honour atheists? Ok, put the money into building a new library, or better still fixing up an old one. You don't have to talk about "worship" or religion in order to make a space inspiring. Or is all this really just about selling a book?

bnt

So, to summarise: De Botton's idea has landed in the Blogosphere with an almighty thud. When PZ Myers keeps it short, I'd call this an open-and-shut case. If the case was ever open, that is.

Jimoslimos

ShooterSF wrote: »

This is the Atheism 2.0 guy is it not? Shouldn't the link deal with his group Atheist 2.0s (I can't imagine there is many) rather than us vanilla atheists?

Think I'll stick with v1.1* myself;)

Dedicated to the idea of perspective, the black tower will scale 46 meters (150 ft), with each centimeter honoring earth's age of 4.6 billion years, notes Wired.

So what happens, if say in 50 years time evidence comes to light that refutes this, that the earth is considerably older than 4.6 bn years (or younger even - calm down creationists, don't go wetting yourselves now!)





*Though perhaps I'll bypass 2.0 and move to 3.0 when it becomes more widespread

Peregrinus

ShooterSF wrote: »

This is the Atheism 2.0 guy is it not? Shouldn't the link deal with his group Atheist 2.0s (I can't imagine there is many) rather than us vanilla atheists?

Actually, de Botton is the latest in a long line of what might be termed “reluctant atheists” - convinced that the faith-claims of religion are baseless, but seeing much that is either beautiful or useful in religious practice, and anxious not to throw out the baby with the bath-water, so to speak. He joints Machiavelli, Voltaire, Diderot, John Toland, Edward Gibbon, Jurgen Habermas and many more.

In fairness, the rather utilitarian, materialistic variety of atheism personified by Richard Dawkins is definitely what the kids are all wearing these days. But don’t mistake what is fashionable for what is normative, and especially don’t mistake it for what is permanent. Consider that the activity of the Humanist Society in supporting atheist naming/welcome ceremonies for babies and atheist funerals, discussed in this forum just a few days ago, is probably more in the spirit of de Botton than of Dawkins.

18AD

marty1985 wrote: »

It obviously raises the question of what exactly it is a temple to?

Dedicated to the idea of perspective, the black tower will scale 46 meters (150 ft), with each centimeter honoring earth's age of 4.6 billion years, notes Wired.

I'm assuming the tower is dedicated to perspective, i.e. the eye. The unique focal point. The point from which there can be no divergence, with hints of dogmatism. No less also time and space itself, via the age of Earth and the size of the temple respectively. 'Temple' being etymologically related to time itself, how could one doubt such blatant connections. The tower itself harbouring subtle age-old psychological desires as those of escaping the bounds of Earth, i.e. ascending towards the heavens/space/etc... On a more depressing note, if one considers the term 'worship' as meaning 'making oneself worthy', the immediate next question is, of what? A temple for making oneself worthy of the (atheist 2.0's) material universe?

Wired being the magazine, and simultaneously, the title of my state of mind. :pac: Coincidence? I think not.

Edit: To continue this amusing metaphor, having one eye as the pooint of perspective, it will lack any experience of depth. The colour black also being traditionally associated with the Earth, black is a dense/heavy colour, perhaps again pertaining to some stubborness, juxtaposed against the desire to escape these depths through the tower.

Endless interpretative fun.

sbsquarepants

Zombrex wrote: »

I always considered atheist's places of "worship" to be the libraries, museums, lecture halls, laboratories etc etc. Places of learning, education and critical discussion that both cultivate and inspire civilisation.

No Zombrex, nightclubs are the prefered place of worship.
To quote the great (and unfortunately for my point, buddhist) Maxi Jazz
"This is my church.
This is where i heal my hurt.
Because tonight, god is a DJ.
Do doo de do, do doo de do, do doo de do, do doo do"
Ah Maxi, couldn't have said it better myself!:D

Genghiz Cohen

The real question is accuracy. Will this guy stick around long enough to pop a grain of sand on top every few hundred years to keep the height accurate?

fitz0

This is exactly why I have no time for de Botton. He seems to want to keep as much of religion as possible, the useless posturings and empty ceremonies. It all strikes me as shameless pandering to the religious, trying to get atheism accepted as an alternative religion rather than a lack thereof. This temple idea is just the next ludicrous step, following on from his books and lectures. No coincidence he has another book to sell either. I wouldn't be surprised if he announces (but doesn't go through with) the ordination of the first atheist priest.

The temple itself will just remain a nice little project for done recent architectural graduate, it won't be built. We as atheists already have out own places of worship. Mine is my front room where I religiously pay Skyrim. And on sundays I go to the museum our a gallery. We don't need some stupidly big tower for that.

ShooterSF

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, de Botton is the latest in a long line of what might be termed “reluctant atheists” - convinced that the faith-claims of religion are baseless, but seeing much that is either beautiful or useful in religious practice, and anxious not to throw out the baby with the bath-water, so to speak. He joints Machiavelli, Voltaire, Diderot, John Toland, Edward Gibbon, Jurgen Habermas and many more.

Woah there! Did you mean to quote de Botton? He's the one coming out with things like Atheism 2.0 suggesting an evolution from the old ways. Also if you're looking for any more interaction from me you can drop the insulting sniping such as "In fairness, the rather utilitarian, materialistic variety of atheism personified by Richard Dawkins is definitely what the kids are all wearing these days. But don’t mistake what is fashionable for what is normative".

quietriot

I find the idea quite insulting, it's as though he's suggesting that we atheists are currently missing something in our atheistic existence, that being a formal place to worship, according to him.

It resounds of a man struggling internally between logic and irrationality. The logical part of him is saying "religion, we know this is all crap, we've read the proof", the irrationality is telling him "We need somewhere to congregate and reinforce our ideas!We need somewhere to show people that we're here!" and so on.

It would be an awful waste of time, space and money though. If he's so insistent on giving something to atheism I'm sure the money could be put to use granted to research or if he so wishes, erecting a nice little center with a museum of science, art and history for us all to enjoy. Trying to attribute it to or dedicate it to atheism however is moronic.

Galvasean

The London Museum of Natural History is my Mecca.

Let this bottom man, whoever he is, rot in his Goddamn tower!

ShooterSF

Galvasean wrote: »

The London Museum of Natural History is my Mecca.

The internet is my temple. It scares me to think who I might be if it didn't exist.

Peregrinus

ShooterSF wrote: »

. . . if you're looking for any more interaction from me you can drop the insulting sniping such as "In fairness, the rather utilitarian, materialistic variety of atheism personified by Richard Dawkins is definitely what the kids are all wearing these days. But don’t mistake what is fashionable for what is normative".

My apologies, ShooterSF. I merely meant to point out, using a light-hearted turn of phrase, (a) that there are fashions in intellectual questions, and that (b) the New Atheism personified by Richard Dawkins is certainly the beneficiary of such a fashion. I expect both of these to be received as completely uncontroversial statements.

If you thought I was suggesting that you in particular formed your views in a childish or superficial way, I’m happy to clarify that I do not think that, and I have no reason to think that.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Did you mean to quote de Botton? He's the one coming out with things like Atheism 2.0 suggesting an evolution from the old ways.

He may think he is evolving beyond new atheism (or he may choose to present himself that way) but to my mind he can equally be send as returning to or reviving atheist perspectives which were around long before Richard Dawkins. In particular his idea that, while the truth-claims of religion are false, nevertheless religious practice and belief provide real spiritual benefits, is certainly not new.