Alain de Botton on Religion for atheists

whendovescry

http://youtu.be/ZQVjhCbll8o


de Botton makes some interesting points, some I certainly never considered. What are your thoughts?


(note: it is quite a long video, but the last two minutes aren't relevant)

18AD

Dull pop philosophy/spirituality.

I'd just go read some philosophy/religion texts and skip de Botton. Good sentiment; poor execution.

Have a field day: http://www.sacred-texts.com/

paddyandy

There is great stuff out there in religion .We must trawl very carefully .It's the only adventure .Be wary of popular stuff there's laziness and politics there .

Turtwig

25 mins? Anyone got the transcript.

fitz0

My opinion on de Botton hasn't changed since I posted this some time ago about his atheist church thing.

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.

He's still pushing the same dull pop philosophy, pseudo religious tripe.

joseph brand

whendovescry wrote: »

http://youtu.be/ZQVjhCbll8o


de Botton makes some interesting points, some I certainly never considered. What are your thoughts?


(note: it is quite a long video, but the last two minutes aren't relevant)

Avoid him.

marienbad

I donno I find him entertaining enough and he does make some valid points about religious art, literature , community etc.

Sport is the new religion and he is a small counter to that -

whendovescry

fitz0 wrote: »

My opinion on de Botton hasn't changed since I posted this some time ago about his atheist church thing.



He's still pushing the same dull pop philosophy, pseudo religious tripe.

He doesn't seem to be pandering to the religious imo. He see's religion for what it is: a cultural phenomenon

He is being pragmatic rather than pseudo-religious. He knows it is impossible to totally eradicate religion so he tries to extract as much from it as he can without giving anything in return.

In fact, I think this is a level above the more militant atheists whose aggressive agenda pushing rarely works

I also don't think ascribing what he does as 'pop' philosophy is fair.

Just because he 'dumbs down' philosophical arguments to make them more amenable to the general population shouldn't be held against him

Nodin

paddyandy wrote: »

There is great stuff out there in religion .We must trawl very carefully .It's the only adventure .Be wary of popular stuff there's laziness and politics there .

Whats that? Timmy has fallen down an abandoned mine shaft?

Ellis Dee

"Religion for atheists"?:rolleyes:

WTF does that mean?

I'm an atheist and, even though I'm no ornithologist, I have long been convinced that all religion is strictly for the birds. Definitely not for atheists.:):D

fitz0

whendovescry wrote: »

He doesn't seem to be pandering to the religious imo. He see's religion for what it is: a cultural phenomenon

He is being pragmatic rather than pseudo-religious. He knows it is impossible to totally eradicate religion so he tries to extract as much from it as he can without giving anything in return.

In fact, I think this is a level above the more militant atheists whose aggressive agenda pushing rarely works

I also don't think ascribing what he does as 'pop' philosophy is fair.

Just because he 'dumbs down' philosophical arguments to make them more amenable to the general population shouldn't be held against him

What he is doing is putting forward non belief as an alternate belief, sort of a fluffy humanism, rather than what it is - non belief. This interview is from the same promotional tour AdB that saw this remarkably pants idea.
He is the most brazen non religious religious apologetic I've ever read. I'll expand on this when I get to a computer, I don't like responding on my phone.

Expanding- In that interview dB gives he makes some bold statements, through excerpts from his book, about religions virtues and mankinds failings.

We have grown frightened of the word morality. We bridles at the thought of hearing a sermon. We flee from the idea that art should be uplifting or have an ethical mission. We don't go on pilgrimages. We can't build temples. We have no mechanisms for expressing gratitude. The notion of reading a self-help book has become absurd to the high minded. We resist mental exercises. Strangers rarely sing together... In giving up so much we have allowed religion to claim as its exclusive domain areas of experience that should rightly belong to all mankind - and which we should feel unembarrassed about re-appropriating for the secular realm.

Now I am all for re-appropriating human experience for the secular realm but this quote is utterly vacuous.

Art is what the artist intends and what we perceive. If we don't perceive it as uplifting, if the artist doesn't intend an uplifting piece, then it is no less a piece of art. Art can be uplifting but does not have to be, and to say that it should be is foolishness.

We do go on pilgrimages. All the time. I go on one to the Twisted Pepper at least once a week for fantastic coffee (plug plug.) I sit, read a book and forget about everything for 20minutes. It's the most peaceful part of my week. I also make regular pilgrimages to my temples. The RHA, the Douglas Hyde, the Hugh Lane, Hodges & Figgis, the Chester Beatty, the Sackville Lounge. In The Architecture of Happiness deBotton uses churches and cathedrals as examples of spiritual architecture and, by extension, happy architecture because of the feelings they instill. I have no doubt that this influenced him greatly in his atheist folly temple but he misses the point. Everyone's temple is different. So to say we don't build temples is simpleminded in the extreme.

What mechanisms do we need to express gratitiude? Gratitude to whom? Our peers? We use language. Our families? We use language, gestures, kindness etc etc. But to anything else, what do we express and to what? We don't have a god, we have no lords or masters, we need not thank anyone but those who have helped us and we are more than capable of that without the phantom mechanisms that de Botton says we lack.

We read self help books all the time, there's no other kind of book.

Mental exercise is a red herring. Religion can never hijack that. A man's thoughts are his own, even when suppressed by indoctrination.

I sang with strangers last weekend at the fleadh cheoil. But when did strangers ever sing together? When was this mythical age of communal singing? Did strangers dance around the fire together in the prehistoric gloom singing around the fire?

jank

I like him essentially that he is not afraid to admit that some aspects of religion can be good for society. Now you will never get your militant atheist like Dawkins admit that but they are a fanatics and we all know what they are like.

In simple terms he wants to see how one can transpose the good things religion does in a society and communities to a non-religious and humanist approach without the "burn in hell mantra" which can only be a good thing.

The thing you have to know about him is that he approaches things from a philosophical approach. Most atheists approach things from a purely scientific path. The two don't mix very well so I understand that he may not be popular with some. Science is good at describing the universe and the natural world. Philosophy is good at describing the human condition and mentality.

Mardy Bum

jank wrote: »

Science is good at describing the universe and the natural world. Philosophy is good at describing the human condition and mentality.

In more recent times sciences has taken huge strides into understanding the human condition. Evolutionary psychology has made huge advances in this area.

jank

Curious about the above but can you point out an example?

aidan24326

jank wrote: »

Now you will never get your militant atheist like Dawkins admit that but they are a fanatics and we all know what they are like.

That's not true. Have you ever actually read anything by Dawkins or are you just parroting things you've heard others say?

For example, in The God Delusion he has a whole section entitled 'Deserved Respect' where he discusses the positive aspects of religion that he'd like to keep (minus the baggage that goes with it).

By the way, there is no such thing as a 'militant' atheist. Militant implies aggression, oppression, war even. When was the last time a bunch of atheists got together and blew up a mosque? Or showed up on your doorstep proselytising? It doesn't happen. Atheists have no god to blow themselves up for, no promise of paradise for doing so, and therein lies a fundamental difference.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

25 mins? Anyone got the transcript.

Never mind, I think fitz0 may have provided a fair enough abstract.

ShooterSF

whendovescry wrote: »

He doesn't seem to be pandering to the religious imo. He see's religion for what it is: a cultural phenomenon

He is being pragmatic rather than pseudo-religious. He knows it is impossible to totally eradicate religion so he tries to extract as much from it as he can without giving anything in return.

In fact, I think this is a level above the more militant atheists whose aggressive agenda pushing rarely works

I also don't think ascribing what he does as 'pop' philosophy is fair.

Just because he 'dumbs down' philosophical arguments to make them more amenable to the general population shouldn't be held against him

You know it's strange for someone to see the merit in integrating rather than fighting an opposite point of view and yet in the same breath use the phrase "militant atheists" which will surely alienate the people you are trying to sell the merits of such an idea to. Just a thought.

whendovescry

ShooterSF wrote: »

You know it's strange for someone to see the merit in integrating rather than fighting an opposite point of view and yet in the same breath use the phrase "militant atheists" which will surely alienate the people you are trying to sell the merits of such an idea to. Just a thought.

Well, I was just trying to display the continuum of atheistic 'proselytizing'.

You have Christopher Hitchens on the one hand and de Botton on the other.

I use militant not in denigrating way but to express the different approaches of the two.

There is nothing more I can add to sell Hitchens' ideas and I hugely admire him, but I think if atheists could strike a balance between the two it would be more successful in its attempt to enlighten the religious.

ShooterSF

whendovescry wrote: »

Well, I was just trying to display the continuum of atheistic 'proselytizing'.

You have Christopher Hitchens on the one hand and de Botton on the other.

I use militant not in denigrating way but to express the different approaches of the two.

There is nothing more I can add to sell Hitchens' ideas and I hugely admire him, but I think if atheists could strike a balance between the two it would be more successful in its attempt to enlighten the religious.

I think a mix of both types are actually needed. I needed the straight talking honest to every word types like Hitchens to open my eyes and I suppose the political style is needed for others. However most of us here are not in the enlightening business to be blunt; So we speak honestly even if it seems harsh or mean. We don't look to take a political approach, to mind our p's so as to win over the believers. We post honestly and at best you think some neutrals may take something from it.

You have to understand though the term militant is used here in a denigrating fashion by theists and a few others and will be met with the same emotional backlash that you admire Botton for carefully side stepping. I'm just suggesting that it might be better to use a different phrase in conversation with atheists if you want them to give your points the honest thought they deserve, even if they don't agree in the end

Kooli

jank wrote: »

I like him essentially that he is not afraid to admit that some aspects of religion can be good for society. Now you will never get your militant atheist like Dawkins admit that but they are a fanatics and we all know what they are like.

In simple terms he wants to see how one can transpose the good things religion does in a society and communities to a non-religious and humanist approach without the "burn in hell mantra" which can only be a good thing.

The thing you have to know about him is that he approaches things from a philosophical approach. Most atheists approach things from a purely scientific path. The two don't mix very well so I understand that he may not be popular with some. Science is good at describing the universe and the natural world. Philosophy is good at describing the human condition and mentality.

I haven't watched the clip or read much by him, but if this captures his approach then I'm all for it.