Alain de Botton (Atheist philosopher) looks at what Atheists can learn from Religion as far as cultural development. He discusses assumptions in general of religion and how to fulfill the social, emotional, and psychological needs met and restructuring and/or relating beyond the divide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSrVCSQucGY&feature=fvwp&NR=1



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2012 10:00PM by wonderer.

Alain de Botton is generally regarded as a fraud.
Yep. we Atheists really need religion or the trappings thereof.

The guy is a total nutcase.

If sky daddy's minions could come up with anything--anything at all--that fulfills human social or psychological needs, secularists can also do it, but better. Religion's only advantage was it got its clutches on superstitious ignorant society long before science had a chance to take root. Now that we know the RIGHT answers to the questions that religion got so very wrong (such as "what's that really bright thing up in the sky?") why would we continue holding onto the traditions and symbolic implications of those wrong answers? To quote a relevant song: the morning breaks, the shadows flee...

As soon as he said "I'm interested in an ethical framework" I dismissed him as a kook. There are example after example of religions totally lacking in ethics. No, religion is not the place to look for ethics or ethical guidance.


Then he goes on about stuff like ritual, community, transcendence, and something weird happening to him when he walks into a religious building as religion has some monopoly on that sort of thing.

All of those things are offered in abundance outside of religion so his supposition that we need to look at religion to learn these thing is nonsense. He discredited himself withing 5 minutes.

I don't know why I just subjected myself to that, but I did, I watched it. The entire premise seems to be built on the assumption that atheists are, "missing" something, be it community, social institutions, support, spirituality or other things religions "offer" without having to accept ridiculous doctrines or silly superstition.

Honestly, I don't get it. Why? Why is there an assumption that atheists need something more? It's just assumed, and it seems to be a belief so deeply rooted that no amount of retort can seem to dislodge it. For all I can tell, it's a solution in search of a problem.

It's like a drug to treat a malady that does not exist, but of course no one would buy such a thing, so you invent the malady in order to sell the cure. Equally baffling is the assumption that atheists are somehow limiting their vision. It makes no sense. It's like saying you'll somehow see more by sticking your head in a hat; to people who spent years with their respective heads in a hat and already know what the view is like.

wonderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alain de Botton (Atheist philosopher) looks at
> what Atheists can learn from Religion as far as
> cultural development. He discusses assumptions in
> general of religion and how to fulfill the social,
> emotional, and psychological needs met and
> restructuring and/or relating beyond the divide.
...

I didn't see much there that seemed practical.

Thinking back over the last 40 years of my father's life,
I still struggle to see how his atheism did anything to
help the local community or society beyond the walls of
our own home. He evidently had no "social,emotional, and
psychological needs," that could not be met by attending
John Birch Society meetings and reading secular magazines.

He now and then spoke of "how much better the world would
be," if all the religions were demolished -- but when I
pointed out John Lennon's "Imagine" to him, he could only
see a "hippie drug addict," whose music was "worthless."

Perhaps, if our family had lived in a larger city, with
a more diverse population -- he might have discovered
more people like himself. As it was, he had a small clique
of atheist friends, even in a town that was 95% LDS --
but I never once heard them speak a single sentence about
how they would improve a world that the "superstitious"
were ruining.

I'd like to think that (were he yet alive) he might embrace
those folks trying to promote education on global warming
and other planet-wide problems. He would definitely have
rejected the idea that the Bible promised protection
against the world ever being destroyed by flooding (rising
sea levels, etc.) --- but I'm 99% sure he would have limited
his response to transitory conversations and an occasional
lecture to his wayward, theistic kids.

Maybe some people just were not meant to participate in
great paradigm-changing movements and organizations.

Perhaps that sort of thing will ALWAYS be dominated by the
religious groups and their politicians, no matter how much
human beings evolve in other ways.

UD

Reverse affect on me....I am now a full blown athiest. I don't buy what he is selling.

After removing religion, I replaced that extra time with physical exercise, reading books that make me think, and seeing nature...I guess that's my "religion" for this atheist.

I don't think atheists need to try and replicate everything about religion, but I get where he is coming from. Personally I think it would be nice to have weekly meeting with other atheists and atheist families where my kids could meet other kids with similar world views. Plus, think about the political power various religious groups are able to wield because they are organized.

Yes atheists do not like to follow authority, but why not embrace that as a central tenet of the organization? Instead of reveling in conformity as religions do, revel in diversity of thought. Instead of worshiping unknowable mysteries, celebrate the many mysteries humanity has solved and the scientific process that solved them.

...friends.

Going to weekly meetings seems to suggest the need for instant friends, like those that churches supply. Never mind that there are all sorts of social groups that meet that would be a better example of how to structure a weekly meeting of atheists.

If Atheists want political power, I would suggest they look to the political parties, lobbying groups and other politically active groups rather than churches.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2012 10:34AM by MJ.

MJ I know from our past exchanges on this topic that you are 100% against this idea, but can you respect the desire of other atheists to want something more than a weekly "social" meetup?

I assume you have nothing against universities and lectures from scholars? Why couldn't atheists worship services be like that? Instead of a preacher giving 'free' lectures on religion, there would be scholars giving free lectures on science. We are always hearing about the high cost of education. I think one of the reasons religion is so popular and widespread is because you do not have to pay to attend. Sure they ask, and pressure, you to give, but for most churches there is no fixed amount. You give what you can.

Why couldn't there be a volunteer organization that teaches science and critical thinking skills to the masses for free, and accepts donations of whatever the people attending feel they can afford to give? Such an organization would be able to teach its followers real skills that would benefit them in this life to help them get better jobs, and advance human knowledge instead of being a weight on intellectual progress as religion too often is.

I understand why you would be concerned. It should not become a dogmatic cult of personality. Yes there could be that risk. But I think the benefits of being more organized than simple social meetup groups far out weighs those risks. Simple weekly meetup groups will never reach the critical mass sufficient to act as a counter weight to the intellectually harmful effects of the religions of the world. To counter the lies and demonization religions like to ascribe to the non-believer.

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want to believe. I have no problem with that. But when you post your ideas to a discussion board, then you had better be prepared to have those ideas discussed, even by the like of MJ.

You make some flawed assumptions like, from your fist post " Personally I think it would be nice to have weekly meeting with other atheists and atheist families where my kids could meet other kids with similar world views" a lack of belief in God is not in and off itself a "world view". In fact, atheism, in and of itself does not define a world view in any way.

I suggest that you find out what your world view really is, then go where those sorts of people hang out. Why make it into "atheists worship services"????

BTW, WTF are Atheists going to "worship"? Why resort to that sort of closed minded thinking?

Why make something like a good lecture into "worship"? Do we have to say "Naw-men" at the end of a Ted lecture?

I think you will find a large number of secular institutions that do a great deal of good, to which I ask, why would you want to make voluntarism into an us (atheism) vs. them (theist) sort of thing, other than to promote an agenda? When it comes to voluntarism, wouldn't it be better if we accepted those willing to help without asking "what religion are you?"

And why follow a path that leads to less compassion?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/01/study-atheists-more-compassionate-than-highly-religious-people/

Other than to venerate the comcept of worship (without giving a reason why) you have failed to give a valid reason for atheists to turn to religion for any reason.

And if Atheists want a model for gaining political power, I think they would do better by following the gay right movement. Gays have been successful at gaining power even with great opposition from religion.

helemon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> Why couldn't atheists worship services be like that?
...


From what I've heard, "worship" entails paying respect or
devotion to some higher being, power or ideal than is
embodied in a single, typical human being.

In a poetic sense, a group of art enthusiasts might possibly
gather together periodically to "worship" the beauty of
classical Greek sculpture. That would be an abstract ideal
"higher" than the situation of any one individual member.

In another experience, groups of North Koreans might gather
to sings songs in praise of the late Kim Il Sung -- that
would also be a form of worship -- to the memory of the
"Great Leader" whose status dwarfed that of the people.

But what thing, or idea, or purpose could atheists possibly
"worship?" Does the typical atheist acknowledge anything
"higher" or "greater" than himself, suitable to worship?

Perhaps some sub-groups, forming themselves from out of
the greater masses of earth's atheists could find some
non-supernatural purpose/being greater than themselves,
suitable for mass devotion. An icon of sorts -- a Stalin
for the world-wide Comintern, perhaps.

But I'd guess that only occasional, transitory gatherings
of atheists would (of their own volition) ever choose to
participate in such "worship."

To invoke a Science Fiction scenario, our planet would
probably have to be conquered and ruled by extraterrestrials
vastly more advanced and powerful than ourselves, before
the world's atheists could find a common cause worthy of
their self-sacrificing praise and adoration.

UD

Alain de Botton disgusts me because he simply can't think. His brain does not work well.

Do what you like as far as social clubs and/or rituals go, but don't use de Botton's assumptions to justify your social life.

I'm not the only one who finds de Botton a bottom-of-the-barrel philosopher. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/28/i-am-officially-disgusted-with-alain-de-botton/

Here's a quote from de Botton: "Probably the most boring question you can ask about religion is whether or not the whole thing is "true." Unfortunately, recent public discussions on religion have focused obsessively on precisely this issue, with a hardcore group of fanatical believers pitting themselves against an equally small band of fanatical atheists."

And here's an excerpt from PZ Myer's reply: "He might find the question boring, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s central and important. Are we to live in a society that values truth, or one run by idiots like de Botton, who think the truth is irrelevant, in which we are governed by and our children taught by people who promote falsehoods? Who live their entire lives guided entirely by disproven myths and falsehoods, and evangelize that nonsense intensely?

"Our culture is currently divided between three groups: Atheists, who think the truth matters, and want our problems addressed with real-world solutions; theists, who want a god or supernatural powers to solve our problems with magic; and fence-sitting parasites like de Botton who see a personal opportunity to pander to the believers for their own gain, who will ride the conflict while pretending to aloof from it, and win popularity with the masses by trying to tell everyone they’re all right. He is no friend to reason; he’s a really good pal to Alain de Botton."

More links to discussions of Alain de Botton's bankrupt ideas:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/28/another-view-of-de-botton/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/29/more-criticism-of-alain-de-botton/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/03/01/the-league-of-nitwits-has-farted-in-my-general-direction/

Alain de Botton is a classic narcissist.

Here are few comments from viewers of the de Botton self-promotion machine:

"Though hideous pseudo-phallic tower thou might build, or ersatz newage religion thou might invent and call it atheist, the lady scepticism turns her face from thee, and Typos will not accept thy tribute of split infinitives and humourously mispelt words."

"De Botton is a sycophant playing the part of the Jester. A sort of temporal Pascal’s Wager. He is mumming the theist’s image of a “good” atheist, so he will be the de facto, go-to atheist-in-chief. Sort of the way that the Chinese intervened to appoint their own Dalai Lama. Cult leader or archbishop, its all the same. The Theist-King’s pet atheist will have, in Cartman’s pronunciation, “authoritay”. Cathedral with himself as Bishop."

Russell Blackford's take on de Botton: http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2012/02/plane-reading.html

Excerpt: "...he has a lot of rather demeaning things to say about us as a species - things that, in his eyes, mean that we need structure, direction, etc.

I think it's a fair inference that if we started doing all the things that religion does, such as reading the same books over and over, constructing buildings to manipulate people's moods, etc., we'd end up with something similar to a religion in its trappings and its manipulation of people. It wouldn't resemble any one existing religion - it would be much more syncretic - but if we were deliberately creating architecture, music, everyday rituals, etc., in a systematic way it would, indeed, end up as a stifling/brainwashing system.

Just how far de Botton wants us to go in that direction may be open to argument, as he never spells it out in detail, but he does talk in a way that suggests large amounts of money going into communal projects to celebrate certain agreed values, valued emotional states, etc. It's not just that individual architects, say, can learn about what features of Notre Dame Cathedral produce awe - something that happens anyway."

Alain de Botton wrote: "Probably the most boring question you can ask about religion is whether or not the whole thing is 'true.'"

And a person with an intact and working brain, "Sastra" replied in a way that I think really gets to the core of the issue.

Sastra wrote:

I am absolutely astonished that religious people think that this line of reasoning from an atheist makes that atheist a “tame” atheist — respectful, non-threatening, acceptable in mixed company and ecumenical group mutual love sessions. That is, I understand why this is the case, but it still never fails to amaze me that the faithful are apparently so willing to gloss over the implications here simply in order to get the atheist to change the damn subject.

De Botton is basically coming out and telling folks that they don’t believe in God. Not that he doesn’t believe in God – but that they don’t. Not really. It’s all about putting on an identity like a piece of clothing. You wear “faith” to express yourself as a deep person, a moral person, a loving person, an aesthetic person: a person with character and history and a very handy therapeutic method of dealing with life’s ups and downs. And hey, we respect that. Whatever floats your boat. Live and let live. Atheists *like me* are like this. Can I get a hug?

And the faithful apparently encourage this — because it gets them off the hook. They don’t have to defend their belief. They don’t have to explain what they believe, why they believe it, and engage in a serious discussion. Sure, sure, religion is just like a big Renaissance Faire, a dress-up game where you pick and choose your favorite belief and walk around posturing and gesturing in a way that looks like you’re “praying” and “communing” to something called “God” which you don’t care about at all, really. You’re just cementing who you are. It’s a useful tool.

Except that this is bullshit. Religious people do take their beliefs seriously. They don’t think that the question about what is or is not “true” in spiritual matters is “boring.” They think it’s absolutely central to what it means to be a human being.

And they admit this the moment the atheist leaves the room. Or the moment their objective critical facilities go to sleep and they get to wallow again in the self-satisfied glow of being the kind of person who just knows that faith is not just a way of knowing — it’s THE way of knowing.

So yes, I have some contempt for de Botton, the good, tame atheist the religious can feel comfortable with. But frankly I have a lot more contempt for those faithful who find this sort of atheist a comfortable one. They’re giving up the entire point of their belief just to avoid confrontation. Cowards.

Link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/28/i-am-officially-disgusted-with-alain-de-botton/comment-page-1/#comment-276218

Mental, moral, mendacious cowards.

Awful. de Botton is awful.

... as a void needing to be filled.

What was there was replaced by the knowledge that it ain't so.

Fair enough for me.

Timothy