BookTalk.org

Saffron mentioned Atheism 2.0 to me and I looked it up, then remembered reading a review of the recent book by this speaker, Alain de Botton. De Botton's approach creates quite a bit of controversy among atheists. It's just my guess that most are not particularly in favor; some of these sneer at it as "church envy." I think he has something, though, and his charge that we have "secularized badly" is pretty easy for me to agree with. You might be interested in his TED Talk.

http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botto ... m_2_0.html

Sure, religions have community, but the guy isn't even taking his own points seriously. He said that churches have sermons, the equivalent would be if the audience said "Amen" and thanked Shakespeare and Jane Austen. Then he mentioned how religions incorporate the body, such as Jews taking baths at a certain time, I guess to symbolize cleansing. But does he suggest we actually do these things? I didn't watch the whole thing, but it doesn't sound like it and that would be silly.

I understand his point, but at the same time he's reinforcing the idea that atheists lead empty lives. At some point you've got to admit that religion provides comfort for many people based on false views -- no doubt many people don't want to give that up and would feel (correctly) that atheism can't replace that.

I told you it was controversial! The thing perhaps to keep most in mind is that he does claim to be an atheist. He's not selling us the religions themselves because they would be an impossible fit. He's talking, at least from my viewpoint, as a solid humanist when he assumes that of course religions have features that we can all use (and do, by the way, by other names). If you believe that religions were foisted on people by elites, or that they were spread "virally" to weak, susceptible brains, then none of this works for you. You (not you personally, Dexter) would have to agree that the mass of people created the religions and that they perform some important functions socially and "spiritually" that go way beyond the comfort you (Dexter) speak of. I don't see him telling us that if you're an atheist you can't have any kind of deep emotional life or "spiritual" connection. Again, he himself is an atheist. He's talking about what religion facilitated a lot more effectively, on a much larger scale, than secularism (a word I dislike) has done.

Bah, it's a bunch of pandering, wishy-washy nonsense

haha!

I guess what might be bothering you both is the implication that 2.0 is an advance on your own 1.0? That is unnecessary on his part. But I can't really tell what your argument is.

Well, people are social animals. Religion is a group activity. Just removing religion does not increase social interaction. That can't be the end of it. And like you said, just not believing hardly seems like a good excuse for people to get together.

You've got to find other ways of socializing. This can be a big problem for people whose social life consists of hanging out with people from church. But go get yourself some hobbies. get some good friends. find something you enjoy doing together and find more like yourself. maybe you love going to the gym, or playing sports, or you could join a landscape painting class, or go help homeless people.

you want to feel connected? Like you are helping? like you are living a life to remember? Help somebody that needs help. They will remember you. They will recognize your effort. That is meaningful to the only thing capable of evaluating meaning. your fellow human.

i don't buy that we need to have rituals. i definitely agree that everyone needs to be social. To feel included.

The best summary of what de Botton is saying comes in his remarks after his talk ends: "Atheism shouldn't cut itself off from the rich sources of religion." It's about exploiting those resources, for him. They're resources of the "ritualistic, moralizing, and communalistic" sides of religion. We should be "respectful and impious" when frankly stealing from religion. We need to do this bec. "the secular world is full of holes," and there are "areas of life that are not going too well now." Here are the main areas he sees:

1. Education. We've forgotten that people need "morality, guidance, and consolation," not just information. In the early 19th Century, when church attendance in England began to decline steeply, the alternative of using culture--art and literature in place of scripture and religious doctrine that could no longer be believed--was proposed. This is a very good idea [and one that Dawkins and Hitchens both believe in], but we've forgotten it and now think education is only to convey information and teach us how to make money. Educational institutions think we don't need this kind of didactic teaching, but we do. Education also thinks that we only need to be told something once, but that is nonsense to religion. We need to be told over and over because we are like sieves and we forget.
2. Arrangement of time. Religious calendars make sure that throughout the year you "bang into certain ideas." The secular side says "I'll just come across these on my own." The religious way tends to be a lot more effective at making these encounters happen.
3. Rituals around important feelings, for example to feel the power of the presence of the moon in the Buddhist observation.
4. Importance of oratory. Religious world thinks we need a really convincing way of saying something.
5. We are bodies as well as brains. In religion, "physical action backs up philosophical ideas." Yoga is probably the prime example.
6. Art. Secular has promoted art for art's sake. From the religious side, art should be didactic as well simply beautiful. It's propaganda--"a manner of being didactic in service of something." It shows its adherents what to "love, hate, and fear; it's a "visceral encounter with the essentials of their faith."
7. Strength in numbers. The most worthy members of secular world, the poets, therapists, artists, social change agents, etc., are relatively isolated and don't change much. Scale of religious institutions makes them extremely powerful. They are "multi-national, branded, and collaborative," exactly like effective corporations. Religions are "the foremost institutions fighting for the the things of the mind."

I may not have quoted him entirely accurately. It's important to add that his is not a defense of all of what religions do. Even if we disagree with what they're doing, though, we'd do well to copy their strengths and some of their methods. We need no religious beliefs to do this.

What religion does is "subtle, complicated, and intelligent in so many ways that it is not fit to be abandoned to the religious alone."

johnson1010 wrote:Well, people are social animals. Religion is a group activity. Just removing religion does not increase social interaction. That can't be the end of it. And like you said, just not believing hardly seems like a good excuse for people to get together.

You've got to find other ways of socializing. This can be a big problem for people whose social life consists of hanging out with people from church. But go get yourself some hobbies. get some good friends. find something you enjoy doing together and find more like yourself. maybe you love going to the gym, or playing sports, or you could join a landscape painting class, or go help homeless people.

you want to feel connected? Like you are helping? like you are living a life to remember? Help somebody that needs help. They will remember you. They will recognize your effort. That is meaningful to the only thing capable of evaluating meaning. your fellow human.

i don't buy that we need to have rituals. i definitely agree that everyone needs to be social. To feel included.

You are kinda missing the point about going to church as a way to be social. We or at least most of us need a push to go join in with a group on a regular basis, made of people of all types and interests. If you just go do a hobby with others you are like to be with other that share some things in common. It is useful both personally and for the larger society for us individuals to be exposed to and have to work with all different kinds of people. If you are invested in a group then I think we become more invested in managing the relationships with the other people in that group and consequently improve our own social skills.

As for rituals, we have lots that we all participate in all the time. Rituals are one of the teaching/transmission tools of culture.

I think you could incorporate this issue into the discussion on Jonathan Haidt's book! His views on human reasoning (mainly moral reasoning) are germane to the discussion at hand, although I don't think he's as insightful as Hume or Newman, or modern Humeans such as Simon Blackburn and Alan Gibbard. Although The Righteous Mind is about politics, I think you could apply the same ideas to religious debates (ie different religious views and theists vs atheists). I have to go to work, so i don't have time to write my thoughts on this particular issue now, but might try my hand at it a little later. It certainly isn't simple.