• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Alain de Botton: Religion for Atheists

beer good

Well-Known Member
"Hi, my fellow atheists, my name is Alain and I'm a Philosopher."

"Hi Alain. Sounds like a fun job."

"You have no idea. And when I say 'my fellow atheists', I include you lot over there who may believe in something in general but don't live actively religious lives."

"Really? Um... OK, hi."

"I wanted to talk to you about something I'm sure you, as atheists, can relate to. You know how life without religious faith is grey, stressful, depressive and focused solely on selfish personal gain? And we all agree that the world was better back when nobody was poor and everyone always helped each other out, and that religion - in particular catholicism, since they have shiny shiny robes - without exception brings out the best in man and would be the perfect basis of society if not for the annoying factual detail that God doesn't exist, am I right?"

"...Do you need a hug?"

"OK, let's start in this end: For thousands of years, we invented religions to fill basic needs of community, moral guidelines, inner balance, etc. And just because some of us don't believe in God anymore, those needs don't just go away overnight."

"That's probably a good point. Which is why some of us have taken up - "

"So I came up with this brilliant idea! Since there is absolutely nothing..."

"What?"

"...I said, absolutely nothing in secular society to fulfill those needs, we can simply steal them wholesale from religions! Let's build atheist temples, let's introduce atheist saints - for instance, fashion designers and bankers - and build new organisations with dogma that's as fixed and immutable as tha of the Catholic church or McDonald's, to tell us how we should act towards ourselves and others. Clearly this 'freedom' thing isn't working out, as I'm sure we all agree, and what we need is a stern parent to tell us exactly what's good for us and what's forbidden. If it works for five-year-olds, it has to work for adult society too."

"Wait, what are you - "

"And build restaurants where you have to follow a liturgical script and tell the waiter about your deepest doubts to be allowed to order! And tell married women they're no longer allowed to say 'no' in the bedroom!"

"Because marital rape is happiness, gotcha. And 'us'? I thought you were speaking to all your fellow people here, not just 50%?"

"What's your point? Oh, and as a gold star for those who follow my rules, at the end of every year we get an ORGY where we get to have sex with anyone we want!"

"You're joking."

"Absolutely not. Look at this picture in my book where a young woman blows an older man at a huge party. Look how happy he is!"

"...You're not joking."

"And what about the universities? What kind of society are we building, anyways?"

"You mean how they just focus on careers and professions and not enough on humanities?"

"Au contraire! Did you know - I couldn't believe it myself at first when I visited an actual university, I tell you, I was shocked - that we teach university students to think critically about things like literature and history? That's obviously got to go. Today's literature is completely, to quote myself, 'ungodly,' and all that modern culture teaches us is to think in abstracts and question structures rather than just give us clear and simple rules on how to live! Christianity, on the other hand, has realised that people must be told - "

"Fine. So what do you, as an atheist philosopher, suggest we read?"

"Well, quoting myself again, 'twelve verses from Deuteronomy' should be enough. Oh, and artists and film makers and writers shouldn't be allowed to think for themselves just because they know how to paint or photograph or turn a phrase, but just like when the Pope ordered the Sistine Chapel from Michelangel they should get all their motives handed to them from - "

"Let me guess: self-appointed philosophers?"

"Couldn't have said it better myself!"

"I really really believe that. So basically, you want to combat the increasing polarisation of society into various dogmatic cults by starting a dogmatic cult of your own?"

"Oh no. My suggestions are perfect for all."

"And by 'all' you mean 'Alain', don't you?"

"No, it's just as generally applicable as... well, how everyone would choose Natalie Portman over Scarlett Johansson since Natalie's eyes reflect the calm we never got from our hypochondric mother. Uh, mothers."

"Oh dear god."

"Well, if you insist..."

"OK, enough. Honestly, you have a few interesting points somewhere, but your argumentation is ridiculous. Your versions of both secular and religious society are as parodically exaggerated as those of any religious fundamentalist. You pull arguments from thin air and apply copypasted out-of-context bits of religions you happen to find personally appealing like you were selling snake oil, with no hint of acknowledgment of how well they've worked or gone wrong during the past few thousand years, or why a lot of us have put considerable effort into moving away from a society controlled by arbitrary rules made and imposed by the few. Basically, you come across as terrified that society might <i>change</i>, and that if people stop listening to the pope, they might stop listening to you as well, and you're making a hell of a good case for doing so without even realising it. Honestly, your contempt for humanity at large doesn't bother me nearly as much as your contempt for your readers."

"It's interesting you should say that, because after reading the reviews of my book, I've come up with ten commandm... uh, virtues of modern men. Look, 'politeness' is number five. HA! Now what do you have to say?"

"..."

"Hey! Where are you going? What about my temple?"



1/5.
 
I don't have a problem with atheist philosophers per se. There's nothing in philosophy that requires one to be religious. I do have a huge problem with this particular philosopher, though.
 
That's what I thought, I just tried to be as clear as I could. :cool: It's a pity, it's an intriguing subject, and he has some interesting starting points, but his arguments are so insultingly stupid. I'm not sure if he's really ignorant of... well, everything that's been said on the subject since 1778 or so, or if he just hopes that the reader is.
 
Regardless of how well (or badly) he expanded on his themes one thing I do semi-agree with:

For thousands of years, we invented religions to fill basic needs of community, moral guidelines, inner balance, etc. And just because some of us don't believe in God anymore, those needs don't just go away overnight.
 
Definitely. The problem is that he seems to think that he's the only person who's ever thought about that, and that everyone who doesn't lead a deeply religious life has absolutely no foundation to build those things on. The whole book comes across as if it was written by someone who'd never actually spoken to... well, anyone.
 
Definitely. The problem is that he seems to think that he's the only person who's ever thought about that, and that everyone who doesn't lead a deeply religious life has absolutely no foundation to build those things on. The whole book comes across as if it was written by someone who'd never actually spoken to... well, anyone.

LOL well you never know .. perhaps he has just never READ anything :confused::eek:
 
Gotta agree with beer on this, hardly an original concept.

On a related note

The Unlikely disciple: A sinner's semester at America's holiest university.

I found that one just eyeing a section at the library. I knew a counseling intern who attended Liberty. I asked in a round about, polite way: "Why in the hell would you go there??" She didn't know that much about it at the time and attended after her father died. She wanted to get to the root of the meaning of life stuff.
 
well a lot of things are not original concepts - that in and of itself does not mean something is bad. How original is the concept of most genres of books? Murder-mystery? Cop? Romance? They all follow a basic formula. It is just did you bring something fresh and well-written to the basic concept.
 
Gotta agree with beer on this, hardly an original concept.

On a related note

The Unlikely disciple: A sinner's semester at America's holiest university.

I found that one just eyeing a section at the library. I knew a counseling intern who attended Liberty. I asked in a round about, polite way: "Why in the hell would you go there??" She didn't know that much about it at the time and attended after her father died. She wanted to get to the root of the meaning of life stuff.

Interesting book and one of the comments on Amazon sums up the issue neatly:

but it's also an excellent read for anyone who /is/ a born-again Christian who wants to understand what baffles the outside world about the faith, both good and bad, and what parts drive some of the world away for good.

And there in a nutshell is the issue. Fundamentalist / Evangelical Americans are not the sole representation of Christianity and yet they are perceived to be. Unfortunately for all.
 
Started reading the Roose book last night. The first chapter has many amusing parts to it, especially concerning how an "outsider" who doesn't know the lingo can get him/herself in troble. The author recounted sitting around a table with other Liberty students and letting out mild oaths to the shock of the students around him. The reactions of his liberal Quaker parents to the first day on campus was also an entertaining read, ditto the Liberty system of "demerits" for hugs lasting more than three seconds, being caught in a dorm of the opposite sex, as well as a story of how an athlete went to a wild, bacchanalian party and posted pictures on myspace and had to face the dean of students the following monday.

I agree Meadow, they aren't the largest segment, but they are a growing segment and the seven major protestant lines are losing members either from desertion, or death. Where I live, the churches were major lifelines of the community and helped European immigrants settle in the midwest in the 1800s. We have communities that are largely Swedish, German, white Russian, or a mix of all with churches that historically, began with a certain group and that was the church you went to! My own community has twelve churches and only two are growing-they are definitely evangelical in nature. I have attended a "mega-church" in Lincoln that offered three services and the church was essentially a stadium. Young parents enjoy the childrens' ministry and other groups that are available. If you were in a small town church, you just wouldn't get that same kind of thing-or a coffee bar! They do provide a valuable service and I have friends who commute 70-80 miles to attend every sunday. Personally, their services give me a headache and I prefer a more sedate, ordered, Lutheran type of service. My children have their own friends and I can make my own coffee.

Another great read on the topic-The future of religion by Phyllis Tickle. I read this book a few months ago. It's a collection of essays concerning predictions of the future for Hinduism, Buddhism, the Catholic faith, evangelical Christianity, Mormonism, as well as secular humanism. The Toffler like "futurist" stuff is exciting reading for me, I've always liked that kind of material.
 
Started reading the Roose book last night. The first chapter has many amusing parts to it, especially concerning how an "outsider" who doesn't know the lingo can get him/herself in troble. The author recounted sitting around a table with other Liberty students and letting out mild oaths to the shock of the students around him. The reactions of his liberal Quaker parents to the first day on campus was also an entertaining read, ditto the Liberty system of "demerits" for hugs lasting more than three seconds, being caught in a dorm of the opposite sex, as well as a story of how an athlete went to a wild, bacchanalian party and posted pictures on myspace and had to face the dean of students the following monday.

I agree Meadow, they aren't the largest segment, but they are a growing segment and the seven major protestant lines are losing members either from desertion, or death. Where I live, the churches were major lifelines of the community and helped European immigrants settle in the midwest in the 1800s. We have communities that are largely Swedish, German, white Russian, or a mix of all with churches that historically, began with a certain group and that was the church you went to! My own community has twelve churches and only two are growing-they are definitely evangelical in nature. I have attended a "mega-church" in Lincoln that offered three services and the church was essentially a stadium. Young parents enjoy the childrens' ministry and other groups that are available. If you were in a small town church, you just wouldn't get that same kind of thing-or a coffee bar! They do provide a valuable service and I have friends who commute 70-80 miles to attend every sunday. Personally, their services give me a headache and I prefer a more sedate, ordered, Lutheran type of service. My children have their own friends and I can make my own coffee.

Another great read on the topic-The future of religion by Phyllis Tickle. I read this book a few months ago. It's a collection of essays concerning predictions of the future for Hinduism, Buddhism, the Catholic faith, evangelical Christianity, Mormonism, as well as secular humanism. The Toffler like "futurist" stuff is exciting reading for me, I've always liked that kind of material.

The volume of your argument doesn't increase its value - Fundamental American Christians are loud but not always right, but their volume makes many believe that their views are the views of Christianity as a whole, which all too often they are not (and in many instances not even particularly Biblical).

The problem is similar to that of Joe Soap Muslim sitting at home minding his own business being branded as a raving nut case because militant raving nut job Muslims make a lot of noise and get a lot of attention.

Fundamentalist Christians make a very loud noise with the worst of their prejudices and every one else is tarred with the same brush.

Extremists do not speak for the majority regardless of which form of extremism they follow.
 
The volume of your argument doesn't increase its value - Fundamental American Christians are loud but not always right, but their volume makes many believe that their views are the views of Christianity as a whole, which all too often they are not (and in many instances not even particularly Biblical).
The old "squeaky wheel" scenario unfortunately. Same thing happens with political affiliations. People get grouped/associated with the largest nutbaskets in their party.
I don't think there is any help for it.
 
Honest opinion, since I started the thread and all: I agree, the vast majority of religious people I've met are perfectly sensible and not at all like the nutcases that get all the press. But I can't help but feel they'd get less attention if more non-fundamentalists stood up to them and told them in no uncertain terms "I'm [insert faith here] too, and you don't speak for me," rather than just tell the people they attack that "You know, we're not all like that." Or at least didn't vote for them. If the wingnuts get all the attention, it's because people give it to them.

Then again, I suppose that's easy for me to say, living in a country where the last politician to suggest that the prime minister should end all his speeches with "God bless Sweden" got laughed off the stage...
 
"You know, we're not all like that."

This never works because by the time you are trying to explain that you are already working against a well set bias.

But I can't help but feel they'd get less attention if more non-fundamentalists stood up to them and told them in no uncertain terms "I'm [insert faith here] too, and you don't speak for me,"

This might help but the problem is that the nutjobs don't, at least as far as I can see, actually claim to speak for all. It is every one else that assumes that they do. I mean, let's be honest here, who hasn't had their opinion of Muslims changed post 911? It is our own natural inclination that we have to fight to avoid doing it. You can't stop all or even any of the people assuming that the people with the loudspeakers represent a majority opinion for any given group, but you can change the way you perceive things. :)
 
This might help but the problem is that the nutjobs don't, at least as far as I can see, actually claim to speak for all.
In my experience, actually, a lot of them do. Very few fundamentalists, be they elected public officials (who presumably got a lot of non-fundamentalists to vote for them) or terrorists hiding in caves, stand up and say "I REPRESENT A TINY, IRRELEVANT FRINGE ELEMENT!" They either claim to represent the silent majority (hence the Moral Majority, for instance), or they claim that their opinions represent every real Christian/Muslim/etc. (That's the meaning of the word "fundamentalist".) And if the majority then remain silent and tacitly support them, rather than standing up and saying "No you don't, you're a nut, get away from us!", well...then for all intents and purposes they do represent them.

I'm not saying that never happens. The current public swing in favour of same-sex marriage in the US is a good example, for instance, where the raving loonies are increasingly coming across as, well, raving loonies. Or to take an example closer to home, the way the entire Norwegian population (who are overwhelmingly Christian) stood up and condemned Christian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik (though obviously it would be hard to not condemn a man who executed 77 people, most of them children, after the fact... unless you're Glenn Beck, of course).

I digress and this thread has gone a bit off-topic. Few of them are as nutty as Alain de Botton, anyway.
 
Looks like the trend is continuing in regards to mainline vs. Protestant

Evangelical churches growing, mainline Protestant declining


Produced annually by the NCC, the yearbook is considered one of the most reliable recorders of church membership. The figures in the 2011 yearbook were compiled by churches in 2009, reported to the NCC in 2010 and released Monday (Feb. 14).
Mainline Protestant churches that have seen a fall in membership since the 1970s continued their decline; the Presbyterian Church (USA) reported the greatest membership drop (2.6 percent) of the 25 largest denominations.
Other denominations reporting declines include the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church as well as the more evangelical Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

 
I agree. Most Christian and Muslims are not radical. It is a stoy as old as time; stereotype those you dislike and ignore evidence that would dispute your stereotype. People in America live as if every day is a new day, as if History dosen't have an effect on people. That's absurd. History does have an effect on people, and shapes how they see people and events.
In fact, I have a theiory. I beleive you cannot live in the real world and act without taking in consideration what effect it will have in the future. If you absolutely wanted to be free of possibly causing a negative effect, you would have to disenge from Society. It's just like a pebble in the pond: when you act, your actions will go out in waves jsut like the pebble thrown in the pond. I wish more people realiozed that because they would be mindful of whow their actions has long lasting effects. It;s sort of like the Butterfly Effect.
 
Back
Top