After you've run through the New Atheists, and you've had your fun making hilarity out of the believer's beliefs, what next?

Alain de Botton, a man after mine own heart, suggests Secularists look to Religion to understand and incorporate that which Religion does well: propagate a way of life. His new TED Lecture, Atheism 2.0:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oe6HUgrRlQ


de Botton's Atheism 2.0 starts from a basic premise: "…of course there are no deities or supernatural spirits or angels etc. Now let's move on. That's not the end of the story, that's the very very beginning."

de Botton's TED talk is about what comes next (perhaps)…

Human



An example of a de Botton 'Sermon':

http://vimeo.com/10601416

"Worst TED talk ever — well, it’s competitive with that horrible drivel from Elaine Morgan, anyway. de Botton is one of those superficial atheists who hasn’t quite thought things through and has such a blinkered optimistic perspective on religion that he thinks faith provides what reason does not."

DeBotton is a douche !

Hi Dave.

I'm interested in knowing who you are quoting here. Also, is your opinion based upon whomever you are quoting or upon your own viewing of the TED Talk?

TIA

Human

I thought it was an interesting talk,but perhaps it isn't atheism 2.0, but secularism 2.0. I think atheism will always have trouble competing with religion because it tends not to be dogmatic. It will be harder to establish an agreement in the philosophy and doctrine perhaps. But then religions don't agree. Maybe it is just a matter of time. Perhaps in 500 years there will be different flavors of secularism just as we now have different religions.

It will always be impossible for atheism to establish an agreement in philosophy and doctrine because atheism is only a lack of belief in deity. It is impossible to establish a shared belief system based solely on lack of belief.

Good points helemon and Pista, vis-a-vis atheism v. secularism.

Pista, while you make the point, thoroughly discussed on RfM, that atheism is *nothing more* than "a lack of belief in deity", we should also observe that there've been shelves of atheist books printed, especially during this last decade, that step past that definition and instead assert, quite emphatically, that "not just that religion is wrong, but that it's ridiculous," as De Botton has it. It's one thing to say one lacks belief and another to assert that belief is wrong and ridiculous. Looking past the technical arguments, it's not hard to notice that Atheism today stand for far more than a simple lack of belief.

helemon, I like your point about using the term secularism rather than atheism. Removing Creationism from American schools, for example, is a point about secularism rather than atheism. Many religious believers also think Creationism wrong and ridiculous. Gay marriage is another argument for increasing secularism that isn't necessarily connected to atheism. Secularism 2.0 is indeed what De Botton is talking about. And I agree with you that in the future we will discuss "different flavours of secularism just as we now have different religions," but aren't we doing that now? Wasn't the Cold War, Communism v. Capitalism, an argument between two secular viewpoints?

De Botton asserts that we've *done* secularism badly, and is seeking a way to do it better. His way is to harken back to Matthew Arnold (Culture and Anarchy), whom looms large albeit unspoken throughout his talk.

I'd like to write more. Perhaps later. Thank you helemon and Pista for your imput.

Human

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And I
> agree with you that in the future we will discuss
> "different flavours of secularism just as we now
> have different religions," but aren't we doing
> that now? Wasn't the Cold War, Communism v.
> Capitalism, an argument between two secular
> viewpoints?
>
> De Botton asserts that we've *done* secularism
> badly, and is seeking a way to do it better. His
> way is to harken back to Matthew Arnold (Culture
> and Anarchy), whom looms large albeit unspoken
> throughout his talk.
>
> I'd like to write more. Perhaps later. Thank you
> helemon and Pista for your imput.
>
> Human

I think my biggest concern about what De Botton is asserting is the idea that atheism or secularism could be some homogenous philosophy that could define a culture. Culture emerges out of a shared experiences or shared world view. The English and Western civilizations may "worship" the words of Shakespeare and Austin, but the people of Asia or India or Africa will likely have their own historical luminaries they promote and take inspiration from.

I don't want some group in England or Europe or anywhere acting as the definers of what is true atheism, or true secularism. If a culture of atheism or secularism is to emerge one of its defining principles must be the recognition of the individuals right to define how they view the world and to seek and define their own truth, with the only limit being that no one has the right to impose those views on another human being or use those beliefs to harm another human being.

I haven't seen anything from De Botton that even comes close to an assertion of a one-true anything, so I think that fear unfounded. And I don't think it necessary for culture to be all-inclusive, in fact I think 'culture' and 'all-inclusivity' mutually exclusive. There is nothing wrong with the West "worshiping" Plato Shakespeare and Austen, and there is nothing wrong with Asia, India and Africa promoting and taking inspiration from their own luminaries. De Botton's point (as it was Matthew Arnold's before him) is that we can (and should) replace religion with culture, 'the scriptures' with 'Plato Shakespeare Austen', or what you will.

As to the fear that De Botton is somehow setting himself up as the "pope of atheism", which is a joke some on-line are taking waaaay too seriously, the TED host asked him about it and De Botton answered:

"One thing that we're all very suspicious of is individual leaders. It doesn't need it. What I've tried to lay-out is a framework; and what I'm hoping is that people can just fill it in…"

I think that goes to your fear of a one-true something promoted from the top down.

Cheers

"I haven't seen anything from De Botton that even comes close to an assertion of a one-true anything,"

So, which culture is going to be the one promoted by all the guidance he is claiming we need?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2012 12:39PM by MJ.

Relying on magical thinking, teaching that faith trumps reason, etc..

The things that religion does well can be found outside of religion without the trappings of unfounded beliefs. The reason religion does certain things well is because many people rely on them as a crutch.

Ween them off of those things and the need for religion will dry up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2012 12:47PM by Strykary.

De Botton dispenses with "magical thinking" and "faith" from the beginning and then discusses "what next".

I would argue that religion does some things well because it fulfills a legitimate human need. De Botton is exploring ways to fulfill those needs sans "unfounded beliefs".

I'd be interested in what you think, strykary, after watching the talk.

The assumption that religion is some place to look for "guidance" should not even be considered once one looks at the history of so many religions. The idea that a group of people forms some sort of a unit then assume that they have some super duper way of living life that they can "guide" other people's live is just the sort of bad methodology I am talking about. Sorry, they are just people and their ideas should not be inflicted on the rest of society using the tools or propaganda this clown is talking about.

Seriously, that whole bit about education is the concept that one group knows best and they need to preach it to everyone else, repeating it over and over to insure it sinks in. Sound like the LDS church to anyone?

He is just like religion, assumes that he is right and everyone else should conform to his ideas.

Then again, I don't see where he dismisses the magical thinking, etc.

What he wants is to set up a society that uses every means possible to push an agenda on the people in that society, just like the LDS church and North Korea.

And the idea of "baths"? What was that all about? Seriously, how much more conformist can you get?

Sorry, there is so many flawed concepts it is hard to think anyone would take it seriously.

Then there is bit about "art for art's sake". I know of nobody that says that art can not have a message, but that is the way this clown interpretive it. His insistence that art MUST teach what the artists beliefs is nonsense.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2012 02:33PM by MJ.

You should watch it. I would call it propagandist. It is so one sided and so flawed it is laughable.

He talks about what religion is doing with art. What religion has done with art is to make it a propaganda tool. In his book, art should teach a particular point, nothing else. He dismisses artists' that do art for arts sake, that just want to create something beautiful and insists that art should have some meaning that can be explained and pushes a particular agenda. He is talking about eliminating individual acts of expression and making it only about preaching one way to living life as if there is only one.

His fatal flaw is that he assumes there is one true way of living a good life that society needs to propagandize into the minds of all society. Just about everything that he is saying the churches do well are the main tools of propagandists.

I agree with you on this one. I think he is wrong to demand that art must be used to teach specific values and nothing else. I agree with the idea that art could be used more to promote secularist values, but there should not be a organizational morality police dictating what is and is not art or dictating to artists what type of art they should make. When that happens art has lost its power to challenge the establishment and challenge how we view our world. So on the one hand I would love to see more art created that celebrates the great minds of humanity and the achievements of science, but this should not forced or required.

But to try to make are a propaganda tool for "guiding" culture is scary. "Triumph of the Will" was a work of art used to guide culture.

Discussion of same subject on Free Thought blogs:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/26/oh-please/

From the comments:

"We already have a fantastic, beautiful temple in London.

It’s called the London Natural History Museum."

"Someone should appoint Alain Pope of the atheists with an engraved certificate so he can satisfy his megalomaniac urges and leave the rest of us alone."

"This is mindbogglingly stupid. The only thing all atheists are guaranteed to have in common is a lack of belief in a god or gods.

We don’t need to take a page from religious nonsense and start erecting weird symbolic structures or having any dopey rituals. When you start doing this, you give credence to those people who argue that atheism is a religion."

More comments from Free Thought blogs:

"I was at the grand opening for the Center for Inquiry in Buffalo, NY a few years ago. Lovely architecture, nicely planned, usefully arranged and containing a nice library. I don’t need some other structure I could just go to and worship in the name of secular humanism.

Hell, the atheists get to call dibs on the entire natural world — leaving the spiritual realms for the others guys. We’ve got the Universe. That’s impressive enough for me."

"I think it’s clear this man is simply trying to corral the support of people who are disenfranchised with the major religions but are unwilling to give up their fuzzier notions of god. I echo the cult leader sentiments in earlier comments."

"Let me guess, the next step of his plan includes atheists paying a 10% tithe to cover the costs of building and maintaining these temples, right?"

People can believe that angels have set up shop in their colons, for all I care, as long as their beliefs do not go unchallenged when presented in a public forum.

deBotton is pointing to something as important as the scene in the movie Crash, where Daniel the locksmith's daughter sees her father being confronted by a man with a gun and runs out to her father because he's in danger and doesn't have the magic cloak for safety.

We all knew how dangerous it was for the little girl to do that. We all knew that she was putting herself into danger and I think we all held our breaths for a "miracle".

(I'm about to get a ration of crap from a bunch of you without even thinking about my upcoming point...but here goes...)

What we really saw was the miracle of telling a story. Forget that she didn't have a magic cloak! Forget that the gun was filled with blanks! Forget that this was a movie pulling our strings!

What happened was that we -- humans -- saw something almost beyond terrifying about to happen and it had our attention.

Manipulative? OF COURSE! It's how we're designed.

What deBotton (and often Sam Harris) got across to me is that there is a way to shape a message. We can either present our message wrapped in a bloody sheet on top of a box of dynamite with a burning fuse protected by porcupines...of we can try to help people hear a message that resonates with millions of years of brain and cultural development.

Religion is crap. When people leave it they see its vacuous story. But it speaks to many. Many will even reject "religions" and defiantly claim before atheists that they are "spiritual but not religious".

I think deBotton is reflecting and taking further what Sam Harris said when he suggested that we join school boards, not as ardent, we-are-smarter-than-you-xian atheists but, as "good people" that care, who are going to sit there and ask eloquently that we "think" about the decisions the school board will make and its impact on the lives of the children.

I'm an atheist and I hate the way atheism arrogantly declares itself. (I have been there, done that and then watched my daughter go on a mission at 31 in spite of everything I told her.)

I'd like the atheist message, if there is one, to be able to touch people like I sometimes see it has on Youtube, or on dating websites (so many agnostic/atheists openly declaring their atheism now).

Something's happening...and maybe deBotton is just pointing out a way to make it happen that also speaks to the heart of humanities emotional and cultural needs. It spoke somewhat to me.

I agree with you that De Botton is speaking directly to Humanity's emotional and cultural needs, which is precisely what religion speaks to. He's saying that Atheists need not cede that ground to the religions of the world.

Rather than a bifurcated world of believers and the "arrogantly declared" Atheism we've seen over the past 10 or so years, he's proposing the next step. We need not agree with his proposal, but he's at least advancing the discussion past the the childish "God is Santa Claus is the the tooth fairy is the Easter Bunny blah blah blah...oh how stupid you believers are na na na poo-poo..." kind of stuff. I applaud him for at least that much.

Cheers.

"Triumph of the will", "guiding us" using propaganda to INSTILL a culture on people rather than letting the people come together and create their own culture that is REFLECTED in that culture's art.

Art is better as a reflection of a culture than as a propaganda tool.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2012 06:25PM by MJ.

"I am rolling my eyes so hard right now that it hurts. Alain de Botton proposes building “atheist temples”.

You may take a moment to retch. I hope you have buckets handy.

Done? There’s a spot on your chin, you might want to clean that up.

Anyway, he wants to build a 46 meter tall (because the earth is 4.6 billion years old, get it) black tower in London. Perhaps with a throne at the very top, where he can sit and peer out over his domain.

You know, I think that when you are building a movement, you should get the people first, before building the monumental architecture to awe and contain them. I think his black tower would be awfully echoey and empty when all the acolytes of Atheism 2.0 gather. The only thing he’s got to fill it up right now is ego and hubris."

If nothing else, the giant black tower/temple of atheism schtick is fun to make fun of. Thank you Alain de Botton.

"Argh, the infinitely depressing ghost of Auguste Comte rides again.

I know a number of educated theists, and they sometimes like to twit me about Comte, and the benighted, joyless Religion of Humanity he constructed in memory of a remarkable woman, into whose extremely Catholic pantalettes he sadly didn’t manage to inveigle himself before she even more sadly died. If only he had been accepted by Clotilde de Vaux – if only Clotilde had managed to say drakes to her wastrel husband and her religion, and shack up with Auguste anyway – we probably wouldn’t have had to put up with all this."

"Mr. de Botton? Can you hear me at the top of that tower, or must I employ semaphore? This Has Been Tried Before. It’s been done, but not very regularly dusted, and the surviving architecture is now just an additional conservation problem."

Some viewers of Mr. de Botton's folly have suggested that atheists get together and host a fake excommunication from atheism. That way Botton gets a lot of attention, doesn't have to build a giant black phallus, and his twisted view of atheism as some kind of substitute for religion can be confirmed. Confirmed in a fake way, yes, but Botton will not be able to tell the difference.

You can vote on the atheist temple idea:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2012/jan/27/atheism-alain-de-botton

I'm thinking all that London pigeon shit will show up really well on a big black substitute for Alain de Botton's penis.

MJ's (and other's) comments on this thread misrepresent (misunderstand?) what Alain de Botton is saying in the TED talk. I hope that no one is prevented from watching the TED Talk based solely on these comments.

MJ, please refrain from replying to this. There are only a few slots left in this thread and I'd like the opportunity to read someone else's thoughts before this thread closes. You've made your opinion clear enough. Thank you.

Human

He references religion and art as an example, so let's look at how religion uses art, They use it to promote their idea of what truth is, they promote their morals, their values, their version of "the truth". At the same time religion works to suppress other views, suppressing sexually provocative art, Suppressing art that shows gays kissing, suppressing humorous art that depicts the religion in negative ways.

I would say that using religion as an example of how to teach culture via art most certainly justifies my claim of propaganda. That is indeed how religion often uses art. I have yet to see a religion that truly honors free speech in its art.

And how dare you try to claim that my opinion on this subject is less valid than your own. Is that the sort of "guidance" you would want art to teach, that human is right and everyone else is wrong? Where have we heard that sort of rhetoric before?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2012 06:50PM by MJ.

Human is trying to suppress ideas that are different than his own.

He is explicitly stating that people that disagree with him should not reply to him when he says "MJ, please refrain from replying to this." Basically claiming that my opinion is less valid than his and does not deserve space in this thread. I am sure that this is the sort of "guidance" human would want art to reflect.

This only supports my claim that the Ted talk, and the subsequent support from human, is about instilling a single culture, using art etc. and rejecting or even suppressing ideas that differ.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2012 06:59PM by MJ.

I have a problem with a government enforced version of what this guy is saying. I don't have a problem with atheists, secularists, humanists coming together to create local communities that meet regularly to educate each other, share inspiring stories of the great achievements of humanity and reason, and generally socialize with each other. One of the hardest things people have to deal with when leaving a religion is the loss of a supportive community. People who bring them meals when they are sick. People who share our perspective about the world and are working to promote that idea in the world.

How many of us on the board are members of atheist or exmormon meetups? Why do you come to this board? It is for a sense of community. To be able to communicate with people who understand where you are coming from. It is to provide and receive emotional support for the challenges we all experience in our lives. If that is what Alain is calling for, then I am all for it. If he is for some sort of dictatorial, dogmatic, atheist orthodoxy then I am 100% against it and him.

This guy says that art should not be about art as art, but about "guiding" culture. Which implies that there is someone that thinks they know enough to be able to "guide" the rest of us. No thanks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2012 07:36PM by MJ.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2012 07:22PM by bona dea.

No, he is trying to keep you from hijacking the thread.This was supposed to be in reply to Mj's coment that Himan was trying to suppress him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2012 07:24PM by bona dea.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2012 07:27PM by MJ.

Do notice that neither human or Bona try to deal factually with anything I have said, they simply try to say that I should not state my opinion.

Is that really what a discussion board is all about?

Watch the video, see that the guy is talking about looking at religion as an example of how to use art to "guide" people and judge for yourself if my objecting to using the religious model (or any other model) of using art to guide people is off topic or deserving of being repressed.

Clearly, my objection to using art as "guidance" is in keeping with a discussion of the video



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2012 07:37PM by MJ.

Well there’s 19 minutes and 21 second of my life that I’ll never get back. This guy is not only shallow, he’s clueless.

De Botton thinks that we will all benefit if atheists create gigantic institutions that behave like churches. I think he neither understands secular humanism nor religion. The problem with religion in the view of someone like Dawkins is not that it is just ridiculous but that it’s DANGEROUS. So in a post-religious age secular humanists should recreate coercive institutions similar to churches? Please, among the many dangers of churches is their coercive institutional power. You don’t have to have lived in UT for long to know that. Or to have been tied to the rack by the Holy Inquisition.

Secularism does not have to borrow ideas from churches. We can call museums “museums,” not secular “’temples’” nor “‘cathedrals.’” We can call a healthy psyche a “healthy psyche,” not “’spirituality.”

I don’t know what classes de Botton took at Cambridge, but you can go to any college or university in Britain or the US and find classes that consider the issue of “how to live well.” Sometimes they are in the philosophy department, listed under “ethics.” And de Botton has an MPhil?

De Botton’s and his friends’ lives my be guided by CNN and Walmart, but you can drop by any book club or gallery lecture (that “lecture” not “sermon,” “not homily,”) and probe the meaning of life and art with others. In fact, in your 2nd video, de Botton refers to his presentation as a “talk” and a “lecture.”

If de Botton wants pointers on how we learn, why limit yourself to looking at religion. Try looking into some class and literature about psychology, specifically the psychology of learning.

I, for one, can live without Bottonian secularism, 2. whatever you want.

I don’t know much about TED. The only videos I’ve watch are those that have been linked to RfM. The other one that stands out in my mind was the woman who was telling about her near death experience. If this is as good as TED gets, it’s a waste of somebody’s money and a lot of peoples’ time.

Oh, and if anyone disagrees with me, please feel free to respond. If this thread fills up, we can always start a new one.