seeker wrote:I don´t think that "fear of change" is the relevant factor for the people I was talking about. I think it´s more related to the kinds of experiences that they get from religious communities (e.g. the collective bonding enhanced by periodic reunions). I guess that there´s no need that such kinds of experiences have to be linked to supernaturalism. But there´re no secular alternatives (at least in my country) if someone wants to have such kinds of experiences without the supernaturalist propaganda. And that´s where Alain de Botton´s proposal might be useful for people who wants to have such kinds of experiences without the supernaturalist propaganda.

It is good that you have returned to the original topic. I'd almost forgotten what it was.

What would a secular religion involve? Some sort of "we are all stardust" reflection on the universe and existence?

I am neither opposed, nor supportive of de Botton's suggestion. I'm interested in what the result would be though.

I certainly agree that "Does God exist?" should be a pretty boring question for any secure atheist. I know that I am fucking sick of it. No, he doesn't. Time to move on.

Nicko wrote:

seeker wrote:I don´t think that "fear of change" is the relevant factor for the people I was talking about. I think it´s more related to the kinds of experiences that they get from religious communities (e.g. the collective bonding enhanced by periodic reunions). I guess that there´s no need that such kinds of experiences have to be linked to supernaturalism. But there´re no secular alternatives (at least in my country) if someone wants to have such kinds of experiences without the supernaturalist propaganda. And that´s where Alain de Botton´s proposal might be useful for people who wants to have such kinds of experiences without the supernaturalist propaganda.

It is good that you have returned to the original topic. I'd almost forgotten what it was.
What would a secular religion involve? Some sort of "we are all stardust" reflection on the universe and existence?
I am neither opposed, nor supportive of de Botton's suggestion. I'm interested in what the result would be though.
I certainly agree that "Does God exist?" should be a pretty boring question for any secure atheist. I know that I am fucking sick of it. No, he doesn't. Time to move on.

I don´t know what will de Botton suggest, his book is not published yet. But I think that we could consider Epicurus´ Garden as a plausible example: it had a strong collective bonding, some collective practices, and some collective beliefs, without any supernaturalist propaganda. I also think that my friends´ secularized participation in their religions is another plausible example: they interpret biblical stories and references about God as no more nor less than fictional narratives and imagery, metaphors of some human desires (knowledge, freedom, love, trascendence) and fears (suffering, retaliation, betrayal, death), and they value those fictions as such, in the same level in which they value many fictional books and movies without the need of believing that they´re veridical.

seeker wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Of course! People are frightened of change. This is, of course, just as irrational as the religion itself, but they'll get over it.

I don´t think that "fear of change" is the relevant factor for the people I was talking about. I think it´s more related to the kinds of experiences that they get from religious communities (e.g. the collective bonding enhanced by periodic reunions). I guess that there´s no need that such kinds of experiences have to be linked to supernaturalism. But there´re no secular alternatives (at least in my country) if someone wants to have such kinds of experiences without the supernaturalist propaganda. And that´s where Alain de Botton´s proposal might be useful for people who wants to have such kinds of experiences without the supernaturalist propaganda.

But surely we should be asking ourselves, how we can bring those bonding and social cohesion experiences to people, without dropping another doctrine in their laps? For me, at least, the campaign against supernaturalism, compellingly important as it is, is part of a wider remit, namely the campaign against the very concept of doctrine itself, whatever form it may take. Because ultimately, it is the concept of doctrine that permits supernaturalism to paint itself as being somehow intellectually "legitimate", and permits supernaturalism to erect pernicious mechanisms of thought policing in order to enforce conformity to its assorted doctrines.

If we can find a way of celebrating reality, in a manner that provides uplifting moments for those taking part, but avoids the pernicious aspects of doctrines cited above, and in turn gives people substantive knowledge about themselves and their position in the cosmos, then we stand a very real chance of sweeping imaginary entities from the collective psyche of our species, except for the purposes of entertainment.

Calilasseia wrote:But surely we should be asking ourselves, how we can bring those bonding and social cohesion experiences to people, without dropping another doctrine in their laps?

Yes, I agree (and I guess de Botton would also agree). I guess a religion for atheists should include the teaching of critical thinking skills about philosophical and empirical issues, instead of a dogmatic indoctrination.

Calilasseia wrote:If we can find a way of celebrating reality, in a manner that provides uplifting moments for those taking part, but avoids the pernicious aspects of doctrines cited above, and in turn gives people substantive knowledge about themselves and their position in the cosmos, then we stand a very real chance of sweeping imaginary entities from the collective psyche of our species, except for the purposes of entertainment.

I think that “imaginary entities” are not only useful for entertainment, but also for informal social learning. Much of what people know about human relationships and emotions is learned from fictional characters in movies, TV series, and books. And the passion evoked by some secular fictions (e.g. star trek fans) resemble at least some of the features evoked by religious fictions.

However, the secular fictions are better written.

seeker wrote:

Aaron SF wrote:Yes, but by that measure "illogical-logic" wouldn't be self contradicting either, would it? AKA Symantic argument.

No, that´s not a valid analogy. It would be valid for “irreligious religion”, but not for “atheistic religion”, which is our topic here...

...No, it´s not a contradition. Three traditional world religions –Jainism, Buddhism, and Confucianism– are “atheistic” in the sense that they deny that a theistic God exists. The same could be said about druidism and other forms of paganism. Scientology, which lacks a theistic belief, is considered a religion in countries such as the United States, Spain and Australia. The High Court of Australia has explicitly stated that a religion doesn´t have to be theistic. Perhaps you want to preserve the word “religion” just for theistic religions, but in such case you should propose another name for the examples that I´ve given here.

Sorry to drudge this up after being off a few weeks, but I did want to give a response. Seeker, this is what we call Semantic Argument.

A semantic dispute is a disagreement that arises if the parties involved disagree about whether a particular claim is true, not because they disagree on material facts, but rather because they disagree on the definitions of a word (or several words) essential to formulating the claim at issue

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q ... 80&bih=629

The problem with this particular semantic argument is that you are putting terms into strict binary definitions which are not really relevant to the topic at hand, and using those definitions (rather than the functional use of the words) to make a case for something which in a functional sense is self contradicting.

For starters while Buddhists and some Pagans may not have a strict "God" figure (druids do), very very few Buddhists or Pagans will ever refer to themselves as "Atheists", even if they might be atheists in the strictest sense. Furthermore it is commonly understood that when one self identifies as an atheist they are also proclaiming their refutation of supernatural postulates, afterlives and woo, as well as deities. This is not true for all atheists, but it's true enough of the time that pointing these little definitions out doesn't really make a counter-argument so much as a caveat to an argument.

I.e. It is a bit neurotic, but accurate, to point out that "Religion for Atheists" IS a contradiction most of the time, with the caveat that their may be a very very very small number of people who identify as Atheists, but technically are not.

Saying that "Religion for Atheists" is not strictly antithetical and therefore the ideas are not contradictory, is irresponsible because it ignores the shared functional reality within which 99.999% of the time the use of those terms is a strict contradiction for most people. Alain De Botton is a unicorn in this sense, AAND he is not sticking to very strict text book definitions in his use of religion and atheism, he is also talking about functional shared reality. The stage being where it is, the thesis is a functional contradiction and I think you understand that, arguing to the contrary is essentially an exercise in argumentativeness with very little content.

As for an example: a "gay heterosexual" is not a contradiction in certain very strict definitions of the terms, however, most people in a vast majority of the english speaking world will recognize that it is a contradiction of terms with regard to their functional definitions. The definitions of words are granted by their use as well as their entry in a dictionary.

In sum, you shouldn't use the anomalies in a study to make a case for a study being inconclusive, give it the evidentiary weight it deserves and nothing more. Similarly, don't use academic definitions of words as the basis of your counter-argument when such a definition is applicable only in an anomalous set of cases to the topic, otherwise you will continue to receive long drawn out responses, pointing out the futility of semantic arguments, which then threaten to derail the discussion to off-topic-land.

seeker wrote:I agree with Alain de Botton that many people is looking for some things in religion that could be found in secular alternatives...

seeker wrote:
OK. There´s no much research about this issue (see for example: http://files.meetup.com/12801/Non-Believing-Clergy.pdf), but I can only offer you some personal observations. I´ve found many people who have an ambivalent attitude towards religion: they don´t believe in gods (which would make them atheists), but they don´t want to abandon their religious practices and groups (which would make them "religious atheists", I guess). Some of my friends belong to such group. They value different things of their religions: feelings, worldview, values, social support, periodic reunions, symbols, stories, rituals, moral precepts, traditions. They could find some of those things in other secular practices and groups, but not all of them, and not so strongly linked together as in their religions. For example, a course of philosophy and ethics might offer a worldview and values, but not much of the rest. A periodic familiar reunion might offer some of those things, but not in the community-scale level of a religious group. So, in one sense, they have created a personal atheistic version of the religions that they were tought. See that I´m not arguing that “all people” will have the need of an atheistic religion (or something like that). For example, I don´t have that need. I´m arguing that some people seem to have that need, and that they don´t have secular alternatives to fulfill it.

This is just a mess of logic, first because you aren't actually showing your claim to be true (that there are things in religion which cannot be found in secular alternatives), all you are saying here is that some of the elements of religion which people may desire, are more disparate in their secular counterparts.

Granted, but why is that a problem? Should we really be putting philosophy, morality, tradition, education, family and community, all under one sub-cultural identity? Isn't that sort of when things go bad? And also, why are we ascribing those things to religion, and then saying anything of an atheists which resembles those elements is an atheistic version of religion? Isn't it more accurate to categorize the above as "human culture"?

It's then supportable to say that religion seems to be trying to dominate all of human society (or at least the lives of it's members) by claiming ownership to every aspect of human life. In that light it is sort of handing society over to religion to define all elements of human life as belonging to religion by implying that any atheist who engages in any kind of cultural interaction is trying to emulate religion.

This is why there are serious, very serious, breaks in logic and unsupportable postulates in de Botton's article. He seems to be essentially caving into religion as the model of human community, granting religion human culture in it's entirety, and then saying atheists should have something like it. This, to him, means an atheist religion, but without all of those presumptions about religion owning all aspects of human reality... to anyone else, would simply mean that atheists should have a life.

My life involves attending UU. It's a family-friendly environment where I can hang out with like minded individuals once a week, listen to an interesting talk, and enjoy amusing lunch conversation after. It also provides an outlet for some of my charitable impulses. Once a month each, I go to the Science and Religion and Humanist meetings which are held there. Once a quarter I attend the Americans United for Seperatation of Church and State meeting, of which my pastor is the chapter president. My fellowship is about half humanist, half some type of wooist, but I tend not to attend the latter's events. I'd prefer a more explicity humanist environment with more emphasis on critical thinking in the children's classes, and am considering starting something like that if I can muster the resources. One of my issues with UU is that I think it may have inadvertently stunted the humanist movement in the USA by providing an alternative to explicitly humanist communities.

Sorry for necromancing, but there's a new TED-talk from de Botton:



Now, I have much respect for de Botton, but this idea of him is just damn stupid. He seems to think that modern secularism is somehow flawed, being focussed on spreading purely information without offering morality, guidance or passion, which according to him are the virtues of religions. Since when? I'm an atheist, and yet I haven't become a serial killer, so obviously I manage pretty well. So what is atheism supposed to be lacking? De Botton doesn't seem to criticize modern secularism, he's criticizing bad education. And of course he's right about that, but what does that have to do with atheism?

He lost me at "fanatical atheists". I don't think there are any.

As for a religion for atheists, sure why not? As long as there's blackjack and hookers, in fact, forget the religion....

Fucking dickhead!

This bit:

Indeed, it’s precisely when we stop believing in the idea that gods made religions that things become interesting, for it is then that we can focus on the human imagination which dreamt these creeds up. We can recognise that the needs which led people to do so must still in some way be active, albeit dormant, in modern secular man. God may be dead, but the bit of us that made God continues to stir.

I agree with the fact that the most interesting part of religions is the fact that they are man-made.But then, why the need to call it "religion"? Unless it involves "believing" the thing our minds can create to be true, isn't it simply art and imagination?

I loathe the idea of a "religion for atheists".

A humanist community center might not fall very short of being a 'church for atheists', but I have no particular desire to call it a religion. It could provide many of the social functions of a religious church though, and I expect some fundamentalists would point at it and call it a church for atheists, which doesn't chap my hide too much. It's when they call atheism per se a religion that I get annoyed.

*can't be bothered with expending the energy required to roll eyes*

Hehe, Botton. Sounds like 'bottom', hehehe.

I don't really want to be part of a religion. I don't want the ritual and the ceremony, I don't want the communal brouhaha the jumble sales and coffee mornings, I don't want...er, I can't think of anything else but I need to complete this three-part list. Tradition? Yeah, that'll do: I don't want tradition.

CioranFan wrote:Perhaps evolution is responsible for the emotions of pity and sympathy we experience, but it is a stretch to call these emotions 'morality'. What most people mean by morality is a universal order that arranges actions in terms of good and evil, not simply the brain or endocrine system's reactions to unpleasant events. Morality as a universal order is definitely a Christian/Platonic idea, if one bothers at all, like Nietzsche, to trace the genealogy of moral ideas.

Bullshit.

If that were true, then no society that was not exposed to Christian or Platonic ideas could develop morals.

rainbow wrote:...

Obvious Troll is obvious...

I find attractive the idea that people would gather to enjoy the fellowship of others in celebration of the universe and the exaltation of mankind and humanism, and that a certain natural degree of ritual to mark life's passages would be involved, and that the whole project would be saturated with New Age Space Music.

It's just that... once we win the struggle against supernaturalism, we will have all of the above and more in the form of what we now call Culture. Won't we?

Came to this thread late, but Botton is an idiot. I lost count of the number of fallacies in logic he made. For someone who [supposedly] wants to build bridges to people, his sideswipe at Dawkins et al, was pretty stupid, he was only going for the cheap thrills. He said only one or two things or merit during the whole talk. He seems to have a contempt for people, and think they should be led like horses. He seems to think his morality is what should be, and is basically fascist in outlook. He does not have a clue about what atheism is, and generally can't join the dots. Mental age around 7. His ideas were extremely muddled.

Of course an atheist can like religious music or admire the beauty of a church building. What a twat. He may like ritual, but seems bent in wanting us to like it too. It is by far the worst Ted Talk I have ever seen.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Came to this thread late, but Botton is an idiot. I lost count of the number of fallacies in logic he made. For someone who [supposedly] wants to build bridges to people, his sideswipe at Dawkins et al, was pretty stupid, he was only going for the cheap thrills. He said only one or two things or merit during the whole talk. He seems to have a contempt for people, and think they should be led like horses. He seems to think his morality is what should be, and is basically fascist in outlook. He does not have a clue about what atheism is, and generally can't join the dots. Mental age around 7. His ideas were extremely muddled.

Of course an atheist can like religious music or admire the beauty of a church building. What a twat. He may like ritual, but seems bent in wanting us to like it too. It is by far the worst Ted Talk I have ever seen.

It's the Ad Hominems that really get to me though.