I´ve casually found this article of Alain de Botton, where he argues in favour of a "secular religion":
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/utopia-june
It seems that he´s writing a book about this topic, that will be published next year in UK.
What do you think about his ideas? Were they already discussed here?

Some interesting ideas swamped by glib generalizations.

As usual in these articles, De Botton doesn't bother to define "religion". There's a host of different and competing meanings. "Right belief" and "psychologically stimulating ritual", to give but two definitions, are mutually incompatible. The silly comment about truth not mattering is, I think, an attempt to say that practice trumps belief, but that in itself is a comment on truth, since you can only relegate belief if you decide that its propositions are baseless. The rest of the article, with its silly notion of inventing a new religion, continues in a similar vein.

Instead of cutting a new religion from whole cloth, work at demythologizing the ones we've got. Or go join the Quakers. As you like, Alain!

DaveScriv wrote:I won't be joining. Don't need it.

I think that if such "religion for atheist" were an option in the market, I´d be interested in knowing more about it before making conclusions.

paceetrate wrote:

The most boring question to ask about religion is whether or not the whole thing is “true”.

Stopped reading at the first sentence. It's the most important question to ask about religion because it's the only one that matters. Mr. de Botton needs to remove his head from his ass.

I don´t think that´s “the only thing that matters”. It´s reasonable to ask other questions (e.g. about interpersonal or emotional aspects of the religious practices).

Byron wrote:Instead of cutting a new religion from whole cloth, work at demythologizing the ones we've got. Or go join the Quakers. As you like, Alain!

There´re already “demythologized” versions of some religions (at least, secular judaism, secular christianism, and secular buddhism). Anyway, it´s possible that those options don´t fulfill De Bottom´s needs, and I think that he has the same right of proposing a new religion as any other human. Why should we complain about that?

Since the whole point of being an atheist is to reject religious assertions, the idea of a "religion" for atheists is an oxymoron.

Calilasseia wrote:the whole point of being an atheist is to reject religious assertions

What a bizarre idea. "I wanted to reject religious assertions so I became an atheist", I really hope that there aren't many atheists thinking like that.

Bookmarked for in the morning. Seems interesting but too tired now.

Calilasseia wrote:Since the whole point of being an atheist is to reject religious assertions, the idea of a "religion" for atheists is an oxymoron.

I disagree. The whole point of being an atheist is a rejection of "gods", not a rejection of "religious assertions". Not all religions are based on theism, and not all people within current religions are theists. Therefore, it´s more clear to call "anti-religious" (instead of "atheist") the stance that you´re referring here.

ughaibu wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:the whole point of being an atheist is to reject religious assertions

What a bizarre idea. "I wanted to reject religious assertions so I became an atheist", I really hope that there aren't many atheists thinking like that.

I don't think there are, and I doubt if Calilasseia thinks that way, since it's not what he said. It's not a question of wanting to reject them; we do so because we have considered religious assertions and found them spurious. That's why we are atheists.

seeker wrote:There´re already “demythologized” versions of some religions (at least, secular judaism, secular christianism, and secular buddhism). Anyway, it´s possible that those options don´t fulfill De Bottom´s needs, and I think that he has the same right of proposing a new religion as any other human. Why should we complain about that?

Demythed versions, yes, but it's far from the mainstream. (Just witness the latest CofE fiasco, where the appointment of the Bishop of Southwark descended into the beyond-farce specter of the Archbishop of York taking appointment panel members into the washroom to persuade them to block the appointment of a gay man, 'cause a 2,000 year old book told them to.) We're not close to the point where "the Bible/Holy Spirit/magisterium told me to, so ends the debate" authority fallacy becomes untenable.

Actually, I've no problem with myth so long as people acknowledge what it is: attempting to tell an abstract truth via fiction. Until people who claim that Eden and the Ark are history are laughed out of the churches, we're a long way from this, too.

On the new religion front, you're right to say that De Botton can propose what he likes. I'm afraid the combination of hubris and naiveté used in expressing that desire unleashes my snark.

Calilasseia wrote:Since the whole point of being an atheist is to reject religious assertions, the idea of a "religion" for atheists is an oxymoron.

We're back to how we define "religion". Viewing it as right-belief is an Abrahamic POV. Pagans with the ranks of gods, or Hindus with their pantheon of gods/aspects (however you choose to define it) take a different approach.

If you view religion as practice, not belief, there's nothing to stop an atheist being religious. As mentioned, secular Jews, or cultural Christians. I've heard atheism from Catholics that puts the Hitch in the shade.

Well, at bottom, what I'm rejecting is the idea that mythology-based metaphysical speculation and fantasising constitutes established fact about the world. Which again constitutes the rigorous position.

Couldn't agree more, being a physicalist & all.

Religion can, though, be used to symbolize aspects of our psyche and our existence; or to interface with mystery. Religious ritual is no more factual than a novel or a play are factual. It exists in a separate category to science, & the problems come when its adherents fail to recognize this.

If non-creedal religion isn't religion, it makes the fundamentalist brand of religion authentic: and damned if I'm handing the fundies a victory like that for gratis!

Calilasseia wrote:Well, at bottom, what I'm rejecting is the idea that mythology-based metaphysical speculation and fantasising constitutes established fact about the world. Which again constitutes the rigorous position.

After reading his article, I don´t think De Botton is defending those aspects of religion (i.e. "mythology-based metaphysical speculation and fantasising"). Do you think so?

Byron wrote:Demythed versions, yes, but it's far from the mainstream.

It depends on what´s the group we´re talking about. Demythed versions of judaism are rather mainstream in US, afaik. And demythed versions of christianism are mainstream in Scandinavia, afaik (see Society without God, by Zuckerman).

Byron wrote:We're not close to the point where "the Bible/Holy Spirit/magisterium told me to, so ends the debate" authority fallacy becomes untenable.

Yes, I agree, but with the previously mentioned exceptions.

Byron wrote:If you view religion as practice, not belief, there's nothing to stop an atheist being religious.

I agree with this. Religion has many aspects (interpersonal, emotional, cultural, sociological, psychological, aesthetical, ethical, political, philosophical) that are not reducible to belief. I guess this is one reason why many non-theist people are reluctant to abandon their religious affiliations.

seeker wrote:. . . . ethical, political. . . . that are not reducible to belief

Why do you think these aren't "reducible to belief"?

ughaibu wrote:

seeker wrote:. . . . ethical, political. . . . that are not reducible to belief

Why do you think these aren't "reducible to belief"?

Because in many religious people, they are (conceptually and empirically) independent of the theistic belief.

seeker wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

seeker wrote:. . . . ethical, political. . . . that are not reducible to belief

Why do you think these aren't "reducible to belief"?

Because in many religious people, they are (conceptually and empirically) independent of the theistic belief.

But belief isn't limited to the theistic.

seeker wrote:There´re already “demythologized” versions of some religions (at least, secular judaism, secular christianism, and secular buddhism). Anyway, it´s possible that those options don´t fulfill De Bottom´s needs, and I think that he has the same right of proposing a new religion as any other human. Why should we complain about that?

YOU asked for opinions on it.

If you didn't want to see other people's opinions, why the fuck did you ask?!?!?!?!?!?!?

paceetrate wrote:

The most boring question to ask about religion is whether or not the whole thing is “true”.

Stopped reading at the first sentence. It's the most important question to ask about religion because it's the only one that matters. Mr. de Botton needs to remove his head from his ass.

It's only boring to ask whether a religion is true because on some level even the religious recognize falsity.