Temple to Atheism

[Griffin NoName]

This isn't (yet) an event but not sure where to put it.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/26/alain-de-botton-temple-atheism

[Opsa]

I really like the idea. It sounds like a very tolerant presentation of Atheism. I think Dawkins puts people off with his negativity. This sounds like a step in the right direction.

What I don't like about negative Atheism is that it sounds like the grumblings of an eye-rolling, know-it-all adolescent. What good does it do to simply put down religion as poppycock?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I thought there were already temples to rational thinking, museums of natural history I believe they're called... 

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Actually, I agree with Dawkins here...

... I have absolutely no reservations with temples of tolerance, or love, or human achievement (such as museums Zono mentioned).

Or of temples celebrating secular activities such as secular humanism, or a mix of secular/spiritual such as the Toadfish Monastery.

But I do have an objection to using the word "atheism"-- it's not some mystical state of being.  Atheism is simply a lack of faith in supernatural stuff.  That's it.

There's no creed.  There's no book of how to be atheist.  There's no motto a person has to follow.  You cannot build on a lack, a nothing.

And that's too thin a commonality (lack of faith in gods/supernatural) to build a functional community on-- you have to have more.   Much more.

To misuse the word "atheist" is to create a divide, to create additional nonsense around a term that is quite simple. 

So make your temple to one of love, tolerance and inclusiveness if you like.   Or make a temple of left-handed bald men if that's your cherry pie. 

But making one in tribute to "atheism" is akin to making a temple celebrating a vacuum....  what would be the point?

[Opsa]

Interesting point you made, Bob!

[Roland Deschain]

Those are pretty much my own sentiments too. Atheism is not a belief system, and although what's being suggested sounds interesting, it should be dedicated to something far more worthwhile than a lack of belief in any deity. A monument to our achievements, and the evolutionary process that got us here would be better, but then we have many places which already do this, in one part or another. I live near London (just outside it, actually), and there are so many museums and art galleries to visit, it's a little overwhelming, not to mention the wonderful theatres in the West End if I want to worship at the altar of visual literature (probably the wrong analogy to use, but...).

I took my Turkish friend to the National Gallery almost 2 months ago, and showed him Van Gogh's Sunflowers (he's only in the UK for a few months). He also went to the Natural History Museum with some other friends. He'd never been to a proper art gallery or museum before, at least not on this scale, but this, I hope, will open his eyes to just a little of not only how we came to be, but also of what we have achieved, and of what is possible for us in the future. This is worth far more than a building that could just as easily be dedicated to a lack of belief in Russell's Teapot, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which of course it technically is.

[Swatopluk]

In my book (I have several ) atheism is not the simple lack of belief but the active rejection of it. For that reason I also think that many 'atheists' are actually either agnostics (weak variety*) or indifferent.
If there was no religion there would be no atheism (while agnosticism could still exist). It counts at least as philosophy, and there are enough fervent true atheists around that cannot be really distinguished from strong religious believers. C.S.Lewis had some nasty but not fully unrealistic caricatures of those running around in his novels (e.g. the dwarves in the last Narnia book). In short, once they become impervious to evidence, they can be safely considered 'religious'.
Btw, religion does not need god. Some varieties of Buddhism are in essence 'godless' and many people treat something in their life as a religious believer would (and then they start proselytizing, ask your zealous vegetarian, homoeopath or even Roling Stones fan next door  )

*strong agnosticism denies not the possibility of 'god' but the possibility of any meaningful contact with one should one exist.

[Roland Deschain]

You refer to but one definition of atheism. This is where it gets tricky, as there are a number of definitions, some new, some old, that cause confusion amongst people. I take atheism as either a complete lack of belief or a denial (as you point out), but surely a denial of any and all deities does not necessarily have to mean that you take a fundamentalist position? There has to be an idea behind a fanatic, and to me, a simple lack of belief, or denial of gods, doesn't appear enough. The fanaticism enters when you entertain other ideas, such as a strong "them and us" attitude, which is frankly hard not to do, which can then lead on to other thoughts, such as "all religious people are dumb", which itself leads onto yet other ideas. Atheism itself does not hold an ideology as such, but individual atheists can do.

EDIT: Shouldn't have clicked that button, lol. You mention The Rolling Stones as an example of religion without supernatural gods, but the 'Stones don't make any claims to godhood, and neither do they require anyone to worship them. They merely wish people to buy their music and listen to it, just as all bands do, and it is the fans who become fanatical on their own. Through your argument, you could even relate political ideologies to religion. There is an ability and a need in many human beings to become obsessed with one thing or another, and to virtually worship it, and this is what people do. It doesn't necessarily make it a religion. As for Buddhism, it is one of the only religions I feel has even an ounce of credibility, and tend to leave it off of my critique of religion in general. I've seen some interviews with the Dalai Lama, and I must say that he seems a pretty sensible guy.

[Aggie]

It's the current banding together of atheists and the amount of mutual back-patting in these groups that dismays me. Grouping up just seems to be a gateway for "us and them" thinking, especially when there are open attacks on such perspectives by religious fanatics.  The balancing act is to be able to hold an open opinion but not feel driven to proselytization or aggressively pushing "us is right" when "them" keeps pecking at you. How to address this across a movement is quite another question.

I also get a little miffed at the Western-atheist obsession with the Abrahamic, anthropomorphic, presumed-OOO definition of god. It's natural to focus on the dominant cultural perspective, but I personally find this focus a little narrow-minded and reactionary. With a dominant definition of theism, it's little wonder that a dominant definition of atheism has arose, at least in the minds of those who aren't intimately involved in the dialogue and nuances of the non-theist spectrum.

EDIT: Shouldn't have clicked that button, lol. You mention The Rolling Stones as an example of religion without supernatural gods, but the 'Stones don't make any claims to godhood, and neither do they require anyone to worship them. They merely wish people to buy their music and listen to it, just as all bands do, and it is the fans who become fanatical on their own. Through your argument, you could even relate political ideologies to religion. There is an ability and a need in many human beings to become obsessed with one thing or another, and to virtually worship it, and this is what people do. It doesn't necessarily make it a religion.

EDIT: Swato says religion does not need god.  I say God does not need religion. I quite agree with the bolded bit, although I'd contend that this is exactly what makes any particular flavour of systemic god-bothering a religion. The fact that it's done for far more mundane matters on a regular basis demonstrates quite neatly that we don't need much of a foundation to heap up these sandcastles of worship.

[Swatopluk]

There are some real and some invented religions where the divine entity does not require worship or even discourages it. And then there's of course the deus otiosus, aka the 100% hands off god who set the world in motion and now either observes it or went away taking no further notice ('creavit et abiit')*. The Rastafarians worship(ped) Haile Selassie, who to my knowledge did not choose that particular role of divine entity or encouraged it.

*The Epicureans followed that belief. The Stoics also believed in hands-off gods but they had gods with notepads in mind that observed the world and would give humans their judgement after death.
That was another reason why The Church accepted Stoicism and condemned Epicureism (the others were of course that Epicureans followed the 1st Directive of non-meddling and found asceticism for asceticism's sake stupid).

[Roland Deschain]

Swato, could you define a "real religion" and an "invented religion" please? From my perspective, all religions are invented, so it would help to know how you define each one. I would say that if there is a supernatural part of our lives (would that not make it natural?), then it would either be something like Buddhism or Deism; either there is no god, and our consciousness lives on in some way, or something created the universe, gave it its laws, then left it all alone. I just can't get along with the idea of a personal god, I suppose.

Aggie, I spend, on occasion, a lot of time debating with creationists on Facebook (i'm a glutton for punishment, I know), and from time to time feel burnt out and need to take a break. I am on a break now, but what you say in your first paragraph reminds me of a few conversations i've had with them on how they feel victimised (ie - Christians; usually in the USA). In these cases I pointed out to them that, as a group, they only have themselves to blame. My reasoning is this. For years it was taboo to come out as an unbeliever in most places, especially in the smaller communities, where people tended to know one another. In cities and much larger communities, it was pretty safe to just not go to church. This meant that although the agnostic/atheist population may have been high, it was repressed due to the stigma of coming out, such as rejection from family and community. Over time, science has progressed to the point where it has started to chip away seriously at the Bible/Koran/Torah/Whatever, and people with a more rational bent have enacted laws to take account of the new science (abortion, evolution in schools, etc). This chipping away has reached a tipping point, but instead of the religious teaching their children "correctly" as they see fit, they seek to change the law to accommodate their own views, and try to publicly undermine a lot of what rational minds have fought for. Abortion is not mandatory, yet the way the religious right reacts, you'd think it was. Evolution is taught due to the overwhelming evidence for its simple truth, but instead of teaching their children creationism as usual, they try to get creationism taught in schools once again.

This backlash against scientific progress has probably brought more unbelievers out of the woodwork than any other tactic they could have used, with the effect essentially snowballing, yet they do not understand this, and keep trying and trying. They almost force unbelievers to become fanatical because of what I consider to be their rank stupidity. Therefore, they only have themselves to blame for the current situation. I know not every religious person is like this, as i'm not that stupid , but the most vocal are usually the most fanatical, and they don't give their fellow believers a good name. I'm not condoning discrimination against the religious, as everyone is entitled to their own views, but when you fight hard against truth and knowledge, don't come crying when people hit you back.

[Swatopluk]

I meant invented in the sense of literary invention like the Discworld religions or the Great Green Arkleseizure.
Of course there are invented religions in the real world too in the sense of deliberately made up without actual belief behind it (like definitely Scientology and possibly Mormonism).
A 'real' religion would be one where even the founders believe in it.
Neither of these has to be 'true' in the ontological sense of course.

[Griffin NoName]

Swato, could you define a "real religion" and an "invented religion" please?

Sorry, but this made me laugh out loud.

I meant invented in the sense of literary invention like the Discworld religions or the Great Green Arkleseizure.

What about Jung's Archetypes? His so called spirituality (I define spiritual differently) was actually religeous. I've always thought his Archetypes are pretty godlike.

[Roland Deschain]

I understand now, Swato. A "real" religion is one where (from an atheist's point of view) a person is delusional, and truly believes that their god is speaking to them, and an "invented" religion is one where its progenitor knows that what they are spewing is from themselves alone. I'm wondering where Buddhism would come in that definition? I shall have to think on that one.

Griffin, feel free to laugh at anything I say. I even chuckled at that, which is why I wrote the sentence after it.

[pieces o nine]

^ Close...

A 'real' religion has an official book explaining that it's real.
An 'invented' religion doesn't.