Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion by
Alain de Botton
My rating:
5 of 5 stars
Is it possible to accept that the supernatural elements of world religions are bunk, but that there are still useful practices, ideas, elements that are not replicated in secular culture? Could we steal the good bits from religion and discard the rest? When, in our rush to be free, we threw out the unclean bathwater of religious hypocrisy and belief, was it possible there was still a metaphorical baby in there we should have carefully placed aside? These are the questions Botton is attempting to answer in Religion for Atheists.
His basic assertion, which one might find debatable, is that in attempting to move beyond christianity we have secularized badly. He smartly points out that christians smoothly co-opted pagan practices in their rise to western dominance, but we've largely just run from the past altogether in modern secular culture. I understand this rubs some the wrong way, but it seems true to me that secular culture is missing a great deal I found useful in my former religious life and that leaving religion religion and declaring it evil is maybe the beginning and not the end of my own personal growth. And it seems like most who leave the church and secular culture at large have not yet even asked the question, "Is there something in religion, anything, that we can steal?" As the supposedly more rational side of the debate, can we not admit there may be nuance in the value and danger of religion, and that to sift through for the good within it is not necessarily the same as to apologize for its sins and make excuses? Or must we declare the whole enterprise corrupt and unmentionable like bizarrely dogmatic atheist puritans?
For me, his assertion of lost value in christianity stikes a chord, so I read his book with tremendous interest. I was not the least disappointed. The prose is thoughtful, crisp, witty. I found myself laughing out loud at one point which I did not expect. But to be sure, this is not a proof argument. If the idea that secular culture is lacking somehow and religion might have some good bits to steal just doesn't fly with you, you're not likely to enjoy most of what follows. This is a philosophical discussion of the possible lessons of any good bits of religion, and how it might look to attempt to apply them outside of that structure. Semi-hysterical assertions that Botton is attempting to set up a new religion and crown himself pope or that he is a secret christian (the horror) are hardly worth bothering with, considering the effort he goes to keep the tone conversational and thoughtful and completely non-dogmatic.
His points in general are well taken and I found myself nodding along with almost every chapter. Yes, an agape restaurant or similar place that provides a regular meeting place for people in the community to meet, share stories and discuss common values in a semi-organized fashion might be superior to drinking in pubs and hoping one or two of those things happen every now and again.
Yes, we should probably not cede the propagation of philosophical ideals solely to capitalists schlocking merchandise. I could probably get behind ad campaigns that exist merely to reinforce beneficial social ideas like forgiveness, grace, humility, non-dogmatism, etc.
Yes, museums would be a better replacement for church, as they have argued, if the works were clustered by philosophical topic rather than strictly by style/period. There's a place for both, but think of a museum with wings devoted to works dealing with fear of mortality, familial love, rage and anger, isolation, and loss.
Yes, architecture might be important, and good architecture that inspired us towards our higher ideals would be magnificent.
Yes, temples built not to gods but the ideals they embody would be highly useful and would give citizens a place and perhaps rituals to turn to when things get rough.
Choosing atheism is just the beginning. It does not automatically make one smart or moral. As Botton metions, one of the reasons religion exists in the first place is that as a species we are easily distracted and can only follow a few trains of thought at once, so we need regular reminders on the importance of humility, kindness, compassion, forgiveness, grace, etc. The rituals, the architecture, the meetings, all serve to remind us that we are aiming to maybe be a little better than we are, and provide a structure in attempting to embody our ideals and coping with the daily failure to do so. So why not steal them and do it just as well without all the supernatural fear-mongering? Is there a good reason not to, or are we all just so wounded by our respective religious experiences we can't even be seen touching any part of it?
To be honest, I find the appeal of doing church better than religious folk very appealing. What if we could build an organization (loosely organized perhaps) that ended up doing church better than the christians? What if we could do what they do without all the cover-ups and supernatural fear-mongering? In other words, what if we put our money where our mouth is?
What institutions are left after we abandon and stigmatize religion? Whose messages remain on full broadcast in the public sphere? The state? Capitalists? How do we push back against those powerful institutions and their myopic tendencies without some at least semi-formal institutional power in opposition, where a critical mass of human beings have formally banded together to remind the state the power and obedience are not the only good and to remind capitalism that money corrupts just as much as it cures? Do we somehow imagine that a bunch of atomized atheists are individually going to be able to push back against the money and power of industry and politics without some kind of institutional organization in response? Sure, institutions are by their nature corruptible, but this is a fixable problem. Do you trust the future of liberalism and morality to the hacker group Anonymous? Do you trust it to social media lynch mobs?
Maybe it's time we seriously consider some kind of religion for atheists. We don't need gods to discuss our morals and create structure and support for our moral and ethical development and to address existential doubts and questions with kindness and empathy, but maybe we can attempt to do so in a more organized and useful fashion, rather than leave it to the vagaries of who you happen to run into at the pub or the online outrage of the day.
This book is highly recommended.
View all my reviews
The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible by Charles Eisenstein
