You are here:   Faith > A Religion for Atheists
 

The most boring question to ask about religion is whether or not the whole thing is “true”. It’s a measure of the banality of recent discussions on theological matters that it is precisely this matter which has hogged the limelight, pitting a hardcore group of fanatical believers against an equally small band of fanatical atheists.

We’d be wiser to start with the common-sense observation that, of course, no part of religion is true in the sense of being God-given. There is naturally no holy ghost, spirit, Geist or divine emanation. Dissenters from this line can comfortably stop reading here, but for the rest of us the subject is henceforth far from closed. The tragedy of modern atheism is to have ignored just how many aspects of religion continue to be interesting even when the central tenets of the great faiths are discovered to be entirely implausible. 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.

It was our 18th-century forebears who, wiser than us in this regard, early on in the period which led to “the death of God” began to consider what human beings would miss out on once religion faded away. They recognised that religion was not just a matter of belief, but that it sat upon a welter of concerns that touched on architecture, art, nature, marriage, death, ritual, time — and that by getting rid of God, one would also be dispensing with a whole raft of very useful, if often peculiar and sometimes retrograde, notions that had held societies together since the beginning of time. So the more fanciful and imaginative of thinkers began to do two things: firstly, they started comparing the world’s religions with a view to arriving at certain insights that transcended time and place, and secondly, they began to imagine what a religion might look like if it didn’t have a god in it.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Gary
December 29th, 2009
7:12 PM
Despite the fact that I like Alain de Botton’s books, I consider his proposal on establishing an atheist religion somewhat unfortunate. Why? ‘Religion’ is a label for any parallel cultural universe that breaks down in the face of the constantly changing realm of scientific understanding of our world. Religions are ideologies, sets of strong memes, which are similar to viruses in biology. There are stronger and weaker ones. The protestant religion is one of the strongest mental viruses, because it controls the host by an intricate catch of ‘you are not allowed to think what doubts it’. Interdisciplinary education is the only remedy against it. If the attempt to create a secular religion is to rescue some morality then this is pretty doomed. Why? When Marx and Engels dropped god they tried to do something similar. They tired to rescue the ‘sharing idea’ of the church into communism forgetting that the sharing idea contradicted the ‘first law of Darwinism’, competition. The basis of morality is not an instance without, like god, but an instance within, called fear. We have two conflicting modes within us that secure our lives: one is aggression, the other is fear. It is our fear of becoming losers in the competition game that creates morality. It is the pooled fear of the weaker among us that passes laws, and punishment, in order to force ourselves into abiding them. So, there is nothing to replace what is out there already. We can only hope that we can keep prosperity, because prosperity allows for a middle class, which promotes democracy. It is the governing system that allows for the highest possible security. Laws can curb destructive competition. And as for de Botton’s proposal, the temples already exist. Our universities promote science, which in itself is somewhat of an equivalent to what religions are. Only they truly mirror what is out there and in us despite being provisional. Science itself is that, what we should not class with the label ‘religion’. Religions become erratic, science does not, well, at least we hope it doesn’t.

Laurie John
November 7th, 2009
4:11 PM
God may or may not be creator of the universe but at this point in the cycle we are creating God. The anthropic principle implies that at the end of time the God that intelligent agencies have created brings all that is into being by his observation and understanding. Meanwhile we have a vital part to play. I'm working on it!

Jairo Mejia
July 31st, 2009
10:07 PM
Atheists and Gnostics are right in most of their thinking It has been common among religious believers to look with misgiving to atheists and Gnostics, and to think that they are mistaken; however, in many instances the opposite is the truth; some religious beliefs are not just irrelevant, but baseless. The “God” of main line traditions simply does not exist. I accepted the challenge of finding the One who may be recognized even by Gnostics and atheists: the Existence itself, “All-That-Is.” If something is there, that is God. Look at the book “Christianity Reformed From ist Roots - A life centered in God” (Amazon.com). I am confident that some of your friends will be relieved of the illusion, as I did myself. Jairo Mejia, M. Psych., Santa Clara University Retired Episcopal Priest Carmel Valley, California http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Grudzen.htm http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Churcher.htm

Advocatus
February 2nd, 2009
1:02 AM
So why hasn't secularism been able to inspire communal rituals, etc., in its followers, as religion does, rather than individualism? Not for lack of trying. Here in North America, there are a number of "Churches of Freethought" and the like, esp. in Texas. They also tried to start one in northern California, but it has folded. And by and large, most secularists are content to act individually rather than communally - and why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't one sleep in or go golfing, Sunday morning; why get up to go hear a secularist 'sermon', I mean, lecture? One reason: religions manage to inspire their followers by requiring sacrifices of them, which their followers are willing to commit, for the greater good, as they see it. The same is true of such all-encompassing political/social/economic/worldview ideologies like Communism; one often hears of the selflessness of sincere Marxists, devoted to their cause; the fact they use terms like 'comrade' probably helps (much like 'brother' and 'sister' in religious circles). But secularism, absent an overarching political / social ideology like Marxism: how can such a bare-bones philosophy inspire anyone to sacrifice, to communal behaviour and ritual?

Charles E. Flynn
November 17th, 2008
4:11 AM
God is not dead. He isn't even sick. - Fr. John Corapi

John Thomas
November 14th, 2008
1:11 PM
One comes across this silly "Truth doesn't matter - we all need to fabricate something like religion to get us through" from time to time; the foolish thinking of 'relgion as some kind of medicine or drug'. The nub lies in a simple question: If this life/world is all there is, is there any point to any of it - wouldn't suicide be the best (and certainly the most rational, reasonable)choice? This present life can never be an end in itself, to try to think of it as such is the masochism of the feeble-minded, to try to make it such is to usher in barbarism, amoralism - and finally pure hedonism ("Eat, drink, and be merry because ..."). Realise this, and then ultimate, objective, truth - reality -becomes all that matters.

Bill
June 10th, 2008
12:06 PM
Interestingly enough, he diverges from the Straussians only in what he finds interesting, not in what he finds true. If the basic Straussian (Strauss: I am not a Straussian) position is that religion is untrue but useful for creating ethical behavior, with only a few in a position to understand this and thus pull the strings, then the Bottonist (de Botton: I am not a Botanist!) position simply expands that group of guardians to the point where it encompasses who can get the second paragraph of this article. However, to facilitate dialogue on the religious impulse, we don't need religion: we need history of, anthropology of, etc., religion. Christians and Muslims can find Lao Tzu or the Bhagavad poet intriguing without needing to accept them; the masquerade becomes quite confusing if you accidentally get born in Colorado Springs or Manchester and get the indoc from before you can remember.

Frank598
June 9th, 2008
9:06 AM
Dear Alain, Why don`t you just join the Anglican Church? No-one there will really mind if you don`t believe in God, and their splendid architecture is more that enough compensation for the odd, dreary sermon. F.

Warwick
June 7th, 2008
5:06 AM
I'm a recent discoverer of Standpoint and I'm enthused that there's some thinking and debate going on within its auspices on subjects that are of concern to a ticked-off baby-boomer like me.I largely concurred with Alain De Botton's piece and Robert Callow's comments are spot on.Many thanks..

Robert Callow
June 5th, 2008
8:06 PM
Alain, The pride that enables a man to value himself above others, also allows him to regard those others with disrespect, even contempt. Once this happens it becomes easy for him to cheat and lie to whoever he regards as less important or inferior to himself. Such a state of mind that values itself above others also allows a man to easily dismiss the true word of others as unimportant or untrue when their statements are seen to be in conflict with his own self first desires. Likewise, the half-truths and lies of others to such a man can easily be welcomed as absolute truth when they feed and protect his feeling of superiority and pleasure. It thus becomes increasingly more easy for him to ignore or deny the truth when he senses the truth is in conflict with his self-centered desires to be fulfilled: For as much as these desires become his needs so also will his cravings for more leave him more vulnerable and subject to the corruption of those most crafty and evil. Their lies will become more easily accepted by him as truth and shall be woven into the memory of his mind which is already living by lies and corruption; and from such a memory his deductions, decisions and judgements shall be made. What is being reasoned and perceived as reality to the mind corrupted by pride then is all too often an illusion. This state of mind that is the inherited scourge of all men breeds contempt and hatred for the truth along with paranoia, conflict and everlasting destruction, as history will testify. And yet there is a cure for anyone who desires or needs a cure, where faith in simple logic and reason leads to an easy understanding of the meaning of the Spirit of truth. When this happens a deeper trusting in this Spirit will start to grow. A greater trusting will lead to a greater respect for all that this Spirit is and speaks. Ultimately, the only way of surviving deluded man's rapidly increasing knowledge and power to completely destroy himself becomes obvious. For each negative query there is a positive answer, "seek and you will find". Freedom is the freedom to choose.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.