Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0

[Oneironaut Zero]

Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0 | Video on TED.com I thought this was a great talk, which wasn't really suited for the Religion/Spirituality forum, because the message given is one that addresses all different schools of thought - not only the religious. Figured I'd share.

[Xei]

It's not new but it's an important thing to keep saying. In Northern Europe there are some secular churches emerging. It will be interesting to see where this goes. I think there probably is something of a cultural discombuluation right now in the West.

[tommo]

Definitely agree with this, he's 100% spot on with everything he said. I also think if this becomes a more widespread idea, it will speed up the extinction of religion. Because I think a lot of people are simply only religious still because of the cultural aspects of it, and when they decide to leave, or while wondering whether to leave, they just feel lonely and lost. There's also the conundrum with being so anti-religious that you make a religion out of no religion. We need to move away from it, coz people see that and are just turned off the idea completely.

[khh]

Interesting. This was a much better talk than I expected from the way it began. And I believe he's right, actually, in a lot of cases. Our modern, secular way of thinking does seem to largely go against human history, and quite arguably human nature. Besides, as tommo mentions, it might help us get rid of religion faster as well

[HeavySleeper]

A very good talk, with some important points. What he's saying though isn't exactly a new idea. I've heard and read comments by some people before, saying our secular society can pluck the beneficial and stimulating bits out of religion, without having to engage in all of the fantasy that surrounds it. I've even read comments by atheists on this forum, talking about all of the things they like and approve of about religion. Such as all of the art, literature and amazing architecture that was inspired by it. Like others have said, I think religion and spiritual beliefs have played a major role in our history, and if we were to simply close the door on it altogether, we'd lose so many vital pages in the story of humanity. I also completely agree with his points about art. About how art shouldn't be done for art's sake and how ridiculous it is that we're not supposed to question it. Some of the things that pass for art nowadays are just unbelievable. Some people will cover a rock in blue paint, wrap it in toilet paper, then set it on fire. They'll then turn to someone and say "Isn't it beautiful?" They think because it's never been done before that it's somehow artistic. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I far prefer the more classic forms of art. I especially love old architecture, with all of the tall columns, the marble statues and the intricate carvings all over the walls and ceilings. I definitely think we need to seize back some of the beauty and grandeur that we seem to have lost over the years. Bring back art that actually means something.

[Original Poster]

I think one problem with adopting this is that some of his suggestions are too laughable to take seriously with the secular mind. If you're trying to start anew, what rational sense does it make to adopt a tradition of bathing yourself? There's no perceptible, observable and repeatable outcome from associating a bath with renewal of yourself. There's no logical sense to thanking Plato after someone recites his philosophy. Religions have the luxury of not requiring everything to make sense and induce practical outcomes. You just use faith, believe it means something and follow through with the tradition. In order to adopt these traditions, we would also have to adopt belief in their power.

[Oneironaut Zero]

I don't think he was using the examples literally. What he was saying was that something like those gestures should be used.

[Original Poster]

All the same, secular culture is not very open to adopting traditions and rituals without practical and logical gratification. Articles written or presented in a less than scholarly fashion are shunned. The mind is considered separate from the body. Information is considered separate from the presentation of information.

[Oneironaut Zero]

All the same, secular culture is not very open to adopting traditions and rituals without practical and logical gratification. Articles written or presented in a less than scholarly fashion are shunned. The mind is considered separate from the body. Information is considered separate from the presentation of information. Yes. And his point is that this is a flawed or incomplete approach to academia. I think he was simply providing the dialogue for improving the approach. That the approach goes against the established 'intellectual (or secular) paradigm' is what he's saying is part of the problem. One does not necessarily have to have faith in these rituals, per se, for them to be effective. Ideally, maybe, but necessarily. Auto-suggestion, repetition and the combining of mental and physical involvement tend to help solidify ideas and promote uniformity within individuals and groups, alike. I'm not sure if you're saying that you disagree with his approach to the problem, or if you're simply acknowledging (as he did) that it's a problem.

[Original Poster]

I'm saying I agree with him, but furthermore it seems like his suggestions are going to be reacted to like "Hm... that's nice" and without throwing in some ideas as to how this could be done, it'll be a long time before we see a change in method. It's an uphill battle when the least little bit of flavor in regards to your manner of speaking becomes regarded as pseudoscience. The biggest obstacle secularists will have in this endeavor is getting over their own disdain for colorful methods of presentation, seemingly irrational rituals and repetitive tradition.

[tommo]

I disagree. I think it's a very small minority who have no regard whatsoever for rituals or spiritual endeavours.

[HeavySleeper]

I don't think the general secular population has a problem with rituals or repetitive traditions. You only have to look at the holidays we have every year to see that. Secular people as well as religious people take part in Christmas, Halloween and Easter traditions. Two of those holidays are Christian and the other is pagan, but people of a secular mindset don't particularly mind taking part because the rituals can be enjoyable without the beliefs behind them. So you can see that culturally, we already embrace these traditions. Although that may only be because the traditions predate secular society and we may accept them simply because we're used to them. Whether such methods would ever be adopted in the scientific method is another matter. I like the guy's idea in the video where he says we could adopt the idea of the pilgrimage. I think secular pilgrimages would be really cool. Lots of people could learn a lot from it, and get to see the world outside their own little bubble while doing it. They could travel to all of the major historical and scientific sites around the world, attend things like TED and listen to all kinds of talks and debates. Large humanist events could also be set up throughout the year, where everyone could go and celebrate humanity's achievements. It would certainly be enriching for secular society.

[Original Poster]

A lot of that seems to be done tongue in cheek though. Christmas is still mostly about Family and Generosity (and consumerism) but the other holidays are just an excuse to get drunk under different themes. Tke Samhain, for instance. It's supposedly the day when souls can cross over. Without a belief in the afterlife, it doesn't have much of a positive purpose left. I like Burning Man because it's celebrated under no specific traditional pretense and while to some it's just a party in the desert, to others there's a good foundation upon which to show reverence and worship, just not to a particular god. The Burning of the Man has roots in prechristian europe but at Black Rock it represents a renewel of sorts. Besides the Man, they also build a temple every year and its full of markers so you can write something in it, the purpose being to write names of the people we have lost, or messages to those people. This makes the Temple Burning almost like a symbol to bring about closure, and allow our late loved ones to cross over, at least in our minds. But the best part about these experiences is when you take your tongue out of your cheek and just believe in the spirit of the desert, let it take you over, becoming part of something greater than yourself. Allow yourself to be foolish, and reverent, and wrong. Show faith without attachment. Leave doubt behind. Faith is honestly one of the most misused words in our language. It gets used to mean belief without proof... but if you truly had faith you wouldn't be so attached to that belief in the first place. The truly faithful are not afraid to explore ideas that contradict their point of view. They are not afraid of being wrong.

[tommo]

Holidays are hardly what we're talking about here. Sure, I suppose they're rituals, but they are hardly spiritual now. Omnis summed it up better, so.... it doesn't have much of a positive purpose left. +1

[HeavySleeper]

I don't get what you guys are saying here. Are you talking about secularists practicing rituals that are supposed to be genuinely spiritual? If so, I really don't think most would go for it. As for your definition of faith, Omnis, that's the first I've ever seen anyone define it that way. And I have to say, I really don't get that either. You seem to be talking about a whole "Lose yourself in the moment" mentality that has nothing to do with belief in anything. How can you be faithful with nothing to have faith in? You say the word gets misused as meaning belief without proof, but I actually see that as quite an accurate description. Even some religious people will proudly state that thanks to their faith, they require no proof. And people of this mindset will usually refuse to accept they may be wrong.

[tommo]

I don't get what you guys are saying here. Are you talking about secularists practicing rituals that are supposed to be genuinely spiritual? If so, I really don't think most would go for it. Yes, and I think most people would go for it. You'd be surprised at the amount of people who still believe in a god or afterlife or whatever, but you ask them what they think it is and they say "I don't know, I just feel that there is something else". Or something similar to that. Omnis' definition of faith, I agree, is wrong. I would say he is more talking about spiritual experience. He's just redefining it, which I don't agree with.

[HeavySleeper]

Yes, and I think most people would go for it. You'd be surprised at the amount of people who still believe in a god or afterlife or whatever, but you ask them what they think it is and they say "I don't know, I just feel that there is something else". Or something similar to that. Yeah, I know what you mean here. The kind of people who have no concrete beliefs but have a vague notion that there's some kind of force acting on their lives. And yes, I do think those kinds of people would be open to it, but I thought we were discussing people of a strictly atheist viewpoint, who have no real beliefs in the spiritual. I could see such people filling their 'spiritual gap' with things like science, philosophy and art, but couldn't imagine them taking to rituals where they try to commune with a higher being or anything of that nature.

[Original Poster]

Faith, the way religious people define it, is what's wrong because it's nothing more than fear of new ideas. I'm not saying you should have faith in nothing, I'm aligning faith with Aristotle's definition of skepticism. To believe that real truth is impossible to find, but to never give up the search. Faith in yourself and your ability to survive all transitions, all ideas, all fluctuation, all observation and all experience is all that faith can truly be. Anything else is merely fear and attachment borne of that fear. People fear they may be wrong, and so they use faith as a means to ignore others. Faith is attached to nothing effable. Faith is simply faith. You either have it, or you don't. It is the reminder that an idea cannot hurt you, because you have faith. A new experience cannot hurt you, a person's words cannot hurt you, because you have faith. And with faith, you see your way through all ideas and experience, rather than clinging to them.

[tommo]

Yeah, I know what you mean here. The kind of people who have no concrete beliefs but have a vague notion that there's some kind of force acting on their lives. And yes, I do think those kinds of people would be open to it, but I thought we were discussing people of a strictly atheist viewpoint, who have no real beliefs in the spiritual. I could see such people filling their 'spiritual gap' with things like science, philosophy and art, but couldn't imagine them taking to rituals where they try to commune with a higher being or anything of that nature. Oh ok.... there are definitely people who simply have no connection with that way of thinking. I suppose they can be left to their own devices. If it's not harming them, I see no reason for them to be coerced in to becoming spiritual. The point of this is to fill a void in people's lives that is seriously fucking up their mental and physical health, as well as the overall "health", outlook and mindset of the Western culture. Of course, if there really are a significant amount of these people who have absolutely no interest or need for spiritual anything, there are always magic mushrooms. It's really not good for the progression of society to have a completely logical mindset, or for that matter, an extreme outlook on the universe/life in general. Anything extreme is going to be geared to living on the short term. Variety is necessary, because even the widest, most broad set of views a person can have, don't even come close to true reality. So anyone dedicated completely to a single outlook is going to be biased and entirely out of touch with reality.

[HeavySleeper]

Right, people can be perfectly content without having to seek out a spiritual explanation for their lives. But of course there are some who would have trouble with that. I personally don't think it's needed. Like the guy in the video said, we can have that sense of mystery without it being mystical. I think people can have that feeling of awe for the universe around them and a feeling of real fulfillment in their lives without needing to invoke some kind of ethereal placebo for comfort or guidance. But if some people feel they need it to fill an emotional void, then it's obviously their choice and I wouldn't bash them for it. If it did happen to cause a shift from the more dogmatic views held by religious institutions, it would certainly be a welcome step.