One million pounds in the City of London will buy you a couple of parking spaces. Either de Botton's 'Temple' is going to be very tall and thin, or he's not expecting a large congregation.

I think atheists and theists can agree on this one -- it's a daft idea.

An explanation from de Botton :

http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/blog-special-alain-de-botton-on-his-temple-of-atheism/

"I'm simply arguing that contemporary architecture analyse the high points of religious architecture throughout history...."

de Botton is not the new messiah, he's just a very naught .. prat

Yes indeed.

"It sounds naff at first glance"

And second.

And third, fourth, fifth...

De Botton is a classic example of the self-promoting pop-philosopher. He has scant regard for accuracy or rigorous thought, but an uncanny eye for writing the sort of verbal dross that makes a certain audience go "Ooo, innee clever".

Sadly, he encourages exactly the sort of article we have just read, which is itself slight and insubstantial as a result of the underlying material being so superficial. De Botton, meanwhile, relishes them, on the grounds that any controversy, however poorly constructed and flimsily argued, will sell a few more tickets to his next show.

Pericles,

While I take your point that de Botton is a "popular philosopher" - and in that sense he strives to toss a few ideas out into mainstream society for people to chew on. However, I don't think we should dismiss the germ of his suggestion out of hand. Modern architecture is often brutal on the eye and spirit.

Here's the view from de Botton's Melbourne hotel window:
http://yfrog.com/nzoo5djj

I think what he's trying to say is that these buildings reflect something more than a mere construction of stone and mortar - a geometrical form that we instinctively recognise as harmonious.

Dawkins writes 'if you are going to spend money on atheism you could improve secular education and build non-religious schools which teach rational, sceptical and critical thinking '

What an absolute joke. Rational thinking by those who hold to the evolution myth? And they call this rational. No wonder so many of these 'rational ' thinkers fell hook line and sinker for the gw scam. If they sought a little truth instead of their dogmas they might get somewhere. That however might expose the adamic nature and we can't have that can we.

"Democracy, after all, is one of the greatest faiths imaginable, precisely because it is an imperfect instrument of the will, evidence in something that is never entirely realisable."
Why does the author believe that an aim requires faith? What is "an imperfect instrument of the will"?
Just because some aim is difficult to achieve doesn't mean the aim requires faith, except maybe the faith that co-operation makes more sense that competition as it did when our forefathers were hunters. That was the case for about 99% of the time that intelligent upright walking homo species have existed.
Democracy is based on the fact that there is no evidence that that parenthood gives anyone the right or the ability to rule and that all individuals are deserving of equal opportunity.
Dawkins is right. Secularism should spend any money it can raise teaching the next generation to avoid dogma and to think clearly.

Runner
Please do some reading on the geology of the earth. Competent scientists knew 200 years ago that the earth was millions of years old and there was progressive development of species over exceeding long periods. Darwin mainly defined the mechanisms of evolution and he formed his theory long before mutations were known. Mutation has now been incorporated in the proven theory of evolution that underlies the major improvement our longevity.
Coal in the Sydney basis was accumulated from vegetation over a period of 30-40 million years some 300m years ago. You sit at your computer which is based on science and fail to realise that the Theory of Evolution is a well accepted by real scientists as the theory of magnetism and electricity which drives your computer and mobile phone.

"expose the adamic nature and we can't have that can we."
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 9:43:59 AM

No, no, no! Let's just stick with the eve-ic nature! apple anyone?

Foyle

You are finally getting somewhere. You write

'You sit at your computer which is based on science and fail to realise that the Theory of Evolution'

And to try and convince anyone that my computer was not designed would be as idiotic as convincing anyone the earth was not designed. Try applying a little logic which is hard for evolutionist blinded by dogma.

Why should atheists be upset about de Botton building this temple?

Why shouldn’t he?

After all, if atheism is true, doing one thing is just as “good”, “bad”, or “meaningless” as doing anything else.

De Botton has no responsibility to “improve secular education and build non-religious schools which teach rational, sceptical and critical thinking” – he has no responsibility to do anything at all. Just like everyone has no responsibility to do anything at all.

Why don’t you atheists get consistent – if there is no God then everyone is morally free to do whatever they want.

Leave the poor fellow alone.

"everyone is morally free to do whatever they want."
Posted by JP, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 10:26:27 AM

No they're not. They're bound by societies norms & mores.

Binoy Kampmark refers in his article to some unnecessary juxtapositions. He quotes Dawkins talking about the necessity of secualr and non-religious schools to teach about rational, sceptical, and critical thinking. Any school, no matter what its worldview, should be committed to teaching students how to think. This must include the rational, the sceptical, and the critical pathways to reason and understanding. Some (not all) religiously based Schools and Universities have been champions of this. A foolish Juxtapostion.

Another unnecessary juxtaposition is where he quotes from Andrew Copson saying that religious people get their sense of awe and wonder from religion whereas non-religious people get that from places like art, nature, and relationships. Does that mean religious people don't get a sense of wonder when they look at a brilliant sunset or a feeling of awe when a new baby is born? Foolish thinking that is! The difference between religious and non-religious people is who ultimately gets the credit for the sunset and the new-born baby.

On the other hand it is interesting how (some) Secularists and Atheists are feeling the need to re-introduce religious icons into their frameorks. First we had A.C.Grayling's 'The Good Book: A Secualr Bible', and now we have De Botton's suggestion that a Temple for Atheists be constructed. I wonder what it is that my Secularist and Atheistic friends sense they are missing in life that causes them to look to religion for some answers. Be careful! It's only one short step away from seeking God for some answers!!

In 'Life After God' Douglas Coupland shares his secret longing for the God he is trying to live without: “My secret is that I need God--that I am sick and can no longer make it alone. I need God to help me give, because I no longer seem to be capable of giving; to help me be kind, as I no longer seem capable of kindness; to help me love, as I seem beyond being able to love.” Grayling and DeBotton are following the same theme. Interesting!

The popularity of Atheism is imploding. Dawkins' ideas are finally being questioned by his own followers and De Boton, a pop philosopher with an exotic name and presentation which masks intellectually fragile ideas, shows atheism is clearly running out of puff. Its now approaching the end of its road to nowhere and meandering into back alleys of meaningless stupidity.

The new Atheism is being shown up for what it is.. just a reconstituted religion (as the author says), complete with its high priests, preaching and dogmas, but ultimately a meaningless one where the end of the road has a big 'dead end' sign. Now the sillines begins. Let's build a temple to ..err 'niceness'.

Runner,
You ignore the sting in the tail of my quote and only repeat the lead in. I should have anticipated that.
Have a look at the evolution of man as charted by the University of Chicago.
Over the 4-5 million years since Autralopithecus africanus first hunted for a living only about two or three significant mutations were necessary, and a various amounts of selective pressure dependent on the occupied region, to arrive at us, Homo sapiens with our minor variations such as colour, eye shape and ability to digest milk products. After we had hunted for about 190,000 years we took up farming and animal husbandry.
Your ignorance of science and your unwillingness to investigate the information developed over the last 2000 years is amazing.

sophiathinktank,

de Botton is asking us in the secular word to analyse the "high points" of religious architecture.

The proportions of grand architecture reflect those in nature, which is why they induce a sense of awe. The mistake we make in modern secular thought is to separate the religious inspiration behind these monuments from their genesis which is in nature and translated by man.

http://europe.factoidz.com/worlds-most-beautiful-and-spectacular-buildings-the-rise-of-europe-gothic-cathedrals/

http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Interior/Dome/Dome.htm

Here's the newest mega-building in Perth 9cental in pic)
http://www.brookfieldmultiplex.com/projects/australasia/wa/construction_and_development/commercial/under_constuction/city_square/

Nice try, Atman.

>>The new Atheism is being shown up for what it is.. just a reconstituted religion (as the author says), complete with its high priests, preaching and dogmas<<

You are confusing the opinions of two individuals - Dawkins and de Botton - with religious dogma.

While they are both entitled to their views - a liberty startlingly absent from formalized religion - they do not "represent" atheism. Or even atheists, come to that. The term "high priest" is only used by theists, when attempting to denigrate atheists in general, and atheism in particular. You will never come across a genuine atheist even beginning to think in those terms.

>>Dawkins' ideas are finally being questioned by his own followers<<

And why not, indeed. They are his ideas, and are as open to question as anyone else's. It is not as if he speaks for all atheists, or even some - he is expressing his own opinions.

>>De Boton, a pop philosopher with an exotic name and presentation which masks intellectually fragile ideas<<

I'm right with you there. The man is a professional self-publicist, and represents no-one but himself. Thank goodness.

>>Now the sillines begins. Let's build a temple to ..err 'niceness'.<<

Couldn't agree more. Pure silliness. Once again, absolutely nothing to do with atheism. Just a bit of publicity oxygen to pep up de Botton's next lecture tour, or next book.

Or both.

Foyle

'Your ignorance of science and your unwillingness to investigate the information developed over the last 2000 years is amazing.'

your willingness to swallow the myth built around scientific evidence is amazing.

But he does it so clumsily, Poirot...

>>de Botton is asking us in the secular word to analyse the "high points" of religious architecture<<

...that I suspect it was done deliberately, to create exactly the fuss that it did. There's no such thing as bad publicity, they say, and when you find the twitterverse filled with bleatings about de Botton's new "atheist religion", you know it has worked well.

And what a pathetic "explanation" he comes up with!

"I am conscious that the phrase ‘temple for atheists’ has had the power to annoy a great many good and clever people – and because my idea is as I conceive it inherently non-contentious, it’s clear that I must have explained it extremely badly, for which I’m sorry. Let me start again.

My starting point is that a great many religious buildings are powerful works of architecture: even committed atheists like myself recognise that many cathedrals, mosques, temples and churches are extremely successful and beguiling as buildings."

Errrm... actually, Alain, precisely the same may be said of music.

"A great many pieces written for the church, particularly during the Renaissance, are among the most powerful ever written. Even committed atheists like myself recognise that many masses, motets and magnificats are extremely successful and beguiling as music".

Well, duh. But you would hardly go on to recommend that a 21st Century composer write in the style of Palestrina, would you.

No. In my view a complete put-up job. de Botton should be ashamed of himself (of course, that will never happen), and Binoy Kampmark should not let himself be suckered in to heap more fuel on the man's burning ego.

Pericles,

This one's especially for you.

Alain de Botton's "insatiable but ever fragile" ego - in pictures!

http://yfrog.com/h838kkmj

Thank you, Poirot.

Says it all, really.