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.