The benefits of religion flow from belief
Melanie McDonagh 6:28pm
Most Spectator readers have probably heard by now of Alain de Botton's latest,
Religion for Atheists, in which he
argues that the benefits of religion are too great to be confined to believers — not least because he wrote the Diary column for this week's magazine. And for those who haven't yet read about
the book, let alone read it, they need look no further than Terry Eagleton's brilliant demolition of the
argument in The Guardian. Mr de Botton is, he makes clear, in a very long and not entirely creditable line of those who find religion intolerable for themselves but useful for others, notably
the servant classes: Matthew Arnold and Auguste Comte in particular. Indeed Mr de Botton himself acknowledges that his big idea is not new.
What is downright hubristic is his proposal, which has already found backers, for Temples to Atheism, or places for secular contemplation, the first of which would be a 46 metre high tower in the City of London, designed by Tom Greenall, in which people can go and sit to contemplate their own littleness in the great geological scheme of things. If the idea sounds familiar, that's because we've been here already. Remember the Cult of Reason, established during the French Revolution, which saw the cathedral of Notre Dame converted into a Temple of Reason, with a liturgy specifically devised for a Feast of Reason? The ceremonies devised by Pierre Gaspard Chaumette would, perhaps be a little adversarial for Mr de Botton's taste but the altar of Liberty, the inscription ‘To Philosophy’ and the portrayal of the Goddess of Reason as a real woman would, no doubt, fit in with his call for secularists to have their own feasts and communal rites.
It is certainly the case, as AN Wilson says in a Spectator review, that, until relatively recently, religious ritual did include unbelievers as a matter of course since those rites focused on participation rather than subscribing explicitly to a creed. But the ‘consoling subtle or just charming rituals’ of religion that Mr de Botton would like to co-opt for unbelievers are not, I'd say, detachable from the beliefs that inspired them. It's a little like saying that the music and poetry of love are too charming, too consoling to be confined to those who love and should be extended to those who have never been in love or who find themselves incapable of it. The benefits of religion flow, I'd say, from the things believers believe.
Christians believe in the brotherhood of man, for instance, because we believe in the Fatherhood of God, or its feminist equivalent. Christians find more than picturesque appeal in the story of the Good Samaritan, precisely because we believe, as St John has it, that ‘God is Love’. The coming together of believers in religious ritual is not an exercise designed for reinforcing communitarian sentiment; rather the communitarian sentiment flows from the things they do together: prayer and worship. There are many unbelievers who take part in the pilgrimage to Santiago, for instance, but without a belief in the sanctity of St James, the benefits of the pilgrimage should as easily come from a bracing hike in the Lake District. Mr de Botton's atheism was shaken by Bach's cantatas; well they were written by a conventional, believing Protestant for whom the reality of the sacred texts was a matter-of-fact conviction and that's why they have force. There's a distinct relation between the fruits of religion and the tree.
So Mr de Botton is welcome to his Temple of Atheism. But I bet you anything, the smallest village church will have more in the way of calm and consolation than this contemporary Tower of Babel.
Previous
Frank P
January 30th, 2012 6:45pm Report this commentThe Bald, beatific de Bottom is fast becoming a pain in de Bottom.
First 'This Week' now a blog post about him here. Who's giving him one - or vice versa?
Cynic
January 30th, 2012 7:02pm Report this commentSi Dieu n'existait pas, il fallait l'inventer.
Kittler
January 30th, 2012 7:04pm Report this commentThe benefits of religion!!! Islam???
daniel maris
January 30th, 2012 7:14pm Report this commentHe's not as clever as he thinks he is. And with him it's a case of "physician heal thyself" - despite lecturing us all not to feel status anxiety he seems inordinately precious about his status as a "thinker".
Kittler
January 30th, 2012 7:14pm Report this commentLucretius "All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher".
Yow Min Lye
January 30th, 2012 7:41pm Report this commentThis sounds reminiscient of those neo-Conservatives who argue for the exalting of patriotic 'myths' as a way of enthusing ordinary Americans to believe in their country's military and economic virility.
However, one shouldn't believe in something because it is a myth, convenient or otherwise, but rather because it is empirically true - or, in the case of Christianity, as true as the balance of probability can get (the remainder having, by definition, to be taken on faith).
Therefore, for all that I would beg to differ with Richard Leakey, at least he is being consistent when he counters that if religious faith is bunkum then atheists - de Botton included - should need no shrines and temples of their own.
Hexhamgeezer
January 30th, 2012 7:51pm Report this commentDe bottom believes that all religions humanise and socialise each other and supply spaces where 'you can talk to everybody'.
True, apart from those which seperate the sexes.
Yow Min Lye
January 30th, 2012 8:11pm Report this commentApologies - for Richard Leakey read Richard Dawkins. A Freudian slip obviously slipped into my last post.
Moriarty
January 30th, 2012 9:38pm Report this comment@Yow Min Lye
Not even the most benighted and unreflective follower of the most indefensible religious cult is as intellectually confined as Dawkins. Dawkins is the ultimate village atheist. He lacks knowledge of any recent (last 50 years) developments in the philosophy of religion. He has no grounding in the philosophy of science. And he has no understanding of the concept of explanation as it applies outside the constraints of his own discipline.
He is also a coward, as is proven by his refusal to debate the American philosopher William Lane Craig, on the grounds that the latter is "just a good debater".
wrinkled weasel
January 30th, 2012 10:00pm Report this commentAh yes, the thinking man's Dan Brown.
daniel maris
January 30th, 2012 10:48pm Report this commentStrangely, though, probably more people died in poverty, loneliness and despair when religion ruled supreme than do now.
Personally I think the best religion is a kind of communal-artistic interpretation of reality. The worst religion is simply a racket, a shield for the worst vices.
Ian Walker
January 30th, 2012 11:56pm Report this comment"...I bet you anything, the smallest village church will have more in the way of calm and consolation than this contemporary Tower of Babel."
Of course, you are begging the question that the calm and consolation felt in the village church are a direct consequence of it's religious affiliation.
An assertation that can be swiftly dismissed with a trip to a nice library, the greenhouses at Kew, or a quiet beach.
The only thing that religion has provided to this hypothetical church is funding and architectural style.
Frank P
January 31st, 2012 12:54am Report this commentIan Walker
"A quiet beach? Listen to the sea, man!"
Nothing abides. The seas in delicate haze
Go off; those moonéd sands forsake their place;
And where they are, shall other seas in turn
Mow with their scythes of whiteness other bays.
Fergus Pickering
January 31st, 2012 2:47am Report this commentDaniel Maris, have you any grounds for that statement unless it is that dying people nowadays may well be drugged?
Chesters
January 31st, 2012 7:54am Report this commentDaniel Maris 'he's not nearly as clever as he thinks he is' - well said. I find much of his writing pretentious twaddle. There's a delicious spoof of him in the current Private Eye, courtesy of the magnificent Craig Brown. Here, Mr de Botton is ruminating about 'on the buses' and he even references Mr Reg Varney. Hilarous.
Austin Barry
January 31st, 2012 7:54am Report this commentThe ideal position is probably one of a cheerful agnosticism allowing one to enjoy the benefits and comfort of a contingent pantheistic deity, without having to subscribe to the daft theories and rites of theocratic thugs, child abusers and piety spouting frock prancers – and don’t even get me started on the madness of the Imams.
Frank P
January 31st, 2012 10:13am Report this commentAustin Barry
Amen!
James Strong
January 31st, 2012 12:12pm Report this commentWhat developments can there be in 'the philosophy of religion'?
If you believe that Christ was born of a virgin, died on the cross and was resurrected then you are a Christian. Where is the room for philosophy or interpretation or development?
For Islam, any development is expressly forbidden.
The existence or non-existence of God is a matter of fact. Unfortunately it's a state of affairs that cannot be proved either way so it's also a matter of faith.
If one does not have that faith it seems to me to be rather silly to behave as if one does.
This has got nothing to do with leading a good life,of course.
chinasyndrome
January 31st, 2012 12:26pm Report this commentHe should take a hitch around the galaxy; he will see he's very little in all the huge bigness!
EC
January 31st, 2012 12:40pm Report this commentAustin Barry,
Likewise but, in articulo mortis, should the grim reaper appear then I'll probably be open to offers!
Andy Carpark
January 31st, 2012 12:45pm Report this comment0. And guess what. My post won't leave the screen. Spectator IT team - you're shit. Now here we go again.
Andy Carpark
January 31st, 2012 12:45pm Report this comment1. Chapter 2 of 'Belief in God in an Age of Science' By John Polkinghorne compares the development of Christology (human/divine duality of Christ) up to the Council of Chalcedon with the development of quantum physics (wave/particle of duality of light) up to the Einstein Podolsky Rosen critique.
Andy Carpark
January 31st, 2012 12:45pm Report this comment2. The intellectual progressions are structurally similar to a striking degree - which is a well deserved poke in the eye for the pub bores with their crude dichotomy between hard-nosed science and Fotherington Thomas religiosity.
And wot Austin Barry said.
John Moss
January 31st, 2012 12:57pm Report this commentI believe in people and have faith in their ability to do good when left in relative peace either by religions or their successors in power, governments.
I don't need a shed in which to contemplate. The pub will do!
Ian Walker
January 31st, 2012 1:08pm Report this commentStrikingly similar, with the crucial difference that one is made-up bollocks.
daniel maris
January 31st, 2012 1:18pm Report this commentJames Strong,
That's not the case. Religions do make claims about reality. Those claims can be submitted to rational analysis. The finding of the tomb of the Rabbi Jesus with his body in it would certainly cast serious doubt on the claims of Christianity. On the other hand the Big Bang theory certainly accords well with a divine creation.
Andy Carpark
January 31st, 2012 1:42pm Report this commentIan Walker - You've done yourself proud with that display of profundity and no mistake. The point is that the formation of scientific theories and their subsequent interpretation both involve working assumptions which in turn involve faith - faith, in the cases of Einstein and Dirac, that was based on the aesthetic symmetry of man-made equations rather than experiment. You sound like you're well versed in these matters so I'll leave you to sort out the details.
starfish
January 31st, 2012 4:03pm Report this commentTemples to Atheism
Is that the same as the Total Perspective Vortex?
Din't work for Zaphod Beeblebrox
Ian Walker
January 31st, 2012 4:19pm Report this commentAndy, the key difference is that the axioms of science are testable, and the ones that we still hold to be true are the ones that have stood up to countless exhaustive tests.
More importantly, if those tests turn out to contradict the axioms, then we are forced to reevaluate and create a new foundation, despite all the upheaval this causes. See general relativity replacing Newtonian mechanics for the canonical example.
Theology, on the other hand, starts from an unprovable "this is truth" axiom. No matter how impeccable the logic after that point, the inherent unprovability of the core belief makes the whole tower of cards a waste of time.
Or in other words, one of the two is made-up bollocks.
sturla
January 31st, 2012 4:30pm Report this commentI walked the camino with my camera in hand, but without beeing religious. The result can be watched in the doc "In Between - Walking the Pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela"
Edward McLaughlin
February 1st, 2012 5:27pm Report this commentdaniel maris
"Strangely, though, probably more people died in poverty, loneliness and despair when religion ruled supreme than do now."
'Probably'?
Piero
February 6th, 2012 4:35am Report this commentMoriarty said:
"Dawkins is the ultimate village atheist. He lacks knowledge of any recent (last 50 years) developments in the philosophy of religion. He has no grounding in the philosophy of science. And he has no understanding of the concept of explanation as it applies outside the constraints of his own discipline."
Perhaps you could explain exactly what developments have occurred in the field of philosophy of religion. As far as I know, nobody has yet provided a valid proof that any supernatural being exists. When you are unable to demonstrate that your object of study actually exists, you may in all fairness be called a mountebank. I've read the recent modal arguments put forward by Plantinga: their invalidity should be obvious to a first-grader. Is that what you call "developments" in the philosophy of religion? If similar developments had taken place in the computing industry, we would all be carrying abacuses in our briefcases.
Admit it: religion has lost the debate. Philosophy of religion is a dead-end subject. There can be no developments in a field of study which cannot even define what it is it studies.
Piero
February 6th, 2012 4:48am Report this commentI replied to Moriarty an hour ago. My comment has not yet appeared. WTF?
Back to top