Alain de Botton's 'temples for atheists' have a foundational flaw | Art and design | guardian.co.uk

Quote:

Perhaps emboldened by the success of the atheist bus, or his own Living Architecture initiative (in which top architects design desirable holiday homes), or the fact that he's got a new book to promote, Alain de Botton is now proposing a series of temples for atheists to be built around the UK. "Why should religious people have the most beautiful buildings in the land?" he asks. "It's time atheists had their own versions of the great churches and cathedrals." Sounds great, Alain. But what are we worshipping? "You can build a temple to anything that's positive and good," he continues. "That could mean: a temple to love, friendship, calm or perspective." In order to make atheism more attractive, De Botton argues in the accompanying book, Religion for Atheists, its advocates should pick and choose from the aspects of religion they all like. So, yes to a sense of community and civic responsibility; no to persecuting gay people and abusing choirboys. And one of the things we all like about religion, especially De Botton, is the architecture, isn't it? It gets the message across far better than something like a book. Unless that book is the Bible, or the Qur'an, but certainly if that book is Religion for Atheists. De Botton's first monument will be the "Temple to Perspective", a hollow stone tower located in the City of London, that well-known hotbed of religious fanaticism. Its height corresponds to the age of the earth – one centimetre per million years, with mankind's time on the planet represented by a gold band around the base one millimetre thick. It was designed by a young architect named Tom Greenall, who collaborated with De Botton on the book. Several other possibilities are suggested: a Temple to Love, which looks like a box whose facades are rose windows from cathedrals; a Shrine to Care, filled with little glass figurines of humans filled with blood, and so forth. They come across like witty art installations, but would these follies – sorry, "temples" – convince any religious adherent to cross over? It's unlikely. And why couldn't a Christian or a Muslim enjoy the Temple of Perspective, just as an atheist can be stunned by Gaudi's Sagrada Familia? Architecture and godliness don't necessarily go hand in hand. The great Brazilian architect Oscar Niemeyer, who designed the beautiful Cathedral of Brasilia and several other churches, laughs about the fact that he has been a lifelong atheist. What De Botton seems to be preaching is his own rather narrow definition of atheism, with its own unified philosophy, set of rules and even architectural brand identity. It feels rather like, er, a religion. To answer De Botton's original question, atheists do have their own versions of great churches and cathedrals. If the antithesis of religion is scientific rationalism, then surely its temples are the British Library, the Millau Viaduct and the Large Hadron Collider? If it's about glorifying creation, then why not the Natural History Museum or the Eden Project? What about the Tate Modern? Or Wembley Stadium? Or the O2? Or the Westfield shopping centre? Perhaps non-believers should decide for themselves what a temple of atheism should be.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

I think the idea of aping religion, trying to duplicate, is pretty dumb. At least, I find it exceedingly annoying, and it gives theists yet another string to their "it's just another belief" bow.

I also wondered what you're supposed to do in there. I mean, a Cathedral is basically for praying. What do you do inside a temple to perspective? Think "wow, I'm just a random collection of atoms, the universe couldn't give a fuck, and existence is meaningless"?

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

I spose even athiests are human, ie social creatures. Commune and companiship wit like minded ppl mb.

__________________
Give unto Caesar that what is Caesar's, and lie like hell to keep as much of the rest of your shit as you can.

"If you want something said ask a man...if you want something done, ask a woman" Margaret Thatcher

So... Like a pub that tries to remind you of your own mortality? (The Dun Inn? Tak a dram afore ye go...?)

Why not just campaign for public buildings to be less ugly in general? Everyone can use a library, and there isn't this focus on... y'know... death. I think people find it off-putting.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

i quite like the idea in a whimsical sort of way. i'd have a meta temple. a temple to temples.

the world needs more beautiful buildings.

__________________
The New Topical: current affairs, current events, politics, political, culture, cultural, ethics & economics discussion debate forum.

Alain de Botton reveals plans for 'temple to atheism' in heart of London | World news | The Guardian

Quote:

Plans to build a £1m "temple for atheists" among the international banks and medieval church spires of the City of London have sparked a clash between two of Britain's most prominent non-believers. The philosopher and writer Alain de Botton is proposing to build a 46-metre (151ft) tower to celebrate a "new atheism" as an antidote to what he describes as Professor Richard Dawkins's "aggressive" and "destructive" approach to non-belief. Rather than attack religion, De Botton said he wants to borrow the idea of awe-inspiring buildings that give people a better sense of perspective on life. "Normally a temple is to Jesus, Mary or Buddha, but you can build a temple to anything that's positive and good," he said. "That could mean a temple to love, friendship, calm or perspective. Because of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens atheism has become known as a destructive force. But there are lots of people who don't believe but aren't aggressive towards religions." Dawkins criticised the project on Thursday, indicating the money was being misspent and that a temple of atheism was a contradiction in terms. "Atheists don't need temples," the author of The God Delusion said. "I think there are better things to spend this kind of money on. If you are going to spend money on atheism you could improve secular education and build non-religious schools which teach rational, sceptical critical thinking." The spat came as De Botton revealed details of a temple to evoke more than 300m years of life on earth. Each centimetre of the tapering tower's interior has been designed to represent a million years and a narrow band of gold will illustrate the relatively tiny amount of time humans have walked the planet. The exterior would be inscribed with a binary code denoting the human genome sequence. The philosopher said he has raised almost half the funds for the project from a group of property developers who want to remain anonymous. He hopes to find the rest of the money with a public appeal, and construction could start by the end of 2013 if permission is granted by the Corporation of London. De Botton said he chose the country's financial centre because he believes it is where people have most seriously lost perspective on life's priorities. The idea has echoes of earlier atheist spaces, ranging from churches converted to "temples of reason" during the French revolution to the Conway Hall in London which is run by the humanist South Place Ethical Society. The plan is already proving controversial and attempts to secure public sector backing have struggled. Discussions with City authorities about a possible site stalled because "they can't be seen to be connected to anything to do with atheism", the project's architect, Tom Greenall, said. The temple features a single door for visitors who will enter as if it were an art installation. The roof will be open to the elements and there could be fossils and geologically interesting rocks in the concrete walls. Humanists said it was misplaced for non-believers to build quasi-religious buildings, because atheists did not need temples to probe the meaning of life. "The things religious people get from religion – awe, wonder, meaning and perspective – non-religious people get them from other places like art, nature, human relationships and the narratives we give our lives in other ways," said Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Society. De Botton has insisted atheists have as much right to enjoy inspiring architecture as religious believers. "The dominant feeling you should get will be awe – the same feeling you get when you tip your head back in Ely cathedral," he said. "You should feel small but not in an intimidated way." But according to the Rev Katharine Rumens, rector of St Giles' Cripplegate church, in the Barbican, where the temple is likely to be located: "Awe is not enough." She said: "You need a welcome, a sense of belonging and of wanting to return. It might make you feel so insignificant you wouldn't know how to start. What would this say to somebody who is mentally frail or nearing the end of their life? How does that really speak to the human condition?" Another Anglican, the Rev George Pitcher, a priest at St Bride's, Fleet Street, and a former adviser to the archbishop of Canterbury, "rejoiced" in the idea. "He is referring to a sense of human transcendence, that there is something more than our visceral existence," Pitcher said. "Building a monument acknowledges that we are more than dust. Whether we come at that through secular means or a religious narrative, it is the same game. "This is a more constructive atheism than Dawkins, who is about the destruction of ideas rather than contributing new ones."

De Botton said he chose the country's financial centre because he believes it is where people have most seriously lost perspective on life's priorities.

Oh yeah? And just who the bollocks do you think you are?

Besides, who decided that humanity was a thing to celebrate?

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

I also wondered what you're supposed to do in there. I mean, a Cathedral is basically for praying. What do you do inside a temple to perspective? Think "wow, I'm just a random collection of atoms, the universe couldn't give a fuck, and existence is meaningless"?

I have the milky way for that.