I’m only 1/2 way through and have no idea how it ends. Already I’ve been skeptical and intrigued, so I think I’ll share before I can judge.
I think de Botton is being quite a bit more unctuous towards religion than he needs to be, or even should be. Many of the things he claims are lacking in secularism but which religions provide are underpinned by natural human motivations, habits and/or requirements. Religions merely exploit them in a more specific and dedicated way that seems to sit well with de Botton himself. While he may be right about suggesting that secularists should take a leaf from religions in how they exploit those aspects, he also seems to forget that atheists and secularists tend, by their nature, to be individualistic, and so may neither want nor need to practise any of these things in a concentrated, communal, ritualistic, regimented way, let alone have them fed to themselves in such ways. In short, there’s a distinct danger in de Botton’s vision where atheism could in its execution indeed become a religion.
'Luthon64
I think you are half right. Individualistic atheists/agnostics/(insert favourite term here) like me and you don’t feel the need to have pageant and routine and community. But a lot of people similar to us actually do.
I know because my father describes himself as agnostic (I discovered after nervously revealing my atheism), yet he attends church on a weekly basis. He says he “likes it, it’s relaxing and there’s a community, I get to see all my friends”. Thus he’s quite unlike me. But not completely. I enjoy classical music, a lot, I know a very good church organ player who can transport me to wonderful places playing the great composers. If I didn’t need to sit in a church packed with people to hear it on a regular basis (recordings just don’t capture it imho), I would. But obviously I’d rather stay away.
And then you have Unitarian Universalism. Obviously those among them who describe themselves as non-believers, still feel a need for the whole “church experience” even if they don’t believe.
No, I don’t understand why you would do this, however I’m not “most people”, by a long shot. And if atheism is to become mainstream, this may be unavoidable.
i still stand by my point that, atheism will become a religion when you want to have pow-wow’s and market it. instead of pushing atheism, and havign the religious have the ‘i told you so’ angle, rather push skepticism, logic and science. i know that logic and religion are like chalk and cheese, but if you want to change the world away from woo, dont fight god. it wont work.
what he says about using the modes of religion to spread the atheist cause, doesnt really work for me. yeah sure, it will reach more ears, but that is not what we are here to do. it’s not my goddamn job to knock on doors with blank pamphlets. i dont give a shit what you believe in. just dont make my life any harder than it is with your crap.
the most vital thing that came through here, is though, that religion is a business. the product they sell; afterlife, basically.
Wha-ha-ha ;D. Bril.
R.
I dont see how atheism could become a religion. It is afterall the lack of faith/religion.
Generally the world, as it allways has been regarding faith/religions, is in a state of proverbial war between past and future.
There’s a growing tendancy to out right ridicule religions. People are even less and less inclined to admit they are religios at all. Coupled with the fact that whenever anything is heard in the media concerning any religion its followed by a picture int he middle east with body parts every where. A lose comparison, but the idea sticks.
The thing is, even though freedom of religion or the lack there of is being promoted, the very source of this motivation becomes the reason it is being supressed. Thus you’ll allways find some form of fundamentalist hotheaded blow-off trying to push back whatever change he/she percieves as a threat to his faith.
Atheism could very well become “mainstreamed” as per media being made fashionable in a manner of speaking. And I am pretty sure thats what will happen eventually. Religion served its purpose ins haping the world. Think it’s time to pack up shop 
Preferably not. In the enviable situation where a populace tends toward atheism, my hope is that it should be a consequence of reason, not fashion.
Disbelief must be for the right reasons. (OMG - that sounded just like something a pastor might say! :o)
Rigil
I get what you are saying. Atheism is currently exactly the opesite of that. Being NOT part of the flock…not becoming the new flock:P
I disagree. Atheism is about the truth and I would like a world where humanity at large appreciates truth over fiction. That doesn’t imply people should believe blindly, the idea is that people understand WHY they believe what they do and apply some reason. I don’t “do” atheism to be contrary. I am one because it’s the truth, whether the majority buys it or not is a non-related matter.
Misunderstood my point
Being not part of the flock…bit of religious jesting there.
In any case its all a bit irrelevant in my eyes. Wether people have 1k faiths or none at all. Personally I believe it would end up changing exactly NOTHING wether the entire world becomes informed and rationalised regarding that specific issue…or not. The bare basic human points of human nature will exist and differences in lifestyles and convictions will take different shapes and sizes. What creates a fundamentalist will still be present in a world that has no religion or political fanatasicm. Its part of what drove us out of the caves and kill all our enemies to become the supreme species on the planet. Not likely to change any time soon.
Personally, I share your ideal though. It would be…lovely. I’ts on the list of one billion things that should be changed in this world to make it perfect… 
if truth becomes mainstream, amen to that.
but, and i have beaten this drum to smithereens, if you actively campaign for atheism, put up billboards, recruit, then you are no better than the woo.
talking amongst fellow non-believers is cool. i dont the time or inclination to go and herd. maybe im just lazy. so be it. i resent the woo trying convert me, so should i try and do the same?
science is allready doing a dandy job teaching people about the universe and so on. leave 'em too it. religion will run out of verses to qoute in time.
Agreed. Personally I wouldnt spent more time energy other than talking about it. Spirituallity or the lack there of is a personal matter afterall.
I do find it somewhat odd that they would literally go and campaign for atheism. It’s a bit pointless isn’t it?
What can possibly achieved from this in the sence of real world merrit/gain/or anything positive? If anything it would just cause greater upsets from those on the other side of the fence.
Not a religious person myself, but I’m not intolrable to religion. I don’t see how some nut campaigning in “my interrest” would actually benefit myself or my future children.
I think that atheism is the first step to thinking rational.
I lost a very awesome guy to religion.
Really loved him deeply I did. He had such a gentle hart and so loving. Yet, when he needed to be he was so strong and assertive. I really valued that in him, I loved him for it. He was also oh so very cute. But his religious family and friends which he loved dearly talked so much crap into his head. He eventually broke up with me. Well I think there was more than just that but I know it was one of the main reasons.
I think by promoting logic, science and critical thinking hopefully someone will take the logical leap to atheism.
(wtf!!) my first line contradicts the second.
This talk fails in his first sentence where he starts with a complete dichotomy fail, specifically when he groups all atheists together as a social group. Sorry their isn’t many useful things you can say about people who share a common disbelief. That is why we have differentiating terms such as sceptics, naturalist, humanists etc etc etc etc. This should have been called Humanism 2.0 if anything - which btw goes back to the ancient Greeks, so maybe Humanism v304.3b. This is not new, for example; Rabbit Shermine Wine founded Humanistic Judaism in 1969 on very similar sorts of ideas, the difference is he was smart enough not to call it Atheistic Judaism.
I also agree with Mefiante, it is interesting to see how religions tap into natural human motivations, but so what? Why not take your cue from Apple? People spend more time and money on iPads than church, I could equally give a talk called Religion 2.0?
Another thing: many people left the church, not only because they didn’t believe in the doctrine, but also because they hate the hierarchical structures, rituals, repetitions and group think. If he thinks he is going to have any luck with so called New Atheists, by telling them they should build a church, well uh, they are running screaming from the idea, or in the case of PZ Myers over at Pharyngula taking a chain saw to them: Alain de Botton is right about one thing
This is not what the New Atheism is about. It’s the antithesis of what we’re after. We’ve had a few thousand years of the godly shuffle: here’s a temple to Zeus, he’s out so we swap in Jupiter; he’s not exciting, let’s try Isis; now Mithras; Jehovah; Jesus; Mohammed; back to Catholicism; on to Protestantism; oh, you’re atheists, eh, here’s a fine altar, hardly been used, we’ll just rededicate it to your god Athe then. New gods same as the old gods, right?Wrong. It’s that the whole structure of religious thought is wrong, that we’ve been spending these few thousand years digging the same old pit, deeper and deeper, maybe putting a little more gilt on the shovel and roofing it over with ever fancier architecture, but now we’re saying maybe it’s time to climb out of the hole and do something different. I don’t want a new label, I want whole new modes of thought.
de Botton wants to pick and choose from religion and keep the good parts for atheism, which is a nice idea, but he seems to be totally lacking in sense and discrimination in what the virtues of religion are. And then, unfortunately for him, he picks a few examples of something he thinks religion got right, and one of them is education. Fuck me.
Thanks for that link. As always, PZ Myers is thought-provoking, illuminating and thorough. If nothing else, it puts me in among some illustrious company when I voiced my concern about de Botton’s vision potentially turning the day-to-day affairs of atheism into a religion… 8)
'Luthon64
I concur, just read through the article. I have recently realized how you can memorize an argument without truly understanding the mechanics of it. It takes a lot of thinking about an argument before you really start to see all the different variables that effect it and pertain to it. A really special moment is when you finally get that aha moment and real understanding hits you. Atheism takes a lot of thought.