Fascinating and very realistic. As an atheist who does like to pick and choose from different religions and cultures, I believe the world is meant to be explored and lived in its diversity. Much harm has been done by religion, but we can also take parts of it and work it to the advantage of humanity.
He talks about how religion fosters community and how atheists can use the lessons and methods used by religious leaders to foster an atheist community.
Wow, we would have a great time talking you and I. I think we'd create a great and lasting change in the right direction for man, life and the environment. In fact it would bolster my ability being able to talk with you, in a world where most people just work with their present constraints, continuing the past closed ideals, it great just knowing you exist. Thank you for your talk.
Why: Guidance Morality Consolation Community Inspiration. It's not an Atheist institution being advocated, rather expansion of secular humanism. THE problem you're indicating is fundamentalism. This talk advocates a radically open approach to virtue, perhaps an end to prejudice against spiritual-type experience and ritual. We have the means to do it more responsibly. This talk is about social entrepreneurship, not a new institution. Religions commune once a week - we can't emulate that?
Bad behavior sticks out and gives groups bad names from an outside perspective, but not all groups are bigoted. While religion has instigated detrimental movements the other side of the coin has religion originating very beneficial movements. There's a lot of variety. All groups are defined by something, so the trick is to group around the wholly positive shared values. -> Your last two sentences are group policy statements, the very thing you're speaking against in absolute terms.
Spiritualism is nice. We shouldn't reject it. Pick and mix is what drives the human race forward. I would love to see more complete scientific approaches to meditation, prayers, the ego etc
For example, women for many generations looked towards people who could protect them from others and offer a place for them to flourish so they could pass on their seed. Nowadays it's not as much about that as it is about personality, getting along, able to deal with the others faults, being loyal and not cheating as well as being somewhat intelligent and nice to them. These are also aesthetic mating traits, I mean geez...
That isn't really what is being portrayed, he is stating that we do need a replacement for religion on the grounds that we need moral guidance and he is correct. We do need moral guidance and for 10s of thousands of years we have gotten that from religion, where do get it from if religion goes away? Well his answer is that we can use portions of religious teachings to find that out and his idea is utilizing culture as a method for moral guidance.
The nice thing about atheists (as opposed to agnostics), is that they are one small step away from being believers in something requiring faith... and therefore something based in spirituality. Sure, 99% of "religions" have moved away from the most basic basis of spirituality - has nothing to do with grey bearded men in clouds, but rather letting the "guidance of breath" (spirit means breath) be your experience first, and then allow your beliefs to follow your experiences.
There are reasons why religions were extremely successful throughout history and still have a stranglehold on the human psyche. I think Mr. de Botton highlights some of them quite well, and if they work, why not adopt these religious techniques to serve the higher purpose of atheism?
It sounds as though he wants the best of what religion has to offer without any doctrine. The problem is that there is no dichotomy between the two, The best of what religion offers IS as a result of doctrine. However, I would never say that all doctrine has intrinsic value. It is obvious that they do not.
So what he's saying is: that many secularists already believe in art, education, community, and etc but not the indoctrination part. The problem is, what he's getting at changing,is the fundamental difference between the secular and the believers. I think, while some things might be scavenged from religion, you'd be hard-pressed to get people into a deep state of piety for just those cultural things without a unifying supernatural force behind it. I could be wrong.
Hello I would like to comment on this statement of yours. First of all I would like to say that I agree with most of what you just said, about diversity, but I have a tiny objection. You say "Much harm has been done by religion", by which I futher agree, but as you can tell from this video above, religion has also served as a cultural medium. So there's absolutely no reason to underline the "harm" part, without at least also underlining the good things.
Please define "reason", "logic" and "fact", the existence of all these things are socially constructed and still philosophically debated. Some people believe it is a fact that God exist, that based on pascals wager it is reasonably and logical to believe in god. You can throw these pleasant buzz words around, but they mean nothing without context because each person has different ideas of whats reasonable, factual, and logical
That's a mighty big blanket you've got there. Lack of explicit association does not guarantee a lack of prejudice, & in fact prejudice is common among atheists as well. I agree that group-think is a great pitfall, but your generalization ignores the positives that occur anywhere healthy communities are well tended. The nature of reality is a separate issue from the value of social coalitions - NOT all groups make the same mistakes - the pitfalls are to be avoided, not association altogether.
His logic is fine because he got his point across we are all individuals but we need a sense of community, That idea can work, we would have more atheist because some people are in religion just for the community, in other words we have a lot more atheist than it appears.
@rockymountainprep The problem with that is that there is no "fact". Believing something as "fact" is just as absurd as believing in something supernatural.
I think that those values within themselves are forms of "religion" in a very general sense of the word. For example economist use to blindly believe the the "rational man" that never existed, that would save the world from all its economic problems. Facts like religions are socially constructed.
Institutions fall into traps, including Humanist ones. But we're talking about "human reason, ethics, social justice and philosophical naturalism, whilst specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making". Rather than morality being capital M "Moralization", it's flexible and decentralized - a growth in the direction of health. You're stuck in semantics and haven't understood the antihumanism critique, imo.
Meant to put useless emotions, but at any rate the entire point I was making is that if these emotions were truly useless, we would not have evolved with them. You're reference to mating aesthetics show you have no idea what you're talking about. Mating aesthetics have to do with finding a desirable trait that will help us procreate and send our gene into the next generation for the means of survival.
He also does not suggest we need a replacement. As for the whole lab thing. That was a bad example, what we understand about our universe is changing rapidly. There is uncertainty in many scientific theories hence why they are named as such. I do not suggest that they are not true but since we do no have the ability to 'repeat in a lab' as you say, these are theories and you have to BELIEVE in them because by your own definition there is no, true proof that it is actual fact.
Your last sentence is patently false. Reason, logic & fact are verifiable, so they're commonly acceptable even if skeptics must continue to refine their context & discourse. Logical deduction to prove facts is a reliable system never prone to personal interpretation... that's the whole point!
He has a point, but I don't like the examples he gives. The idea of "reinforcing" what is good and what isn't is the type of brainwashing that religion has perpetrated through the centuries. As for art, the beauty in art is to find what it means to you, not having what you should feel shoved down your throat. I believe in spirituality but not religion, and what I hope will come out of atheist times is free thinking. Let's retain the community sure, but let's drop the sheep mentality.
Atheism is a form of belief. It actually has definition and its not held up by the weight of those who choose to call themselves so. Like it or not all definitions of belief or non-belief are defined by the belief in god. Atheism is defined as being 'meaningful yet false' meaning you understand the question (is there a god) and your stance is no (false)....As for what most atheists think, well its probably best that we only speak for ourselves since i am agnostic and disagree with you
I think you've inability to envisage wider social circles that the ones you know is playing havoc on your ability to see this person for what he is and not what he looks/acts/sounds like. It may be a flaccid old saying but you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. I am not saying you are wrong, you may well be right. But logic dictates that you do not have enough information on this man to make such an assesment
@rockymountainprep Reason, logic and facts only get you as far as the end of science book... What then? How do you experience the Infinite in you, of which you are made? The next "stage" is trust, belief, flow, intuition, compassion and love. All of the greatest thinkers ultimately reach this realization through self-awakening.
watch the whole RSAnimate playlist its really good, cant remember his name and tbh cant be arsed to go look for it then come back and comment. But yea RSAnimate
I understand the idé in this vid and i kind of agree to most of it. But i hate the title of "Religion for Atheists" Thats just so contradictory and stupid.
Your view renders your objections inconsequential; Heisman's, purposeless. Revel paradoxical; you fall into the trap you warn of. Nietzche ought remind of what lies beyond ultimate pessimism: acknowledged subjectivity (oh to escape a sardonic egotism). You authorize your own deft & complete dismissals, but haven't understood the message within its own context. There's plenty to criticize de Botton on, but he might have a touch of existentialism. You seem less afflicted, though profess otherwise.
Look at you, a troll looking for my comments since you can't follow them directly from my channel in an attempt to disparage my character to invalidate my point, ad hominem much?
You know nothing of this man, nothing of his social endevours has been revealed to you. He does not even suggest he is a Christian. The basis for your conclusions are founded in your own misguided view of people based according to what they look like. My point is your judgement it off, you see only what you want to see, clearly that much is evident
People need a sense of community, Churches give people that but they have the wrong values, it's irrational for you to dismiss the whole bit, that would be like saying an entire country is trash because their happens to be a trash heap. The reason rally was positive, because people who share common values came together( reason, Logic, science, and humanity) Using your logic people coming together is bad because religions do it= We should all blow apart and be the opposite in every way.
There are things that we can point to as facts. Such as the universe actually existing or hot and cold in either extreme can kill any living organism on earth or that the scientific method works. Yes, there are facts, acknowledging they exist is not absurd because they do exist... or are you one of those ridiculous solipsist that insist we live in the Matrix?
We are all free to our opinions and you have every right to you conclusion, all I asked for was a little respect. I suggested you were a militant atheist is because like most you seem assume you are always talking to some religious nut or idiot of some sort. And your tone and style advocate that. From what I can see from your comments very little is to do with the video's content and a lot to do with its title and what can be perceived from it, dare I suggest you didn't even watch it fully?
