Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion by Alain de Botton

Mar 04, 2012 Tulpesh Patel rated it did not like it

Shelves: religion, ethics-philosophy

With Religion for Atheists, De Botton’s intention appears to be to reinvigorate Auguste Comte’s project for a new ‘religion of humanity', but seems to think that if atheists steal all the best tools for indoctrination from religious tradition without calling it ‘religion’ then it’s all fine.

Chapter one is titled Wisdom without Doctrine, yet one of the most common ideas presented throughout the rest of the book is that atheists should adopt the highly prescriptive approach of religions, which dic ...more

flag 101 likes · Like · see review

Apr 22, 2013 Bjorn rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Shelves: uk

"Hi, my fellow atheists, my name is Alain and I'm a Philosopher."

"Hi, Alain. Sounds like a fun job."

"You have no idea. And when I say 'my fellow atheists', I include you lot over there who may believe in something in general but don't live actively religious lives."

"Uh, really? OK, hi."

"I wanted to talk to you about something I'm sure you, as atheists, can relate to. You know how life without religious faith is grey, stressful, depressive and focused solely on selfish personal gain? And we all a ...more

flag 79 likes · Like · see review

Apr 13, 2012 Simon Howard rated it it was ok

I really like Alain de Botton and his accessible, absorbing approach to philosophy. But I really didn't enjoy this book, I'm afraid.

The structure of each chapter the book is very formulaic:
a) Identify a positive aspect of religion
b) Muse that this is lacking in modern society
c) Propose a secular solution

The majority of his arguments collapse at stage b. For example:
a) Churches get strangers talking to one another
b) Restaurants don't
c) Set up new restaurants

The problem, of course, is that the as ...more

flag 35 likes · Like · see review

Sep 29, 2015 peiman-mir5 rezakhani rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: فلسفه, نقد-دین-و-مذهب

دوستانِ گرانقدر، آقای "الن دو باتن" در این کتاب مشکلاتی که جوامعِ مختلف درگیرِ آن هستند را بیان نموده، و پس از آنکه بیان میکند ادیان و مذاهبِ مختلف چگونه سعی در حل این مشکلات داشتند و هیچگاه موفق نشدند، راه حل های سِکولار و غیر دینی را برای حل این مشکلات ارائه میدهد... ولی به هر حال بحث در مورد همان سؤال تکراری است که: آیا اصلاً دین واقعیت دارد!!؟؟ این کتاب برایِ آنکه اعصابِ خواننده را به هم نریزد، از همان ابتدایِ کار، از این بحثِ بیفایده گذر میکند، چراکه هر انسان خردمند و آگاهی میداند که هیچ دی ‎دوستانِ گرانقدر، آقای "الن دو باتن" در این کتاب مشکلاتی که جوامعِ مختلف درگیرِ آن هستند را بیان نموده، و پس از آنکه بیان می‌کند ادیان و مذاهبِ مختلف چگونه سعی در حل این مشکلات داشتند و هیچگاه موفق نشدند، راه‌ حل ‌های سِکولار و غیر دینی را برای حل این مشکلات ارائه میدهد... ولی به هر حال بحث در مورد همان سؤال تکراری است که: آیا اصلاً دین واقعیت دارد!!؟؟ این کتاب برایِ آنکه اعصابِ خواننده را به هم نریزد، از همان ابتدایِ کار، از این بحثِ بیفایده گذر میکند، چراکه هر انسان خردمند و آگاهی میداند که هیچ دینی از جانب خدا برای انسانهای روی این کره خاکی در نظر گرفته نشده و هیچ پیامبری نیز از طرفِ آفریدگار نیامده است، و تمامی کسانی که خود را پیامبر نامیدند، دروغگویانِ کلّاشی بیش نبوده اند... مهم خِرد و اندیشۀ شما بزرگواران است و به قولِ اندیشمندِ بزرگ که یادش در جان ما همیشه زنده است، <زکریای رازی>، خرد است که پیامبر و راهنمایِ شماست.. همین و بَس
‎عزیزانم، آنان که کتاب دین را تدریس میکنند، خردشان را در گردابِ حماقتِ خود، قربانیِ جهل خویش کرده اند. این عرب پرستانِ بی وجدان، کاری با شما میکنند، که شعور انسانی شما، در فهمِ خودتان سرگردان خواهد شد؛ اینان، دروغهایِ رنگین و پُر از ننگِ خویش را، با لباسِ "الله" میپوشانند تا خزعبلات و مهملاتِ خود را، هرچه بیشتر موجّه جلوه دهند، تا شما را در فهم هر استدلالی کور کنند... و امامان و پیامبرانشان را با تمامِ کوچک بودنشان، بزرگ و مقدس جلوه میدهند تا شما نتوانید در موردِ آن کوچک ها و کوچک زاده ها، تحقیق و پژوهش بنمایید... و بدانید که خردی که با متوسّل شدن به دین بخواهد خود را سامان دهد، در فهمِ عقلانیِ امور دچار مشکل خواهد شد... دین، در پناه خِرد انسانی رشد کرده، و چرت و پرت ها و مهملاتش را سامان داده، ولی خودش عملاً قاتلِ خرد و شعورِ انسانها شده است
‎پس دوستانِ خردگرایِ من، تا میتوانید از متولّیان دین و کتاب هایِ بی ارزش و خطرناک و به اصطلاح آسمانی آنها فرار کنید... چراکه نه آن خدایانِ دروغینِ آنها و نه این کتابهایشان، هیچیک بودن و شدنِ شما را در هستی، قابل تعریف و فهم نکرده است و نخواهد کرد
----------------------------------------------
‎امیدوارم این ریویو برایِ شما خردگرایان، مفید بوده باشه
‎<پیروز باشید و ایرانی> ...more

flag 34 likes · Like · see review

Feb 28, 2018 Ceyda rated it really liked it · review of another edition

İnsana kendi benimsediği düşünceleri sorgulatan kitapları seviyorum. 'Atesitler için Din' de biraz öyle. İnsana hem inancını hem de inançsızlığını sorgulatıyor. Bununla birlikte seküler ve ya inançsız insanlar üç büyük dinin (müslümanlık-hristiyanlık-musevilik) hangi özelliklerinden faydalanabilir, hangi öğretilerini kendine ilke edinebilir ve bunları niye yapmalı bunlardan bahsediyor Alain de Botton. Bunu yaparken de ne dinleri sertçe eleştiriyor ne de inançsızlara dini çiğ bir şekilde sunuyor. ...more

flag 22 likes · Like · see review

Mar 12, 2012 Mary Johnson rated it it was amazing

"Religion for Atheists" tackles questions of the soul in a secular world. As someone for whom religion once structured my worldview (I was a Catholic nun for twenty years and have since left religion altogether), I agree with Alain de Botton's analysis that religion has much to offer unbelievers--not for its stories of the supernatural, but for its response to genuine human needs through community, art, education, and architecture over millennia.

De Botton's prose is lucid and precise. The book's ...more

flag 20 likes · Like · see review

Nov 15, 2012 Jacob rated it did not like it

This book made me think of an essay I read a while ago by a fellow named Morozov about the market for pop-nonfiction which has arisen to satisfy the demands of TED Talks. He found Hybrid Reality to be a string of absurdities, cloaked in irrelevant factoids and incorrectly applied buzzwords; his critique of their book seems to me equally applicable to Religion for Atheists. Botton writes with the meandering fatuousness of a man who doesn't have much to say about much but would like be thought a T This book made me think of an essay I read a while ago by a fellow named Morozov about the market for pop-nonfiction which has arisen to satisfy the demands of TED Talks. He found Hybrid Reality to be a string of absurdities, cloaked in irrelevant factoids and incorrectly applied buzzwords; his critique of their book seems to me equally applicable to Religion for Atheists. Botton writes with the meandering fatuousness of a man who doesn't have much to say about much but would like be thought a Thinker and rewarded with speaking engagements. His arguments are unsubstantial, and when he seems to be coming close to actually saying something, he throws out a red herring and runs off in pursuit. It was thus very amusing to me to find out that he did a TED Talk about this book almost immediately after it was released.

The most cringe-inducing example of this has got to be Chapter VII, "Perspective." He says that Job should be an important text for atheists. He recaps the plot of the Book of Job, quotes from it, and gives a cursory summation of its implications. We then jump to talking about Spinoza. He concludes this section by saying, "Our secular world is lacking in the sorts of rituals that might put us gently in our place." Which alright, fine, whatever, I don't agree but go on. He mentions Jewish rituals which might gently put us in our place in the cosmos. He says that we should look to distant galaxies for a sense of scale. Then, apparently frightened by the notion of having to explain how this would be implemented and how it might affect society, he babbles about how far galaxies are from us for three paragraphs. I don't know, maybe if you're in search of profundity it sounds pretty good? I can see the byline for his speeches now, "An effortless synthesis of Old Testament faith, secular Judaic thought, and Sagan-like secular philosophy." But if you're just a guy skimming through a book a Christian on Facebook told you to read it's not very impressive.

The parts of this that I actually found personally irritating were the bizarre assumptions of what naturalists feel about the world.
"For some atheists, one of the most difficult aspects of renouncing religion is having to give up on ecclesiastical art and all the beauty and emotion therein."
What?! Who says this? No one says this. Either source someone saying, "I do not enjoy Bach because he is a filthy deist" or call the book, "Judeo-Christian Tradition for Idiots," because I can't think of a prominent atheist thinker saying that they dislike religious art because it is religious. That said, the chapter is somewhat redeemed by his hilarious position that avant garde is bad because you have to have a grounding in art history to enjoy it, and that we'd be much better off if we just stuck with circa Renaissance realism.

Oh, speaking of Judeo-Christian, that's the other thing. There's no Islam or Hinduism here, I guess because as a secular Jew from a Christian society writing about anything else would require research, which is hard. There's some nods towards Buddhism, but I got the feeling it was an afterthought, like oh, I need to incorporate a third religion so I can claim to be comprehensive.

That is actually a good summation of the book, it is a bunch of subjects cobbled together in a sleight-of-hand attempt at appearing wise and far-reaching. I recommend reading it if you want a few inadvertent laughs and a mild headache. ...more

flag 19 likes · Like · see review

Apr 04, 2013 David rated it really liked it

Shelves: religion, philosophy

Alain de Botton suggests that if you are an atheist with an open mind, you may still see some benefits of religion. It may be possible to construct a humanist religion, as suggested by Auguste Comte--that lacks faith in a supernatural being--but supplies some very real benefits of organized religions. In particular, de Botton looks closely at Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism. He shows how these religions are ideally organized to attract members, and that atheists can learn from these structure Alain de Botton suggests that if you are an atheist with an open mind, you may still see some benefits of religion. It may be possible to construct a humanist religion, as suggested by Auguste Comte--that lacks faith in a supernatural being--but supplies some very real benefits of organized religions. In particular, de Botton looks closely at Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism. He shows how these religions are ideally organized to attract members, and that atheists can learn from these structured organizations.

What are these benefits? A most important benefit would be a sense of community. A church/synagogue/temple acts (or at least, should act) as a gathering place where people are welcomed, even strangers. A sense of belonging is nurtured, without degrading those people who choose not to belong, the "others". In contrast to fundamentalists, de Botton's approach requires a large degree of tolerance. Another benefit is to learn how to cope with pain, suffering, and strong emotions. Such coping skills are possible even without belief in a supernatural being, or in a "predestined plan".

De Botton is not interested in defending religious beliefs or atheism. He certainly does not try to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being. He assumes that atheists do not believe in such a being, so he starts from there. He develops ideas for how secular institutions might fill in the gaps in religious institutions. For example, many corporations have a culture, or an ethos. Why can't household-name corporations run--de Botton wonders--"... a therapy unit or a liberal arts college"? And what could such corporation-run schools teach? Well, de Botton mentions that it is not difficult for a university to teach as much physics in a few months as Michael Faraday ever knew. So, why shouldn't it be possible to teach wisdom, leading "... to insights related to the self-aware and moral stewardship of the soul."

De Botton presents lots of ideas such as these. These ideas sound wonderful, but are they practical? My main question about this book, is whether it is really possible for secular institutions to fill the gap of religious institutions. Perhaps they can--we won't know until such ideas are tried.

The book really hit home, as I sat in an airplane bound for Portland, with a connecting transfer at Chicago,

"It can be hard to stay hopeful about human nature after a walk down Oxford Street or a transfer at O'Hare."

...more

flag 16 likes · Like · see review

Mar 24, 2012 Kristina rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Recommends it for: no one. Alain de Botton is obnoxious.

Shelves: hated-em, my-book, non-fiction, religion-and-philosophy, wtf

Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion by Alain de Botton is one of the most horrible, annoying, anti-atheist book I have ever read…and de Botton is an atheist (or so he claims. I suspect he is a secret Christian). Throughout this book, de Botton reveals himself to be a smug upper-class Brit with nothing but disdain for people in general. I find it unbelievable that he is an atheist because the whole premise of this book is based on the most egregious misconception ...more

flag 15 likes · Like · see review

Oct 09, 2013 Clif Hostetler rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: religion

This book is written by an atheist for atheists. The author bases his comments on the premise that supernatural claims of religion are false, but that religion still has many things to teach the secular world.

The author, de Botton, in the book’s introduction recounts that he grew up in an atheistic family environment. I suspect that gives him the freedom to study the merits of religion free from a personal history of rejecting childhood religious teachings. He thus is perhaps able to objectivel This book is written by an atheist for atheists. The author bases his comments on the premise that supernatural claims of religion are false, but that religion still has many things to teach the secular world.

The author, de Botton, in the book’s introduction recounts that he grew up in an atheistic family environment. I suspect that gives him the freedom to study the merits of religion free from a personal history of rejecting childhood religious teachings. He thus is perhaps able to objectively search the field of religion for insights into how they can build a sense of community, make our relationships last, overcome envy, survive feelings of inadequacy, and reconnect with the natural world.

The following chapter titles indicate the areas of human endeavor that the book examines: 1. Wisdom without Doctrine, 2. Community, 3. Kindness, 4. Education, 5. Tenderness, 6. Pessimism, 7. Perspective, 8. Art, 9. Architecture, and 10. Institutions. This book comes across much as an extended essay that is probably not all that convincing to dedicated atheists. However, those readers who truely appreciate the merits of poetry, music, art, literature, and study of history will be the individuals most likely to comprehend the message of this book. That is because those are the people who can appreciate the ways that the liberal and fine arts along with religion can enhance the human experience even though they do not sustain corporeal life in a direct tangible way.

Interestingly, and unbelievably, this book has many photographs scattered amongst the text. I'd guess there are about a hundred different photos. I think the author is trying to stimulate the reader to ponder beyond the text. In other words, read between the lines.

Below are some quotations from the book that caught my attention:

"The most boring and unproductive question one can ask of any religion is whether or not it is true ..." (p11)

"We learn from religion not only about the charms of community. We learn also that a good community accepts just how much there is in us that doesn’t really want community ..." (p66)

“Christianity is focused on helping a part of us that secular language struggles even to name, which is not precisely intelligence or emotion, not character or personality, but another, even more abstract entity loosely connected with all of those and yet differentiated from them by an additional ethical and transcendent dimension--and to which we may as well refer, following Christian terminology, as the soul.” (p113)

“The secular are at this moment in history a great deal more optimistic than the religious, a something of an irony given the frequency with which the later have been derided by the former for their apparent naivety and credulousness. It is the secular who’s longing for perfection has grown so intense as to lead them to imagine that paradise might be realized on this earth after just a few more years of financial growth and medical research with no evident awareness of the contradiction they may in the same breath gruffly dismiss a belief in angels while sincerely trusting that the combined powers of the IMF, the medical research establishment, silicone valley, and democratic politics could together cure the ills of mankind.” (p183)

“A pessimistic world view does not have to entail a life stripped of joy. Pessimists can have far greater capacity for appreciation than their opposite numbers for they never expect things to turn out well and so may be amazed by their modest successes which occasionally break across their darkened horizons. Modern secular optimists on the other hand with their well developed sense of entitlement generally fail to savor any epiphanies of everyday life as they busy themselves with the construction of earthly paradise.” (p188)

“It is telling that the secular world is not well versed in the art of gratitude." (p188)

"For atheists one of the most consoling texts of the Old Testament should be the book of Job which concerns itself with the theme of why bad things happen to good people. A question to which entreatingly it refuses to offer up simple faith based answers. Instead it suggests that it is not for us to know why events occur in the way they do. That we should not always interpret pain as punishment, and that we should recall that we live in a universe riddled with mysteries of which the vagaries and our fortunes are certainly not the largest or even ... among the most important.” (p196)

"Our secular world is lacking in the sorts of rituals that might put us gently in our place." (p200)

The following is the author's own description of the purpose of this book:

"It has been the purpose of this book to identify some of the lessons we might retrieve from religions: how to generate feelings of community, how to promote kindness, how to cancel out the current bias towards commercial values in advertising, how to select and make use of secular saints, how to rethink the strategies of universities and our approach to cultural education, how to redesign hotels and spas, how better to acknowledge our own childlike needs, how to surrender some of our counterproductive optimism, how to achieve perspective through the sublime and the transcendent, how to reorganize museums, how to use architecture to enshrine values -- and, finally, how to coalesce the scattered efforts of individuals interested in the care of souls and organize them under the aegis of institutions.(p311)

The following link is to an interview with the author, Alain de Botton, from the public radio program "On Being" with Krista Tippett:
http://www.onbeing.org/program/alain-...

The following quotations are not from this book. Nevertheless I include them here because they speak to the same subject.

“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. ” (Voltaire)

“I think religion is so much more than belief in God. It is about community, it’s about being moved by certain historical narratives, it’s about self identity within the group, it’s a place to bring your existential dilemmas. Although I reject a belief in God I accept the many impulses that bring people to a religious community.” (Rebecca Goldstein, author of the book, 36 Reasons for the Existence of God: a Work of Fiction , spoken on the “Here and Now” radio program on 4/22/10)

An interesting link:
Why Losing God Hits Some of Us Harder
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessi... ...more

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

Mar 17, 2012 Greg rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: religion

Happy Easter and all of that. I've been writing, I want to say working but that would be disingenuous (this is more like logographic vomiting than a worked on review), review for weeks now. I'm going to try to cut it up (I mean edit, it) and maybe add something new and call it a review. This will possibly be the last time I make mention to the fact that I'm writing this now, as opposed to a few weeks ago when most of this was written. Any mentions to Easter that might pop up were probably writte ...more

flag 13 likes · Like · see review

Jan 09, 2013 Sarah Clement rated it really liked it

This is a beautifully written book, with some wonderful sentiments. This is not a book for people who struggle to see the positive aspects of religion and focus instead on its negative influences. I understand that view, but it certainly gets tiring, and reading this book was a refreshing change. This is also not a book for the extremely pious, who would balk at the suggestion that humanity can pick and choose amongst the teachings of religion, and translate them to a secular society. However, i This is a beautifully written book, with some wonderful sentiments. This is not a book for people who struggle to see the positive aspects of religion and focus instead on its negative influences. I understand that view, but it certainly gets tiring, and reading this book was a refreshing change. This is also not a book for the extremely pious, who would balk at the suggestion that humanity can pick and choose amongst the teachings of religion, and translate them to a secular society. However, if you believe that religions are created by humans and not by divine creators, then the idea that there are wonderful things that can be learned about what it means to be human, what it means to be good, and what humans need to live as individuals and as societies, then the ideas expressed by de Botton will seem quite natural to you. The book begins by suggesting we can gain wisdom without doctrine, then proceeds to outline wisdom from religion in the areas of community, kindness, education, tenderness, pessimism, perspective, art, architecture, and institutions. Perhaps my favourite part of this book is that every section ends with ideas about how secular society can apply the wisdom of religions. Some of his suggestions are quite 'pie in the sky', but some are quite brilliant and feasible (the temple to perspective was one of my favourites). This book is for people who are moved by beautiful prose and ideas, and it would strike many atheists as overly sentimental. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to my friends with more liberal religious views, and I even think it could provide a brilliant antidote to the disillusionment many of them feel with the way religion has been perverted in modern society. On that note, de Botton certainly picks up on the ideals of religion, which are often far from the current reality. There are many teachings in this book that I would have never known about from being immersed in religious society in America, which is telling. His rosy view is perhaps a difficult pill to swallow the moment you turn on the news and see what we do to one another, but he certainly provides a very clear idea of what we aspire to be, even if we do not achieve it.

Perhaps my favourite part of the book was the brief chapter on perspective, as I think it is something we sorely need. The final chapter on institutions was frustrating for me. I know that I am doing my PhD on institutions, and thus I should have cut him some slack, but he seems very confused about what an institution is. Institutions develop with a mind of their own, and they have much greater variation than he seems to understand. The idea that we need a worldwide institution or that religions are the only institutions that imbue our lives with ethics in the modern era is just nonsense. Institutions are so tacit that we don't even realise they are there, and capitalism is not by any measure the only institution that touches our daily lives, as he seems to suggest. I think it would be quite sad if we tried to create global, homogenous institutions that mimic the routines and comfort provided by religions, and I think it would be foolish to try. Otherwise, I thought this was a fantastic book, and something I will likely return to again because, as de Botton emphasises, we humans are very forgetful creatures. ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Feb 03, 2017 T.D. Whittle rated it really liked it

Shelves: reviews

There are many things to like about Botton's book, for both religious and irreligious readers. He has a beautiful way of noticing and explaining the value of religion, and why it is a great loss to humanity to toss out the wisdom and traditions of the Church, along with beliefs in the Divine. His argument is that one need not embrace the supernatural in order to benefit from what religion has offered human beings over many centuries: a life of unified purpose, a sense of community, a focus on ot ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Oct 19, 2017 Ettore1207 rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Un libro nel quale i non credenti troveranno molte idee intelligenti e non banali. L'obiettivo è quello di recuperare concetti sacrificati dai "laici" (penso, ad esempio, a Odifreddi) sull'altare della Scienza e della Ragione e che sono alla base di molte religioni.

Infatti
L'errore dell'ateismo moderno è quello di ignorare gli aspetti delle religioni che rimangono apprezzabili anche dopo che i loro dogmi vengono confutati. Quando non ci sentiremo più in obbligo di prostrarci dinanzi alla fede o Un libro nel quale i non credenti troveranno molte idee intelligenti e non banali. L'obiettivo è quello di recuperare concetti sacrificati dai "laici" (penso, ad esempio, a Odifreddi) sull'altare della Scienza e della Ragione e che sono alla base di molte religioni.

Infatti
L'errore dell'ateismo moderno è quello di ignorare gli aspetti delle religioni che rimangono apprezzabili anche dopo che i loro dogmi vengono confutati. Quando non ci sentiremo più in obbligo di prostrarci dinanzi alla fede o di denigrarla, saremo liberi di scoprire che le religioni sono fonte di una miriade di idee ingegnose, con cui possiamo cercare di lenire alcuni dei malesseri più persistenti e trascurati della vita laica.

Lo scopo è nobilissimo:
Questo libro non vuole rendere giustizia a singole religioni, che comunque hanno i loro apologeti; piuttosto, cerca di esaminare alcuni aspetti della vita religiosa che potrebbero essere fruttuosamente applicati ai problemi della società laica. Inoltre, tenta di eliminare gli aspetti più dogmatici della fede per distillare qualche raro concetto che potrebbe dimostrarsi di gran conforto per le scettiche menti contemporanee, costrette ad affrontare le crisi e i dolori di un'esistenza mortale in un pianeta al collasso. La sua speranza è quella di salvare tutto ciò che è bello, saggio e commovente, disfacendosi al contempo di ciò che non sembra più valido.

C'è anche qualche argomento di meditazione specifico per noi bibliofili:
Il nostro peculiare approccio alla cultura tocca anche ambiti limitrofi a quello dell'istruzione. Teorie altrettanto ambigue dilagano, per esempio, nel mondo dell'editoria e della vendita dei libri.
Anche qui ci troviamo davanti a una quantità di materiale infinitamente superiore a quella che potremo mai assimilare, e fatichiamo a tenerci stretto ciò che per noi conta di più. Un universitario moderatamente studioso iscritto a una facoltà umanistica all'inizio del ventesimo secolo poteva leggere circa ottocento libri prima del giorno della laurea; una ricca famiglia inglese, nel 1250, si considerava già fortunata se ne possedeva tre. Questa modesta biblioteca era di norma costituita da una Bibbia, da una raccolta di preghiere e da un compendio di vite dei santi, che tutti insieme arrivavano a costare quanto una casa. Se ci lamentiamo di vivere in un'epoca satura di libri, è perché sentiamo che non è leggendo di più, bensì approfondendo e rinfrescando la conoscenza di pochi volumi, che potremo sviluppare al meglio la nostra intelligenza e la nostra sensibilità. Ci sentiamo in colpa per tutto ciò che non abbiamo ancora letto, ma non ci rendiamo conto di essere già molto più istruiti di sant'Agostino o di Dante, e ignoriamo che i nostri problemi stanno proprio nel modo in cui assimiliamo le nozioni, e non nella vastità delle nostre letture.
. ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Jan 19, 2016 Ana rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: a-little-historical, non-fiction, of-life-and-death, of-self, philosophy, touches-art, treats-religion, somehow-societal

First of all – and this might seem like a foolish complaint, but it bothers me so, so much – I have to address the title. “Religion for Atheists”? ”Religion for Atheists”?? Really?! Self-help gone sophisticated! When is “Biology for Priests” coming out? No, I know, the title is not supposed to change your taste for the book, and it didn’t, I’m not saying that it deterred me in any way (it was absolutely neutral in this case, I picked the book up because of the author), but it just feels like it’ First of all – and this might seem like a foolish complaint, but it bothers me so, so much – I have to address the title. “Religion for Atheists”? ”Religion for Atheists”?? Really?! Self-help gone sophisticated! When is “Biology for Priests” coming out? No, I know, the title is not supposed to change your taste for the book, and it didn’t, I’m not saying that it deterred me in any way (it was absolutely neutral in this case, I picked the book up because of the author), but it just feels like it’s burning my tongue when I say it! And I know it might have been meant as a pun, or even a mildly smart play on words, but for me it didn’t achieve the intended purpose, it just annoyed me in its imitating and simplistic quality.

Before: the irony is definitely not lost on me. I started reading this book at the same time I started with Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”, and straight in from the first pages I got to laughing because they are at such opposite ends. Whereas a couple of lines in, Dawkins tells you about his dislike of the “I’m an atheist, BUT….” people, Alain de Botton is exactly that atheist, the second-hand believer who argues for not just the existence of religion, but how you can take the beauty out of it, how you can accept the negatives and forward the positives.

Now, I started this book with a sense of openness – whatever comes my way, let it come and let me think about it before saying yay or nay. However, some things are almost impossible to digest. Take, for instance, page 66’s dumbfounding proposition: that the secular society should have a Feast of Fools. If you don’t know what that is, let me paint a picture: originally a Northern France thing (you fools), it just meant debauchery on all levels for priests. The logic is not weird: you spend an entire year striving to be faithful to the letter, so you deserve four days at the beginning of the next one in which you are allowed any kind of behavior, such as peeing from the bell towers or making donkey noises instead of “Amens” and – probably the most important thing for a sex-starved, penis-shriveled cloaked man – have carnal relationships with whomever and whatever you can. It’s like a diet with a cheat day – except it’s four days, and instead of cheating with a meal, you binge on 2kg jars of Nutella and eat your whole body weight in M&Ms. Apply this to today’s world, and Botton actually writes: “We should be allowed to talk gibberish, fasten woolen penises to our coats and set out into the night to party and copulate randomly and joyfully with strangers, and then return the next morning to our partners, who will themselves have been off doing something similar, both sides knowing that it was nothing personal, that it was the Feast of Fools that made them do it.”

I object. Is it just me who can’t digest the above-mentioned scenario? I mean, talking gibberish is fine – I’m on board of your boat with that, captain. Fastening woolen penises to my coat and setting out in the night – my foot is out of the boat, but I’m still trying to see if we’re sailing in an acceptable direction. However, when you propose that me and my man set about our different ways and fuck our brains out with strangers, and then come back to each other as if we hadn’t just been on a sex-spree as if we were shopping… I’m sorry, captain Botton, but I’ll rather swim on my own and find the fucking land. I can’t – and I won’t – take this as a good idea. Who gave you the right to give such frightening liberties to idiots? Because this is what people are, what we, collectively, as animals bestowed with ticking time-bombs in the form of brains - idiots. Give one enough freedom, and coupled with his intrinsic desire for power, you end up with a Feast of Fools that’s going to fill up the prisons for months to come. Who gives ourselves the right to suspend moral values for a night (or more) and do as our heart pleases? I don’t think we should be given that right. There’s freedom in being a decent human being, and being one doesn’t imply that if I don’t get a night where I can let my inner demons loose, I will implode.

I guess there's another dimension to this proposition that really bothers me, and that's the implication that generally, on a worldly scale, normal people live in the same environment as priests do in their churches. I, for one, don't agree with that. No, a generic human being will not be in the situation where their entire life is lived in the spirit of total dedication to a dictator. A generic human being will indeed perform thousands of rituals that will pass the day, but not with the purpose of making a king happy. Matter of fact, the generic human being does not have imposed on themselves such ghastly rules as never engaging in sex and praying a million times a day, repenting for their every wild thought. The example, therefore, doesn't apply the same way, because we, as everyday people do, indulge in some of our "naughty" wishes: we have sex, we go drinking, we watch pornography, we write our own opinions.

I guess I could go on and talk about Botton's ideas on reforming the secular society, but I see no point in bringing up the situations with which I don't agree. However, unexpectedly so, I found myself agreeing with one of his ideas. He proposes that museums, in order to really take the place of churches, be organized as such that they take the human being through a process of understanding their own feelings and thoughts, rather than presenting art based on periods or artists or aesthetic currents. I do like the order of today's museums: I agree with a time-line, I agree with a style to follow, because it makes things easier to digest, when you are put in front of so much creation. That, though, didn't stop me from finding Botton's idea interesting. What if, as he proposes, we would have museums where we could go through the Gallery of Fear, Gallery of Compassion or Gallery of Suffering? What if we were presented with art that could make us feel, understand and cope with our own inner arguments? I think such a concept is not impossible to create - and I think I, personally, would very much enjoy the opportunity to walk through one as such.

Why three stars? I can't rate a book solely on its ideas, even if they have the most bearing. The writing has something to say to, and I do appreciate the author's flow of words. In the end, I didn't pick up the book in order to agree or disagree with the ideas, but to see what the ideas themselves are, and how they are presented.

...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Feb 24, 2018 Hanieh Habibi rated it liked it · review of another edition

It was not that much fascinating for me cause I already knew lots of things he mentioned. And also, if atheists follow all details in the religion, of course with other reasons, what is the difference between them and theists? I mean maybe the attitude of not caring about these issues makes them what they are!

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Oct 08, 2012 Tyler rated it really liked it

Shelves: philosophy, religion

The “purpose of this book,” writes Alain de Botton, “is to identify some of the lessons we might retrieve from religions.”

De Botton in this short and eloquent book attempts to underscore, for the secular world, what he sees as the value of religion for all of society. He does so in a writing style that befits a bemused and observant Montaigne in his tower. De Botton is ever the practical philosopher, extracting lessons where others see perhaps only a pedestrian or cement edifice.

The greatest p ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Feb 09, 2012 Adam Higgitt rated it liked it

Many people say they believe in some sort of higher being or essence but reject organised religion. Alain de Botton flips this on its head, arguing that religious rituals are important in helping us to be live better lives but insisting that God is a fiction.

de Botton's basic idea is one I personally find attractive. The triumph of secularism certainly appears to have shorn us of a variety of ways to reflect on our places in the universe and connect more meaningfully with others. His example of Many people say they believe in some sort of higher being or essence but reject organised religion. Alain de Botton flips this on its head, arguing that religious rituals are important in helping us to be live better lives but insisting that God is a fiction.

de Botton's basic idea is one I personally find attractive. The triumph of secularism certainly appears to have shorn us of a variety of ways to reflect on our places in the universe and connect more meaningfully with others. His example of marriage is a good one: when a couple wed their friends and family are there, investing in their relationship. Once the ceremony is done, the couple are left to their own devices, with little of what social workers would call "support networks", much less other formal occasions during which to reflect and nourish the bonds. As he notes repeatedly, secular liberalism is good at telling us what we free to do, but falls short in offering guidance about what we ought to do.

But there are problems. Liberalism has shied away from this didacticism in part because the prescriptions of the church, among others, proved to be wrong in many cases, preventing us from doing what we should (such as show equal respect for gay people) and encouraging us to do things we shouldn't (like persecute non-believers). AdB does not adequately square how such traps are to be avoided if and when we return to such direct moral instruction as he suggests. At times, he also appears to offer conclusions on the secular life with little or no basis in evidence. He suggests, for example, that people forget the lessons of great works of secular art, while the date-bound ritual of the religious equivalent is sooner remembered because one is required to revisit it. He may be right, but where is the evidence? Where are the studies that show that people's memory of important movies, books or paintings fade more quickly than awareness of scripture?

The argument is also weakened by some of the ideas de Botton produces for how to reintroduce ritual and reflections into our lives. He rightly points out that a stripped out analysis of something like the Catholic Mass would look strange if it were not already layered with meaning, and to that extent his notion of an Agape restaurant in which many of the communal objectives of church services could be met is not as daft as some reviewers have suggested. But doing away with the study of history at university? That seems like both a wild and excessive step, simply because of his contention that the discipline merely teaches bald facts and shies away from attempting to connect the past with deeper meanings.

And ultimately, this is where his manifesto for secular religion falls down. For while the idea that we need ritual back in our lives to flourish as people is bold, it is ultimately too small an idea to change society in the ways he demands. de Botton's case is sound, but he needs to make it better, and be less demanding about what needs to change as a result. ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Aug 03, 2012 Lauren Albert rated it it was amazing

Shelves: philosophy, religion

I will always think of this as "Religion for Atheists and Believers: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion and a Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion in This Life (Rather than After). It is a lovely book--I am not an atheist but I have read and enjoyed many of de Botton's books. Even many believers have come to distrust those who claim to tell us what matters about religion and how to experience it. I figure that the things even an atheist can see as valuable in religion, might just ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Jan 09, 2014 Greg Linster rated it it was amazing

I think it is fair to say that humans cannot escape religiosity. Whatever the evolutionary reason, religion -- in the broadest sense of the term imaginable -- has arguably helped us humans flourish as a social animal.

The central premise of this book is that the religions that have managed to stick around (e.g., Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) clearly offer some survival benefits, even if the benefit is merely emotional and consolatory. We non-believers can actually learn quite a bit from these ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Mar 12, 2016 Jeffrey Howard rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: religion-general

Alain de Botton will make uncomfortable the most pious religionists and unyielding atheists in his endeavor to bring them into harmony with each other--they need one another. Just as religion needs to be redeemed from the religious, humanism must be salvaged from bombastic atheists like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens.

He admits that this book is not the "first attempt to reconcile an antipathy towards the supernatural side of religion with an admiration for certain of its ideas and practices; nor Alain de Botton will make uncomfortable the most pious religionists and unyielding atheists in his endeavor to bring them into harmony with each other--they need one another. Just as religion needs to be redeemed from the religious, humanism must be salvaged from bombastic atheists like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens.

He admits that this book is not the "first attempt to reconcile an antipathy towards the supernatural side of religion with an admiration for certain of its ideas and practices; nor is it the first to be interested in a practical rather than a merely theoretical effect." He builds upon the tradition of Auguste Comte, who recognized as many of his contemporaries then and atheists today do not, that "a secular society devoted solely to the accumulation of wealth, scientific discovery, popular entertainment and romantic love - a society lacking in any sources of ethical instruction, consolation, transcendent awe or solidarity - would fall prey to untenable social maladies."

He echoes William James' focus on fruits not roots, in pointing us toward the pragmatic nature of truth. He discourages us from getting hung up on abstractions or the tenuous claims about the supernatural. Alain de Botton finds kinship with the thought of Joseph Campbell who likewise invited us not throw the baby out with the baptismal water when it comes to the demonstrably false historical claims or unfalsifiable (or unprovable) notions of the supernatural. Alain de Botton cautions us that "religions are intermittently too useful, effective and intelligent to be abandoned to the religious alone."

He writes beautifully, authoritatively, and accessibly. He could be considered a secular humanist, but labeling him as such would write off his ideas as common or dole. He gently provokes, empathizes, and inspires in the same sentence. "In a world beset by fundamentalists of both believing and secular varieties, it must be possible to balance a rejection of religious faith with a selective reverence for religious rituals and concepts...we invented religions to serve two central needs which continue to this day and which secular society has not been able to solve with any particular skill: first, the need to live together in communities in harmony, despite our deeply rooted selfish and violent impulses. And second, the need to cope with terrifying degrees of pain which arise from our vulnerability to professional failure, to troubled relationships, to the death of loved ones and to our decay and demise."

In Religion for Atheists he "hopes to rescue some of what is beautiful, touching and wise from all that no longer seems true." Again, his thought runs in parallel with Joseph Campbell who preached that the historical or literal claims of religion are secondary, if not irrelevant, that the power of religious stories rest in their mythological power, their ability to help us live well, to find wisdom as we move forward on our inward journeys. He divides the book into 10 chapters ranging from topics of community, kindness, and education, to pessimism (perhaps his most provocative chapter), art, and architecture. Within each he references the wisdom religions have gifted humanity regarding each of these realms, how secular society has failed to replicate it as successfully as religion, and then offers his vision of their secular form.

For community he proposes agape restaurants. To kindle kindness he elaborates upon libertarianism's place in society, although he somehow misunderstands its inextricable and fortunate connection to capitalism. He skewers the current state of higher education: "Graduation speeches stereotypically identify liberal education with the acquisition of wisdom and self-knowledge, but these goals have little bearing on the day to day methods of departmental instruction and examination. To judge by what they do rather than what they airily declaim, universities are in the business of turning out a majority of tightly focuses professionals and a minority of culturally well-informed but ethically confuses arts graduates aptly panicked about how they might remuneratively occupy the rest of their lives...We have implicitly charged our higher-education system with a dual and possibly contradictory mission: to teach us how to make a living and to teach us how to live. And we have left the second of these two aims recklessly vague and unattended." And so on he goes through each aspect of society.

We must educate the soul.

He argues that culture can replace scripture, but our institutions and application of culture have a long way to go before they can see the success canon has had on the inner lives of believers.

His chapters on community and education stand out most in my mind. Hearing an atheist comfortably use the term soul, to talk about the higher ideals of humanity, to have an intellectual interest in the real life application of lived ideas is rare. Those ideas which do not contribute to our living well are irrelevant at best: "science should matter to us not only because it helps us to control parts of the world, but also because it shows us things that we will never master."

His international project, The School of Life, is a real life extension of what he outlines in this book, his undertaking to replace traditional religion with a religion of humanity, where culture informs us how to live well, where we create rituals that can inspire us.

Some atheists leave behind the faith of their upbringing, embittered, or disinterested in religion. For those who have experienced a faith transition, longing for the richness of religious life without the supernatural or theistic underpinnings they can no longer believe, this book offers an encouraging road map for recapturing it. Alain de Botton will put off religionists and atheists alike, but in the language of kindness, he leaves us a vision for how we can regain paradise lost, by celebrating and, in parts, by embracing the wisdom that religions have gathered and preserved for thousands of years. ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Dec 20, 2017 Ana rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: 21st-century, non-fiction, philosophy, swiss-literature, british-literature, european-literature

If you're new to atheism, try this reading this book at a later date. If the only atheists you've read are Dawkins or Hitchens, you'll find a more relaxed approach here. The author can appreciate why people feel the need for religion and explains how the secular world can learn something from it.

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Jun 18, 2012 Greta rated it really liked it

Shelves: spirituality

This book was a real eye-opener for me. While I wouldn't describe myself as particularly religious and I wouldn't call myself an atheist either, I found the ideas and suggestions Alain de Botton puts forward in this book to be incredibly thought-provoking. He describes with eloquence and humor the ways religions have, in the past, provided guidance and support for mankind and how we, in the 21st Century, are lacking much of this. There is a void that has opened up that needs to be filled where t ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Feb 23, 2015 Megat Hanis rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

This book attempts to demystify what secular realm used to argue by discrediting religion in all of its doctrines and practices despite their practical purposes. What i found intriguing by Alain's arguments is that, it opens up sheer narrowness of modern typical atheist for participating in useless ontological debates about God/Gods without paying much attention in it's functional value. By offering this useful functional framework of religions, vastnesss of religious ethical consideration and c ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Jun 21, 2016 Arzu rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: inceleme

botton, dine saldırmak yerine entelektüel beyin jimnastiği yapmayı deniyor.. bu beyin jimnastiği hristiyanlık, yahudilik ve budizm ile sınırlı kalıyor, konular dinlerin birleştirici ve olumlu ritüelleri çevresinde ele alınıyor. islamiyeti de bu dinlerin arasında irdelese vurgulayacağı olumlu ritüeller neler olurdu diye merak ettiriyor..
sekülerlere kıyasla inananların daha hoşgörülü olduğunu ve inananların sekülerlere daha sempatiyle baktığını iddia ediyor ama bu iddiası din-mezhep savaşları, ha ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Feb 22, 2012 Wim rated it really liked it

I read a copy in Dutch. Disturbing new insights for people working in the academic world of art, literature, history, heritage and museums.

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Oct 28, 2012 Martin Pribble rated it it was ok

After all the negative press I’d heard about the latest book by Alain de Botton, I was less than eager to read it. Sure it was about atheism and religion, so in theory it should be right up my alley, but the reviews I’d heard from people, combined with de Botton’s TED talk, “Atheism 2.0″, and the apparent reports that he intended to build a “Temple to atheism”, had me wondering if this book was worth reading at all. I have read work of his in the past; “The Art Of Travel” and “The Architecture o After all the negative press I’d heard about the latest book by Alain de Botton, I was less than eager to read it. Sure it was about atheism and religion, so in theory it should be right up my alley, but the reviews I’d heard from people, combined with de Botton’s TED talk, “Atheism 2.0″, and the apparent reports that he intended to build a “Temple to atheism”, had me wondering if this book was worth reading at all. I have read work of his in the past; “The Art Of Travel” and “The Architecture of Happiness”, and his writing always left me with a feeling of melancholy and yearning that I found discomforting. Sometimes he even bordered into the downright negative and overly analytical. Not exactly my idea of a feel-good story to say the least. But, like jumping on a hand grenade to save the minds of my fellow atheists, I decided it was my job, nay my duty, to at least listen to the audiobook of his latest published work “Religion for Atheists”. This is what I took away from it.

The book itself is a lamentation for the things that, in de Botton’s view, make religious ceremonies, trappings, architecture and art superior to the lives we lead today. According to de Botton, secular life has a huge hole in it, one occupied by our “soul” that needs to be fed and nurtured. Secular life does not, and cannot, in its current state, offer the “soul food” that religion offers; so maybe we should be taking parts of religion, the parts that de Botton identifies as irreplaceable in secularism, and use them for the greater good of humanity.

In and of itself this sounds like a good idea. I mean, who cares where the good ideas in humanity come from. If they work, we should use them, right? But for de Botton, many of the things he identifies as lacking in secular life are actually the things that we hold dear about secular life.

For example, his identification of art museums as museums to the past, where in his mind the art should be organised by “feeling” or “emotion” so that we walk away with a sense of understanding of life greater than what we can glean from history, while an interesting idea, is more of a pipe-dream than one of any constructive merit; if one knows just a little about art and history, a person can learn with much greater clarity the histories of other humans. And besides, we already have this. One look around the Rothko Chapelfollow in Houston Texas, and we see precisely what he is talking about; large canvases of dark colour with no figurative depictions in them, and seats in the middle where silent contemplation can take place. While this “Chapel” is more of an experiment in space, and is designed to be whatever the viewer wants it to be, it is a secular space, for it imposes no religion on the viewer; it simply is. It is devoid of messaging, and is somewhat of a “blank canvas” for people to enjoy in their own ways. Which is great for a church, but not so great when looking at art; one could call Rothko’s work in this instance boring, too plain or pointless in the context of art on a greater scale. We could put art in spaces of private worship, and we could order it according to emotions and feelings, but then we miss the broader picture; we miss the vast and deep history of art in mankind, while of course the intention of art museums is to teach us just that.

For me at least, with a history in the fine arts, art museums are places of learning and reflection, where we can wonder at not only at the skills involved in producing the works themselves, but also the emotions conveyed, the histories of the times and the lives of the artists involved. Art, like history, is a depiction of the social temperature of the time it is produced, and only a little digging (perhaps reading the plaque next to the work) will give the art greater context than simply a painting on a wall or a bronze sculpture in a room.

He also claims that art museums now, as opposed to the religious art of the past, has no message to convey; people can’t take away any life lessons, or glean any answers to difficult questions from the secular art establishments we have today. Well, maybe he’s right; modern art is about the self, and post-post-modernity seems to be reinforcing that fact. But is it possible that maybe he’s looking in the wrong place for answers about how to deal with cancer, or death of a loved one, or financial ruin? If, as he claims, art’s role is to instruct us with life lessons, and that life throughout the ages delivered the same kinds of problems now as it did in the 15th century, isn’t it possible that there is something to be gained from looking at the art from the 15th century which addresses these problems? And maybe that is his point, we don’t do that anymore. But do we need to?

His book goes through similar dismantlement of architecture, literature, and education, claiming that what they have to offer today gives nothing for the viewer, reader or learner to take away to lead a better life. He claims today’s landscape is one where people come second to corporations (which is true to a point), that what we learn from literature is forgotten too quickly and not reinforced in us on calendar dates, and that education only gives us the facts and not suggestions on how to lead a better life. Again, he may have a point here, but I think he misses the obvious fact; we are much more complicated in our modern lives than were our dark-ages counterparts, and the structures of our societies point us in a different direction. The learning about life must be taught early in life, taught alongside the basic learnings of the alphabet, the numbers, the colours. It must not be prescribed to us, but should be taught as a way to make decisions which will have the best outcome for all involved, without causing undue harm.

The biggest thing that irks me about the “philosophical” writings of de Botton is his perspective. He has managed to correctly identify the idea of feeling small in the universe as a way to humble us and make our lives seem more miraculous than religion can suggest. However, as an extremely rich man, one who was born into money and has traveled extensively, he seems to be extremely blinkered to the fact that the real problems in the world are not crises faced by the individual, but the larger scale crises of climate change, rising sea-levels, poverty, disease and civil wars. It is true that people are the cogs in the machine that make up societies, but we are kiddin ourselves if we think reshuffling an art museum, or having an international day of reading James Joyce is going to make lives richer for anyone but the upper and middle-class peoples of the world. The fact is that nearly a billion people on earth have less than the minimum required level of literacy.

It is true that religions have held the steering wheel morality and ethics, and offered suggestions on how to deal with hardships we all inevitably face. de Botton says that this role in society has not been replaced by anything, and that we walk our lives without any guidance or insights from the wisdoms of the past. My problem here is one that troubles me in many walks of life, where people cite tradition and habit as a way to justify the way we do things now. It is actually the converse situation to the idea that de Botton says he is suggesting, taking the good things from religion and using them in a secular space. In fact it seems that de Botton has a yearning for the rites and practices of religion that he can’t seem to identify in today’s society, and is suggesting that we take these “successful” past practices and inject these into our modern lives. I say we need concentrate on getting all of humanity back on track, and no amount of navel gazing and self contemplation can bring this about.

I really think de Botton wrote this book as a way to try to bring all of his previous ponderings into line with his inability to believe in, not only god, but humanity itself. It seems to me that he is upset at the world, and wishes he could believe in god in order to make his life better. He walks in the middle of the road, applauding religion and religionists for their piety and belief, and yet tells us that in essence they are all deluded to believe in god. His audience then grows, from just the 16% of the world’s population who are non-believers, to everyone who likes to dabble in pseudo-philosophical banter. While it is filled with anecdotes and examples, and there is no denying that he is a knowledgeable and intelligent man, what he comes up with at the end is not in fact about “Religion for Atheists”, but a spewing out of the justifications for the religious standpoint, and actually a glorification of the role religion plays in day-to-day life. Rather than focusing on religion as a starting-point and working our way from there, I think he would have been better to look at all the positive things humanity has produced historically, religious or not, and made a thesis of how we could bring those together to better ourselves and the world. But then his audience is diminished, and he wouldn’t sell as many books.

The biggest flaw in de Botton’s thesis is actually the first thing he writes in the book, the title. “Religion for Atheists” is not, as it claims, “A non-believer’s guide to the uses of religion”, but actually a sad lamentation on de Botton’s own frailties and insecurities about the richness of his own life, and the fact that he doesn’t believe in God, but wishes he could. While it’s not a terrible read, and one that at least got my mind going, even if it was only to counter his standpoints, it was not by any means groundbreaking. I would recommend you read this only if you want to know what’s in the book, not if you are expecting to find some suggestions for how to better your own life. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Feb 28, 2013 Shay rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Despite the title, Religion for Atheists is in no way an attempt to convert non-believers. Stated bluntly, and up front, de Botton writes that “of course no religions are true in any God-given sense.” As such, there are no arguments about the truth of religion; de Botton begins with a basic assumption of atheism, and from there proceeds to examine religious traditions and rituals with an eye to incorporating them into secular culture, in order to enhance community, compassion, education, art and Despite the title, Religion for Atheists is in no way an attempt to convert non-believers. Stated bluntly, and up front, de Botton writes that “of course no religions are true in any God-given sense.” As such, there are no arguments about the truth of religion; de Botton begins with a basic assumption of atheism, and from there proceeds to examine religious traditions and rituals with an eye to incorporating them into secular culture, in order to enhance community, compassion, education, art and architecture, among others. De Botton draws examples from Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism, and imagines secular institutions and rituals which would imitate the emotional resonance of religion without the supernatural beliefs.

Although atheists often critique theists for cherry-picking their beliefs—shellfish are fine now that we have refrigeration, but homosexual acts are definitely still sinful—removing the assumption of divine revelation does leave atheists free to borrow selectively from religion if they so desire. The problem here is to get atheists to agree about the aspects of religions that are worth emulating, particularly if, like de Botton, you want these secular rituals to be part of large institutions with a wide reach and deep pockets. De Botton offers a number of suggestions, some of which were intriguing and insightful, but others singled out areas in which religion has only been arguably successful, or where it has been more adept in theory than in deed. For example, he uses the Catholic Mass as an example of a unifying experience which erases divisions such as race and class, but in practice many congregations are segregated by the neighbourhoods from which they draw attendees. In this sense, his book is imbued with a sense of nostalgia for something which may never have actually existed except as an ideal. Additionally, many of his secular alternatives felt trivial and overly simplistic, lacking the significance of the rituals they were designed to emulate.

Over all, de Botton’s attitude towards religious practices consists of entirely too much reverence, and not enough criticism. Although he advocates “selective reverence for religious rituals and concepts,” he wholly fails to account for how his proposed secular saints and rituals will avoid practices of indoctrination and deification, and encourage the critical thinking that is essential to most atheists’ conceptions of secularism. Despite a chapter on the virtues of pessimism, it is all too easy to imagine this philosophy blithely and optimistically ushering in a “benevolent” secular totalitarianism of ritual and prescription. Those of a religious persuasion will have no need for these ideas, and those of a more atheistic or agnostic bent will find that de Botton’s suggestions lack the rigour of thought they would expect from a fellow skeptic. For those atheists who hear the siren call of ritual and tradition, but cannot bring themselves to believe in God, de Botton’s ideas may find some appeal, but this book is not otherwise recommended. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Nov 09, 2014 Russell George rated it really liked it

Alain de Botton writes from a very good place. His overriding concern is that people live happier, more fulfilled lives, principally through becoming more self-aware and less prone to unrealistic dreams and illusions. He is, if you wanted to give him a job title, a philosopher, though his books are often more about reinterpreting classical philosophy for modern sensibilities, or so it seems. Anyway, he writes very well, and it’s difficult to finish one of his books and feel that you don’t see th Alain de Botton writes from a very good place. His overriding concern is that people live happier, more fulfilled lives, principally through becoming more self-aware and less prone to unrealistic dreams and illusions. He is, if you wanted to give him a job title, a philosopher, though his books are often more about reinterpreting classical philosophy for modern sensibilities, or so it seems. Anyway, he writes very well, and it’s difficult to finish one of his books and feel that you don’t see the world slightly differently.

The main premise of this one is that religion, for all the bad things that have and are still being done under its banner, nevertheless has something to teach secular society. That the rituals, intentions, and physical manifestations of religions have a purpose and use that secular society could learn from. That because, as atheists, we dismiss religions on the basis that we don’t believe in the supernatural God-figure, we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It’s an interesting and at times quite compelling argument. I was particularly taken by his analysis of secular education, and our elevation of the humanities as important because . . . well, why is it important to study literature, or history, or art? As a society we really don’t like saying ‘you should read Tess of the D’urbervilles’ because it will teach you various moral or ethical lessons, and yet to study it without being affected by the point of the story is essentially pointless. Similarly, if a piece of art doesn't move you in some way, what’s the purpose of knowing who the artist was influenced by, or that their use of colour was innovative for a reason x? He also makes some interesting points about the original purpose of the concept of original sin, which to atheists like me always seemed a rather unhelpful way of viewing the world, but which perhaps should be re-interpreted as a way to acknowledge that nobody is perfect, and it’s tough sometimes being the kind, honest, and generally good person we think we should be. Everyone fails, but we shouldn't give ourselves a hard time about it.

De Botton’s argument isn't cast-iron – the parallels between going on holiday and going on pilgrimage seemed a little stretched – but overall there are more strong points than weak ones. And importantly, he’s not trying to preach. It’s a book which asks some interesting and intelligent questions in a very accessible style.

In fact, the only real problem was the use of quite grainy black and white photos throughout, which rarely added anything. I'm sure the publisher equated photos with accessibility, but if you’re not going to invest in quality reproductions, then it just looks slightly shoddy. And besides, the prose doesn't really need it.
...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Oct 06, 2012 Jason Pettus rated it it was amazing

Shelves: contemporary, nonfiction, religion, hipster, smart-nerdy, personal-favorite

(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com]. I am the original author of this review, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted illegally.)

Regular readers know that I've been on a bit of a reading kick for contemporary philosopher Alain de Botton, ever since hearing him impressively speak on a recent episode of the "On Being" podcast; and after first tackling his older book How Proust Can Change Your Life, I thought I'd now skip ahead and re (Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com]. I am the original author of this review, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted illegally.)

Regular readers know that I've been on a bit of a reading kick for contemporary philosopher Alain de Botton, ever since hearing him impressively speak on a recent episode of the "On Being" podcast; and after first tackling his older book How Proust Can Change Your Life, I thought I'd now skip ahead and review one of his latest, the 2011 practical self-help book Religion for Atheists which had been the whole reason he was on the "On Being" podcast in the first place. (And in fact, de Botton has really put his money where his mouth is with this book, recently opening a literal "church for atheists" in a storefront space in central London called The School of Life; and it's technically that that he was on the podcast to promote.) The title basically describes the entire argument of the book -- that there are plenty of secular functions and roles that organized religion provides society, apart and away from its spiritual aspects, that atheists would be wise to adopt in their own lives for more happiness -- and while some of these roles are pretty easy to guess at (providing a sense of ritual in our lives, providing a communal space for like-minded individuals), there are others here that come as a pleasing surprise; for example, that religions provide an excuse for people to design moral codes of behavior that all who attend must adhere to (or in other words, think about how nice it'd be at your next dinner party to be able to declare your apartment a "hipster-douchebag-free zone" or to ban all talk about politics), or that religions provide a way to aesthetically celebrate the lessons in life that are most important for us. A thought-provoking book, but one always grounded in practical advice on how to actually implement these changes in real life, it comes strongly recommended to all my fellow atheists, and I can guarantee that some of its lessons will have a strong impact on the way that CCLaP runs its eventual physical headquarters here in Chicago.

Out of 10: 9.1 ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review