Secularizing the wrong way

[Quiddity]

I found this refreshing:

[youtube]2Oe6HUgrRlQ[/youtube]
Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0 - YouTube

Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think he has a very narrow, almost cartoonish view of "the secular world". Most of the positive things he says we need religion for don't require religion at all, IMO. Good idea can come from anywhere, sure, but I think he's puffing up religion more than is really warranted.

Also, I think that anyone who says that you have to be a very good speaker to be successful in the religious world hasn't heard some of the homilies and sermons that I have.

 

[Quiddity]

I think he has a very narrow, almost cartoonish view of "the secular world". Most of the positive things he says we need religion for don't require religion at all, IMO. Good idea can come from anywhere, sure, but I think he's puffing up religion more than is really warranted.

Also, I think that anyone who says that you have to be a very good speaker to be successful in the religious world hasn't heard some of the homilies and sermons that I have.

That's because you are going to catholic ones. :biglaugh:

 

[Quiddity]

I think he has a very narrow, almost cartoonish view of "the secular world". Most of the positive things he says we need religion for don't require religion at all, IMO. Good idea can come from anywhere, sure, but I think he's puffing up religion more than is really warranted.

Also, I think that anyone who says that you have to be a very good speaker to be successful in the religious world hasn't heard some of the homilies and sermons that I have.

In what way is he puffing it up?

 

[OMEGA777]

Atheism 2.0 ? - Religion without God ?

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine;
but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Tit 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

PS. I love his British Accent. He sounds so Posh. And what is the Feast of Zuccini ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In what way is he puffing it up?

Frankly, while there's room for the sort of meaning and nuance in religion that he touches on, I don't think it's necessarily there any more than in secular worldviews. For the vast majority of believers, I don't think that religion's really about "deeper meaning" at all; I think it's largely a transaction: "if you do X, then you make God happy/get rewarded in the afterlife/release yourself from the cycle of suffering/whatever".

 

[Quiddity]

Frankly, while there's room for the sort of meaning and nuance in religion that he touches on, I don't think it's necessarily there any more than in secular worldviews. For the vast majority of believers, I don't think that religion's really about "deeper meaning" at all; I think it's largely a transaction: "if you do X, then you make God happy/get rewarded in the afterlife/release yourself from the cycle of suffering/whatever".

Even if true (although I don't necessarily agree), it doesn't matter if the vast majority of believers don't practice and view it as a "deeper meaning". The point is that religion is intended to do just that, even if it's followers are horrible at it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even if true (although I don't necessarily agree), it doesn't matter if the vast majority of believers don't practice and view it as a "deeper meaning". The point is that religion is intended to do just that, even if it's followers are horrible at it.

Is religion intended to do anything? Except for certain specific cases (Scientology comes to mind), I think they arise organically without "intent" behind them per se.

BTW - as a comparison (which I was happily reminded of because it came up as a link in your video), here's Dan Dennett's TED Talk from 2006: [youtube]DTepA-WV_oE[/youtube]
Dan Dennett: A secular, scientific rebuttal to Rick Warren - YouTube

It's specifically intended as a rebuttal to Rick Warren's TED Talk and book, so some of what he talks about doesn't directly relate to the video you posted, but I think it makes interesting watching... especially because of how much it touches on things like meaningfulness in life, given how de Botton claims that the modern secular movement is ignoring the matter.

 

[elmarna]

I could agree with 1 point.
In mans desire to reach out to his world he turns to culture.
Within the structure od the social character is the way man responds.
While the vast opinions of him did not reflect the ways of the religions he considered...
He did drive home in his subject matter that --without understanding we may look at the world around us unwisely and adopt thoughts and opinions that do not reflect the truths of the world around him. Example the jews felt it is a good idea to take a bath.
He worked in a premis that in life the value of religion is able to be obtained without seeking or turning to GOD.
In sociology it is maintained that man must support this world through thinking characterized in the beliefs that he finds wise and not always in the morals or ethics that make the structure a more reasonable form of realizeing.
The content of the video failed to create a up lifting feel that made me find it as enjoyable as the audience seemed to find.
It lacked conviction and was "rushed" not letting you relax and digest many of the concepts he proposed.
I found the video lacking. I came away disatisfied that he was well supporting any of the points he handed out.
It almost seemed he could not be truly inspired by anything!

 

[Quiddity]

Is religion intended to do anything? Except for certain specific cases (Scientology comes to mind), I think they arise organically without "intent" behind them per se.

BTW - as a comparison (which I was happily reminded of because it came up as a link in your video), here's Dan Dennett's TED Talk from 2006: [youtube]DTepA-WV_oE[/youtube]
Dan Dennett: A secular, scientific rebuttal to Rick Warren - YouTube

It's specifically intended as a rebuttal to Rick Warren's TED Talk and book, so some of what he talks about doesn't directly relate to the video you posted, but I think it makes interesting watching... especially because of how much it touches on things like meaningfulness in life, given how de Botton claims that the modern secular movement is ignoring the matter.

Not surprisingly perhaps, I have issues with the video.

3 minutes in and I'm already getting annoyed. Painful to watch one of the horsemen at times. "Human beings havebeen re-designing their religions over thousands of years"....really Dan? (assuming he means "creeds" as he mentions more then once in the video) I'd gladly pay to see him prove this of the RC but whatever....I'll take this as a general statement.

He continues...

I disagree that religion was brilliantly designed. Has he read the NT and how messy it was? All the early catholic councils in the first 1,500 years? It was messy! Design is what I do for a living and no designer would be this messy and muddled. Even a child could have started off better.The comparison is a horrible one IMO. Early cow is far more intricate.

You'd think he has a remote understanding of this stuff but instead we get:

"It's the one policy proposal that I make in the book...at this time, when I claim not to know enough about religion.....to know what other policy proposals to make".

That's just super! Thanks for clarifying that Dan. You had me going with the whole religion evolving bit. :areyoucra Well, atleast he demands facts (as his policy) in minute 5 so it's good he's willing to get corrected.

Informed citizenship (6:05), like saying religions are re-designed by an intelligence? That kind of informing?

BTW, I have no problem with what he is proposing. However, he intends to remove all value/meaning and simply make it academic and would expect someone to make a decision based on this? Similar to say...a World Religions Class in college?

He assumes surrender means a surrender of all human faculties; even reason. To this, I strongly disagree.

I disagree with Rick that one needs God to do good (although, it's like pulling teeth trying to figure out what atheist think is "good") and find meaning, but believe it is nowhere near what religion is doing (which is what the guy was trying to say in the video I provided).

Nothing to say about the whole ID opinions as I don't hold such a position.

That's my two cents on the video.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wasn't trying to get you to agree with the content of the video; I figured there would be a fair bit in it that you disagreed with. My point was to just give a small small sample of the things that are being talked about in the atheist discourse that de Botton pooh-poohs. Despite his statements otherwise, the issues he says are absent from "atheism 1.0" are actually there... and they're obviously there to anyone who's looked into the "new atheism" movement in any sort of depth, so I really wonder why he can't see it.

There's all sorts of dialogue going on about "big question" things like meaning, purpose, significance, and morality, so when de Botton comes in with a suggestion for a new system that includes dialogue on these things, it feels like he's trying to sell me a solution to a problem that I don't have.

 

[Quiddity]

I wasn't trying to get you to agree with the content of the video; I figured there would be a fair bit in it that you disagreed with. My point was to just give a small small sample of the things that are being talked about in the atheist discourse that de Botton pooh-poohs. Despite his statements otherwise, the issues he says are absent from "atheism 1.0" are actually there... and they're obviously there to anyone who's looked into the "new atheism" movement in any sort of depth, so I really wonder why he can't see it.

There's all sorts of dialogue going on about "big question" things like meaning, purpose, significance, and morality, so when de Botton comes in with a suggestion for a new system that includes dialogue on these things, it feels like he's trying to sell me a solution to a problem that I don't have.

Actually, that video shows me exactly why he can't see it. Not just him but plenty of people who decide to be "spiritual" yet are atheist. Or a spiritual agnositc or ignostic....it's almost like committing to atheism is just umm too dry, even if they agree with it's conclusions.

I'm just wondering why you can't see it? I'm not saying there is nothing there, I'm just saying it is so under developed and dry in atheism that it's eons away of gift wrapping and making it look like it has any meaning at all (like religion). Remember, he said "I just want facts"; that's academic and dry.

Not to mention all the overwhelming fears many atheist have of even walking and quacking like ducks.

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't get why atheism is supposed to offer "meaning." Atheism isn't a worldview whatsoever; even if atheists have worldviews.

 

[idav]

I wasn't trying to get you to agree with the content of the video; I figured there would be a fair bit in it that you disagreed with. My point was to just give a small small sample of the things that are being talked about in the atheist discourse that de Botton pooh-poohs. Despite his statements otherwise, the issues he says are absent from "atheism 1.0" are actually there... and they're obviously there to anyone who's looked into the "new atheism" movement in any sort of depth, so I really wonder why he can't see it.

There's all sorts of dialogue going on about "big question" things like meaning, purpose, significance, and morality, so when de Botton comes in with a suggestion for a new system that includes dialogue on these things, it feels like he's trying to sell me a solution to a problem that I don't have.

Wasn't one of do Bottons main points that atheists aren't using good enough strategies to reach everyone. In a way that is true but at the same time I don't want atheists trying to brain wash everyone like religion likes to do. You are right though that many atheists are trying to relate more to humanity where he says it doesn't exist at all. Not sure ritualization is the answer though, seems rather unnecessary.

 

[Quiddity]

I don't get why atheism is supposed to offer "meaning." Atheism isn't a worldview whatsoever; even if atheists have worldviews.

I don't know if it's supposed to, but any group that has humans as a part of it, is bound to attach meaning to things anyways. Atheist are just noobs and muddled at it I suppose?

 

[Tristesse]

I don't know if it's supposed to, but any group that has humans as a part of it, is bound to attach meaning to things anyways. Atheist are just noobs and muddled at it I suppose?

Atheism isn't a philosophy. It's answer to a single question, everything else an atheist believes or doesn't believe is from something else. Any meaning that I find is not a result of my atheism, but a result of other principals I hold.

 

[Quiddity]

Atheism isn't a philosophy. It's answer to a single question, everything else an atheist believes or doesn't believe is from something else. Any meaning that I find is not a result of my atheism, but a result of other principals I hold.

And those principals came from outside of yourself, no? You adopted them somehow?

Did you watch the video?

 

[Me Myself]

I agreed with alot of what he said except the basic point:

none of what he said is against secularism as it is being practiced (you may please correct me )

I truly think religion is for everyone wheter you are part of the "members" of each religin or not, but well... I don´t see how that conflicts with the general secular scenario.

I loved what he said about art xD. I agreed a lot to that.

I truly mean that one should just not limit oneself when lookng for inspiraton and deeper spiritual insight. You´ll find most spiritual stuff in yourself, but inspiraton to it can be found anywhere IMHO, and I have found a lot of different relgions inspired me on my spirituality I wouldn´t think it would be different for most atheists provided they open themselves up to it. I certanly think I´ve seen enoughof them that can open up to it a lot more than many supposedly religious people.

So I guess those are my two cents.

 

[Tristesse]

And those principals came from outside of yourself, no? You adopted them somehow?

Did you watch the video?

Outside of myself? No. I'm an atheist, but thats not all I am.

 

[Quiddity]

Outside of myself? No. I'm an atheist, but thats not all I am.

lol...poorly worded. My point was that you based it from things (ideas) that exist already.