Much Ado about De Botton

It’s been some time since the “de Botton fiasco” – enough time, I think, for us to look back and analyze it without too much bais. To recap, Alain de Botton was the man behind the "Atheist Temple" idea, and the book Religion for Atheists.

It was the most outrageous idea in the atheist community in recent memory, but it was no joke; it was the realization of de Botton’s strange philosophy that has ended up harming our community’s image. The National Post highlighted some of the key points to his philosophy in this article. While disagreeing with de Botton's comes naturally to me, this excerpt from his visit to Toronto last March especially irked me.

He said we should approach religion like the local Chinese all-you-can-eat: Grab a plate, he said, and choose. “We naturally pick and mix when it comes to music and literature,” he said, so why not for existential questions?

It’s true that some degree of variance of belief exists within atheism, but our existential ideas tend to have something in common – they aren’t derived from faith-based ideas. While religion provides answers to life's questions without evidence, atheism makes us understand that true answers only come after more questions. For example, while Christians assert that free will exists because "God gave it to us," atheists have to consider: What does it mean to have free will? Can free will be achieved artificially? Are determinism and materialism consistent with the concept of free will?

De Botton went on to say, "I like Christmas carols. I like the atmosphere of old churches. I like religious works of art. I like the idea of pilgrimage, fasting and feasting," and without these structures we would be in a "wasteland."

However, there’s a difference between appreciating religious works and appreciating religion itself. I have no issue with someone saying the Parthenon is beautiful and awe-inspiring, but if they then go on to say we can find answers to existential questions in Greek mythology, I’d raise an eyebrow. It sounds open minded to pick and choose from different religions, but at the heart of religious concepts is delusion. 

Ideas such as, “don’t commit murder”, shouldn't be considered religious; they’re logical conclusions based on sociopolitical constructs backed by human nature. Even if one were to claim these ideas were solidified by religion, the fact remains that they were, at some point, introduced by philosophers and sociologists long ago - regardless of from whom the concepts originated. So please, appreciate the disappointingly minute touch of beauty religion has added to our world - but never claim that we should rely on delusional constructs in our modern era.

The article continued, “On the question of God’s existence, [de Botton] said atheists 'circle around [it] almost obsessively,' but it is not the most important question.”

An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in any gods, so inherently it’s something that unites us regardless of our other existential beliefs. It’s kind of like saying, "Christians circle around this idea of Jesus almost obsessively." Of course they do, it's the theme that unites Methodists and Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses. Either de Botton didn’t understand atheism, or he was trying to play a foolish middle ground.

It’s important to keep an eye on de Botton, and on those who propose similarly ridiculous ideas. Ever since last January, when the media got wind of the “atheist temple” fiasco, Christian newspapers and blogs have been using it to say atheists need religion. As the atheist movement takes hold we should keep this in mind, and choose our words carefully so they won't be misrepresented or used to reinforce the already numerous stereotypes about atheists.