Alain De Botton’s ‘Atheism 2.0′ Cheapened by Temple Talk

By Wendy Thomas Russell | April 23, 2012 | 7 comments

Since January, Alain de Botton’s ideas about atheism have been bandied about like a shuttlecock. They’re great! They’re dreadful! They’re brilliant! He’s arrogant! He’s out of touch! He’s just what we need! It seems everyone with Internet access has an opinion these days.

You know where this is going.

So, anyway, I became aware of de Botton, a Swiss writer and philosopher, when his TED talk was released (on the Internet) earlier this year and have followed his rise to stardom (on the Internet) with mixed emotions. If I had to break it down, the mix would be roughly equal parts adoration and jealousy cut with a few small, but potent spoonful of frustration.

It’s hard not to admire the guy; his common-sense, centrist philosophies are refreshingly welcome in a nonreligious community sometimes weighted down by the anti-theist ardor of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens. De Botton’s is clearly a more loving brand of atheism, and that’s to be celebrated. If you haven’t seen the TED talk, in which he coined the term Atheism 2.0, listening to just a few minutes (say, from 5:40 to to 9:20) will give you a sense of his personality, point of view and some of his ideas about religion — ideas that are, in his words,“very respectful but completely impious.”

De Botton’s most recent book is titled Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion, which has been — and herein lies the jealousy part — widely read and thoroughly debated. Damn him all to hell.

Seriously, what I like most about de Botton is his willingness to change the atheist paradigm, rather than fall headfirst into the anti-religion agenda. I especially like his thoughts on therapy and how museums could make a greater impact by organizing artwork the way religion does.

“For too long,” his website states, “non-believers have faced a stark choice between either swallowing lots of peculiar doctrines or doing away with a range of consoling and beautiful rituals and ideas. At last, in Religion for Atheists, Alain has fashioned a far more interesting and truly helpful alternative.”

My one issue with de Botton, the thing that I think cheapens his otherwise very solid philosophy, is his insistence that atheists erect “temples” where secularists can physically come together to, presumably, share knowledge, wisdom, goals and support. It’s still unclear exactly what he has in mind, although he’s voiced his hope that temples will spring up throughout the UK and beyond.

Here’s de Botton: “As religions have always known, a beautiful building is an indispensable part of getting your message across. Books alone won’t do it… You can build a temple to anything that’s positive and good. That could mean: a temple to love, friendship, perspective, calm, generosity.”

Yeah, except no. Temples specifically for atheists? That’s just… no.

First off, I don’t know many nonreligious types who wish they could give up part of their weekends to attend sermons. (In fact, I know a lot of religious types who have long since abandoned that particular ritual themselves). And even if we nonbelievers did feel the need for a church-like setting in our lives — and many do! — why wouldn’t we just join a Universalist Unitarian church? After all, they already exist.

I certainly do appreciate the thought that many atheists possess a desire to “connect” the way religious people do, and would enjoy a physical space to exchange ideas and work to better their relationships with each other and with the world. Nothing weird about that. But what’s wrong with museums? Why not membership lecture series? Or secular community centers?

There already are plenty of places where people of only one particular faith can go to think more deeply about the wonder of life. Why would I want to create another? Why would I want to outcast religious people the way religious people sometimes outcast me? Frankly, I’d be far more interested in places where I could go with my religious friends and family members and still come away with a deeper understanding of ourselves and the universe. I’d love to see a Museum of Tolerance in my neighborhood, for instance; but rather than featuring only Jewish people, it would feature us all.

Although “Religion for Atheists” may be a great title and a catchy phrase, Dawkins is right that atheism isn’t a religion and never will be. And while some atheists no doubt love the idea of building a community that would elevate them to something more than “nons,” de Botton’s “temple” (in my humble opinion) is far more likely to become an illustration of an idea — a beautiful metaphor, if you will — than an actual, salable prototype.

Or maybe I’m missing something. It is the Internet, after all.

Author’s Note: I apologize for using the term shuttlecock. That was wrong of me, and it will never happen again. (Unless, of course, it’s what got you to read my blog, in which case: Shuttlecock.)




  1. Rebecca says:

    Interesting… I’ll have to investigate this guy further! But I’m with you on atheists not needing temples. And that Unitarian churches are a perfectly good solution for those who wish to be part of a non-judgmental, church-like community. But many of us DON’T. I mean, I am so happy that Unitarians are out there doing what they’re doing. But I’ve visited them a couple of times and can’t handle the loving hippie-ness. It’s a bit much. Yes, this is what secular meetup groups are for, though every one I’ve been a part of has a tendency to fall apart. Because unbelief is just not a strong enough glue for a community. There HAS to be something else that everyone has in common.

  2. timmy says:

    I drink a shot of Pappy’s every time you use the word “shuttlecock.”

  3. My issues with De Botton are that his examples for what atheists seem to “need” from religion are rather odd. I studied religion quite a bit in my formative years and none of the positive aspects that some religions DO HAVE from a psychological level match up with his examples of pilgrimages and temples or how to organize art (I really don’t get that one, I don’t like the idea of going into a “love” room full of art that I’m supposed to interpret as “love”, it spoils the entire subjective experience of appreciating art and, in my opinion, cheapens it. I don’t like to be told how I should be looking at something.) I think his heart is in the right place, but I just don’t get what he’s saying.

    Other than UU churches (which can seem dogmatically “liberal”), there are also Humanist Community centers, and “Freethought Fellowships” such as the one in Dallas. Also, he’s using the term secular in a very bad way, as to mean atheist, when freethinkers come in many stripes, after all I was a freethinker before I was officially an atheist. I went through so many ideas about God until I came to the conclusion that they were all made up things, with no basis in reality.

    If a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian and an atheist (randomize with your own personal list of diverse religious beliefs) come together in a common location and enjoy a common sense of connection without appealing to their religious beliefs, THAT is a secular gathering. Though that is an ideal, and in practice not always practical, assuming that atheists have “secularized badly” (I assume he has some sort of data to back up his assertions?) and have none of the positive outlets that religion maintains is, indeed, missing the boat a bit. One visit to and you’ll find numerous local non-religious gatherings. I get that there are positives that come from religion (after all, who would suffer the stick without the carrot) but I don’t think he’s really thought them through enough, or at least hasn’t left his comfort zone while thinking about it which is really sad for someone with an MA in Philosophy. Perhaps I need to read the book, but de Botton has not advertised it well enough in his talk or in his articles for me to fit it into my already tight reading schedule.

    • Great points, Justin. I do think you’re right — some of his ideas seem sort of pandering. I guess that’s the “self-help guru” in him coming out. :-)

      • Rich Wilson says:

        Thanks. You both hit on things that bugged me about that talk. Personally it felt like he wasn’t describing me at all when he talked about atheists. Maybe he was describing others, but I felt like he was providing solutions for problems that didn’t exist.

        I don’t feel like I have any holes in my life, Jesus shaped or DNA shaped or otherwise.

        Temple? That’s what my bike ride/run is :-)

Leave a Reply

Due out March 31, Relax, It's Just God: How and Why to Talk to Your Kids About Religion When You're Not Religious offers a well-researched look at a timely subject: secular parenting. With chapters on avoiding indoctrination, talking about death, vaccinating kids against intolerance, dealing with religious baggage, and getting along with religious relatives, the book offers a refreshingly compassionate approach to raising religiously literate, highly tolerant and critically thinking children capable of making up their own minds about what to believe. The book may be pre-ordered by visiting Brown Paper Press.

      Natural Wonderers is my new blog published by the Patheos faith network. An extension of my previous blog — Relax, It's Just God — Natural Wonderers offers stories and advice on raising curious, compassionate children in secular families.
                    Become a Subscriber!
                            Stay Connected