The New New Atheism
Richard Dawkins argues that religion is essentially ridiculous. As Alain de Botton says “I think it’s too easy to dismiss the whole of religion that way.” I think he proposes a new, respectful and ultimately more convincing atheism. “I think there is an alternative, being both very respectful and completely impious, of stealing from religion.” The video is worth a watch.
What Is Religion?
This is the best definition I’ve seen. Religion is really a highly sophisticated technology.
Religion is a system of symbols that, when enacted by human beings, establishes powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations that make sense in terms of a general order of existence. (Bellah, xiv)
Think about it. There’s nothing about Gods and curses and gays and all the stuff we associate with ‘bad’ religion. Regarding Dawkins, I’ve argued that this bias is largely against Judeo-Christian religion and is inadequate for describing such a huge, varied and expansive subject as religion. If you want the Wikipedia definition:
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.
Protagonistic Atheism
The problem with New Atheism is that it focuses on the symbols rather than the symbol system. And thus they largely miss the point.
The New Atheists write mainly from a scientific perspective. Unlike previous writers, many of whom thought that science was indifferent, or even incapable of dealing with the “God” concept, Dawkins argues to the contrary, claiming the “God Hypothesis” is a valid scientific hypothesis, having effects in the physical universe, and like any other hypothesis can be tested and falsified. (New Atheism: Wikipedia)
The symbols, stories and traditions are only part of a whole. It’s like looking at ones and zeroes, concluding that these numbers are random and arbitrary and thus concluding that your web browser doesn’t exist. Religion is a technology composed of sometimes retarded or insane parts that nevertheless computes a drastically altered reality in human brains and civilizations.
Any rebuttal of religion has to at least acknowledge this majesty and grandeur, and wisely co-opt it. You can say that there’s no God and that there is evolution and science, but that’s just the premise. It’s just the beginning. What really matters is the altered state that this knowledge can compute in human brains and cultures. To that end, De Botton accepts the basic premises of the New Atheism, but respectfully and impiously tries to move on.
Of course there’s no God. Of course there are no deities or supernatural spirits or angels etc. Now let’s move on. That’s not the end of the story, that’s the very very beginning (De Botton, the video above)
Answer The Questions
Dawkins recently spoke at the Galle Literary Festival, quite compellingly and to an appreciative crowd. One gentleman asked him what science could say about human sexuality and what a parent could teach their children. I thought it was a good question, but the crowd laughed and Dawkins said it wasn’t science’s business. That’s what’s wrong with his atheism. He gets the first part of what De Botton says and then stops. While he has debunked and explained the creation myth in great detail, there is little attention to the daily issues that religion helps people with. That’s where his antagonistic atheism falls short.
There is far more to religion that creation myths. In fact, there is more to creation myths than the literal stories. As mentioned, beyond the symbols there is a highly sophisticated symbol system that operates on human brains. As De Botton says, “Religions are also keen to see us as more than just rational minds, we are emotional and physical creatures, and therefore, we need to be seduced via our bodies and our senses too” (TED).
Religion As Way Of Life
Dawkins was able to accept Buddhism as ways of life, but other religions – including the much pilloried Christianity and Islam – are ways of life as well. If you take time to understand them, they offer great comfort to people and sometimes make for exceptional lives. Rather than criticizing the source code, De Botton proposes a new new atheism that essentially takes the advanced symbolic computational power of religion and connects it to a more modern conception of reality and morality. As he says, this is both impious and respectful.
We are far more desperate than secular modernity recognises. All of us are on the edge of panic and terror pretty much all the time – and religions recognise this. We need to build a similar awareness into secular structures. Religions are fascinating because they are giant machines for making ideas vivid and real in people’s lives: ideas about goodness, about death, family, community etc. (His TED FAQ)
Why This Is Better
Just opposing religion is not a compelling or satisfying argument. It encourages those who are already atheists, but doesn’t really move people in the middle, or people who are religious. It’s also often disrespectful and biased – it ignores what an old, varied and diverse phenomenon human religion is, and the great meaning that it has in decent peoples lives. I remain a Buddhist, but I find De Botton’s Atheism 2.0 far more compelling.
As he says:
I am an atheist, but a gentle one. I don’t feel the need to mock anyone who believes. I really disagree with the hard tone of some atheists who approach religion like a silly fairy tale. I am deeply respectful of religion, but I believe in none of its supernatural aspects. So my position is perhaps unusual: I am at once very respectful and completely impious. (His TED FAQ)
Religion is not a stupid fairy tale. It’s actually a highly evolved symbol system that changes human brains and communities. If atheism wants to advance, atheists should understand and respect that power and then co-opt the technology to their own ends.
I’m happy to be featured in Echelon magazine’s 40 Under 40 feature, profiling young people who contribute to the economy in some way, mainly in business but also in terms of innovation and thought leadership. It’s an interesting article not just in that I’m in it (mainly for work on indi.ca and 
I won’t add too much commentary, but just read I guess. The youngest Rajapaksa, Rohitha (Chi Chi) has given an amazing interview to the 
In 2009 this strange character appeared on the Sri Lankan Internet scene, getting angry, flaming, trolling whatever. Then he started naming anonymous bloggers, posting comments as people’s kids, nasty stuff, for which I removed him from 
The chutzpah of this government knows no bounds. Every government since Independence has had to balance placating Sinhala nationalists (AKA racists) while at the same time actually running a sensible, inclusive nation that doesn’t send minority citizens, capital and foreign investment fleeing. Basically, they’ve had to pay lip service to nationalists while at the same time trying to run an actual nation. Every government has also generally failed, SWRD being killed by a nationalist monk and everyone after almost losing the country to various rebellions. In that context Mahinda is actually doing a better job by virtue of not being dead and not losing control of the country. But he’s still not doing a good job.
The religious will get more respect when they stop trying to impose their (selective) beliefs on public policy and trying to supplant science in the classroom with creationism. Regardless of the definition of religion, Judeo-Christian and Islam are the majority religions of the world today so are the ones dealt in the public sphere. I hardly think the various religions practiced by the tribes of PNG have much say on world matters but the Vatican certainly does.
I studied the bible in my youth, and I find the First Testament interesting, for example the stoning of unruly children. This is of course not the done thing in today’s society. Herein lies the issue, people claim religion led to morality but what we consider morality today is quite removed from what is in the bible. So what is the point of the bible? Remember that the bible itself postdated the start of Christianity by around 300 years, various forms of the bible have different numbers of books in it. How exactly is this a good guide for morality?
As I mentioned in your last post about this subject, science cannot guide morality. It merely gives you information and then you make decisions based on that. Religion may have guided morality but to say morality would not have existed without religion is nonsensical when you think of the Old Testament. Morality is dependent on culture which changes over time, influenced by religion certainly but not wholly determined by it.
As an atheist I don’t mock anyone. However if they try and tell me the world was created in seven days, that all the world’s animals were put into an ark and that I am going to hell for being a non-believer, then I will ask them for evidence. Perhaps mock them when they fail to provide such evidence. I will definitely mock them if they use religion to influence public policy on abortion, teaching of science in classrooms, determining who is fit to be a leader (eg. the USA), etc.
Religion needs to first start respecting science,they wouldn’t have electricity, phones or healthcare if not for science. The ones who are the target of people like Dawkins happily accept these aspects of science but decry evolution simply because it disproves their creation myth. You can’t have it both ways.
Apologies for the additional comment, I just remembered of an event that happened here in SL that shows the level of respect and understanding that religion deserves. We have had draconian abortion laws for quite some time, despite the fact that by some estimates we have 750-1,000 abortions daily. There was an organization here that ran an informal abortion clinic (the name escapes me but I will post it once I find it) that provided one of the few safe locations for an abortion. Caritas and the catholic church got this closed down, if they at the same time promoted safe sex and condoms then that would be somewhat excusable. However we all know how the church views such matters. Do you really think they deserve understanding and respect?
Look, right now I’m reading a 700 page on Religion And Human Evolution which stops in like 200 BC, ie, before Christianity and Islam. Religion is really much bigger than whatever is happening in Texas or Kurunegala. It is this broader definition and perspective De Botton seeks to address, not the petty skirmishes of the culture war.
Your point being? No one is saying that religion has not been influential in human history. You’re implying that atheists like Dawkins somehow disrespect religion. Last I checked that is not disrespect, it is simply asking of religion to play by the same rules that applies to everything else when it comes to determining policy, etc. i.e. evidence and reason. The fact is that religion is currently being translated into actions that hurt a lot of people most who are vulnerable and disadvantaged. I’m not sure that those people would share your cavalier attitude towards providing respect for religion without any foundation or standards.
What broader definition are you talking about.
Firstly, some the stuff botton advocates is plain scary. For example, he advocates sermonizing as opposed to ‘plain’ lecturing as a didactic method. I’m not sure what he exactly means by sermonizing, one of the hall marks of sermons is that enforce certain points & perspectives upon to listener at the expense of free inquisition & actual understanding. Yes it’s a lot more compelling, but a lot more dangerous. There are plenty of university prof that sermonize about their research. these guys are often brilliant and very compelling. But they don’t make good profs, all they manage to do is brain wash a few students and piss off the rest.
Secondly, all of this ‘technology’ you speak of are not unique to religion nor were they invented by religion. All religon has done over the years is use these, techniques, so to speak to shove their ‘morality’ down our throats. It’s no different, methodologically at least, from the Nazi’s shoving ‘Nazism’ down Germany’s throat. Dillion talks about using art & symbolism didactically. This is something cave men started doing when they drew all those pictures of hunting mammoths & getting killed by sabertooth tigers.
About a third of the way through that video i realized that all these wonderful things that religion is supposed to teach us, could also be learnt by studying the “Third Reich” carefully.
An example of the wonderful things religion can teach us:
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24) [note the use of the word everything]
The list goes on. The less part religion plays in society in the future, the better the world will get.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9014282/Afghan-boy-suicide-bombers-tell-how-they-are-brainwashed-into-believing-they-will-survive.html
I know this link has only a tangential relationship with the topic at hand but it’s worth reading.
Interesting article:
——
Sri Lanka donates eyes to the world
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka – At 10:25 a.m., a dark brown eye was removed from a man whose lids had closed for the last time. Five hours later, the orb was staring up at the ceiling from a stainless steel tray in an operating room with two blind patients — both waiting to give it a second life.
S.P.D. Siriwardana, 63, remained still under a white sheet as the surgeon delicately replaced the cornea that had gone bad in his right eye following a cataract surgery. Across the room, patient A.K. Premathilake, 32, waited for the sclera, the white of the eye, to provide precious stem cells and restore some vision after acid scalded his sight away on the job.
“The eye from this dead person was transplanted to my son,” said A.K. Admon Singho, who guided Premathilake through the hall after the surgery. “He’s dead, but he’s still alive. His eye can still see the world.”
This gift of sight is so common here, it’s become an unwritten symbol of pride and culture for Sri Lanka, an island of about 20 million people located off the southern coast of India. Despite recently emerging from a quarter century of civil war, the country is among the world’s largest cornea providers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46088652
I think an expression for this view might be found in Ethical Societies, which were founded the late 19th and early 20th century. They are a religion in organization, but have no belief in deities. There are several in the United States, and some elsewhere.
i am glad you read the bible. But unfortunately since the bible is meant to be read with eyes of faith and seen with divine understanding, the effect it has had on you is probably no different than reading a book with multiple tales and historical facts. so in your case, the same priniciples that apply to any other book applies to the bible,
AS for your question on how it can guide moral values- for those who have faith, who believe in God, the bible acts in powerful ways in their lives. when questions arises, or the need for guidance comes up, reading the bible prayerfully opens the eyes of the faithful to different dimensions, and provides clarity and direction.
And since the Bible is the Word of God, and it speaks to your life, I have found happiness and joy beyond description. It is not hard for me not to stand out among my non-believing friends who are in a constant search for answers to their life’s problems and as a consequence become frustrated, annoyed, depressed, and unhappy. You may term all of this as religious nonsense, but at the end, when my non believing friends only have the counsellors, and anti depressants as legally approved remedies (the illegal remedies are also rampant- narcotics and such) and I have my faith, and the Bible to turn to, and considering that the effects of substances are temporary, it is not hard to see who is happier and more content.
Also, I would like to present to you part b) of the quotation you have chosen to present- “New International Version (©1984)
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”
Christ died for the world, so in the same way, the husband is expected to love his wife. Submitting to a man who is willing to sacrifice his life for her does not have the same effect as simply saying, wives submit to your husbands.
if you don’t think the bible can dictate morals, then you may also disregard the consequences of living immoral lives. . but for your information Evidence of hell has been by Saints who have had the grace of seeing souls suffering in purgatory. I say grace, because they have been used by God to show to the world that hell exists, and through this, people can turn away from sin, and turn to God. Evidence is not lacking.
http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/bosco_hell.htm
http://www.discover-catholic-miracles.com/visions-of-hell.html
the individuals throughout history who have had visions of hell and the consistency that runs through the descriptions of each person coupled with what is mentioned in the bible are proof enough for us
According to science, human bodies decay after death. but because God is alive, and powerful and goes beyond science which can explain only some parts of the world and its workings we see phenomena like what is found below.
Incorrupt bodies of saints- http://www.catholicapologetics.info/library/gallery/incorrupt/incorrupt.htm –
Religion does respect science because it comes from God. God created man and his mind, and science is a result of man’s mind. However, because man is a creation of God, science that man has created to understand his world is also subject to God’s principles. It operates within a spiritual eco system. when you fail to accept that a spiritual eco system exists, you have all parts of the system jumbled up in your mind. The center of the universe is man in your terms, everything is measured from this center. Science which is a construct of the human mind rules everything- Science is not ultimate truth,. there are so many discoveries yet to be made and so many mysteries that remain unsolved and discoveries that were considered true, have been debunked by newer theories. this cycle will continue, where there is no definite truth..
For us to whom God is the center, the macro picture is clearer and easier to understand. Man is a creature of God, who was created in the likeness of God, hence his ability to accomplish everything he has, but he remains human, not God, so there will always be questions unanswered and mysteriues unsolved if he stops relying on God, the creator of the earth.
You claim that the society is better off without religion based one quotation you have taken out of context. However, if I may educate you, there are multitudinous verses that promote tolerance, respect and harmony which are essential for any society to thrive.,
from loving thy neighbour as thyself, to helping the poor, to loving thy enemy, turning the other cheek to someone who slaps the first cheek.. Theft, murder, adultery, disrespect, dishonesty which are encompassed in the commandments are pro-society, don’t you think?
When Christians have decoded the creation, existence and eventually the end of the earth, it is easy to comprehend why they want their Christianity to influence public policy. it rules their personal domain, and it will rule the public domain as well- Having said that, Christianity preaches, toelrance, understanding and respect for each other. So, even in a pluralistic society, Christianity has the mechanics to coexist peacefully and that is enough (if properly used) to contribute to a flourishing society..
“When Christians have decoded the creation, existence and eventually the end of the earth” – really? Where’s the ‘decoding?’
How about you explain the following quotes as well?
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her … and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel’s father shall say … these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. … But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
f a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother … Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city … And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. … And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones…. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56
What do your eyes of faith and divine understanding say about the above?
http://www.sundaytimes.lk/120205/Plus/plus_10.html
Prof. Gananath Obeysekere has written a great article in reaction to Dawkins- I suggest that you read it – ” Can we turn our backs on complex religious beliefs?”0 Sunday Times Sunday Feb 5, 2011
[...] on each others faces every day? Hence, philosopher king Alain de Botton – after calling for a new atheism, replete with temple – is now calling for a new pornography. One which is “fit for [...]