Alain De Botton offers new, updated version of atheism. First of all he might describe the main characteristics of atheism, in order to provide more evidence about the topic. The main descriptive word to it may be a refutation. And what is the purpose of the article? To provide no believing people a religion?
The principal of this is to go through religion and pick up the best sides of it and use them in this new version of atheism. It is an old and proved strategy to observe and find uncontested strengths of the opponent and use them in own purposes, no matter if you refute opposite point of view or not. The question is to believe or not? If we judge by strengths of these two alternatives, religion has passed over these decades and its system is worth respect. The question is: “what do these two alternatives give us, and what do they take from us?” In my opinion it is a better question to compare them. Religion system eats lot of money from tax payers and do not pay taxes, but gives spiritual consolation, some description of our reality, something to believe in. Religion presents some kind of “monopoly” by itself. The opponent to religion in our reality is presented by the form of science, but it does not provide us with any spiritual consolation, just explanations of the surrounding environment. Here arises a question! What do or did do the majority of us in the worst, most scary and hopeless moments of their lives? What do we need in that moment, scientific explanation or ability of refutation of any supernatural appearance (atheism)? We need something real strong to believe in, and religion comes up with this opportunity. What does the atheism give us - opportunity to deny? It takes away the ability to believe, hope and maybe gives opportunity to think that there is nothing higher than us. Maybe the value we pay for religion is high, but we get some valuable things from it: hope, believe in some power (Lord), right advices to life style (Bible) and lot of things that may make us find consolation. The author brings an example of education, as a sector of secular world. Without any breadth consideration of other points of view, he states that higher education makes us better human beings. I strongly disagree, as he does not consider complexities of this issue. It is known that “The coin has two faces.” Higher education has its advantages and also lot of disadvantages as well. Higher education created nuclear weapons. Higher economic education opened eyes of some people about how to reside, get reach on war. Higher education brought to financial crisis, as only highly educated authorities of Wall Street could crank such kind of affair (insider, 2010). If these people are considered better human beings – I refuse to higher education. These were just a few examples of affects of higher education. The question is how we will use products of this higher education. The rules for right use of education may be consistent with several points provided by religion (bible), which is presenting the “true lifestyle”, in order not to harm the environment. But from the other hand religion uses products of this “higher education” in its own interests (psychological influence, throughout which is created gathering and governing system of religion etc.). But the consequences of this use of education by the religion are much harmless than from other prior mentioned sectors. The author states also, that the disadvantage of religion is that it circles the “Great True” all time, rather than to come up with new ideas. A. De Botton is stating that “the new is always better than old”. Again he does not consider the complexities of this question, as the new is not always better than old and there are many examples of that. One is the economic example concerning Armenia. After USSR collapse its agriculture and economy at whole had been seriously damaged, if to compare related time series statistical data (National Statistical Service of RA, 2011). One other example related to Iraq. There were lot of claims during the government of Sadam Hussein, either from abroad (USA) or within the country. But how is the current situation in Iraq, after the dead of Sadam – worst, if to compare with his governance time. These were just two well known examples, to give refutation of the statement “new is always better than old”.
Alain De Botton claims religion to make people repeat that same things all the times (pray). But he misses the fact, that religion proposes some point of view, which has passed trough decades, which describes the strength of religion system. It must not come up with new ideas in that point of view, as it may put a shadow on lot of basics of its system. If it is coming with some explanation starting from formation of world and human being up to the “true lifestyle” of men, how is it going to come up with new ideas? To “update a version”, like “sorry we were wrong in our assumptions about Creator and his provided directions to lifestyle, here are new ideas about God?” I think after that few people would be willing to believe in strength of the religion.Author comes up with opportunity to find the values provided by religion (morality, guidance, consolation etc.) in the culture. Culture will give us answers to all to all prior mentioned. But in my opinion, late or soon there will raise reasonable questions: Why are we considering all these values provided by culture as true ones? Why must we act in this way and not another? Where do these values come from - from our ancestors, who are human beings like us! Consequently there may raise a new idea, refuting the idea related to culture. It may be some future form of current “atheism against religion”. From my point of view, and as shows the history, every action has its re-action, and also reasons and consequences. So according to this assumption it will become a circle proposing and refuting.
One of the weaknesses of the article is the lack of precision in presenting to implications and consequences of this proposal. Auther offers to take the strengths or religion system and use them in Atheism 2.0, but gives no details about the real ways of implications.
Another weakness is the absence of reliable data. Article and corresponding proposals are mainly based self/general experience. And correspondingly lack of accuracy in presenting, as there is no way we can check if this is truly applicable or not.
And as a final weakness I will mention the final phrase of A. De Botton “It is a weak project”. Why to present the project in general, If you don’t believe in strength of it? And after that phrase, this article seemed like a promotion of the religion system. Why not to leave the religion with us, If such many things are good with, and if there are no any strong and equally beneficial refuting systems proposed?
