Let’s be honest. I am not (and likely you’re not) the
intended audience of Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion by Alain de
Botton. Given that I am a religious (Protestant) woman, a book with very little
mention of women, no use for religion, and particular disdain for Protestants
should have very little appeal. And, to be truthful, I have read it now and it
is neither bad nor good. Ironically, it’s kind of lukewarm.
De Botton makes it clear in his introduction that he will be
irritating both the religious readers and his fellow atheists. His premise is
fascinating, regardless of whether or not you believe it to be flawed, in that
he poses that religions alleviate certain needs and concerns of humanity in a
way that secular society has not:
[F}irst, the need to
live together in communities in harmony, despite our deeply rooted selfish and
violent impulses. And second, the need to cope with terrifying degrees of pain
which arise from our vulnerability to professional failure, to troubled
relationships, to the death of the loved ones and to our decay and demise. (12)
Arguably, secular society has not solved those problems
because it cannot- having neither the capacity or desire to do so. De Botton
posits that the capacity is within secularist society and that, by examining
how religion has dealt with these issues, (through purposeful community life,
calendar structure, education, and institutions) secular society can also bring
solutions to bear on the inevitable struggles of human life.
Throughout the book, de Botton lists what he perceives to be
the fundamental struggles of human life- all tributaries to the river called
“How to live and how to die”. He points to how he perceives religion to have
dealt with these issues. When he says “religion”, he means Roman Catholicism
(historical and contemporary), Judaism (main forms), and Buddhism (various
forms mentioned). It would seem de Botton understands Catholicism to have had
the most profound effect on shaping public institutions and public life.
Judaism, from his point of view, offers great guidance for private living and
living as individual within a community. And, it would seem, his own
experiences with Buddhism prevented him from omitting it from the book.
In one example, de Botton explains how Christianity (read:
Roman Catholicism) has structured communities to help people deal with their
bodily and psychic needs so that they can, in turn, help those around them. In
churches, people do things that they would not typically do elsewhere: sing
with strangers in a group, convene without regard to prior association, speak
together, confess to deep troubles and painful behavior, absolve others, offer
consolation and peace to non-relatives, and so on.
In essence, religions
understand that to belong to a community is both very desirable and not very
easy. In this respect, they are greatly more sophisticated than those secular
political theorists who write lyrically about the loss of a sense of community,
while refusing to acknowledge the inherently dark aspects of social life.
Religions teach us to be polite, to honour one another, to be faithful and
sober, but they also know that if they do not allow us to be or do otherwise
every once in a while, they will break our spirit. In their most sophisticated
moments, religions accept the debt that goodness, faith, and sweetness owe to
their opposites. (63)
Part of my struggle in reading this book is that I have a
religious linguistic framework in my head. When I read, “There could be temples
to spring and temples to kindness, temples to serenity and temples to
reflection, temples to forgiveness and temples to self-knowledge,” my thoughts
are that de Botton is simply make those ideals into gods. That’s not atheism,
it’s polytheism with the deity being the philosophical premises that de Botton
holds dear.
De Botton does point out some of the real flaws in secular
society. The free market is not set up to psychologically or emotionally
prepare a person for dying or for death around them. The commodification of our
bodies does not actually teach us how to live or live well. The constant
barrage of information does more to separate us from our fellow humans and
other animals than it does to bring us together. In a fear of seeming
“religious”, the institutions that provide information, universities, museums,
music programs, do not actually teach people how to live with that information,
to use what is being learned, seen, heard, or observed toward better living and
better dying.
While de Botton offers a structure for secular society to
begin to convey these ideals, I am not entirely sure how it would be
accomplished. The book is full of provocation (and occasionally disturbing)
pictures and photo-shopped images of advertisements promoting forgiveness, art
work that offers perspective on the length of human existence, and structures
that draw one out of one’s self (and presumably out of one’s self-absorption).
Ultimately, the proposals fell flat. While the idea is
lofty, de Botton will have difficulty selling this premise. That is precisely
the problem in that secularism will buy anything, when the price is right. The
mysteries of religious, from the perspective of non-believers, come at too high
a cost. Yet, the vagaries of living and dying are cheapened when they are not
taken seriously. De Botton has tried to provide currency for claiming and
reclaiming those mysteries, but I am not sure anyone will buy his argument.
The worth of this book for a believer (a religious person)
lies in what de Botton says religions do. Do you understand what you believe to
offer daily, weekly, monthly, yearly guidance? Does your particular religiosity
offer you guidance for the here and now or merely for getting by until the
sweet by and by? Do the elements of your faith, sacraments, catechism, art,
music, and literature, bring you to a deeper understanding and appreciation of
the mysteries of living and dying?
Inasmuch as de Botton (one atheist) believes that religions
do these things for their adherents, we should ask ourselves what it is that we
believe? Are we communicating what we believe or are we working toward
believing that which we communicate? Perhaps we need a slim volume- a
combination of Scriptures, church history, art history, and instruction-
entitled, “Religion for Believers”.
I would recommend this book for reflections with a more
advanced book group or Bible study or for the next time you and your best
friend agree to read something together. This book needs discussion after reading.
de Botton, Alain. Religion for Atheists. Pantheon, New York. 2012.
This book was purchased for review.
Having been previously married to an atheist, I would say his perspective was similar, though based in his own experience with Christianity of the Protestant, conservative form rather than Roman Catholicism. He frequently affirmed the nature of my work as valuable because "people need community." Thanks for reading and reviewing the book.
ReplyDeletethank you, Julia, you've "started a lot of hares," here... a very helpful review... interesting, for a start, that his #1 human agony is "professional failure." H'm! Much to think about. Sounds as though it would be a nice, provocative, book to quote in preaching too.
ReplyDelete