Religion
Related: About this forumDo atheists need ‘a cathedral Of their own’?
Posted at 02:51 PM ET, 01/30/2012
By Delia Lloyd
LONDON This just in, from the Department of Can you imagine this happening in the United States? Two prominent atheists popular philosopher Alain de Botton and popular science author Richard Dawkins are sparring over the wisdom of erecting a temple for atheists in London.
No, but seriously folks.
In his latest book, Religion For Atheists, De Botton argues that even atheists have a soft-spot for the sort of grandiose architecture commonly associated with churches, mosques and temples. He has thus raised some 500,000 British pounds (approximately $786,000) to construct what he refers to as a secular space for contemplation in the heart of the citys financial district. Although many in the West have little time for organized religion, they still have feel nostalgic for its consoling, subtle or just charming rituals, as he put it in an interview with a columnist at The Daily Telegraph.
In part, de Botton is motivated by a desire to counter what he sees as the destructive beliefs about atheism put forward by scholars like Richard Dawkins and the late journalist Christopher Hitchens, whom he sees as criticizing religion without offering anything more inspirational in its place. De Botton wants, instead, to borrow the idea of awe-inspiring buildings that give people a better sense of perspective on life.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/do-atheists-need-a-cathedral-of-their-own/2012/01/30/gIQAMRXvcQ_blog.html
Ian David
(69,059 posts)Someplace with a swimming pool, a gymnasium, and a summer camp.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)inspirational alternatives to religion? I'm an atheist and I don't feel the need to tell anyone that doesn't ask. I don't "hate" God, I just don't believe the sky wizard exists.
klook
(12,170 posts)It's called "the world."
ben_thayer
(375 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)A couple of times.
With contrastings OP's too.
Or did you have a point you wanted to make this time?
golddigger
(3,804 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)dmallind
(10,437 posts)I'm not going to do the usual Christian NTS special pleading. It's atheists who want this. I don't see the need myself, but if they can afford it and want it why on earth not? Personally I have no problem enjoying religious architecture as it is - the religious part of it does not detract from my enjoyment noticeably - and certainly not enough to spend $786k scrubbing it from what will still at that price be a rather poor relation to the originals. Even if I had the billions to build a St Peters without the Madonnas and saints why would I bother when I can see the one that has them for less than a grand? A great statue or painting does not become less great with a religious subject or more great with a secular one.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Methinks this is nothing more than a publicity stunt designed to get the attention of theists who will say "aha! I told you atheism was also a religion", which is pretty much why this story has been posted several times now.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)But that's just for appearances.
--imm
LeftishBrit
(41,212 posts)Atheism is not a specific belief system; it's just a lack of belief in a God.
Of course, some atheists (and some theists) might gain a lot from being in a library, or a museum, or an art gallery, or a gym, or a garden, or a park, or the countryside.
And while 'retreats', for withdrawing from the world and contemplating life quietly, are often associated with a religious organization, not all are; and some that are, will accept nonreligious individuals and groups:
http://www.theretreatcompany.com/
(Not my scene, but I have friends, both religious and atheist, who value such time-out from the world.)
But a 'cathedral for atheists' sounds pretty strange.
edhopper
(33,621 posts)It's called the American Museum of Natural History. I understand there are others like it around the world.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)And no, we don't need a cathedral. Why would we?
Jim__
(14,083 posts)The article claims that man has been around for 300 million years. My guess is that they mean 300,000 - it's more in the ballpark of what I normally see. They might have caught the error if they used a consistent metric :
By my computation, there are 30.48 centimeters in a foot, 4,572 centimeters in a 150 foot tower. At 1 million years per centimeter, the tower would represent 4.5 billion years, with slightly less than 10 feet in the narrow band of gold.
The previous article cited on this seemed more realistic when it said the narrow band would be about 1 millimeter thick ( de ZEEN magazine ):