Atheist temple my ass. This brief piece in Huffington Post does give a little more insight into why Alain de Botton seems determined to muddy the basic definition of atheism. It will not be a temple of atheism in any way but rather a temple to de Botton or at least his odd ideas about religion and art. It seems to be an extension of his moronic TED talk and the book he recently published. I do not believe it is coincidental that his background is in architecture.
It all makes a little more sense when you string together a few other facts. The church used to be one of the biggest sponsors of art and architecture but has essentially moved away from such patronage. What is one of the faster growing demographics in the US and globally? The non-religious (not necessarily atheist). It seems as though de Botton wants the more secular groups to take up where the religions left off regarding the arts. His insistence on adopting the baggage of religion to achieve this goal is just a manifestation of his own ignorance. Religion was a patron of the arts for two main reasons; propaganda and prestige. The church had the resources and recognized the potential benefits. That does not in any way mean religion was necessary for either the creation or the appreciation of art.
I may be wrong but it seems that he is trying to reinvigorate his field of interest by attempting to inspire the nonreligious to step back into old unnecessary patterns of behavior. What's wrong with promoting art for arts sake. Why build a "temple"? How about a series of monumental structures designed to celebrate different forms and/or aspects of art. Such a project might inspire art lovers whether they are religious or not. That would at least be honest and far less self-centered.
No comments:
Post a Comment