Keep your Temples; We Have Greater Things

Alain de Botton, wants to build an
Atheist Temple in London.

Alain de Botton has announced plans to construct a 150 foot high temple to atheism in the heart to London.

He claims that it is a terrible thing that many of our most historic and beautiful buildings were constructed for the worship of the religious and that atheism should have the same.

Mr. de Botton has faced criticism from both the atheist community and the believing public.  Atheists, such as Richard Dawkins object to the wasteful use of such funds, "Atheists don't need temples. I think there are better things to spend this kind of money on. If you are going to spend money on atheism you could improve secular education and build non-religious schools which teach rational, skeptical critical thinking."

The defenders of belief use this fraternal disagreement to attack and skewer atheists in general, “I must say that some of my closest friends are atheists, and they are among the cleverest people I've ever known. In fact, they are so wise that they usually steer clear of matters philosophical, concentrating instead on things like politics, art, law or social commentary. Perhaps they tacitly agree with me, though they'll never admit this, that 'atheist philosopher' is an oxymoron. One can be either an atheist or a philosopher, not both.” (Alexander Boot, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2093778/We-temples-atheism-Mr-Botton.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

And being used as an attack on Dawkins in specific, “The shrill voice of Dawkins is gradually being marginalized by those of no more faith than him, but who nevertheless perceive mystery in humanity and, while not accepting the presence of God in the world, are prepared to face in the same direction as the rest of us and stand in awe and wonder.” (George Pitcher, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2093852/From-Attenborough-Alain-Botton-faithless-rejecting-shrill-atheism-Dawkins.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

These attacks come from a deep misunderstanding of what atheism it and is not.  It is true that atheism does not need a temple, but that does not mean that atheists do not like to gather to consider the mysteries of the universe or speak of philosophical issues. The deeply insulting idea that atheists can’t be philosophers (the worst insults are seemly always predicated with the phrase “some of my closest friends”) barely needs refutation except to say that even in the early days of the renaissance the leading humanist of the era and one of its greatest thinkers, Conrad Celtes began questioning the existence of a god over 500 years ago.  In fact, one of the first goals of the early humanists, the first true philosopher in Europe sicnce the fall of the dark ages, was to attack scholasticism; the pseudo-philosophical belief that all forms of thought and philosophy could be reduced to a brach of Christian thought.

When one honestly explores the implications of the quest for knowledge and ethics one could just as easily argue more successfully that atheism is part of the ultimate expression of philosophy.  If we agree with American philosopher John Dewey that philosophy is most useful when based on reason, and if we remember that Christian leaders from St. Augustine to Martin Luther, horror shows that they were, realized that reason is the greatest enemy of faith, we can see that philosophy equals reason, but reason does not equal faith. 

To accuse Dr. Dawkins of lacking wonder at the universe simply because he forthrightly and effectively points out the fallacies of the faithful is to also say that Einstein lacked the ability to conceive of the wonderful awesomeness of time and space or that Sagan dismissed the beauty of the cosmos; they held the same views as Dawkins.  Having awe in the face of reality in all of its fierce, order-from-chaos action and the counter-intuitive laws of the physical realm is much stronger than the fear of a capricious god.

Secular schools, public colleges and universities, community volunteer centers, offices of democratic government, modern hospitals, and the like are all temples to secular humanism which is as like atheism to have no difference.  For me, it is the public library that is my temple of choice; a place where at public expense the knowledge of the world, presented without prejudice or comment, is made available to anyone who asks, presented in a peaceful and unobtrusive environment.

So, no, atheists do not need a temple because the modern world is our cathedral.  No facet of modern life is untouched by the values of the atheist; science, reason, equality before the law, and respect for knowledge. We believe the world that we live in can be made better, that people can choose to improve their condition, and the lot of our existence as human beings can be improved; these are the inherent hopes of a people who do not place the responsibility for their decisions on ephemeral sky fathers or believe that some unknown heaven is more important than the well being of people in the here and now.  These are the values and gifts of secular, humanistic atheists.

So, keep your temples; we’ll take the universe.