I am not sure what to think of this idea (my first response was revulsion) An atheist temple? The instigator of this idea is an British atheist and philosopher Alain de Botton.
Botton says '"Why should religious people have the most beautiful buildings in the land? It's time atheists had their own versions of the great churches and cathedrals. A beautiful building is an indispensable part of getting your message across. Books alone won't do it." (from the wired Magazine interview).
Forgive me, but building a temple for non-believers is redundant? Aren't science and natural history museums the place to go to appreciate the wonders of the natural world and our Universe. Isn't the vast majority of the greatest and most beautiful modern architecture a testament to our knowledge of science, engineering and a showcase of the secular world over the last 150 years? Who needs a temple? Botton seems like he is a worshiper without a religion; a seeker of a new dogma.
I would not agree. We, atheist, also need a place with dignity to marry, baptise our children, funerals and other occasion. Even in secular Sweden (which is way ahead of America) we had to look hard to find a good place to marry (although the Swedish state free of charge provides a wedding officiant) -we managed with a bit of luck. For the atheistic baptising of our kid we had to resort to our summerhouse (which also worked out thanks to good luck with weather) -but really: an atheistic temple is reasonable for us taxpayers (Swedish tax levels are also, unfortunatly, way ahead of America...).
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but is there something fundamental I am missing here? Is your reply extremely dry satire?
DeleteThank you Xenolith, I appreciate your comment.
ReplyDelete