*On Atheism 2.0

Alain de Botton proposes "Atheism 2.0"; the next step of atheism: learning from religion.

As noble as I think de Botton's proposal of an Atheism 2.0 is, I think it becomes problematic once we begin thinking about what this means. I think it's great for the romantic and to fluff up the mind with vague ideas about what a new atheism might do. But if we sparse out the components, their entailments, and a few semantic issues, 2.0 needs updates and troubleshooting. 

Let's begin with his first premise. "Of course, it's ridiculous," of course, religion can't be true, of course God is the equivalent of fairies and the doctrines are all fairy tales of lands far far away. I think this brushing off of religion is unnecessary. The question of the existence of God largely depends on what God is, in order to make any claim to "of course, it's ridiculous." Evolution does not exclude any form of creator. It does put into question the 7 day theory but this is based on the Bible and also depending on what kind of reading/interpretation one has of it. So the ridicule is really directed at a particular form of religiosity and presumes it to be the case for all religions. But let's put this aside and grant atheism its legitimate place, although atheism is a reactionary formation contingent upon the form of theism that one is exposed to that informs one's ideations of religion and its contents.
   
The first issue with Atheism 2.0 is well...what is Atheism 1.0? Is this a definitive group? Is it just the scientists and the secularists? Or...are we just talking about people who don't believe in any organized religion? Because there is a gray area of the "spiritual but not religious" who can be equally as ridiculous as the religious zealots. Or...by the atheists are we just talking about those who believe in evolution? This category of atheism is still somewhat elusive. For de Botton's sake, let's just qualify it as those who think religion is a bad idea and for those who think that religion has done more harm than good; it's the "opium of the masses" as Marx said and leave it there. Although, this will prove to be a bigger problem later on as we go through his suggestions.

De Botton's first suggestions is that we use culture. More specifically, he suggests literature as a substitute for scripture. He uses the example of Plato, Shakespeare, and Jane Austen. Contemporary society is wrought with existential problems and filled with people "just barely" holding it together. Even if we accept this, that we all have existential problems and "just barely" holding it together and don't get me wrong I love literature but, tastes will differ. Not everybody is a fan of Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, or Plato. The question of various secular taste is also an issue for de Botton's suggestion of Art to be divided into conceptual categories (which is a modern art project in itself). Again, paintings aren't so singular. Many are complex in their portrayals and what they represent. Love itself is not a standalone category. A lot goes into 'love'; a lot goes into 'hate' and etc. They are far from clear cut. So this becomes a question of organization.

But returning to the point about existential angst and literature. Yes, we do find guidance of how to live and how to make sense of things from literature. But are these books sufficient for sanctification? A secular canon? Can we canonize Moby Dick or the Brother's Karamazov? Great as they are, I'm not sure about this. And I'll return to these later on in my conclusion of what it is he seems to be suggesting...

The next suggestion is for the atheistic world to structure time or rather give significance to certain events as days of remembrance to remind us of our insignificance. But don't we already have something like this? February is supposed to be 'Black History Month,' if this works out then everybody should be conscientious about "Black History", or Cinco de mayo, or whatever, Independence day, Lunar New Year, etc. But we have these. Have they done anything? I'm not sure. Rascism is still rampant. Immigration procedures have become even more focused and directed at the latino community. The idea of a "black", or "half-white", president has caused waves of fear and tremor amongst the U.S. The thought of Islam is too often equated with terrorism. It hasn't changed.

The next suggestion is putting action and ideas together in forms of ritual...aren't social gatherings a kind of ritual? People put the ideas of gift-giving and family into action and call it Christmas or Thanksgiving. People do all types of annual rituals. I'm curious what kind of ideas and what kind of action de Botton is thinking about here.

Then he says to organize, give poets, philosophers, artists, and let's corporatize the arts, wisdom...

Is it possible to corporatize these things? Can we make an industry for wisdom? In a way, I think we already do all this. We do praise the works of culture, we already do have calendars for remembrance, we already put actions and ideas together, we already do all of these things that de Botton is suggesting. Atheism 2.0 is really contingent upon what the atheists of this category are willing to agree, organize and then sanctify. Is this a call to make atheism into a religion? I think this is wrought with some problems that will recreate the same issues people have with religion. 2.0 is not really 2.0 but a call to a bandwagon for a certain kind of atheism as a religion. If atheism is to sustain itself in the arena of the secular and the realm of reason and science, I don't think atheism can feasibly turn into another religion. Which authors do we turn into saints and canons of wisdom? Which artists? And how will this organization happen? The idea, although romantic, falls apart in its pragmatics and specifics. And as much as I like the idea that the poets, artists, philosophers, should get more money and be valued higher in terms of their production, I don't think corporatizing and pumping out the same message is really going to help progress society any further. The problem is not the message. Nor is it really religion per se. But how religions manifest attitudes within the current economic and political system. And turning a form of atheism into the same category of religion will not do anything else but become a similar entity to religion in the economic political sphere. If atheism is to turn into a new paradigm, a new way of thinking, a new way of structuring society, it needs a lot more thought. 2.0 will just crash without the logistics.