Sighing at Alain de Botton
A lot of things make me sigh but the past few days I have had more cause to do so. Yesterday was a good example, as when one of the parents who came to collect their child from school, did so wearing a pair of leggings that were particularly skin-tight (and as a result, entirely see-through).
The net result of this fashion choice was that not only could I and every other parent on the playground, tell that she liked to get her blue-flowerprint thongs from Marks and Spencers, but also what religion she was too and that she had at least one child by caesarian section.
She actually looked as if she had thrown on a pair of tights in a rush, then in her haste, forgotten to add a skirt to the ensemble. All around the playground, people were feigning consummate interest in a wide variety of flora and fauna, aircraft in the sky, playground markings and notices about bringing in your PE kit every day. It was better than having to turn around and find yourself transfixed by her blue-clad arse and thus be accused of visual pervery.
That little incident came on top of another at the weekend, when I ventured into Waterstones to spend the last few quid I had on a gift card I had received for Christmas. Upon entering the store, I headed straight for the "boring, intellectual, pompous twat" section and after skimming through "The Vapid Sanctity of Non-belief", "Eridemus - A Plutocratian view" and "Mr Bump", my eyes fell across the latest offering by Mr Alain de Botton...
For those of you who don't know him, then I'll explain. Mr. de Botton is a Swiss-born author, presenter and philosopher who specialises in a form of writing known as "stating the fucking obvious, but in the most indirect and incomprehensible way possible". He's very good at it, and has sold lots of books by telling people nothing new whatsoever,and essentially just repeating very basic facts or observations in a variety of different ways.
To enhance the illusion, he is fond of using big words. This is a shrewd move as that makes the reader feel somewhat important; as if they are part of some kind of higher-form of civilised society who are indubitably well-read and have a greater level of understanding of the agonies of the human condition.
Indeed, I'm willing to believe that most of those who read this form of literary guff write appalling self-indulgent poetry.
Annoyingly, Mr de Botton is also an atheist and these non-beliefs (and his fascinating observations of them) form the basis of his new book. In it he offers us a bone-jarring reality check about the nature of religion and atheism; reaching a cataclysmic conclusion that shows such insight, such an understanding of the whole issue and such incredible foresight, that a fucking three-month-old baby could have written it.
To save you the bother of borrowing it from the library to read, laugh at and then throw on the fire, here's the essence of what he says.
1. I'm an atheist and all atheists want to destroy religion (boo, hiss! Stone them!)
2. But hey dudes! Wait a moment! I'm a nice atheist... I actually appreciate religion (boo, hiss? eh? What's he on about???)
3. Actually religion can do good things too you know! (Eh?...well, you have a point there... I mean look at Easter Eggs, their delicious. And Fairy Lights, they're pretty...)
4. Some religious people are jolly nice (my local vicar, Gladys from down the road who does the shopping once a week for the housebound and runs the coffee mornings) and lets not forget some atheists are very nasty! (Stalin*).
5. So what we need is a world where we can have religion AND atheism! (By jove! You know, he's damn right! He is the messiah! And I should know, I've followed a few...)
6. Therefore, Atheists shouldn't be out to destroy religion! (Kumbaya M'lord (or not), Kumbaya...)
I know; these startling conclusions have made me rethink my life in many ways too.
What is particularly tiresome about this whole precept is that the book is based on the much-peddled myth that somehow atheists are out to destroy all religion in any form. That is just abject nonsense. Atheists don't want to destroy religion, we'd just like a bit more proof of their claims at times. It's called testing a hypothesis.
I think we'd also like to see more balanced views of religion in certain parts of the world, that people can believe what they like without fear of having to collect up the bodyparts of a relative from the local grocery store, because he had the temerity to believe in a slightly different god in a slightly different way, than the 13-year-old suicide bomber was ordered to believe in by his 'spiritual advisors'.
I also find it entirely amusing that religious critics lambaste those atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, accusing him of 'hysterically propagating non-beliefs" or of "waging a war on religion" or of being "extremist" or "radical".
Thing is, if God existed and was that upset, one well-aimed lightning bolt would solve that problem wouldn't it?
Besides, there's nothing like irony, especially when those making the comments have no idea of the hypocrisy of their words.
Anyway, I'm digressing: The whole point of De Botton's new masterwork is based on an entirely false assumption. Atheists do not in general, I believe, want to destroy religion. I think most recognise that there is a great deal of good religion (or more accurately, the kind people who rally tirelessly and selflessly under that banner) does in society. Yes, there are negative aspects too, but often that is not the fault of religion. Instead, it is the abuse of it, and of people's faith in it. That combined with a selfish and unhealthy interpretation of what any chosen religion is supposed to stand for.
That's a result of human stupidity, anger, intolerance, selfishness, greed and fear, rather than any ecumenical failing.
Music is essentially good for the soul (bar Jedward obviously), but we don't let Gary Glitter spoil or tarnish what Mozart produced, do we? We still head to the hospital or doctor when we are sick or ill despite what happened with Beverly Allitt and Harold Shipman. Religion is no different in that respect. Those who abuse it deserve all our venom, even if they believe what they are doing is right. There is a point where 'faith' becomes 'ignorance', where 'guidance' becomes 'abuse' and where 'love' becomes 'fear'.
I believe that whatever you choose religion should be a free choice, but not a coercion or a birthright. All people should be educated about religions and be allowed to open their mind to all and make their own decisions based on evidence and their gut instinct.
Thing is, there is so much to admire and enjoy about religion. Our lives are enriched enormously by religion in many ways, and to assume that atheists somehow want to get rid of this is patently absurd. Yet despite this, it forms the cornerstone argument of those who claim atheism is damaging, as well as the main assumption behind De Botton's latest offering.
It is a much healthier world when a vicar and an atheist can share a joke about Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" and laugh at exactly the same thing, for the same reasons.
So, to get back to the original point. De Botton's new book is basically his latest effort at "stating the bleeding obvious" to enlighten a new generation of wannabe philosophy graduates. Furthermore, it is a somewhat feeble attempt to do so, based on grossly inaccurate assumptions and using the flimsiest of pretexts to establish an argument that is not only incorrect, but utterly redundant and pointless. It is a sterile piece of literary masturbation, masquerading as an important, educational and thought-provoking discussion.
Which is why, with my £5, I bought Mr Bump. It had considerably more intellectual depth, greater strength of argument and undeniably better core values for living ones life.
Though if Roger Hargreaves can hear me, I would add a caveat that you should not wear skin-tight see-through leggings when picking your kids up from school.
(* Note - Stalin always gets trotted out as a good reason why we need to be wary of atheists and their dangerous non-beliefs. In fact, I can often feel myself at various times of the day wanting to start up a Gulag camp, enslave millions to brutal hard labour and effectively commit genocide against those who are slightly different to me, but I often find a cup of coffee and a biscuit helps dim those feelings for a little while.)
The net result of this fashion choice was that not only could I and every other parent on the playground, tell that she liked to get her blue-flowerprint thongs from Marks and Spencers, but also what religion she was too and that she had at least one child by caesarian section.
She actually looked as if she had thrown on a pair of tights in a rush, then in her haste, forgotten to add a skirt to the ensemble. All around the playground, people were feigning consummate interest in a wide variety of flora and fauna, aircraft in the sky, playground markings and notices about bringing in your PE kit every day. It was better than having to turn around and find yourself transfixed by her blue-clad arse and thus be accused of visual pervery.
That little incident came on top of another at the weekend, when I ventured into Waterstones to spend the last few quid I had on a gift card I had received for Christmas. Upon entering the store, I headed straight for the "boring, intellectual, pompous twat" section and after skimming through "The Vapid Sanctity of Non-belief", "Eridemus - A Plutocratian view" and "Mr Bump", my eyes fell across the latest offering by Mr Alain de Botton...
For those of you who don't know him, then I'll explain. Mr. de Botton is a Swiss-born author, presenter and philosopher who specialises in a form of writing known as "stating the fucking obvious, but in the most indirect and incomprehensible way possible". He's very good at it, and has sold lots of books by telling people nothing new whatsoever,and essentially just repeating very basic facts or observations in a variety of different ways.
To enhance the illusion, he is fond of using big words. This is a shrewd move as that makes the reader feel somewhat important; as if they are part of some kind of higher-form of civilised society who are indubitably well-read and have a greater level of understanding of the agonies of the human condition.
Indeed, I'm willing to believe that most of those who read this form of literary guff write appalling self-indulgent poetry.
Annoyingly, Mr de Botton is also an atheist and these non-beliefs (and his fascinating observations of them) form the basis of his new book. In it he offers us a bone-jarring reality check about the nature of religion and atheism; reaching a cataclysmic conclusion that shows such insight, such an understanding of the whole issue and such incredible foresight, that a fucking three-month-old baby could have written it.
To save you the bother of borrowing it from the library to read, laugh at and then throw on the fire, here's the essence of what he says.
1. I'm an atheist and all atheists want to destroy religion (boo, hiss! Stone them!)
2. But hey dudes! Wait a moment! I'm a nice atheist... I actually appreciate religion (boo, hiss? eh? What's he on about???)
3. Actually religion can do good things too you know! (Eh?...well, you have a point there... I mean look at Easter Eggs, their delicious. And Fairy Lights, they're pretty...)
4. Some religious people are jolly nice (my local vicar, Gladys from down the road who does the shopping once a week for the housebound and runs the coffee mornings) and lets not forget some atheists are very nasty! (Stalin*).
5. So what we need is a world where we can have religion AND atheism! (By jove! You know, he's damn right! He is the messiah! And I should know, I've followed a few...)
6. Therefore, Atheists shouldn't be out to destroy religion! (Kumbaya M'lord (or not), Kumbaya...)
I know; these startling conclusions have made me rethink my life in many ways too.
What is particularly tiresome about this whole precept is that the book is based on the much-peddled myth that somehow atheists are out to destroy all religion in any form. That is just abject nonsense. Atheists don't want to destroy religion, we'd just like a bit more proof of their claims at times. It's called testing a hypothesis.
I think we'd also like to see more balanced views of religion in certain parts of the world, that people can believe what they like without fear of having to collect up the bodyparts of a relative from the local grocery store, because he had the temerity to believe in a slightly different god in a slightly different way, than the 13-year-old suicide bomber was ordered to believe in by his 'spiritual advisors'.
I also find it entirely amusing that religious critics lambaste those atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, accusing him of 'hysterically propagating non-beliefs" or of "waging a war on religion" or of being "extremist" or "radical".
Thing is, if God existed and was that upset, one well-aimed lightning bolt would solve that problem wouldn't it?
Besides, there's nothing like irony, especially when those making the comments have no idea of the hypocrisy of their words.
Anyway, I'm digressing: The whole point of De Botton's new masterwork is based on an entirely false assumption. Atheists do not in general, I believe, want to destroy religion. I think most recognise that there is a great deal of good religion (or more accurately, the kind people who rally tirelessly and selflessly under that banner) does in society. Yes, there are negative aspects too, but often that is not the fault of religion. Instead, it is the abuse of it, and of people's faith in it. That combined with a selfish and unhealthy interpretation of what any chosen religion is supposed to stand for.
That's a result of human stupidity, anger, intolerance, selfishness, greed and fear, rather than any ecumenical failing.
Music is essentially good for the soul (bar Jedward obviously), but we don't let Gary Glitter spoil or tarnish what Mozart produced, do we? We still head to the hospital or doctor when we are sick or ill despite what happened with Beverly Allitt and Harold Shipman. Religion is no different in that respect. Those who abuse it deserve all our venom, even if they believe what they are doing is right. There is a point where 'faith' becomes 'ignorance', where 'guidance' becomes 'abuse' and where 'love' becomes 'fear'.
I believe that whatever you choose religion should be a free choice, but not a coercion or a birthright. All people should be educated about religions and be allowed to open their mind to all and make their own decisions based on evidence and their gut instinct.
Thing is, there is so much to admire and enjoy about religion. Our lives are enriched enormously by religion in many ways, and to assume that atheists somehow want to get rid of this is patently absurd. Yet despite this, it forms the cornerstone argument of those who claim atheism is damaging, as well as the main assumption behind De Botton's latest offering.
It is a much healthier world when a vicar and an atheist can share a joke about Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" and laugh at exactly the same thing, for the same reasons.
So, to get back to the original point. De Botton's new book is basically his latest effort at "stating the bleeding obvious" to enlighten a new generation of wannabe philosophy graduates. Furthermore, it is a somewhat feeble attempt to do so, based on grossly inaccurate assumptions and using the flimsiest of pretexts to establish an argument that is not only incorrect, but utterly redundant and pointless. It is a sterile piece of literary masturbation, masquerading as an important, educational and thought-provoking discussion.
Which is why, with my £5, I bought Mr Bump. It had considerably more intellectual depth, greater strength of argument and undeniably better core values for living ones life.
Though if Roger Hargreaves can hear me, I would add a caveat that you should not wear skin-tight see-through leggings when picking your kids up from school.
(* Note - Stalin always gets trotted out as a good reason why we need to be wary of atheists and their dangerous non-beliefs. In fact, I can often feel myself at various times of the day wanting to start up a Gulag camp, enslave millions to brutal hard labour and effectively commit genocide against those who are slightly different to me, but I often find a cup of coffee and a biscuit helps dim those feelings for a little while.)
Comments
Post a Comment