Religion for Atheists: A non-believer's guide to the uses of religion [Hardcover]

This really is a wonderful, engaging book that was an absolute joy to read. I had a religious upbringing but have been an atheist since my teens. I've always felt ambivalent towards Christianity, because there's so much about it I can never accept, and yet I've seen firsthand the sense of community it provides, the consolation it brings in times of trouble, and the acts of kindness that faith can inspire. Like many people, I can't relate to Dawkins' harsh dismissal of everything spiritual, despite agreeing with him about the non-existence of God, so Alain de Botton's book was a revelation as to how atheists can benefit from the wisdom of religions while rejecting their intolerances and superstitions.

The book aims throughout to demonstrate how the best aspects of religion might be transferred into a secular community. For example, the author proposes the concept of the Agape restaurant, the secular equivalent of a church feast, where one can eat with and talk to strangers, be accepted with kindness, and discuss the things that really matter in life, all within a structured framework. It appealed to me as an alternative to the alienating experience of trying to make friends at a party, where every question is loaded with judgement, `what do you do', and so on. I also loved his idea of reintroducing a Feast of Fools, based on a historical festival from mediaeval Christianity that provided an outlet to release tension by indulging in unrestricted drunken or sexual behaviour and letting go of adult responsibilities just for one day.

I was fascinated by de Botton's ideas on the importance of teaching ethics and relevant life skills via literature, art and philosophy (the secular alternatives to religious doctrines). In universities literary texts are so often presented for dissection in such a clinical, detached manner, as if connecting them with our lives and drawing practical value from them would be somehow embarrassing or un-academic - and yet there are centuries of life experience and acquired wisdom to be drawn from them.

I particularly enjoyed the chapter on the hidden benefits of pessimism, and I agree with the author that a capitalist-oriented emphasis on optimism, choice and the power of the individual to `achieve anything you want,' can be terribly damaging, because of its implication that failure is then the fault of the individual, and not attributable to environmental factors or sheer bad luck. One of the gifts of religion is to help us accept our flaws and the limitations imposed on us with grace and humour, instead of succumbing to self-loathing and despair because we don't match up to impossible expectations. De Botton proposes that we share some of our darkest emotions via an anonymous `Wailing Wall', giving consolation to others by helping them understand they are not alone in their loneliness, anxiety, social inadequacy, etc.

The book also covers the subject of the beauty and meaning inherent in religious art and architecture, and how this sense of awe could be transferable to buildings and museums in the secular world - the controversial idea of `atheist temples.' Last weekend, with this in mind I visited Westminster Abbey, which I haven't been to since my childhood. I was left stunned by the immense beauty and brilliance of the architecture, and the love and devotion that must have inspired it, but it also struck me how differently people behaved inside the building; the hushed voices, and the lack of shoving, pushing and tutting that you experience in any crowded space in central London. I doubt that all of the tourists were believers, but we were all spellbound by the atmosphere. I believe this sense of reflectiveness and sanctuary could be consciously replicated in a secular temple dedicated to perspective, love or friendship, as the author proposes.

I think this is a fascinating and very brave book that will no doubt attract criticism from both sides, and I admire Alain de Botton's courage in stepping into the midst of the debate. I would recommend it to anyone who can't accept outdated superstition, yet seeks an alternative to existing purely to gain material wealth and status in a selfish, individualistic society.

I really like Alain de Botton and his accessible, absorbing approach to philosophy. But I really didn't enjoy this book, I'm afraid.

The structure of each chapter the book is very formulaic:
a) Identify a positive aspect of religion
b) Muse that this is lacking in modern society
c) Propose a secular solution

The majority of his arguments collapse at stage b. For example:
a) Churches get strangers talking to one another
b) Restaurants don't
c) Set up new restaurants

The problem, of course, is that the assignment of this quality to restaurants is arbitrary. There are plenty of secular places and events, from knitting circles to Skeptics in the Pub, where strangers are encouraged to talk and interact. I simply don't accept the premise that this is a function of religious society that is absent from secular society.

Similarly:
a) The church guides us on practical life skills
b) Universities teach fact-based courses like history, with little regard for life skills
c) Change universities' curricula

I studied at a university with an Institute for Health and Society and a Campus for Ageing and Vitality: I don't accept the premise that universities only offer impractical courses.

And so it goes on. Almost every chapter is built upon one of these illogical leaps - and, not only that, but the structure of the book gives little expression to the downsides of the prescribed form of living encouraged by religion, and its secular reversioning encouraged by de Botton.

Overall, this was a disappointing and frustrating read from one of my favourite authors. I sorely hope he returns to form!

This book is weird. By the time I got to the suggestion that we reintroduce a period of debauchery once a year in newly created "Agape Restaurants", because people hate following the rules all the time, I thought I must be reading it wrong. Was it some kind of satire? Had de Botton lost his mind?

As another reviewer noted, de Botton appears to be a religious person in all but name. He refers tediously often to the "human soul" and its needs, but fails to question what this entity is. Had history favoured Hippocrates, the ancient physicalist, rather than Plato's dualism, we might be in a better position now.

De Botton's view of atheism and secular society, on the other hand, is so dismal that it rivals some of the worst pronouncements from pulpits. We are lost, helpless children, insane, violent, forgetful and greedy. His remedy is to celebrate secular "saints" and "sacraments" to provide guidance and succour, now that religion is, supposedly, gone. He does not bother to establish whether modern culture is in any real sense secular, but considers that feature the source of its sickness anyway. A quick google shows that non-religious people make up somewhere in the region of 10 percent of the world, and my experience is it's stuffed full of magical thinkers like himself. He never once considers how much religion might be contributing to societies' ills.

Unfathomably, de Botton hardly mentions science (surely the sharpest tool sculpting atheism) and when he does, he makes these points (paraphrased): scientists talk in technical language that leaves him cold; there are awesome vistas of time and distance that science could use to teach us perspective instead of boring facts; therefore we should build various pieces of architecture, disregarding scientific education, simply to inspire us with awe. To show how marvellous science could be, he sketches a Temple to Perspective, a tower 46 m high, with a layer 1 mm thick made of gold at the base to represent humanity's time on Earth in proportion to the latter's age, which seems a monumentally silly idea to me.

He may also have named a few scientists as examples of "secular saints" on whose valour we should meditate on given days, although he doesn't seem to have learned much of their actual work. He doesn't get it: scientific awe and guidance only follow from learning actual facts.

De Botton is steeped in a different aspect of human culture: literature, philosophy, art - and apparently he does not understand how deeply these have been influenced by Judeo-Christian psychology. He sees "the human soul" as philosophers have handed it down to us, a mental or spiritual entity composed of various ideal aspects, or a vessel requiring filling with virtues. Had he studied psychology - the science, that is, rather than the inventions of mere thinkers - he might know that our brains are hard-wired to navigate the social world as peaceably and successfully as possible. Indeed, if anything can, a scientific understanding of evolution, of our impulses to compete and co-operate, could empower us to forge a peaceful global future. It seems pretty clear by now that temples and sermons have failed to do it. Ironically, de Botton is didactic and authoritarian, which would seem to be one of the biggest barriers to inter-cultural harmony. He's envisaged a truly disturbing Orwellian dystopia of statutory moral education, with giant electronic billboards depicting Forgiveness, where the evil Footsie used to be.

I am shocked that a philosopher could tackle this problem without asking what goodness and evil mean to an atheist, when a moral vacuum is perhaps the greatest fear of the believer. He colludes with this fear and appears to feel it acutely himself. He paints a pessimistic view of people, just as Christianity does, and chides modernity for its optimism. When an exponentially increasing proportion of the world learns most of its moral sense and factual information online, peer-to-peer (I don't think he mentioned the Internet once), he wants grand architecture and a string of identically branded therapy shops to save us from our pathetic selves. It really does make more sense to reverse the title. This is a prejudiced, fearful book about atheism, and from his metaphysical perspective atheism looks pretty ugly.