The fundamental idea of this book is that, as we have moved away from organized religion towards a more rational society, we have failed to address the reasons people are drawn to religion in the first place. And that we need address this deficit.

I know the author gets a lot of criticism for over-simplifying some complex ideas, but I disagree that this is what he is doing in this book. First he describes how religion can address spiritual needs, but that addressing these needs don’t necessarily require faith in an unseen deity. He then offers ways that secular society has ignored these needs. Finally, he offers ways that secular “temples” could be built that would address them.

Overall a really interesting book filled with compelling ideas, and a great conversation starter ( )

De Botton helped me understand how I was using spiritual practices in my life, without being constrained by my previous religious affiliations, that rituals were important, that I could 'pray' without praying-to. ( )

I think it is only a sense of loyalty to Alain de Botton that prevents me from giving this book one star. It's a loyalty that comes from the enjoyment I got reading [b:The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work|5293573|The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work|Alain de Botton|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1320538807s/5293573.jpg|14280293] and [b:The Consolations of Philosophy|23419|The Consolations of Philosophy|Alain de Botton|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1320528869s/23419.jpg|14280291] (apart from the first chapter - Socrates was a bore). The great difference is the book's theatre of engagement. In his best books de Botton deals with our inner lives and makes recommendations about how we can best think or feel about things, whereas in Religion for Atheists he deals with the world around us and how we should change it. In other words, he addresses topics for which hard evidence is required. There are none of those warm moments of self-recognition when you find out that you're not the only one who wants this, or wonders that. Instead, I just kept thinking "who says?' angrily as another point was made that sounded nice but which I didn't quite believe.

The writing has also lost a bit, I suspect because the author is a bit lost at sea among the world of facts he has accidentally engaged with. The biggest omissions are those whimsical moments of description that de Botton used in his other books to create just the kind of cozy environment for a bit of light philosophy. He would describe a man sitting at a table in a cheap cafe and wonder if he has just finished work and will shortly go home to a house left empty by the recent cancer death of his wife.

Let's hope that he returns to that mix of whimsy, melancholy and gentle hope in his next book, as it's missing from this effort. ( )

http://www.zeit.de/zeit-wissen/2013/01/Religion-Atheisten ( )

This is the kind of book that will provide lots of material for criticism for those disposed to dislike it. Alain de Botton does not shy away from mixing creative, even outlandish, ideas with a sounds and fascinating analysis of what secular culture loses without religion. He does not treat religions or the religious with kid gloves nor does he give into the denigration of religion common among the "New Atheist" flag bearers. To give an idea of the tone of the book, we can start with the opening:

The most boring and unproductive question one can ask of any religion is whether or not it is true ... To save time, and at the risk of losing readers painfully early on in this project, let us bluntly state that of course no religions are true in any God-given sense. ...

One can be left cold by the doctrines of the Christian Trinity and the Buddhist Eightfold Path and yet at the same time be interested in the ways in which religions deliver sermons, promote morality, engender a spirit of community, make use of art and architecture, inspire travels, train minds and encourage gratitude at the beauty of spring. ...

It is when we stop believing that religions have been handed down from above or else that they are entirely daft that matters become more interesting. We can then recognize that we invented religions to serve two central needs which continue to this day and which secular society has not been able to solve with any particular skill: first, the need to live together in communities in harmony, despite our deeply rooted selfish and violent impulses. And second, the need to cope with terrifying degrees of pain which arise from our vulnerability to professional failure, to troubled relationships, to the death of loved ones and to our decay and demise. God may be dead, but the urgent issues which impelled us to make him up still stir and demand resolutions which do not go away when we have been nudged to perceive some scientific inaccuracies in the tale of the seven loaves and fishes.

The error of modern atheism has been to overlook how many aspects of the faiths remain relevant even after their central tenets have been dismissed. Once we cease to feel that we must either prostrate ourselves before them or denigrate them, we are free to discover religions as repositories of myriad ingenious concepts with which we can try to assuage a few of the most persistent and unattended ills of secular life.

If this excerpt is intriguing, you may well like the book. If it puts you on the defensive, be warned that it continues in this style.

Yes, some of the ideas seem impractical; others are delightful. What matters is not so much the specific ideas as the overarching message that humans are multifaceted creatures, and the current secular society ignores many of those facets. I greatly enjoyed the book. ( )