Plans to build a £1m "temple for atheists" among the international banks and medieval church spires of the City of London have sparked a clash between two of Britain's most prominent non-believers.

The philosopher and writer Alain de Botton is proposing to build a 46-metre (151ft) tower to celebrate a "new atheism" as an antidote to what he describes as Professor Richard Dawkins's "aggressive" and "destructive" approach to non-belief.

Rather than attack religion, De Botton said he wants to borrow the idea of awe-inspiring buildings that give people a better sense of perspective on life.

"Normally a temple is to Jesus, Mary or Buddha, but you can build a temple to anything that's positive and good," he said. "That could mean a temple to love, friendship, calm or perspective. Because of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens atheism has become known as a destructive force. But there are lots of people who don't believe but aren't aggressive towards religions."

Dawkins criticised the project on Thursday, indicating the money was being misspent and that a temple of atheism was a contradiction in terms.

"Atheists don't need temples," the author of The God Delusion said. "I think there are better things to spend this kind of money on. If you are going to spend money on atheism you could improve secular education and build non-religious schools which teach rational, sceptical critical thinking."

The spat came as De Botton revealed details of a temple to evoke more than 300m years of life on earth. Each centimetre of the tapering tower's interior has been designed to represent a million years and a narrow band of gold will illustrate the relatively tiny amount of time humans have walked the planet. The exterior would be inscribed with a binary code denoting the human genome sequence.

The philosopher said he has raised almost half the funds for the project from a group of property developers who want to remain anonymous. He hopes to find the rest of the money with a public appeal, and construction could start by the end of 2013 if permission is granted by the Corporation of London.

De Botton said he chose the country's financial centre because he believes it is where people have most seriously lost perspective on life's priorities.

The idea has echoes of earlier atheist spaces, ranging from churches converted to "temples of reason" during the French revolution to the Conway Hall in London which is run by the humanist South Place Ethical Society. The plan is already proving controversial and attempts to secure public sector backing have struggled. Discussions with City authorities about a possible site stalled because "they can't be seen to be connected to anything to do with atheism", the project's architect, Tom Greenall, said. [kennote: lmao atheists are so persecuted amirite]

The temple features a single door for visitors who will enter as if it were an art installation. The roof will be open to the elements and there could be fossils and geologically interesting rocks in the concrete walls.

Humanists said it was misplaced for non-believers to build quasi-religious buildings, because atheists did not need temples to probe the meaning of life.

"The things religious people get from religion – awe, wonder, meaning and perspective – non-religious people get them from other places like art, nature, human relationships and the narratives we give our lives in other ways," said Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Society.

De Botton has insisted atheists have as much right to enjoy inspiring architecture as religious believers.

"The dominant feeling you should get will be awe – the same feeling you get when you tip your head back in Ely cathedral," he said. "You should feel small but not in an intimidated way."

But according to the Rev Katharine Rumens, rector of St Giles' Cripplegate church, in the Barbican, where the temple is likely to be located: "Awe is not enough."

She said: "You need a welcome, a sense of belonging and of wanting to return. It might make you feel so insignificant you wouldn't know how to start. What would this say to somebody who is mentally frail or nearing the end of their life? How does that really speak to the human condition?"

Another Anglican, the Rev George Pitcher, a priest at St Bride's, Fleet Street, and a former adviser to the archbishop of Canterbury, "rejoiced" in the idea. "He is referring to a sense of human transcendence, that there is something more than our visceral existence," Pitcher said.

"Building a monument acknowledges that we are more than dust. Whether we come at that through secular means or a religious narrative, it is the same game.

"This is a more constructive atheism than Dawkins, who is about the destruction of ideas rather than contributing new ones."

deny your dustliness alain. deny it

jools posted:
one day his forehead will just grow and grow up and up into space. then we'll build a space elevator on it.

finally atheists find something to contribute to society

gyrofry posted:
what is a church attendant?

a miserable littal pile of secrets!

Cycloneboy posted:

deadken posted:
autism child doesnt appreciate beauty, whatchaknow

how could i fail to appreciate the transcendent beauty of listening to an old dude talk and singing?

gyrofry posted:
what is a church attendant? is that like what scatman crothers was to that hotel in the shining

A person who is present at an event, meeting, or function (in this case, a church).

an old dude talking and singing isnt a cathedral.

and if you cant imagine the transcendent beauty of listening to an old dude talk or sing then gtfo out of culture Or Cool politics that all the cool people like, and shoo the too foo you and get yourself into an insane assilum stat.

shennong posted:
why does anyone give a fuck what richard dawkins thinks, i never figured that out

Science

babyfinland posted:

shennong posted:
why does anyone give a fuck what richard dawkins thinks, i never figured that out

Science

dawkins is a really mediocre scientist tho, i mean the fact that he probably has as much recognition in popular culture as stephen jay gould or someone like that is insane

deadken posted:
richard dawkins is like malcolm x.

Malcolm X said some mean things about white people, that was it. He was simply uninvolved in the Civil Rights Movement as a political movement (because he was in the NoI). Obviously, Malcolm X is way better than Richard Dawkins, but it's the same underlying principle at work.

deadken posted:
atheists are an oppressed minority

An oppressed minority that can easily pass as members of a majority group is still an oppressed minority. Least trustworthy people, least want-my-daughter-to-marry-an-X group, etc.