Moderation is the keynote of Epicureanism. No Epicurean can be a militant atheist like Richard Dawkins, whose books are very interesting and well-written, but who in person is too disagreeable. Contrary to Dawkins, some activities of religion are good, e.g raising money for charity Sunday schools and teaching children consideration and love, honesty and integrity. If the Sermon on the Mount were the sum of Christianity no one could argue. It is fear, and fear of death, support of the establishment, the supernaturalism and the stuff about angels and harps, that increasingly puts people off. If Jesus of Nazareth were shorn of his supernatural accretions given him by church tradition, he would be a fine model, a guru not unlike Buddha.
My personal interpretation of Epicureanism includes all the good bits of Christianity before the hordes of religious scholars started to debate the number of angels that could be accommodated on the point of a pin, making the idea of Jesus mystical instead of humanistic. When it starts getting supernatural and mystical it loses me. I went to chapel every day at school and at 17 realised I didn’t literally understand half the services. What about you?
In the increasingly post religious Western world, its absolutely vital that we continue the practises that made religion so popular in the first place: the community and friendships- especially the ones that cut across class and generational divides, the support for the sick and elderly, the charity for people around the world (many churches support refugees), the education of children, and the moral guidance and help for ordinary people who don’t know what to do. Clearly religion can’t be entirely bad or else it would never have existed.
Having said that, I think its possible to continue the successes of religion without repeating its failures. People should organise themselves into local groups that meet regularly, socialise, and help members in need without being a burden on everyone. It will look different from country to country of course, but then so does religion.
In Dawkins’ defence, I don’t believe he’s the anti religious bigot some people have made him out to be. He’s simply quite a shallow thinker, because he never really tries to understand what made religion popular, and what to replace it with. I think something along an Epicurean garden would be a good replacement, but no one should be forced to obey any rules beyond those of common decency.
Good post!