GOOD

A Truly Godless Place: Why We Designed a Temple for Atheists


In 2008, two events of international significance took place: the Vatican announced that Islam had overtaken Roman Catholicism as the world’s biggest single religious denomination; and scientists at CERN in Geneva switched on the Large Hadron Collider for the first time, reportedly in search of the ‘God Particle.' Despite the fact that the United Kingdom is becoming more secular, religion still continues to generate debate, particularly when it comes into contact with science.

During this time I was a student of architecture at the Royal College of Art in London, about to embark on my MA thesis project. These two events clearly stuck with me and I spent a year developing a project called Cultivating Faith, in which I investigated the potential for religious texts to be used as design guidance.


The project was intended as a critique of society's tendency to shift and adapt its value systems in order to satisfy its increasing needs. It was also an investigation into whether a more ‘practical’ use could be found for religion.

Concurrently, Alain de Botton was working on a new book entitled Religion for Atheists, with the objective of questioning whether secular society could learn a few lessons from traditional theist practice. Following an introduction through my former professor, Nigel Coates, myself, and fellow Royal College of Art graduate, Jordan Hodgson, were invited to collaborate with De Botton to develop designs for a series of 'temples to atheists,' which would feature in his book.

As such, the projects might be referred to as 'critical design'—the use of design to pose questions rather than to necessarily provide solutions. Our designs for the temples were intended to provoke debate about whether cities could benefit from secular temples.


Through conversations with De Botton it became clear that one of his primary concerns was with secular society's need to be awed. This desire is something that we feel whether or not we subscribe to a faith. As a result, over the past couple of decades, an increasing number of unlikely building types have been asked to deliver a sense of the sublime. The contemporary art museum has been perhaps the most obvious victim of that expectation. Exhibiting art now comes secondary to providing awe inspiring architecture.

One thing that appealed to me about Alain's ideas is the suggestion that our cities might once again support programs that genuinely warrant monumental expression. One journalist who wrote about the designs commented: "If we rediscover the will to build architecture that is explicitly designed to serve our spiritual life, can we at last get back to designing art galleries that are just for looking at pictures in?" I thought this was fairly astute—we are forever looking for excuses to create buildings that address our desire for awe. Why must there be another function to provide the justification?

With the design of the Temple to Perspective, we took our inspiration from science and nature. I am incredibly interested in the work that is currently being done in CERN and was keen to tap into some of the more fundamental questions of life. This led to a building that was designed to represent the entire history of life on earth. Each centimetre of the tower equates to one million years of life, resulting in a building that is 46 meters tall. One meter from the ground would be a band of gold about a millimetre thick—this was to represent the relative existence of humankind.

Other symbolism was also employed to create a sense of awe, or to encourage people to take perspective. An interpretation of the human genome sequence would be inscribed on the outside of the tower—a celebration of one of humankind's greatest achievements, but also a reminder of our fragility. The tower would also taper towards the top to represent the expansion of the universe. We realised that the use of symbolism was key to the design in order to add additional layers of meaning, something that we learned from religious architecture.

We also considered the spectacle of the building, and the process of actual construction. Cathedrals would take hundreds of years to complete. Likewise, our tower was intended to be constructed incredibly slowly. The slowness of construction was used to create a geological/ stratified effect on the interior to the building, while also acting as an antidote to the speed at which the world currently operates.

Although the temples were developed largely without a particular site, or the intention for them to be built, they were nevertheless developed in a surprising level of detail through conversations with the author. Since the publication of the book there has been tremendous debate over the relative merits of building such temples. In this way the designs have served their purpose.

This post is part of the GOOD community's 50 Building Blocks of Citizenship—weekly steps to being an active, engaged global citizen. This week: Be An (Un)Simple Pilgrim. Follow along and join the conversation at good.is/citizenship and on Twitter at #goodcitizen.

\n

Images courtesy of Tom Greenall

Articles
via Chela Horsdal / Twitter

Amazon's "The Man in the High Castle" debuted the first episode of its final season last week.

The show is loosely based on an alternative history novel by Philip K. Dick that postulates what would happen if Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan controlled the United States after being victorious in World War II.

Keep Reading Show less
Politics
via Mike Mozart / Flickr

Chick-fil-A is the third-largest fast food chain in America, behind McDonald's and Starbucks, raking in over $10 billion a year.

But for years, the company has faced boycotts for supporting anti-LGBT charities, including the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and the Paul Anderson Youth Home.

The Salvation Army faced criticism after a leader in the organization implied that gay people "deserve to die" and the company also came under fire after refusing to offer same-sex couples health insurance. But the organization swears it's evolving on such issues.

via Thomas Hawk / Flickr

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes explicitly announced it was anti gay marriage in a recent "Statement of Faith."

God instituted marriage between one man and one woman as the foundation of the family and the basic structure of human society. For this reason, we believe that marriage is exclusively the union of one man and one woman.

The Paul Anderson Youth Home teaches boys that homosexuality is wrong and that same-sex marriage is "rage against Jesus Christ and His values."

RELATED: The 1975's singer bravely kissed a man at a Dubai concert to protest anti-LGBT oppression

In 2012, Chick-fil-A's CEO, Dan Cathy, made anti same-sex marriage comments on a radio broadcast:

I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.

But the chicken giant has now decided to change it's says its charitable donation strategy because it's bad for business...Not because being homophobic is wrong.

The company recently lost several bids to provide concessions in U.S. airports. A pop-up shop in England was told it would not be renewed after eight days following LGBTQ protests.

Chick-fil-A also has plans to expand to Boston, Massachusetts where its mayor, Thomas Menino, pledged to ban the restaurant from the city.

via Wikimedia Commons

"There's no question we know that, as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are," Chick-fil-A President and Chief Operating Officer Tim Tassopoulos told Bisnow. "There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message."

RELATED: Alan Turing will appear on the 50-pound note nearly 70 years after being persecuted for his sexuality

Instead, the Chick-fil-A Foundation plans to give $9 million to organizations that support education and fight homelessness. Which is commendable regardless of the company's troubled past.

"If Chick-Fil-A is serious about their pledge to stop holding hands with divisive anti-LGBTQ activists, then further transparency is needed regarding their deep ties to organizations like Focus on the Family, which exist purely to harm LGBTQ people and families," Drew Anderson, GLAAD's director of campaigns and rapid response, said in a statement.

Chick-fil-A's decision to back down from contributing to anti-LGBT charities shows the power that people have to fight back against companies by hitting them where it really hurts — the pocket book.

The question remains: If you previously avoided Chick-fil-A because it supported anti-LGBT organizations, is it now OK to eat there? Especially when Popeye's chicken sandwich is so good people will kill for it?

Lifestyle

Oh, irony. You are having quite a day.

The Italian region of Veneto, which includes the city of Venice, is currently experiencing historic flooding. Venice Mayor Luigi Brugnaro has stated that the flooding is a direct result of climate change, with the tide measuring the highest level in 50 years. The city (which is actually a collection of 100 islands in a lagoon—hence its famous canal streets), is no stranger to regular flooding, but is currently on the brink of declaring a state of emergency as waters refuse to recede.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
via Gage Skidmore / Flickr and nrkbeta / flickr

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) dropped a bombshell on Tuesday, announcing it had over 900 emails that White House aide Stephen Miller sent to former Breitbart writer and editor Katie McHugh.

According to the SPLC, in the emails, Miller aggressively "promoted white nationalist literature, pushed racist immigration stories and obsessed over the loss of Confederate symbols after Dylann Roof's murderous rampage."

Keep Reading Show less
Politics
via Twitter / Bye,Bye Harley Davidson

The NRA likes to diminish the role that guns play in fatal shootings by saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Which is the same logic as, "Hammers don't build roofs, people build roofs." No duh. But it'd be nearly impossible to build a roof without a hammer.

So, shouldn't the people who manufacture guns share some responsibility when they are used for the purpose they're made: killing people? Especially when the manufacturers market the weapon for that exact purpose?

Keep Reading Show less
Business