Two things, though: first, I don’t say we can’t learn from religion. But I’m wary about creating a non-religious religion, and the kind of prescriptivism that appears present in de Botton’s stuff whereby this process needs to be formalised. Second, your suspicion around woo is right – the language of especially your last paragraph (in the second-to-last comment) is far too metaphysical for my tastes. Transformation, enlightenment and so forth are not concepts that I see any value in (in the strong sense of those words). ‘Mind is what brain does’, and it’s constantly transforming – but any posited end-point of that transformation is to me deeply value-laden and entirely subjective.

I don’t doubt that contemplatives and mystics get some of the value they claim to from these ways of engaging – it’s just that I don’t see their merit as normative ideas.

I don’t want to inconvenience you, but if time allows would you like to reply to the previous comment about transformation? Up to you, of course. I think that particular aspect of religion is rarely raised in debates about the value of religion, so I’d be interested to hear your thoughts, whether you think it’s just woo (which I suspect you might) or whatever.

Also, I think we can all agree that the CDP’s stupidity is of quite legendary proportions.