Life without religion...

[Mister Pervert]

Monty Python's Life of Brian frequently gets voted as "the funniest movie ever made" - and it gets my vote too. The thing is, had Christianity never existed, this movie and so many others in many different genres would never have been made.

For starters, almost the entire horror genre is built on stories of demons, antichrists, and so on. "The Exorcist" wouldn't make any sense at all if Linda Blair had been possessed by "gravity", for example, or some other fundamental force of nature (floating off the bed notwithstanding). Without Christianity, Gothic cathedrals might never have been built, nor the giant pipe organs that yielded horror music classics such as Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor.

Or what about sci-fi? Star Trek would amount to nothing more than William Shatner prancing about the universe in a kind of Astro-gay revue if not for all of Gene Roddenberry's not-so-subtle religiosity underpinning many of the "plots". Or what about the Matrix? Neo, as the Super-Kung-Fu-Fighting-Jesus-the-Savior" character...all meaningless without the background context of Christianity (and a bunch of other superstitions).

Comedy too. Aside from the aforementioned Life of Brian, would comedians like Dave Allen have had careers if not for the Roman Catholic church to lampoon?

Yes, life would be pretty dull if not for religion to provide so much source material for entertainment...

[SinisterDexter]

I disagree. Our literature and architecture (etc) would have been different had there been no religion, but I don't think it would have been any less meaningful.

There is nothing about atheism that says we should lose our sense of wonder, awe and meaning about the world. But this can be found in the real just as easily as in the unreal.

[Mister Pervert]

There is nothing about atheism that says we should lose our sense of wonder, awe and meaning about the world. But this can be found in the real just as easily as in the unreal.


I was speaking more to the humor to be found in religion - especially Christianity. ;)

[Mister Pervert]

As a misanthrope and all-round curmudgeon, I found Life Of Brian to be a well-written satire on "humans grouped together"

Isaac Azimov once remarked (words to the effect) "Humans are the only mammals that become insecure and go crazy when they come together in groups (herds)."

[SchizoDeluxe]

Humor is what is lacking in religion but those of us outside that box see it as entertainment, so in that respect, yep that's one good thing religion has brought us. The other thing which I think I mentioned here before is the art and architecture spawned from religious ideas. I'm not really into that kind of stuff generally speaking but some of the darkest creepiest and greatest artworks and buildings in the world are from religion. Gotta hand it to them when it comes to sick evil stuff like that ;)

[Mister Pervert]

Humor is what is lacking in religion but those of us outside that box see it as entertainment, so in that respect, yep that's one good thing religion has brought us. The other thing which I think I mentioned here before is the art and architecture spawned from religious ideas. I'm not really into that kind of stuff generally speaking but some of the darkest creepiest and greatest artworks and buildings in the world are from religion. Gotta hand it to them when it comes to sick evil stuff like that ;)

Indeed, SD. I haven't watched it in a while, but I was also thinking of Arnie in "End of Days" - that whole fire and brimstone as only Hollywood can do. Oh, except for the Italians, like Dario Argento. Mebbe they're "closer to the source", so to speak.

[SchizoDeluxe]

Maybe it's because it's frowned upon but there doesn't seem to be much counteraction in the form of atheistic forms of entertaiment. Maybe because they aren't as entertaining, I don't know but religion definitly has more than provided us with all that. There are some stuff that question and take on religion like contact, x-files etc but they still get ruined with some philosophical bullshit at the end. Still entertaining though.

[Mister Pervert]

Maybe it's because it's frowned upon but there doesn't seem to be much counteraction in the form of atheistic forms of entertaiment. Maybe because they aren't as entertaining, I don't know but religion definitly has more than provided us with all that.

Logic is pretty darn dull, I guess. Unless it's juxtaposed against the supernatural. Or, unless, we defer to Abbott and Costello (7 x 13 = 28) logic...

[The Cross]

I struggle to comprehend how people can argue that art would be relatively unaffected sans religion, since art and religion are virtually symbiotic. Art evoked progressive thinking and encapsulated the period; religion has always been one of it's strongest form of stimulus. Of course, art is not as dependent on religion in contemporary times, but all modern branches of artistic value owe a lot to it's ancestral work, which of course was heavily derived and influenced by religious thought and musings. :)

And that was my debut post.

[davo]

The only reason art and religion have been so entwined in the past is because religious institutions had all the money to pay artists.

I wouldn't say art and religion are 'symbiotic' at ALL, I wouldn't say art 'depended on religion', that's misleading, like everything in a world dominated by religion in the past, a lot was controlled and defined by it. ridiculous eh? But to turn around and say something would not have existed without religion is just plain naive in the extreme, and I can tell your religious from the comment.

Excuse me if I am barking up the wrong tree, but I don't think so ;)

[SinisterDexter]

I was speaking more to the humor to be found in religion - especially Christianity. ;)

I'm aso fairly sure we would've found something else to satire.

[SinisterDexter]

I struggle to comprehend how people can argue that art would be relatively unaffected sans religion, since art and religion are virtually symbiotic. Art evoked progressive thinking and encapsulated the period; religion has always been one of it's strongest form of stimulus. Of course, art is not as dependent on religion in contemporary times, but all modern branches of artistic value owe a lot to it's ancestral work, which of course was heavily derived and influenced by religious thought and musings. :)

And that was my debut post.

That's not what I'm arguing. Of course, if religion had never existed, things would be different. But I do not for a second think they would have been less meaningful, and meaning is ultimately what inspires art (or, at least, perceived meaning).

[davo]

meanwhile, while we wait, I will do my nails ...


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3393/3622095682_2f7d38c7b7_o.jpg

[davo]

the things you do to get people citizenship

[davo]

you look really comfortable there Mr Black ...

[The Cross]

The only reason art and religion have been so entwined in the past is because religious institutions had all the money to pay artists.Indeed, but not neccessarily. What I mean is, due to the dominant power religion had on everything, including politics (some societies were theocratic), religion was the main inspiration and stimulus for creative and artistic expression, as athiest communities were virtually unheard of before the Christian Era. As you said, money was a factor, but as I stated earlier, ancient pieces tend to encapsulate the respective period, and as religion had a far dominant role in civilization back at the time, it's presence in previous art is inevitable. I'm not just talking Christianity here, by the way.

I wouldn't say art and religion are 'symbiotic' at ALL, I wouldn't say art 'depended on religion', that's misleading, like everything in a world dominated by religion in the past, a lot was controlled and defined by it. ridiculous eh? But to turn around and say something would not have existed without religion is just plain naive in the extreme.
I meant it was symbiotic in the sense of ancestral intertwinement, not in a contemporary method. Like I said, art can, and often is, completely void of religious implication and influence, but it often derives from previous works, many of them ultimately citing religion as an inspiration. "Symbiotic" probably was not an adequate choice of wording, but hopefully you understand where I'm coming from.


Crap! That is my counter-claim, and now I'm going to back it up...

As an artist in visual and musical media, I draw on many inspirations for my work. Religion is not one of those sources. I can provide artist's statements and a considerable body of work to back my own assertion.

My partner is an artist, and does not draw on religion for inspiration either.

You have made an interesting claim. I await proof.

Ah, but this wasn't my point. Rather than claiming that you, as an artist, take inspiration from a religious source, I meant that the majority of art today is derived from ancestral art which was largely influenced by religion.


That's not what I'm arguing. Of course, if religion had never existed, things would be different. But I do not for a second think they would have been less meaningful, and meaning is ultimately what inspires art (or, at least, perceived meaning).

Things would be different without the existence of religion, that is an objective statement. But no, art wouldn't be less meaningful, and I didn't intend to imply this. I'd say you're incorrect when you say that "meaning is ultimately what inspires art), as art often borrows from nihilism and absurdism as it's contention.

[davo]

whereas I see your point The Cross, with regard religion and art, I do think it is much like music, and to make associations based on ground-breaking concepts that also occured during religious times, is to falsely associate.

For instance, you are interested in film .. if you made a film, and someone turned around and said 'that whole concept was done before by folk that were satanists', would it be correct to define your work as satanistic?

My point being, that art, music, humanity is an ongoing process, we make a mistake however when we define music, art, film etc by history. Indeed it MAY be influenced by it, but it is not defined by it.

[The Cross]

whereas I see your point The Cross, with regard religion and art, I do think it is much like music, and to make associations based on ground-breaking concepts that also occured during religious times, is to falsely associate.
Rather than "ground breaking", I meant it predominantly in reference to the roots of art. As we became "spiritually conscious", we developed methods of lateral and creative thinking, religion and art being by-products of this. Anthropology generally points to art and religion being strongly related in terms of the intellectual development of man, so rather than me saying that the branches come from the trunk, I'm saying the trunk comes from the roots, which subsequently lead to the branches of modernity. So while religion isn't used by contemporary art as a primary source, it owes it in an indirect sense.


For instance, you are interested in film .. if you made a film, and someone turned around and said 'that whole concept was done before by folk that were satanists', would it be correct to define your work as satanistic?
Not neccessarily, but that wasn't my point. From that statement, you're implying that I'm trying to convince you that all art is religious, but instead, I'm trying to tell you that art was largely progressed by religion, and it's effect therefore leaves an inevitable residue on modern art. Not in a philosophical sense, but rather, a metaphysical sense, if you know what I mean.

Also, my film could be considered satanic under certain circumstances. For instance, if the Lumiere Brothers (one of the founders of early film) were Satanists, and say, one of their innovative techniques directly payed homage to Satanism, and me, taking the entire film as a source of inspiration, accidently replicated this "satanic technique" into my work, then my film could be considered Satanic. Sure, it wasn't my intention to put that garbage into the filmic subtext, but due to the subjective value retained by the filmic artform, one could easily argue that I'm promoting Satanic undertones within my film. Therefore, due to subjectivity, religious influence is quite ambiguous.

My point being, that art, music, humanity is an ongoing process, we make a mistake however when we define music, art, film etc by history. Indeed it MAY be influenced by it, but it is not defined by it.
It certainly isn't "defined" by it in the sense you're referring to, and I've explained this in my post.

[davo]

do you think art would not have progressed given no religion?

;)

my point.

[davo]

there's a lot of a stretch as I find, when folk associate common perceptions and depictions of the time, to skill.

Skill evolves, to state that skill owes something to signs of the time, is a difficult position to take, indeed, at reflects society, it is not defined by it. If society is religious, of course religion is depicted in art, but to associate the progression and skill in something, to a facet of what it has reflected, is kinda degrading to the human ability.

Why is it that human skill is always associated to religion, when there are a multitude of things at the same time it could be associated too?

If anything, the major artists of these times were influenced, and supported by capitalism. ie: MONEY. the major works were MONEY DRIVEN.

[davo]

on that point it would be like defining all major arts (film, theatre, music) in the 21st century was totally influenced by money. Money and capitalism is the driving force.

I totally disagree.

[kencooke]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/ksm0805l.jpg

[The Cross]

do you think art would not have progressed given no religion?

;)

my point.
Of course it would. But it'd bear virtually no resemblance to the current form.

my point. ;)

But seriously, you seem to think that I believe that art is theistically motivated. In no way am I trying to imply this. What I'm trying to say, is that art and religion were formed at the same time, almost like twins if you will. When you say "skill evolves", this is completely beside the point. I'm not talking about physical development, more psychological influence. Recurring motifs. The reflection of periodical philosophy.

Religion influenced art, and art influenced religion. If God is fictional, technically he is a work of art himself. But regardless of his existence, the idea of his existence has influenced art. The concept is vice-versa.


To draw any inference of the existence of a god from these instances of possibly-related neural activity, would be a bit of a stretch.

It'd be an interesting claim, but I never intended to hint at this.

[kencooke]

An example of religiously inspired art...


http://www.dailypainters.com/images/origs/1057/dessert___still_life_fruit.jpg

[davo]

I have to agree with Mr Black, sex has defined everything.

[davo]

all I can think of with the pic for instance, is melons.

[kencooke]

Because de grapes are from de-vine?

No. Methinks my irony was too subtle.

[The Cross]

Sex probably did more to both, as did greed, lust for power, and the development of language. (I'm not supporting my claims either!)
How am I not supporting my claims?

An example of religiously inspired art...
Strawman.

[davo]

so melons are out? .. seriously ... all I can think of is melons ... and now all I am thinking of is melons spread over flesh ....

I suppose that is a bad thing ... but hey! don't melons and fruit just cry out to be spread on flesh?

[davo]

How am I not supporting my claims?
Strawman.

ahhh a person after my own heart :)

No art and religion may have been formed at the same time (how far back are we talking religion?) but the inherant intertwining of both is just because art is about everyday life, and a reflection of both that, and concepts.

So yes, in the past it has reflected religion, but to say that it is defined by it is wrong. Art is more than religion and always has been, Cave paintings for instance reflect the hunt.

[The Cross]

No art and religion may have been formed at the same time (how far back are we talking religion?) but the inherant intertwining of both is just because art is about everyday life, and a reflection of both that, and concepts.
Believe it or not, but that is exactly what I've been trying to say.

So yes, in the past it has reflected religion, but to say that it is defined by it is wrong.
But I've also constantly denied implying that. :p

Art is more than religion and always has been,
But that is entirely abstract; what if religion is a form of art? What if art is a form of "religion"? Art is not a clearly defined term, and it's definition is still debated to the present day.

Cave paintings for instance reflect the hunt.
They also reflect the sun god. :D

[The Cross]

Okay. If religion inspires art, you will need to demonstrate that the inspiration was actually religion, and also to disprove other possible sources of the inspiration, in a significant number of cases from a defined sample.
But I never claimed that religion was the sole influence.

Or of course you could call it conjecture, and state that you have identified a number of possible cases, giving your reasons for the conjecture.
This would be impossible and held on abstract grounding. That's not the idea I'm endorsing anyway. Objectivity and art is ridiculous.

[The Cross]

The Changing Of Definitions has begun.Come on, man.

[davo]

well really The Cross, you have taken a position, the position that the bible is divinely inspired, and not the word of man.

Where is you evidence that this god you define has passed on its word via a book, to be interpreted so many different ways, including those that get people killed, and justify this as a word of a god?

Do you think a god would be so petty, as to worry ONLY about people believing in it?

Is faith, or belief in this god, the only way to heaven? Thus it does not matter what you do, so long as you believe? Does this really sound like a god to you?

[Mister Pervert]

As an artist in visual and musical media, I draw on many inspirations for my work. Religion is not one of those sources. I can provide artist's statements and a considerable body of work to back my own assertion.

Religion has never been a source for me either. However, as an improvising musician I can understand the sensations of "awe" and "wonderment" that religious experiences invoke in people, if I use musical experience as an analogy. I won't go so far as to say performing music is in any way a religious or even a spiritual experience for me because I don't believe in that nonsense. Though, just speaking from personal experience, there are times when it feels like "something" is being channeled during the most enjoyable musical performance experiences. I don't need to know what that might be but I am nonetheless curious and look forward to the day when science might provide some kind of answer.

[SinisterDexter]

Things would be different without the existence of religion, that is an objective statement. But no, art wouldn't be less meaningful, and I didn't intend to imply this. I'd say you're incorrect when you say that "meaning is ultimately what inspires art), as art often borrows from nihilism and absurdism as it's contention.

Firstly, absurdism doesn't imply a lack of meaning, and I'm not sure nihilism does either. As humans it is what we find meaningful that we draw inspiration from. It is a profound paradox that we can find meaning in the perceived lack of meaning - but it is no less meaningful for that.

philosophise that one out boy wonder.P

Secondly, my nic is either SinisterDexter or SinDex. The 'sinister' is not an adjective.

[SinisterDexter]

Not neccessarily, but that wasn't my point. From that statement, you're implying that I'm trying to convince you that all art is religious, but instead, I'm trying to tell you that art was largely progressed by religion, and it's effect therefore leaves an inevitable residue on modern art. Not in a philosophical sense, but rather, a metaphysical sense, if you know what I mean.

I think this is pretty obvious. Art has been influenced by religion. Well, duh! It doesn't take a genius to work this out.

But what you implied was that religion was (and, one must infer, is) necessary to the development of art. This is what I take issue at. Paragraphs like the one above appear to be an attempt to backpedal out of this inference.

[SinisterDexter]

Of course it would. But it'd bear virtually no resemblance to the current form.

my point. ;)

So your entire point is that art as it is is art as it is because religion exists.

Hardly a profound statement.

[SinisterDexter]

Come on, man.

He is quite correct. You accuse davo of a straw man, but you seem to be quite adept at moving the goalposts.

[Seamus]

Humor is what is lacking in religion

Pretty much;although humour was used by the sufi mystic and teacher Nasreddin,and is sometimes used in Zen Buddhism.


EG from Wiki

Two sides of a river

Nasreddin sat on a river bank when someone shouted to him from the opposite side:- "Hey! how do I get to the other side?"- "You are on the other side!" Nasreddin shouted back.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nasreddin&action=edit&section=9)] Whom do you trust

A neighbour comes to the gate of Mulla Nasreddin's yard. The Mulla goes out to meet him outside."Would you mind, Mulla," the neighbour asks, "lending me your donkey today? I have some goods to transport to the next town."The Mulla doesn't feel inclined to lend out the animal to that particular man, however; so, not to seem rude, he answers:"I'm sorry, but I've already lent him to somebody else."Suddenly the donkey can be heard braying loudly behind the wall of the yard."You lied to me, Mulla!" the neighbour exclaims. "There it is behind that wall!""What do you mean?" the Mulla replies indignantly. "Whom would you rather believe, a donkey or your Mulla?"
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nasreddin&action=edit&section=10)] Taste the same

Children saw Hodja coming from the vineyard with 2 basketfuls of grapes on his donkey, gathered around him and asked him to give them some.Hodja picked up a bunch of grapes, cut it up into pieces and gave each child a piece."You have so much, but you gave us so little," the children complained."There is no difference whether you have a basketful or a small piece. They all taste the same," Hodja remarked.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasreddin#cite_note-krepuska-12)

My favourite:

Nesreddin is walking around his tent,sprinlking red sand from a small bag.

Student; " What are you doing master?"

Nesreddin; "this is tiger repellent"

Student; "But master,there are no tigers in Arabia"

Nesreddin "Yes I know,it's good stuff!"






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasreddin

[Mister Pervert]

We've got a Zen/Sufi thread (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=494) already, with some good stuff in it, by the way.

http://www.crainium.net/jdjArchives/ZenCrossword.gif
Image: Dan Piraro (http://bizarrocomic.blogspot.com/)



Apologies for not reading the associated links but, the cartoon could quite easily represent Stephen Wolfram and his whole "single cell automata" zietgeist.

Not that "intelligence" (higher being thinking) might ever come of it, but plenty of nifty patterns can be created from nothing more than the Zen puzzle and a few simple algorithms.

[Mister Pervert]

Croiky! My thread has been banished!

Farbeit from me to say "you people" but, what is up with "you people"?

Since I'm now sitting here on coconut island, drinking...ney! guzzling... without fear nor retribution...

I was gunna start a new thread in "that atheist paradise" upstairs somewhere. Lots of comfy chairs up there but, methinks, a lot of fat-assed ex-Christians are sitting in them and hogging the TV remote.

Incidentally, the new thread was gunna be called "Ex-Christian Vs. Atheist" because really, as a godless atheist, I honestly do NOT understand all the anti-Christian angst. To me, it's like a bunch of reformed smokers or alcoholics. Y'all wandering around with Dawkins' "God Delusion" under yer arms like ex-alcoholics carting around "the Big Blue Book" - gah! Or friggin' ex-smokers who burr-up and can't even tolerate the SCENT of burning tobacco! Fer fuck's sake!

Ok, no probs. Deluded as I am, I like to pretend I'm at least partially tolerant to even the most retarded people. I never had to suffer any kind of fundamentalism God-spasticity - call me lucky; color me Catholic; "Emergency! Emergency! Humor alert!"

Whatever. Where was I?

Oh yes! Skinning coconuts...

[Mister Pervert]

It's only your thread got exiled into the Pissoffic Solution. This doesn't reflect on you personally, or even on TheCross: the content has dictated the relocation.

My dear Mr Black...

Apologies in advance for an onslaught of Sunday nonsense from me :)

[gibreel farishta]

religion has inspired art.
mortality, knowing of our own death to come, has inspired religion, therefore death rather than religion has inspired art . no still not right.
"people remain as vunerable now as ever to the persuasive power of art' SC
art was not inspired by religion but used for its persuasive power to inspire religion

[Mister Pervert]

It was easier for me to move the thread than move just the posts to a new thread. I never considered you would think it aimed at you. You are free to post anywhere you like.


S'ok. Tennis, etc.

[Mister Pervert]

Thanks for explaining how you see us, you maverick you ;)

Um, just my opinion. Gawd, don't make me start getting into ... nevermind...

[Mister Pervert]

I've felt the Rush And Wonder, too: usually improvising in a duo with a really good player. I think the odds are more in favour of it being neurological/neurochemical in origin, rather than needing to create a vast ineffable force with features like Giver Of Awesome Jollies.

My dear Mr Black - dig it :)

[Mister Pervert]

Mein Gott in Himmler!

I read this entire thread in pseudo-wrong order!

AND! My Deutche-speak is faulty! Alles klar?

[Mister Pervert]

Merde!

[Mister Pervert]

No fair, mon ami! I did not study ze Frogaise.

hur hur hur :-)

[Mister Pervert]

You are taunting me! (ducks to avoid hail of falling cows)

Yes, bad me.

[Mister Pervert]

"I want to eat egg - but zere's no instructions how to open it! No zipper, nothing!"