Just more filler.
I have been discussing things elsewhere, I'll post some of the stuff in here if I get around to it.
Other guy:
As Eric said without religion we would just be grey people. And that true. Hitchens argues we can still have art and literature to sustain our humanity if religion was gone but I seriously doubt it. Ever read "1984"? In a world devoid of religion art and literature becomes something empty... simply generated by machines. A world without religion would never fill humanity's need for love and companionship. It can only be replaced by secularism... which isn't itself somewhat of a religion?
Me:
Is it really so clear that, "without religion we would just be grey people?" I should point out off the bat here that it's pretty hard to say what the world would be like devoid of religion. With that said, it isn't too hard to find engrossing works of beauty done by atheists, from the novels of Camus, Voltaire, and Twain, to the paintings of Van Gogh, and Duchamp--and still further, the poetry of Shelley and Frost, for example.
Moreover, the ties between more ambiguous pieces of creative expression--i.e.: not explicitly religious--and the need for religiosity to create and/or enjoy them seems ever more tenuous. I see no reason, for example to assume a religious mindset in the creation of the paintings of Monet or Schiele, or say, the books of Delillo, Proust (in the strict sense of an orthodox belief here) and Tolstoy. This isn't to say that an understanding of religion doesn't provide context or whathaveyou, just that it isn't obvious that religion is necessary for great art.
Lastly, interesting that you should refer to Orwell's 1984, as he himself was an atheist.
Anyhow, hope this furthers the discussion.
I guess one other relevant point that should be mentioned here is that religious art is no more an argument for religion than futurist art is an argument for fascism.
Kind regards,
-Mike
Other guy:
I get what you're saying about atheist artists and their work that is not explicitly religious. In fact I guess the argument I make to make is quite impossible. Should one believe in God as an all powerful creator, than yes, all works come from him and therefore could not exist without a religious pretext. Or, conversely, if you do not believe in God, than clearly art exists without God therefore I'm wrong.
What I was trying to do was expand on the idea that (most... arguably all) art is a reaction either in favor or against the ideologies of a given society. Take for example Shelly's "The Necessity of Atheism". Clearly it is a response against what he saw as an oppressive and close minded educational institution. Its also seen in the works of Mark Twain, who is in many ways protesting the wrongs of slavery and discrimination in the American south.
I mentioned Orwell because of what so many critics have seen as inherent contradictions between his socialist beliefs as well as his scathing criticisms of human nature. 1984 is a personal favorite of mine because I can relate my own personal world to Orwell's at times. I like to believe there is potential in humanity to do good, but often find (not all but alot) of those who are without faith suffer in life. I know Orwell would not agree with me in this context, but from personal experiance a world without faith I see as full of suffering.
Me:
I’m not sure that your argument about art and religion necessarily hangs on there being a God. It might well be the case-although, obviously I don’t believe it to be true-that “in a world devoid of religion, art … simply becomes something empty.” I mean, it very well could be that even in a godless world, art requires religion to be full in some way.
I know a lot of people with faith who suffer in life and a lot of people without faith who are happy and vice-versa. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think that faith is really the defining factor for happiness.
Kind regards,
-Mike
Other guy:
As Eric said without religion we would just be grey people. And that true. Hitchens argues we can still have art and literature to sustain our humanity if religion was gone but I seriously doubt it. Ever read "1984"? In a world devoid of religion art and literature becomes something empty... simply generated by machines. A world without religion would never fill humanity's need for love and companionship. It can only be replaced by secularism... which isn't itself somewhat of a religion?
Me:
Is it really so clear that, "without religion we would just be grey people?" I should point out off the bat here that it's pretty hard to say what the world would be like devoid of religion. With that said, it isn't too hard to find engrossing works of beauty done by atheists, from the novels of Camus, Voltaire, and Twain, to the paintings of Van Gogh, and Duchamp--and still further, the poetry of Shelley and Frost, for example.
Moreover, the ties between more ambiguous pieces of creative expression--i.e.: not explicitly religious--and the need for religiosity to create and/or enjoy them seems ever more tenuous. I see no reason, for example to assume a religious mindset in the creation of the paintings of Monet or Schiele, or say, the books of Delillo, Proust (in the strict sense of an orthodox belief here) and Tolstoy. This isn't to say that an understanding of religion doesn't provide context or whathaveyou, just that it isn't obvious that religion is necessary for great art.
Lastly, interesting that you should refer to Orwell's 1984, as he himself was an atheist.
Anyhow, hope this furthers the discussion.
I guess one other relevant point that should be mentioned here is that religious art is no more an argument for religion than futurist art is an argument for fascism.
Kind regards,
-Mike
Other guy:
I get what you're saying about atheist artists and their work that is not explicitly religious. In fact I guess the argument I make to make is quite impossible. Should one believe in God as an all powerful creator, than yes, all works come from him and therefore could not exist without a religious pretext. Or, conversely, if you do not believe in God, than clearly art exists without God therefore I'm wrong.
What I was trying to do was expand on the idea that (most... arguably all) art is a reaction either in favor or against the ideologies of a given society. Take for example Shelly's "The Necessity of Atheism". Clearly it is a response against what he saw as an oppressive and close minded educational institution. Its also seen in the works of Mark Twain, who is in many ways protesting the wrongs of slavery and discrimination in the American south.
I mentioned Orwell because of what so many critics have seen as inherent contradictions between his socialist beliefs as well as his scathing criticisms of human nature. 1984 is a personal favorite of mine because I can relate my own personal world to Orwell's at times. I like to believe there is potential in humanity to do good, but often find (not all but alot) of those who are without faith suffer in life. I know Orwell would not agree with me in this context, but from personal experiance a world without faith I see as full of suffering.
Me:
I’m not sure that your argument about art and religion necessarily hangs on there being a God. It might well be the case-although, obviously I don’t believe it to be true-that “in a world devoid of religion, art … simply becomes something empty.” I mean, it very well could be that even in a godless world, art requires religion to be full in some way.
I know a lot of people with faith who suffer in life and a lot of people without faith who are happy and vice-versa. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think that faith is really the defining factor for happiness.
Kind regards,
-Mike