Religion and Art

[Michael]

I was thinking of religion as "art" Imagine such a thing called artism. The -ism of human artistic expression. Imagine following an artism that allows only painting. So, painting is the ONLY form of art permissible. All other forms are banned.

We'll call this mono-artism.

Think this is good for society?

How do you suppose monoartism affects society in the short and long term? I would think that initially, it could be very good thing, for certain societies and at least the world of painting. Everyone is on the same page, there's no heretical expression such as "dance" or "music" or "theater" or "sculpture" or "Geisha" or "tea ceremony" etc.... Probably painting styles will see an initial bloom. But, what of the loss of the other forms of human expression? Will it be good in the longer term for the society as a whole? As the centuries go by I'd imagine that painting as the ONLY artistic form of expression, it will probably stagnate. Hierarchies will develop in the Church of the Brush. They'll point to WAY WAY back to this mystical time at the very beginning, at that initial explosion of painting creativity as evidence for the Way of the Brush. Not realizing what could have been .... and what has been and IS lost.

Imagine living in a word of only paintings, where there was no music, no theater, sculpture or dance - but also where people didn't even know they had lost it.

Is this a good thing?

Is the worship of only one god, similar?

Does monotheism ban forms of human expression that can only arise though the use of other avatars? Have we already lost many other forms of human religious expression along with our other gods?


monoartism
monotheism.


Michael

 

[lightgigantic]

Given that the world has never experienced nor is likely to experience one singular "-theism" it's not clear what you are arguing for ...... (..... since the eradication of a particular " (mono) -theism" would seem contrary to the values of the OP)

 

[Michael]

Given that the world has never experienced nor is likely to experience one singular "-theism" it's not clear what you are arguing for ...... (..... since the eradication of a particular " (mono) -theism" would seem contrary to the values of the OP)

Many monotheists, if not every single one, argue that the whole of humanity would be much better off if only everyone only worshiped their one God. I'd say during medieval Europe this was possibly the case for most, if not all people, living in say Germany or France.

My point is that if they got their wish, it would actually suck sweaty balls. Life on this rock would be MUCH more interesting with lots of different Gods and Aliens etc... Hence a religion that promotes such diversity is much better than one that doens't.

Anyway, monotheists don't even have the mental hardware to think about this so I thought I'd frame religious expression as artistic expression.

Who wants to live in a world with only one type of deity?
Who wants to live in a word with only one type of art?

Both equate to stagnate shitty earth.


meh....



I wonder, which religions in the world have room to respectfully accommodate Scientology? ANY monotheism? No f*cking way. Well, there's one expression wiped off the canvas of human experience.

I wonder, which forms of art in the world have room to respectfully accommodate ballet? ANY monopaintism? No f*cking way. Well, there's one expression wiped off the canvas of human experience.

 

[scifes]

but art and worshiping are too different..art can be expressed in many ways..but worshiping many gods is doing the same but to different gods..i mean..you're still restricting yourself to painting..you're just doing different things with them..selling them..giving them..keeping them..burning them..but you still are only painting..worshiping..

so how do you purpose finding parallel activities to worshiping??

 

[swarm]

so how do you purpose finding parallel activities to worshiping??

Are you worshiping Kali yet?

 

[S.A.M.]

Are you worshiping Kali yet?

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[Michael]

but art and worshiping are too different..art can be expressed in many ways..but worshiping many gods is doing the same but to different gods..i mean..you're still restricting yourself to painting..you're just doing different things with them..selling them..giving them..keeping them..burning them..but you still are only painting..worshiping..

so how do you purpose finding parallel activities to worshiping??

I wasn't trying to compare art with worshiping but with religion.

Anyway, are you saying that all of art is human expression and all of religion is worshiping? I guess I'm not sure of you post? If it is all the same then you should be able to worship Kali and still be Muslim. Is that true? Can you?

If not then you recognize there is a difference.


Think about the different way we even think about Goddesses versus Gods OR how different we think about Deities versus Alien-Overlords (such as Xenu in the Scientology religion) then think about Buddhism or think about how Christians view "God" versus how Ancient Greeks viewed their many Gods (who had flaws similar to themselves) or even the idea of many different Gods. I mean real individual Gods - with their own personalities.


What do you think of the world being homogenized into one big American-flavored soup? What if the world were being homogenized into one big Islamic-flavored soup?

What if the world were being homogenized into one big Xenuic-flavored soup?

 

[Michael]

NOTE: Did I mention I tripped, smacked my head on some stairs, luckily for me they were those artsy stairs with 70s style metal strips across the front. Yeah, nice. A minor concussion would be fine, but arguing with a MD about running a railroad of stitches across my brow while he talks into his mobile .... anyway, we'll see how glue-only does. I'll peal this bandage off in the next couple of days.

where were we? Oh yeah.. art.

simple idea really. The world is better off with many different kinds of art. The same is true of religion. Any religion that suggests otherwise is not really interested in human expression, human advancement or humanity at all.


Variety is the spice of life.


I for one, being atheist, think it's fine to have many different religions. As long as they don't teach things that run counter to my morality code (like say killing people for deciding Xenu is a bunch a bullshit) then I say it's good to have a lot of different superstitions. I was speaking to another ANOTHER atheist who believes in ghosts and karma yesterday. Too funny how many atheists I have met who still believe in ghosts. GHOSTS?!?! But, it's fine with me. I like ghosts too and elves, and dragons and all sorts of fantasy stuff.

 

[S.A.M.]

You can't compare worshipping with art. It makes no sense. Thats like saying should we have only a democracy? Why not democracy plus dictatorship?

 

[lightgigantic]

What is that supposed to mean?

That he has staunch reluctance to begin henological discourse I guess ...

 

[lightgigantic]

Many monotheists, if not every single one, argue that the whole of humanity would be much better off if only everyone only worshiped their one God. I'd say during medieval Europe this was possibly the case for most, if not all people, living in say Germany or France.

... and as history (and even contemporary affairs) illustrates, the notion of governing even a province under a single ideology (what to speak of a religious ideology) is simply an imagination

My point is that if they got their wish, it would actually suck sweaty balls. Life on this rock would be MUCH more interesting with lots of different Gods and Aliens etc... Hence a religion that promotes such diversity is much better than one that doens't.

The prospect of the phenomenal world reneging on its commitment to variety doesn't seem to be imminent

Anyway, monotheists don't even have the mental hardware to think about this so I thought I'd frame religious expression as artistic expression.

:shrug:

Who wants to live in a world with only one type of deity?

If that deity can house variety, I can't see what you would have a gripe with.

Who wants to live in a word with only one type of art?

Both equate to stagnate shitty earth.


meh....

Your arguments seem to be just as effective against militant atheists

I wonder, which religions in the world have room to respectfully accommodate Scientology? ANY monotheism? No f*cking way. Well, there's one expression wiped off the canvas of human experience.

Any (quality) thing that accommodates variety has some sort of means to filter - doesn't matter whether we are talking ideology or water purification.

IOW dismissing the means of filtering variety (eg analysis, etc) as blasphemous is simply preposterous. For instance, how would you feel about the abandonment of all analytic means to distinguish scientific understanding from fiction on the grounds that it reduced the intake of "variety"?

I wonder, which forms of art in the world have room to respectfully accommodate ballet?

ANY monopaintism? No f*cking way. Well, there's one expression wiped off the canvas of human experience.

Even art has its means of filtration (although admittedly its not commonly celebrated for being so precise)- namely something is art (or at least "good" art) only if it said to be so by someone who matters (ie the "art critic"). If you don't believe me, just try and sell your telephone doodles for $10 000.

Ballet tends to exercise a more demanding criteria in drawing up the parameters of variety. If you can't touch your toes, it might be time to hang up your tutu.

 

[Michael]

Militant atheists can pull their head out too

You can't compare worshipping with art.

I was comparing art with religion. scifes replaced religion with worshiping.

RE Filtering

IOW dismissing the means of filtering variety (eg analysis, etc) as blasphemous is simply preposterous. For instance, how would you feel about the abandonment of all analytic means to distinguish scientific understanding from fiction on the grounds that it reduced the intake of "variety"?

I'm not sure of your point?

A basic concept in all monotheisms is that all of humanity is subject to one God and that human's should never worship another God. Christianity teaches that ONLY the BIBLE is the true work of God and that all other religious books are bullshit (if not outright the work of Satan, like the Qur'an).

Let's think about this ideologically.

Just stop and think of monotheism. What it means. Why it's intolerant. Why monotheistic societies tend towards negative (even violent) attitudes of those of differing beliefs.



Instead of thinking of religion as DIFFERENT from art lets stop and consider all the ways it's the same. Because I think they are many. Of all the animals, only humans have art and religion. They are ethereal/abstract concepts - meaning one thing to one person and something else to someone else. They are human creations, something so subjective that they are hard to pinpoint what exactly they are! When they occur! Both art and religion are obscure.

They are both human expressions of ourselves.

I'd go so far as to say religion is a subset of art - within the realm of myth-making/story-telling, that is, literature.

 

[S.A.M.]

If you're comparing religion and art, you're comparing a social institution with an occupation.

e.g. why teach only evolution? why not teach ID and creationism? is what your example should be.

ie compare education and religion. Or law and religion. Or government and religion. Or family and religion.

i.e. why have only one family? Why not have multiple families?

 

[lightgigantic]

Militant atheists can pull their head out too
I was comparing art with religion. scifes replaced religion with worshiping.

RE Filtering
I'm not sure of your point?

At a certain point, a lack of filters degrades the quality of a product.

It doesn't matter whether we are talking religious ideology, drinking water or science.

A basic concept in all monotheisms is that all of humanity is subject to one God and that human's should never worship another God.

The basic concept is that the result obtained from being properly socialized around the one god (namely the (re-)introduction to a life of eternity) cannot be obtained by any other process or means ... whether there is a consensus on the value of that result in the conditioned world is something else ....

Christianity teaches that ONLY the BIBLE is the true work of God and that all other religious books are bullshit (if not outright the work of Satan, like the Qur'an).

Some contemporary strains of christianity are not famous for entertaining henological discourse

Let's think about this ideologically.

Just stop and think of monotheism. What it means. Why it's intolerant. Why monotheistic societies tend towards negative (even violent) attitudes of those of differing beliefs.

If part of your investigation also involves the investigation of the political/nationalistic development of the particular branch of monotheism you are investigating (like say, the text critical issues that surround the main contributors to the ideology as it currently stands - aka constantine, aquinas, etc etc), sure, no problem

Instead of thinking of religion as DIFFERENT from art lets stop and consider all the ways it's the same. Because I think they are many. Of all the animals, only humans have art and religion. They are ethereal/abstract concepts - meaning one thing to one person and something else to someone else.

Actually the notion of art meaning one thing to someone and something different to another is a particular ideology of art. Comes big on the scene post industrial revolution and reaches its high point in post modernism. A big contributor to this phenomena was how changing means of production revamped social relationships. IOW the notion of the artist as a producer came to take on different proportions with the invention of the camera, mass production etc.

Anyway, long story short, the same analysis of religion being a much of a muchness is also the mainstay of a particular ideology and doesn't bring about a uniform representation or comprehension of the topic as such

They are human creations, something so subjective that they are hard to pinpoint what exactly they are!

Actually they are both human expressions ... meaning that their ideologies are very much lodged into the social aspect.
Any difficulty in determining what they might mean can be clearly traced to the text critical issues that surround them

When they occur! Both art and religion are obscure.

Determining what is good art/religion is not so difficult however, since there are literally tomes of normative descriptions to go by.

They are both human expressions of ourselves.

Given that god and the living entity are determined to be qualitatively the same (yet quantitatively different), you wouldn't expect your finding to invalidate the claim

I'd go so far as to say religion is a subset of art - within the realm of myth-making/story-telling, that is, literature.

once again

art has narrative

religion has narrative

Whether narrative itself is outside of the fundamentals of reality or not is not answered by this affirmation.

 

[Michael]

The basic concept is that the result obtained from being properly socialized around the one god (namely the (re-)introduction to a life of eternity) cannot be obtained by any other process or means ... whether there is a consensus on the value of that result in the conditioned world is something else ....

I disagree. Many times people are similarly organized around an individual, like Mohammad, Julius Caesar, Kim Jung Il, etc..

Anyway, of course monotheists think monotheism and one God is great, just as monoartists think monoartism and only Painting is great.

Funnily enough, under monotheism, often other forms of art are banned. It's of course natural for intolerant religions to express their intolerance of their other fellow art forms.

If you're comparing religion and art, you're comparing a social institution with an occupation.

Not all art is an occupation, not all artists do art for money. Many religious leaders are paid and their religion is their occupation.

So I am missing the point entirely.

 

[Michael]

Religion seems more and more a form of art - the art of myth making. I suppose in the mono-painting world, there'd be no story telling art, hence no religion. Of course, religionsists can see how wrong this is, but not the monoartists.... ... ...

 

[wynn]

Religion seems more and more a form of art - the art of myth making. I suppose in the mono-painting world, there'd be no story telling art, hence no religion. Of course, religionsists can see how wrong this is, but not the monoartists.... ... ...

Do you feel there has been any significant change in you since you posted this: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=91345 ?

 

[lightgigantic]

I disagree. Many times people are similarly organized around an individual, like Mohammad, Julius Caesar, Kim Jung Il, etc..

Its not clear how all these individuals share an identical representation of the value of eternal life etc (as generally advocated by monotheism)

Anyway, of course monotheists think monotheism and one God is great, just as monoartists think monoartism and only Painting is great.

There's more to monotheism than simply greatness, since even Ceasar and Alexander can be gauged as great despite having nothing to do with monotheism

Funnily enough, under monotheism, often other forms of art are banned.

Actually the only chapter than comes to mind is a historical segment of islamic interpretation of god being formless and thus all art form being reduced to minimal abstract representations.

Anyway its easy to discredit your claim simply by bringing in a comparison to the renaissance period of europe.
In fact if you look at any of the periods of culture of the world that are celebrated as famous for their art, music or architecture, you can see religion as catalyzing it as opposed to hindering.

It's of course natural for intolerant religions to express their intolerance of their other fellow art forms.

The problem is that intolerance is not synonymous with theism, or monotheism, or even atheism.

Not all art is an occupation, not all artists do art for money. Many religious leaders are paid and their religion is their occupation.

and similarly many religious practitioners are not paid
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Religion seems more and more a form of art - the art of myth making. I suppose in the mono-painting world, there'd be no story telling art, hence no religion. Of course, religionsists can see how wrong this is, but not the monoartists.... ... ...

(yet) once again

art has narrative

religion has narrative

Whether narrative itself is outside of the fundamentals of reality or not is not answered by this affirmation.
:shrug:

 

[Michael]

Do you feel there has been any significant change in you since you posted this: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=91345 ?

Yes, although I couldn't put my finger on it exactly. I personally see monotheism as a form of racism - a racist way of thinking. Like anyone who sees bigots, I feel the need to stand up and say: Hey, you're a f*cking bigot. Sure, most bigots don't realize they are intolerant SOB bigots, but, if they are here they must be trying to get help

Oh, I also realize now that bigotry, for some people, is so deeply entrenched in their DNA as to be all but impossible to remove.

Lastly, while I am atheist, I freely admit there may indeed be a single God and everyone else and all of their other gods may indeed be sent to hell, and so perhaps people who worship this god are right in teaching their children not to associate with people who don't follow this God, or teaching their children not to shake the hand of a fellow human, because said person doesn't follow this god, and also maybe the FSM is real too boot.

How's that?

M