Might seem like a satirical thing to think about, given how we all find so much shit that comes from religion as a result of its influence on human kind. But after watching some cookery program about certain christian followers and the meals they bake at easter time, it made me wonder what could be made of the good things that came from religion, when looking past all the wars and bloodshed, human slavery, withholding of human rights and so on, there might be a few things we can think of that benefited the rest of the world, and not just themselves but things that benefited those outside of religion.
Think of this as a challenge.
Like I say, watching a cooking program made me think of this, and despite not being religious, I've always enjoyed certain foods from around the year. Hot cross buns at easter time, as well as all the chocolate. Pancake day or shrove tuesday giving an reason to eat pancakes for dessert, pumpkin pie as halloween (all hallows counts as something religious), and of course all the christmas trimmings and excuse to drink and eat rich food in december.
(http://www.churchofthemessiah.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/image2.jpg) (http://f.tqn.com/y/candy/1/W/K/b/-/-/hollow-chocolate-egg-1500.jpg) (https://thebestgra217blog.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/pumpkin-pie-slice-590.jpg?w=361&h=244)
I genuinely believe the number one thing religion has given us is the ability to survive as a species. For as much as I get frustrated and think how much simpler life could be if we didn't have religion and the religious nuts who go with it that want to make any belief or practice not in line with their doctrine illegal, I forbid myself from entertaining any such thoughts for too long. Because like or not, religion keeps a shit ton of potentially dangerous people in line and I strongly suspect that I our species would not survive more than a few short years without it.
Don't forget religion involves pagan beliefs. You can add winter and spring solstice celebrations, Christmas trees, all the trimmings. And vestal virgins. Never forget the vestal virgins.
Quote from: stromboli on March 15, 2016, 09:35:27 PM
Don't forget religion involves pagan beliefs. You can add winter and spring solstice celebrations, Christmas trees, all the trimmings. And vestal virgins. Never forget the vestal virgins.
This slave girl wasn't suited for the Vestal Virgins ... since her boyfriend was persistent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY9-qXA395w
Culture is mixed blessing, and religion is part of human culture. I would give credit to religion for inspiring great art.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw&ebc=ANyPxKr7sqyUyolUOXQVNdHfvQOtY32Y6zk1RQM-Xf2lmpHUaJu30BLfzS29Ygw8HmQxXzCeIS0X
It gave us modern science, for one.
Think about it... if they were not monks, clerics or trained at religious university... what would great men like Mendel, Copernicus, Grosseteste, de Soto and so many more... where would they have been? Most of them came from farming or at best lower-middle class merchants. The aristocracy or state had no desire to educate the common man.
It also provided a means for great women like Sor Juana and Joan of Arc to have a voice and renown.
It is a cultural tool to pass down morals and ethics from one generation to the next, and to tie forces that may otherwise be enemies together.
And some of the old pagan mythology just makes for some truly interesting reading.
The Salvation Army.
St. Jude's Children's Hospital.
The Catholic Church does a LOT for the poor and homeless and orphaned.
Are those good enough?
Spirituality. Also the ascetic mindset of living minimalistically keeping in check your desires, introspecting to find their true meaning and trying to not get carried away into addictive loops of earthly delights. Art. tons and tons of amazing artwork. Some of the greatest artists trying to represent numinosity in their work has produced some of our best works.
Architecture
Bah, I'm an idiot. I completely left out the majority of magnificent Western art that was done in the name of the church, the church that funded and inspired artists.
Quote from: Johan on March 15, 2016, 09:25:02 PM
I genuinely believe the number one thing religion has given us is the ability to survive as a species. For as much as I get frustrated and think how much simpler life could be if we didn't have religion and the religious nuts who go with it that want to make any belief or practice not in line with their doctrine illegal, I forbid myself from entertaining any such thoughts for too long. Because like or not, religion keeps a shit ton of potentially dangerous people in line and I strongly suspect that I our species would not survive more than a few short years without it.
Interesting.... never thought of it that way but maybe man invented religion as an evolutionary survival mechanism without even realizing it. Then came the Crusades, Inquisitions and witch burnings.
Quote from: AllRight on March 16, 2016, 05:38:08 AM
Interesting.... never thought of it that way but maybe man invented religion as an evolutionary survival mechanism without even realizing it. Then came the Crusades, Inquisitions and witch burnings.
Two edged sword. Too much of anything is bad for you.
QuoteIt gave us modern science, for one.
Think about it... if they were not monks, clerics or trained at religious university... what would great men like Mendel, Copernicus, Grosseteste, de Soto and so many more... where would they have been? Most of them came from farming or at best lower-middle class merchants. The aristocracy or state had no desire to educate the common man.
It also provided a means for great women like Sor Juana and Joan of Arc to have a voice and renown.
It is a cultural tool to pass down morals and ethics from one generation to the next, and to tie forces that may otherwise be enemies together.
And some of the old pagan mythology just makes for some truly interesting reading.
Sorry, I must disagree.
Religion was the reason Copernicus' work could not be published until after his death. While alive, the potential consequences were dire.
Scientists like Newton and Kepler wasted massive amounts of time trying to force God into the picture, assuming he had to be part of the explanation.
For centuries religion has proven to be a massive stumbling block for science, a phenomenon that still persists today and has a very negative impact.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 16, 2016, 03:55:57 AM
Bah, I'm an idiot. I completely left out the majority of magnificent Western art that was done in the name of the church, the church that funded and inspired artists.
I would debate that, since the Church forcefully extracted such funds and deserves no credit for the innate creativity of the human mind, which exists with or without the delusions of religion.
Quote from: The Atheist on March 16, 2016, 12:51:12 AM
The Salvation Army.
St. Jude's Children's Hospital.
The Catholic Church does a LOT for the poor and homeless and orphaned.
Are those good enough?
Most of these are funded by the US Government - not the church.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/24/catholic-church-collects-16-billion-in-us-contract/?page=all
Most early universities were religious institutions.
The challenge for me regarding this list is I see religion as an expression of human psychology and social behavior (I know some of you disagree) and therefore saying "what good things has religion brought the world" is like saying what good things has war brought the world. It is hard to say how things would be if humans never had ritualized behaviors regarding death and spiritual experience, just is hard to say what world humanity would have created if it never had organized conflicts.
Quote from: TomFoolery on March 16, 2016, 10:51:27 AM
Most early universities were religious institutions.
University of Bologna (baloney) - first law school
University of Salerno (salami) - first medical school
IF you can prove that the lack of religion could not produce the very same results, you may have a game. But I don't think you can. The chinese were relatively non-religous as per a specific diety, and they were hundred of years ahead of the rest of humanity and except for their choice of self inclusion could probably have been on the moon in the 1800's.
There is nothing that suggests religion alone did a damn thing except kill unbelievers. Come up with a way that religion, excluding all education of sciences, actually progressed humanity and I will listen. But religion…using sciences…to bolster its case..is not the same.
Quote from: Johan on March 15, 2016, 09:25:02 PM
I genuinely believe the number one thing religion has given us is the ability to survive as a species. For as much as I get frustrated and think how much simpler life could be if we didn't have religion and the religious nuts who go with it that want to make any belief or practice not in line with their doctrine illegal, I forbid myself from entertaining any such thoughts for too long. Because like or not, religion keeps a shit ton of potentially dangerous people in line and I strongly suspect that I our species would not survive more than a few short years without it.
If religion and God-belief can be good, it also has many faults, which I believe outweigh any good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hqUvBbGBeo
Without religion we wouldn't have funny church signs!
(http://www.ldssmile.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Hilarious-and-funny-church-signs-from-around-the-US-1.jpg)
A deep pool of mythology that contributes to excellent modern fiction.
This is a very complicted question. What are we thinking here when we say 'what religion brought to the world'?
Religion is the ancient 'law' and when you don't have any other option, do you choose to live in a world without any law what so ever or a system that at least brings a standard and an order? Also a tons of things crucial to humanity and human history over all have its roots in religion. Culture, art (all of it), development of literacy, language, philosophy, education...etc.
There are so many things religion brought to the world, it would be impossible to put as an answer. Roughly, without the Middle Ages you don't have a Renaissance.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 17, 2016, 10:45:10 AM
This is a very complicted question. What are we thinking here when we say 'what religion brought to the world'?
Religion is the ancient 'law' and when you don't have any other option, do you choose to live in a world without any law what so ever or a system that at least brings a standard and an order? Also a tons of things crucial to humanity and human history over all have its roots in religion. Culture, art (all of it), development of literacy, language, philosophy, education...etc.
There are so many things religion brought to the world, it would be impossible to put as an answer. Roughly, without the Middle Ages you don't have a Renaissance.
I think its pretty darn hard to suggest that we could not have achieved exactly what humanity has achieved without religion. There is nothing to suggest we could not have and everything to suggest that we would have probably achieved quicker results.
Religion perpetrates what serves its purpose. Used to be universities and Gothic cathedrals, now its gay bashing and Jesus on toast.
On the contrary, religion has brought about many good things in the world. Art and architecture are two of the things that come to mind right away. Some of the greatest art known to man came about because of religion, as well as some of the greatest structures ever built, like the pyramids of Egypt. And who hasn't seen at least pictures of a church which took their breath away by its sheer beauty?
The main thing I can see is the comfort it might give some grieving family members after the death of a loved one. If the kids wanna believe they'll meet grandma again in the clouds, I'm not going to take that away from them at that moment.
Quote from: widdershins on March 17, 2016, 03:27:31 PM
On the contrary, religion has brought about many good things in the world. Art and architecture are two of the things that come to mind right away. Some of the greatest art known to man came about because of religion, as well as some of the greatest structures ever built, like the pyramids of Egypt. And who hasn't seen at least pictures of a church which took their breath away by its sheer beauty?
My answer to that would be to consider how much more potentially could have been done without religion's overbearing influence, as in many cases the livelihoods of such artists and architects depended upon their abiding to specific themes. For every breakthrough innovation realized along the way, the human mind alone gets sole credit.
Religion should not get any credit for work like the Sistine Chapel or Last Supper. Those were purely products of Michaelangelo and Leonardo's unique genius. They were not touched by God, nor granted any kind of divine inspiration.
The way I see it, the only way religion gets credit for anything is if you really believe God guided their efforts. Otherwise were talking a happenstance influence.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on March 17, 2016, 04:54:04 PM
My answer to that would be to consider how much more potentially could have been done without religion's overbearing influence, as in many cases the livelihoods of such artists and architects depended upon their abiding to specific themes. For every breakthrough innovation realized along the way, the human mind alone gets sole credit.
Religion should not get any credit for work like the Sistine Chapel or Last Supper. Those were purely products of Michaelangelo and Leonardo's unique genius. They were not touched by God, nor granted any kind of divine inspiration.
The way I see it, the only way religion gets credit for anything is if you really believe God guided their efforts.
You're looking at art only from the perspective of the artist. If we were talking about the works of van Gogh, you may have a point. He was broke. He painted on canvas. Canvas was cheap. But when you're talking about the Sistine Chapel, that's a different story entirely. Art on that scale wasn't simply created, it was commissioned. An architect doesn't simply throw up a building because he has a beautiful idea. Someone has to buy land, pay for materials and make sure the architect doesn't starve to death while he's working. The church is every bit as responsible for the Sistine Chapel as the architect who designed it. It took both parties to make that building a reality. It took both the artist AND someone willing to pay for it. And the church didn't JUST pay for it, they asked for it. They planted the idea that it needed to be built. In fact, Michelangelo was intimidated by the scale of what he was asked to do in the chapel. It was not a commission he wanted. It was something he never would have done left to his own devices.
Now, I don't claim that these things are magical in nature, by any means. But come on, the church definitely played a roll here, and a very major roll at that. No religion means no chapel. No chapel means no paintings in the chapel. And nobody pushing Michelangelo to do a project he really didn't want to do also means no paintings in the chapel, painting, I might add, unarguably inspired by religious concepts and ideas. To say the church played no roll, that's just wrong. Religion has an effect on the world regardless whether fairy tales or real or not. If you relieve the religious of any credit for the good because fairy tales aren't real then you must also excuse the religious of any bad caused by their religion. It's not realistic.
Quote from: widdershins on March 17, 2016, 05:24:47 PM
But come on, the church definitely played a roll here, and a very major roll at that.
The "church" did not spread peacefully. Religions historically do not spread peacefully. In order for the church to play the role they did they first had to become the major religion in order to have that power. They killed a lot of people to do that. Every thing that humanity has done could easily have been done without religious interference. To suggest that it would be a shame that if we didn't have religion then we wouldn't have the Sistine Chapel could as easily be suggested that we should trade the grandeur of the Sistine Chapel for several tens of thousands of lives that could have produced enough genius's to have put a man on the moon two hundred years earlier. We don't know. I won't give them credit for that, just as I won't give Hitler credit for all the medical information "he" gave us through his torture. We would have eventually found it, not as early perhaps, and perhaps not as costly in human lives.
Quote from: stromboli on March 17, 2016, 12:24:14 PM
Religion perpetrates what serves its purpose. Used to be universities and Gothic cathedrals, now its gay bashing and Jesus on toast.
So you need to encourage them to return to their prior higher standards ;-) If the Church has de-evolved ... then isn't that an argument against evolution produces progress, rather than random dithering with life forms?
Humans don't spread peacefully, if there are already humans living there. The idea that secular people would be complete pacifists like Gandhi is a funny idea. Even the other Indians weren't pacifists. Materialists simply fight over different values than the religiously deranged.
Sometimes secular people are patrons of art ... in the 20th century that created abstract painting ;-( And even with patronage, the patron isn't always forthcoming with his monetary promises ... hence the conflict between Pope Julius II and Michelangelo.
Well, if it weren't for Christianity, I would have never had Life Savers books during Christmas growing up. So there's that.
Monk's mound at Cahokia is another; largest pre Colombian earth mound with a base comparable to the great pyramids. Saved by trapist monks who had a monastery located on it.
Actually, all the native American mounds and art we can thank to their religion...
I would divide this question into two types--organic or unorganized religion and organized religions. Organized religions have produced some good things, like art and great buildings, I guess. But at a huge cost to humanity. It would have been much better for human kind if organized religion had never existed. Unorganized religion--types of a spiritual nature--are harder to organize and have leaders. Those are far less dangerous.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 16, 2016, 07:08:06 PM
If religion and God-belief can be good, it also has many faults, which I believe outweigh any good:
I didn't say I thought religion was good. I don't. But I also think that our species would not be here today had religion not existed. You need to be able to keep the people in line. Religion was a good way of doing that and if it didn't exist in any form, I think we probably would have driven ourselves into extinction long ago.
Johan is right. Religion did make survival possible. This is not just about Abrahamic religions, but then Abrahamic religions are an inevitable result of most primitive religious systems and a very little, young fragment of human history.
5000 years ago the 'law' is that you shouldn't cut down a tree or a bush -any plant- from the sacred forest and penalty is death. Not because somebody invented this idea for shits and giggles. It's because the 'sacred forest' is full of plants with very important nutrituional values and also home to game meat. Nuts, fruits...etc. If people cut them down or harvest it just the way like it, they would jeopardise the clan's life, esp. women and children and everyone would die eventually. So tens of thousands of years ago -if you think oldest goddes idol is dated to around 35 000 BC, porbably even much more older than that- humans figured out the most efficient control mechanism veeery long time ago.
"This is sacred; you cannot touch this; you cannot do this". TABOO. And comes the primitive laws and orders.
It's not really helpful to look at this with a modern human understanding. But its more than that. What modern human understanding can do better than anything is to connect religion with culture and economical-political systems we have today. Because they are the result of religion too.
Quote from: Johan on March 18, 2016, 12:00:49 AM
But I also think that our species would not be here today had religion not existed. You need to be able to keep the people in line. Religion was a good way of doing that and if it didn't exist in any form, I think we probably would have driven ourselves into extinction long ago.
Speculation. How can one suggest that if there is no way to determine the alternate? The Chinese were not particularly religious towards a specific god, they had multiple gods and even their own relatives were considered gods after death. There was no structure no "organized" religion. I think it is an error to say humanity would not have made it without religion, we have seen examples of where they have.
The one thing that religion was good at, was the spread of "technology" and this was by the conquest. It was the art of war that produced technology and introduced people to other technologies of the cultures the invaded or were invaded by.
I can't grant religion a big ole check mark for pushing humanity to where we are, when the fought so hard to keep us where we were.
Quote from: aitm on March 17, 2016, 05:43:18 PM
The "church" did not spread peacefully. Religions historically do not spread peacefully. In order for the church to play the role they did they first had to become the major religion in order to have that power. They killed a lot of people to do that. Every thing that humanity has done could easily have been done without religious interference. To suggest that it would be a shame that if we didn't have religion then we wouldn't have the Sistine Chapel could as easily be suggested that we should trade the grandeur of the Sistine Chapel for several tens of thousands of lives that could have produced enough genius's to have put a man on the moon two hundred years earlier. We don't know. I won't give them credit for that, just as I won't give Hitler credit for all the medical information "he" gave us through his torture. We would have eventually found it, not as early perhaps, and perhaps not as costly in human lives.
I don't disagree with any of that. But the topic wasn't about "the good vs evil religion has caused". It was about the good things religion has brought to the world, and art is certainly one of those things. Does it mean religion is in any way a "good thing"? Certainly not. As I'm sure you are well aware I am very anti-religious (well, I'd be okay with them if they stayed the fuck away from my children and laws). I hate religion. But that doesn't mean I can't step back, take an objective look and see some good which came from it. Realistically it is absolutely impossible for it to have brought nothing but bad into the world unless the devil were real and running the church. Since magic isn't real then religion has absolutely brought "good things" into the world. Now of course that doesn't come anywhere near outweighing the bad, but that wasn't the topic.
QuoteI can't grant religion a big ole check mark for pushing humanity to where we are, when the fought so hard to keep us where we were.
I think you misunderstand this whole thing. This is NOT about 'giving a push' to humanity. Human history doesn't have a determination to achieve the best secular civilisation level, exactly like there is no determination in evolution to reach human species.
Quote from: aitm on March 18, 2016, 09:46:56 AM
Speculation. How can one suggest that if there is no way to determine the alternate? The Chinese were not particularly religious towards a specific god, they had multiple gods and even their own relatives were considered gods after death. There was no structure no "organized" religion. I think it is an error to say humanity would not have made it without religion, we have seen examples of where they have.
That's because you are evalauting their religion according to terms of the one you are living in from the perspective of what it has become today. Chinese had very strict and strong belief in their religious system and its function is the same even if it is a different one. Like ancient Egyptians and Greeks. Or Romans. Or Ethiopians. Or Amazon tribes. And all their religions are OLDER than ABrahamic ones.
Abrahamic religions don't have monopoly on how religion functioned in human history.
I must agree with Shoe again. From the Han dynasty forward, religion and state were closely tied for over 2000 years. The Emperor was the Pope of their religion.
It is interesting that many people still believe in Aristotelian teleology ... even though they have moved from the WASP model of evolutionary perfection to the WASA model ... White-Anglo-Saxon-Atheist.
I was in a bit of an argument this morning, actually just moments ago so this afternoon, but my gf made a ridiculous comment about some 'nice little catholic woman ' who said that many people made fun of her faith, but then went on to say that if she was right then she was a better person because of it, but then I had to ask in what way could it have made her life better? Why couldn't her life be just as great without the crutch of thinking it faith that made her life better? It's a belief system nothing more, but suppose her belief was that wiping her ass with brand x toilet paper was what made her life better and not the belief in big spooky.. So now we have billions of people running around who believe they're the special ones for believing in the unbelievable. Maybe religion gave us brand x.. No wait, that was the marketing geniuses of the former Madison Avenue.. All hail the advertising propaganda business ..
Thinking about emporors, wasn't it the Japanese who believed that Hiro Hito descended directly from the sun? Get a few billion people to believe that you descended from the sun and you'll find yourself a gold mine..
Meh, humanity has done a lot of good things in the world. If you wish to say religion was the reason, you may. You're wrong of course, but you can say it.
The Catholic church commissioned the living shit out of Michelangelo. I've heard a few rumors that he wasn't even a fan of religion, or at least the pope
Monotheism allowed the the unification of disparate peoples into larger groups. It gave them a common belief system that made cooperation possible.
Quote from: widdershins on March 17, 2016, 03:27:31 PMOn the contrary, religion has brought about many good things in the world. Art and architecture are two of the things that come to mind right away. Some of the greatest art known to man came about because of religion, as well as some of the greatest structures ever built, like the pyramids of Egypt. And who hasn't seen at least pictures of a church which took their breath away by its sheer beauty?
I completely agree. This is my answer as well. Though of course, neither is dependent on religion - we wouldn't be living in some artless world without religion - these fantastic works of art just happened to coincide with religion.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on March 17, 2016, 04:41:56 PMThe main thing I can see is the comfort it might give some grieving family members after the death of a loved one. If the kids wanna believe they'll meet grandma again in the clouds, I'm not going to take that away from them at that moment.
(sorry for the digression from the point of the thread, but I really want to address this.)
I want to agree, but it strikes me as really odd to endorse these sorts of beliefs as good coping mechanisms. I've struggled with this situation myself - I've found out just what a mistake it is to be brutally honest in these situations. But I find it lamentable that our collective human response to grief is to lie to ourselves about reality.
Let's take three different people with suspect claims. The first person says that he's bulletproof. Complete lunatic. The second says that he can transform into a tiger. Total nutbar. The third says he'll live forever in heaven. Well, if that's what he wants to believe, I don't see a problem with it. Hell, this belief could even be widely seen as noble or well-adjusted.
Is there really any difference between these claims other than their relative popularity? Does nonsense somehow become respectable when it becomes popular?
Out of the 30 years war came Westphalia and the modern imagination of secularism and the pillars of secularism which inform the modern liberal secular states of the 21st century.
The protection of and from religion for all people's regardless of their beliefs. Thank the protestants and reformationists [sic] for kicking the Pope out of Western and Northern Europe.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 18, 2016, 05:25:28 PM
(sorry for the digression from the point of the thread, but I really want to address this.)
I want to agree, but it strikes me as really odd to endorse these sorts of beliefs as good coping mechanisms. I've struggled with this situation myself - I've found out just what a mistake it is to be brutally honest in these situations. But I find it lamentable that our collective human response to grief is to lie to ourselves about reality.
Let's take three different people with suspect claims. The first person says that he's bulletproof. Complete lunatic. The second says that he can transform into a tiger. Total nutbar. The third says he'll live forever in heaven. Well, if that's what he wants to believe, I don't see a problem with it. Hell, this belief could even be widely seen as noble or well-adjusted.
Is there really any difference between these claims other than their relative popularity? Does nonsense somehow become respectable when it becomes popular?
Fortunately I am immune to the desire to be well adjusted or popular ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on March 19, 2016, 06:00:26 AM
Fortunately I am immune to the desire to be well adjusted or popular ;-)
Yes! :))) I can relate!
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 18, 2016, 05:25:28 PM
Does nonsense somehow become respectable when it becomes popular?
Been a bone of contention for me for a long time. Just because stupid is popular doesn't mean we have to ignore common sense and reason in order to proclaim it is stupid. Religion does not need special rules to debunk it. Stupid shit is stupid shit.
Quote from: aitm on March 18, 2016, 02:00:10 PM
Meh, humanity has done a lot of good things in the world. If you wish to say religion was the reason, you may. You're wrong of course, but you can say it.
Nobody said something like 'religion is the reason for good things done'. Whatever that means. So it's a strawman and a bad one. Also an invalid statement. It haas no meaning. Good...bad ? You are using the word 'good' in religious terms. Humanity is not some conscious entity that does or lead things. Human history is not a conscious, determined linear development for the better.
And your common 'argument' of "this is wrong and stupid and that is all" has become a bore. You lacking historical perspective doesn't render things you don't like wrong.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 18, 2016, 05:24:20 PM
I completely agree. This is my answer as well. Though of course, neither is dependent on religion - we wouldn't be living in some artless world without religion - these fantastic works of art just happened to coincide with religion.
Yeah religion was walking around moody one day and it coincided with art. It was a good date, look what we all got in the end.
The common lack of historical perspective in this forum enough to give a liberal art graduate a migraine.
I agree that religion has inspired some very beautiful and valuable art. Also some of the chapels are quite ornate and in my opinion also a work of art. I actually like churches as a place to visit nothing more. I find them relaxing as long as there is no mass being held and it's quiet there.
Quote from: doorknob on March 19, 2016, 12:42:54 PM
I agree that religion has inspired some very beautiful and valuable art. Also some of the chapels are quite ornate and in my opinion also a work of art. I actually like churches as a place to visit nothing more. I find them relaxing as long as there is no mass being held and it's quiet there.
The numinous experience of "holy" locations, if they are man-made .. is that of communing with the ancestors. Atheist or not, you had a lot of theist ancestors.
QuoteNow, I don't claim that these things are magical in nature, by any means. But come on, the church definitely played a roll here, and a very major roll at that. No religion means no chapel. No chapel means no paintings in the chapel. And nobody pushing Michelangelo to do a project he really didn't want to do also means no paintings in the chapel, painting, I might add, unarguably inspired by religious concepts and ideas. To say the church played no roll, that's just wrong. Religion has an effect on the world regardless whether fairy tales or real or not. If you relieve the religious of any credit for the good because fairy tales aren't real then you must also excuse the religious of any bad caused by their religion. It's not realistic.
I'm sorry, but I must disagree. I think its happenstance; a matter of who had the power and the money at the time.
If someone like Michaelangelo was alive today and unaffiliated with religion I cant see any reason to think he wouldnt produce something equally remarkable on his own.
Also, Im not sure why I cant blame religion for war, strife and slavery while not giving it any credit for art or architecture.
At its roots there is nothing that I know of in religion that encourages people to be creative and use their own minds (in fact if anything quite the opposite) People did that on their own. Completely separate so far as I can tell.
On the other hand, there are abundant teachings that promote killing, oppressing or enslaving people. Historically, these are popular courses of action with religion at the helm.
Now, if you were to argue that the developmental technology of weapons and tactics we use for war are also separate from religion, I would agree with you there because I think that's basically the same idea I'm driving at here.
Massive Cathedrals and monuments were built at immense human cost, taking advantage of whatever technology was available to merely reinforce the idea that there is no point in following that which did not coincide with what the Church (or said pious autocrats) dictated.
Among other purposes the presence of such monuments served as a reminder that they were clearly in charge, and the common man subservient, since the Church (or supposedly an invisible God) was given credit for all the largest and noteworthy structures. When the Church had their way they would give the impression that the world is ideal in its current state and no human progress was necessary, a phenomenon that has thankfully lost quite a bit of momentum. Any contrary or progressive ideas about how the Church thought humans ought to be governed or how the Universe must work were typically a major threat.
Being angry that religion was/is a cause of genocide, wars and many abhorrent things done is something, the FACT that religion had influenced major pillars of human development and STILL has a huge effect on the world is altogether another thing.
The only reason we are able to distinguish two different understandings of life -religious and secular- is because of a gradually built secular societies in roughly more than just a 200 years.
Before that there are no concepts, no language ground, no thought, NO understanding of SECULARISM remotely close to ours today.
ART, ARTIST, CREATIVISM ARE MODERN CONCEPTS. They need individualism to exist. What is this artist in freaking 15th, 16th or 17th century? Or even 18th ffs? The fact that words have been used has no affect on the enormous gap what they meant before and after modernism. Art for making art, to be considered as an artist is roughly hundred fucking years old.
The famous 'masters' (artists, architectures, musicians, engineers, humanist writers) of Renaissance, Baroque and much later ARE CLERKS, CIVIL SERVANTS TO KINGS and TYRANTS. Anything you read about them today is the result of made up of CULTS and CULTURE created in 19th century and gets keep upgraded and transformed in today's concepts.
Michelangelo is NOT an artist. He has no choice but to except commisions from higher stations. There is no market for art. He worked to send money to his father all his life. Michelangelo is a very religious man. WE looked back and called him an artist grading his works comapting to his peers. Leonardo is NOT an 'engineer', we define him as one. They are employed to entertain popes, kings and tyrants to GLORIFY their RULE and their RELIGION. OR 'religious virtue' through any 'religious morality'; in form of accepted beauty, doesn't matter if the figures are nude or the subjects of the art is pagan. Art became art as we know it, when it stopped depicting beauty; what was the defined norm of the 'divine' and the 'truth'. Humanist writers are neither secular, nor humanist as we understand today. Françoise Rabelais is not an atheist. Nither was Erasmus. There is no linguistic ground, no concepts required to sustain an atheistic view of life.
These people CANNOT even comprehend the meanings of those concepts we use today. Leonardo or Michelangelo cannot comprehend the meaning of 'art' or 'artist'. Same goes with architecture and engineering or science.
:arrow: We are atheists, because we were born into a world which already had gone through the accumulation of knowledge and the linguistic development available to sustain an INDIVIDUAL ATHEISTIC VIEW of the world.
What they all left behind owned up by the secular Western civilisation and transformed into something else through modernism and post modernism by the developing languages. It's also profitable and benefcial. Creating a cultural identity. Renaissance is not a period, it is not the beginning of modernism. It's a movement started among Italian city states; it is the invention of creating a culture AND transforming that culture into politics and money. Capitalism. It is as dark as middle ages when it comes to the real life and people.
You are drowning in anachronisms.
Having a POV is a tool. So is the artificial dividing of time into periods ;-) One can have the POV, my favorite, of being relatively free of prior influences, from my society or my parents. But there is a POV opposed to that ... that we are the product of those prior influences, like it or not. Artists face this same dilemma. Do I make something relatively new (Picasso) or do I make something in competition to the prior artists (Renaissance vs Ancient Rome). Each of us is the artist of our own lives ... and each of us has patrons that provide for our survival but limit our creativity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j8w1c0HyOE
It takes a bit of imagination to think of a Pieta carved as a Braque or a panel of the Sistine Chapel as Cubist ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGnFDnnvT98
It's interesting that the less religious an institution is the more likely it is to be praised for it's "works". The Salvation Army's emergency response teams don't preach, and people comment positively on that.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 20, 2016, 09:24:20 AM
It's interesting that the less religious an institution is the more likely it is to be praised for it's "works". The Salvation Army's emergency response teams don't preach, and people comment positively on that.
That is the best preaching of all ... but loudmouths won't hear of it ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on March 20, 2016, 08:23:54 AM
Having a POV is a tool. So is the artificial dividing of time into periods...
I was referring to a specific academic discussion. Defining Renaissance as a 'period' or a 'movement' is a topic itself in history, art history, cultural history...etc.
If you think the dramatic change in evaluating 'Renaissance' just between 19th and 20th centuries, why not a better one in 21st?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 20, 2016, 10:05:47 AM
I was referring to a specific academic discussion. Defining Renaissance as a 'period' or a 'movement' is a topic itself in history, art history, cultural history...etc.
If you think the dramatic change in evaluating 'Renaissance' just between 19th and 20th centuries, why not a better one in 21st?
We are too close to present events, to understand it. Hence it will take a future generation to make an analysis. This is true for anything "contemporary" in any period. I thought the "pet rock" movement and the "beanie baby" movement would last ... who knew?
The first random thing I could think of that was caused or invented by religions was various types of martial arts. For example, Shaolin Kung Fu was invented by Buddhist monks.
Quote from: Munch on March 15, 2016, 08:47:03 PM
Might seem like a satirical thing to think about, given how we all find so much shit that comes from religion as a result of its influence on human kind. But after watching some cookery program about certain christian followers and the meals they bake at easter time, it made me wonder what could be made of the good things that came from religion, when looking past all the wars and bloodshed, human slavery, withholding of human rights and so on, there might be a few things we can think of that benefited the rest of the world, and not just themselves but things that benefited those outside of religion.
Think of this as a challenge.
Like I say, watching a cooking program made me think of this, and despite not being religious, I've always enjoyed certain foods from around the year. Hot cross buns at easter time, as well as all the chocolate. Pancake day or shrove tuesday giving an reason to eat pancakes for dessert, pumpkin pie as halloween (all hallows counts as something religious), and of course all the christmas trimmings and excuse to drink and eat rich food in december.
(http://www.churchofthemessiah.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/image2.jpg) (http://f.tqn.com/y/candy/1/W/K/b/-/-/hollow-chocolate-egg-1500.jpg) (https://thebestgra217blog.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/pumpkin-pie-slice-590.jpg?w=361&h=244)
One could argue that the plague improved the standard living for the poor because the rich had to pay the few remaining workers higher wages after the plague had wiped out so many workers that, for a change, the workers had the upper hand. You can always find a silver lining in every dark cloud. Religions do do charitable work - yes - but at what price? They feed people, true, but they also try to cram their beliefs down throats, on top of taking in huge amounts of non-taxable income that may or may not exceed what they are putting out feeding the poor. So, sorry, asking me to come up w/the good in religion is like asking me to see the good in syphilis.
Sorry for not reading all the pages, but I was wondering how much of what religious gave us was non-exclusive? (Something credited to religion could have been given us by other means if religion hadn't co-opted them?)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 16, 2016, 07:59:37 AM
Sorry for not reading all the pages, but I was wondering how much of what religious gave us was non-exclusive? (Something credited to religion could have been given us by other means if religion hadn't co-opted them?)
I wonder the same thing. And I cannot find anything that only religion could have supplied to society.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 16, 2016, 10:05:52 AM
I wonder the same thing. And I cannot find anything that only religion could have supplied to society.
Bimbo! Churches only ever co-opt things that already exist and then claim they couldn't exist without churches.
On the griping hand churches frequently happy to support whatever group is in power no matter what their program. When the Great Stalin opened the churches during the German invasion of the USSR in 1941 the people flocked back to hear the words of the Russian Orthodox priests, and those words were, in part, "trust your leaders!"
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 17, 2016, 08:28:37 AM
Bimbo! Churches only ever co-opt things that already exist and then claim they couldn't exist without churches.
On the griping hand churches frequently happy to support whatever group is in power no matter what their program. When the Great Stalin opened the churches during the German invasion of the USSR in 1941 the people flocked back to hear the words of the Russian Orthodox priests, and those words were, in part, "trust your leaders!"
^this, that the religious choose to ignore. Putin has done the same thing. Stupid he isn't. The only thing I can think of is that monk dude with the genetic thing and the peas, but other than that nothing. But that, same as Isaac Newton, has more to do with socially challenged geniuses given a cloistered environment to work in.