Atheists: "Thank you for Christianity"

[_huckelberry]

[quote="huckelberry"]One of the conveniences of being an atheist is that because almost all of human history has been conducted by one sort or the other of believer the atheist can easily think if only people didn't believe all of that human nastiness would not have happened.

Sure.

I think the focus in the original post was a comparison between Islam and Christian. My thought sounds simple. I think Islam seriously tends to see faith as an obedience to a system of law from the seventh century. Christianity sees faith as trusting in God fundamental goodness.

In Islam being acceptble to God is submission to him and the prophet.

In Christianity being acceble to God is joining with Gods atonement in order to relate to others with forgiveness.

Christianity being run by a bunch of humans can be narrow and nasty at times but against that reality is a continual countercurrent demanding openness and an acceptance that people experiment and make mistakes. That countercurrent is flowing out of the idea of an atonement to my understanding. It is an enviroment where change exploration, learning and mistakes are possible, the kind of enviroment where science can thrive.

I noticed above that a list of Islamic accomplishments was noted. In the early centuries Islam was in controll of the worlds primary centers of learning trade and culture. Christianity was pushed back into areas controlled by barbarians. A comparison of cultural effect of Christianity and Islam is clearer comparing what has developed since that uneaven start.[/quote]

I admit the reasons for what is different in Christian culture compared to others in the world may sound a bit simple and not directly related to science. Kevins noting that Aquinas saw the goodness of Gods character being related to the coherence of reality is more directly related to science. I think his proposal is worth considering but is puzzling on a few counts. LDS thinking is the only example which makes a specific doctrine that God is following reaasonable law. If the rest of Christianity sees the world following orderly principals it is not because God is following them but that the order reflects Gods nature and intention. That is a more subtle connection but one that has a long presence in Christian thought. However it could be argued not necessarily. After all it is a Christian theory that the flood broke up the crust of the earth completely and all the rock we find was a reorganization of materials after the flood, designed to be a perfect imiation of a very old earth. This theory must be the most thorogoing irrationalism that I can think of. It is a picture which is death to any scientific enquiry. I think it can be argued with at least good reason that Christianity contains some lines of thought inimical to science.

If so why has science prospered?

The Bible contains no science secrets which have been used to open scienfific doors. It is instead at best unaware of science. Insead of analysing cause and effect the Bible looks behind such questions to wonder what God intended, hardly a scientific question. How has Christianity encouraged science?

My proposal was that the difference lies in the Christian idea of atonement and the consequent idea that God was working with people to make a new way of life. In seeking a new way of life all old and accept patterns of life are put into question or rejected. Even the Old Testemant law is dropped from being a set guide of life. In its place is put no new formulae. How can people continue to live with a reliable law from the past? They must find new principals based upon the experience of life. The Christian by doctrine cannot rely upon old rules of right and wrong but must ask what is helpful. This question is close to the kind of enquiry that science makes, how do things work.

Summary, Christianity is seeking to rebuild the world based upon asking the question of what is helpful leading to the questin of how do things work.

But before this project is the idea of God forgiving sins through his own involvement in human life proposing mercy should be shown to others by accepting the cost of mercy. We are to participate. This is in contrast to the Islamic view that God can forgive us if we are willing to submit to God. The Islamic view at first view may sound more merciful. It is closer to the habit of thought of many skeptics, mercy can be distributed freely with little cost. I think that view of mercy works better if our forgiveness is just a way to land in a magic paradise. If instead it is to be a reordering of real life mercy costs. That is the centeral Christian proposition and even thought people generally prefer the Islamic magic paradise to rebuilding the real world the central Christian story refocus on the real world where mercy costs.

But to mention the cost of mercy should not cover up the dimension that mercy is in fact mercy. Mistakes can be forgiven and people have the opportunity to explore without fearing that every varieation is some offense to God or the divine whaterver. Am I stretching to say that science is helped by a society where exploration is possible experiments and mistakes can be approached because there is mercy?

Christianity sees itself as pointing o the way people can be like God. It does not do this by pointing to some formulae we do to fit the picture. It does not do this by instructing us in a ritual of imitation. Instead it points us to learning to live and learning to share mercy. I cannot help but see these two things as pointing to the idea that God is orderly and creates a world where internal order is a natural thing about which we are to learn. If not wouldn't it make sense to just forgive us and take us to paradise, that magical escape from science?

[_EAllusion]

poster picture of Lenin, is this to suggest a thread on why communism produces drag lackluster art?

It was an example of good communist art. There's better, but I wanted something quickly from a famous communist artist.

[_huckelberry]

poster picture of Lenin, is this to suggest a thread on why communism produces drag lackluster art?

It was an example of good communist art. There's better, but I wanted something quickly from a famous communist artist.

example of good communist art, probably so.

And an excellent illustration of the point that drab cultural ideas disconnected from the central concerns of humnity produce shallow art. Christian art even if it reflects a variety of attitudes toward Christianity reflect Christianities vitality. It can produce good works even in the 20 century when the main interest in art is outside of Christianity. A couple of Max Beckman paintings would be examples (a descent from the cross and picture of Christ and woman taken in adultry)

I wonder if atheists consider that people believe religion to a significant degree because the story ties together values they find in life. They are not looking for some proof of the sort you have observed doesn't exist. People are looking for the kind of story which can inspire art. Till atheist produce that they are going to be stuck complaining that too many people believe stuff which the atheist does not think they should.

[_Gadianton]

I think it's kind of ridiculous to try and imagine how history would have played out given epically different conditions. I am happy I exist since i enjoy life, so i'm glad that other civilizations didn't wipe out the ones that have given rise to me.

[_Gadianton]

by the way, we owe proper thinking to the Greeks, not Christians. And certainly not the savages who worte the Bible.

[_Blixa]

It was an example of good communist art. There's better, but I wanted something quickly from a famous communist artist.

example of good communist art, probably so.

And an excellent illustration of the point that drab cultural ideas disconnected from the central concerns of humnity produce shallow art.

Just a quick art historical note (and also one which speaks to notions of "central concerns of humanity" like access to material resources including the satisfactions of creativity)--while it is commonplace to equate "communist" art with the products of Stalinist Russia, the art produced in various communist/socialist/marxist societies, as well as the art influenced by the many varieties of marxist philosophy and theory, looks much different. Not only is the Soviet avant garde missing from such cold war understandings but also the work of much early 20th C modern art: the Bauhaus, Surrealism (and Dada), textile and clothing design, architechture, much early experimental photography and film (as well as the birth of the "documentary") as well as much of "traditional" conceptual art. Even Mid-Century Modern design which its mass production aesthetics (Russel Wright, Charles and Ray Eames) has it roots in the design ethos of not only the russian avant garde, but also the British arts and crafts movement of William Morris. It's difficult to produce even a basic list of such artists, but a starting point might include the work of people such as: Alexander Rodchenko, Wilfredo Lam, Kazimer Malevich, Hannah Hoch, Otto Dix, Max Ernst, Tina Modotti, Josef Albers, Dziga Vertov, El Lissitzky, Wassily Kandinsky, Anni Albers, Vladimir Tatlin, Carlos Garaicoa, Kcho, Marta Maria Perez Bravo, Luis Buneul, Andre Breton, Flavio Garciandia, Manuel Alvarez Bravo, etc. for a mix of early and contemporary work.

[Anonymous]

People are looking for the kind of story which can inspire art. Till atheist produce that...

I can't think of much modern/contemporary art which is inspired by Christianity or "religious belief" in the literalist sense you seem to mean. You might look at the work of James Turrell, for example, someone whose art is partially "inspired" by his childhood experiences as a Quaker, and who has produced work specifically for Quaker meeting houses, but you'll find something very much abstracted from Bible narratives.

I wonder if atheists consider that people believe religion to a significant degree because the story ties together values they find in life.

I think a lack of belief in God/the supernatural does tie together values that many people find in life. I think a general indifference to such things characterizes "atheism" more accurately than the idea that it is some set of codified ideas dedicated to "proving" something about something.

[Guest]

Blixa, to the first post, you left out Diego Rivera


I do not recall saying that 20th century art contained a lot of Christian oriented art. I noted that it primarily had other concerns.

Blixa, your comments are crossing mine but I remain puzzled as to what your intended meaning is. You mention, inspired in a literalist sense. I have no idea why I would be interested primarily in that except as simple convenience. I doubt that much of modern art can be kept for one party against the other in this partuclar comparison. It can be argued that driving ideas in communism are all Christian related but taken over by a totalitarian committe who repressed any art that smacked to much of indivdual expression or could function as a reminder of individual rights. That same committee seems to have decided that individual experience concerns in moderen art was retro bourgeoise etc.

There have been people involved in Communist thinking outside of the control of that commitee. In fact as your first list shows there can be all kinds of things which some sort of connection to communism can be projected. I can see a parallel to my willingness to think of Christian influence without staying inside a literal fence.

[_Blixa]

Blixa, to the first post, you left out Diego Rivera


I do not recall saying that 20th century art contained a lot of Christian oriented art. I noted that it primarily had other concerns.

My post was dedicated to opposing the "obvious"--though there is much in Mexican muralism besides Rivera. The people I left out of that list number in the thousands... My point was simply to expand on a pretty incomplete, if not totally wrong, understanding of the relation of marxism and art (and life in general).

My second post mostly spoke to the idea that somehow atheism doesn't produce art. While, I don't think many artist are "inspired" by a set of "beliefs" called atheism, that's because I don't think that's how people are atheists. Plenty of modern and contemporary artists are atheists and their art is reflective of that kind of position if not in a direct and literalist fashion.

[_Moniker]

After I saw mention of art I've been waiting all day for Blixa to contribute to this thread. :)