Without religion, so much beauty would be lost | DeseretNews

[_Quasimodo]

LMAO!!!!

[_Gadianton]

but in that case something else would have been created that might be equally good - just different.

True. And that's especially relevant today and I think less relevant when discussing the past.

Religion is a primitive, barbaric institution. But it would be absurd for an atheist to think -- and I'm pretty sure very few atheists have thought this -- that the world would be a better place if religion never had existed. How can we conceive of such a radical leap from animals in the wild killing themselves to a modern, principled, secular man with no steps in between? I can appreciate a jaguar's coat even if I suspend judgement about the brutality that went into the evolution of that coat over the course of millions of years. I can appreciate the pyramids even though they represent social injustices every bit as much as they represent artistic achievements. I can appreciate Aquinas even though monastic traditions were a magnificent waste of resources and an utterly insane fraternal invention. I can appreciate the SLC tabernacle even though it was built on a belief in a cheap fraud perpetrated by a sexual predator. But because I admire Shaker furniture, it doesn't mean I look forward to a future of wood workers convulsing, even if it is the case that without particular Shaker beliefs, their distinctive style never would have developed.

Of course, one could equally argue that without drugs, alcohol, homosexuality, or risque heterosexuality, that art and music might not exist at all. Or we could go the other way and point out that Milton may have been kind of a heretic and Bach rescued the tritone from religious fanatics, so, is it not apostasy that brings us beauty and progress?

I think I can appreciate many things in the world that exist because of religion and believe that things will only get better, on the whole, in the future, as the world becomes less religious. And I think that on the whole, most religious people are happy with a less religious world due to concerns over the religions of other people.

(by the way, I'm pretty sure in a thousand years that no one will make the argument, "Hey, if it weren't for religion, we'd never have the works of Mopologetics....lol....something to think about...)

[_Quasimodo]

Art as religion:



No one knows what the artist was expressing in this petroglyph. A spider with a human face? What is he holding? A live bird in one hand, a dead one in another?

The religion that inspired this image is long forgotten. The art remains.

[_Doctor Scratch]

DCP's argument in this piece is pretty terrible, and it just helps to reinforce what has by now become very obvious: he has predictable and rather stodgy tastes, and he just doesn't have a head for understanding culture and art. He may be expert at organizing a smear campaign, but he's clearly gasping for air in the art appreciation department. Simply put, this stuff about influence is terribly naïve. Sure: religious belief may have had something to do with Eliot's poetry, but then again, Wordsworth, Valerie Eliot, the crappy day T.S. just had, and whatever he ate for breakfast may have influenced "The Hollow Men," too. I mean, The Golden Bough alone probably had at least as much if not more of an influence on The Wasteland than Eliot's church membership.

But, setting all that aside, I have to laugh at what's obviously missing in this discussion, which is the oft-repeated observation that Mormonism has failed to produce any real, substantive tradition of art. "Without Mormonism, think of all the art we'd miss out on!" Yeah, what a laff-fest. I guess DCP is banking on the fact that his readers are too stupid to connect the dots on this one, eh?

[_Quasimodo]

But, setting all that aside, I have to laugh at what's obviously missing in this discussion, which is the oft-repeated observation that Mormonism has failed to produce any real, substantive tradition of art. "Without Mormonism, think of all the art we'd miss out on!" Yeah, what a laff-fest. I guess DCP is banking on the fact that his readers are too stupid to connect the dots on this one, eh?

In fairness:


I wouldn't call it great art, but it is damn good illustration. The subject matter is doubtful and it does smack of over dramatization. Still, you have to give Tom Lovell points for graphic skill.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Someone post that bat crap painting of Jesus branding the Constitution, with judges weeping over Roe V Wade and what have you.

[_Quasimodo]

Someone post that bat s*** painting of Jesus branding the Constitution, with judges weeping over Roe V Wade and what have you.

That painting truly is bat sh*t. The quality of the image is pretty good, though. I'm just commenting on the skill of the artist. Not the value of the art.

[_MrStakhanovite]

That painting truly is bat sh*t. The quality of the image is pretty good, though. I'm just commenting on the skill of the artist. Not the value of the art.

I'm with you there, excellent mechanical skill. Just not the type of thing that moves people to tears.

[_Quasimodo]

That painting truly is bat sh*t. The quality of the image is pretty good, though. I'm just commenting on the skill of the artist. Not the value of the art.

I'm with you there, excellent mechanical skill. Just not the type of thing that moves people to tears.

Only tears of pain if you are an art lover.

[_Blixa]

Only tears of pain if you are an art lover.

Like the ones I shed over that specious article.