Without religion, so much beauty would be lost | DeseretNews

[_brade]

Ok, I read Dan's article. Here's where I'm a bit lost. Is there a good reason I ought to think that if the world had never had religion in the first place that its art wouldn't be as good or better than what's been produced by its religiously motivated inhabitants?

Also, let's be clear here. In terms of possible worlds, this is most certainly true:

Without religion there would perhaps be no colleges or universities at all.

Of course, in terms of possible worlds, this is also certainly true:

Without religion there would perhaps be colleges and universities.

Dan covers his butt here:

Would great art, literature, music and architecture have been created without religious inspiration? Would Florence Nightingale, Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce and other reformers have been impelled to do what they did without religious beliefs?

Maybe.

So, here's the tl;dr version of the article:

Without religion a bunch of specific art-tokens would not exist. In a possible world without religion there aren't colleges or universities. There are possible worlds without religion with great art, literature, music and architecture. There are possible worlds where Florence Nightingale, Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce and other reformers would have been impelled to do what they did without religious beliefs. The jury is still out on whether exceptional literary, artistic and musical masterpieces have been produced in the last 70 years. It plainly requires faith, even from an atheist's perspective, to believe that a world without religion would be an unmixed blessing.

[_Pollypinks]

I'm a universalist believer who believes the world is much easier to navigate with my atheist friends. When you get into religious fighting, nothing gets any dirtier. As far as 9/11 art and literature, the timing is still too fresh to get anything interesting. I really do feel for the fire fighters and the 2,072 who lost their lives that horrible day, but let's not forget our history of the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War. Whether or not one can appreciate religious works, I still love The Battle Hymn Of The Republic. Sang in at my grand father's secular funeral.

[_Scottie]

Personally, I think that Christians in particular are SO indoctrinated to ONLY see beauty in those things which have a religious overtone that we may have very well created masterpieces of art that, because of religious bias, have gone largely unnoticed.

If you read the comments section, someone laments that they LOVE the melody of the song Imagine, but they wish the lyrics were different. I don't see any atheists saying these kinds of things...

I suspect the same is true for all sorts of secular art.

[_Buffalo]

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?

DCP himself has observed that Mormon Culture tends to produce very shoddy music and artwork, but declined to discuss it further because he holds this board in such contempt (which didn't seem to stop him from making thousands of posts)

[_Buffalo]

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.

That's really the best you're going to get out of believing Mormons. Good performance, good craft, but no artistic vision. You really need to be an outsider and a heathen and a little wild (and sometimes a little crazy - in a different way from Mormon crazy) to be a good artist.

[_Buffalo]

I'm a universalist believer who believes the world is much easier to navigate with my atheist friends. When you get into religious fighting, nothing gets any dirtier. As far as 9/11 art and literature, the timing is still too fresh to get anything interesting. I really do feel for the fire fighters and the 2,072 who lost their lives that horrible day, but let's not forget our history of the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War. Whether or not one can appreciate religious works, I still love The Battle Hymn Of The Republic. Sang in at my grand father's secular funeral.

[_Hoops]

Personally, I think that Christians in particular are SO indoctrinated to ONLY see beauty in those things which have a religious overtone that we may have very well created masterpieces of art that, because of religious bias, have gone largely unnoticed.

If you read the comments section, someone laments that they LOVE the melody of the song Imagine, but they wish the lyrics were different. I don't see any atheists saying these kinds of things...

I suspect the same is true for all sorts of secular art.

I'm glad for the stipulation of "personal", cuz I have no idea where this comes from. I suppose you can impress upon an entire community the sentiments of one person, but not reasonably so. I know lots of Christians, me for one, who enjoy all kinds of art, including modern art - most of which is bad.

[_Scottie]

Personally, I think that Christians in particular are SO indoctrinated to ONLY see beauty in those things which have a religious overtone that we may have very well created masterpieces of art that, because of religious bias, have gone largely unnoticed.

If you read the comments section, someone laments that they LOVE the melody of the song Imagine, but they wish the lyrics were different. I don't see any atheists saying these kinds of things...

I suspect the same is true for all sorts of secular art.

I'm glad for the stipulation of "personal", cuz I have no idea where this comes from. I suppose you can impress upon an entire community the sentiments of one person, but not reasonably so. I know lots of Christians, me for one, who enjoy all kinds of art, including modern art - most of which is bad.

I agree that it's a pretty broad generalization. But, then again, so is Dr Peterson's article.

[_Blixa]

I know lots of Christians, me for one, who enjoy all kinds of art, including modern art - most of which is bad.

I'm pretty certain you know practically nothing about "most" "modern" art.

ye Gods, Hoops. Statements like that render your "liking" of my own work little more than an insult.

[_Hoops]

I know lots of Christians, me for one, who enjoy all kinds of art, including modern art - most of which is bad.

I'm pretty certain you know practically nothing about "most" "modern" art.

ye Gods, Hoops. Statements like that render your "liking" of my own work little more than an insult.

You're probably right. No, you are absolutely right. I know next to nothing about modern art, other than that which effects me - pleasently and unpleasently. And I like some from both categories.

I wish I knew more, and gladly go to art exhibits whenever I can. I am open to being educated about it, like anything else.

Still, I like what you do - regardless of how much I know about it.