Since religion is just art that’s gotten out of control, I’d have to say Art.
Ther’s a difference? I would consider getting a couple of hundred people to get up early on a Sunday morning, dress up, participate in group activities with some of the most strangely-dressed people this side of a RenFair, hand over their children to these very same people, listen to a half hour to 45 minute long monologue, then voluntarily pay for this event to be performance art at it’s best.
And art does not serve in a similar (if not identical) role? I think artists have been doing this for a lot longer than any priests or shamans.
Where does it say that one must cancel out the other or that good works are erased by bad deeds? The issue at hand is whether art or religion has been of more benefit (or less detrimental) to mankind. I see art as far more universal in context than religion will ever be and perhaps this is one of the best ways of gauging this.
Munch, wasn’t it you who proposed a “curbside” method of telling the difference between real art and pretentious crap? As I recall, the concept involves placing a given piece of artwork next to the curb and seeing if it is hauled away as trash or rescued by a keen eyed individual.
I would propose an “assimilability” index to rate the situation. It is rather simple to think that a majority of alien races would more easily identify (with) items of artistic creation than with given religious doctrines. While both are arbitrary, one does not require the number of faith based assumptions in order to function that the other does. Brought back to earth and standing on its own merits, art still enjoys a greater degree of accessability to a larger number of people than does religion. Both are artifacts of human existence but art makes far fewer presumptions upon the participant than religion. The contrived aspects of religion perforce require it to be accepted within a much larger construct. Art often can literally be taken at face value while religion largely cannot.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zenster *
And art does not serve in a similar (if not identical) role? I think artists have been doing this for a lot longer than any priests or shamans.
No. The artists of the past were Shamans and priests. I can’t know this for sure, but I’d guess that the first hints of religion and the first works of art appeared nearly simultaneously in human history. Was not Muhammad a poet? Weren’t Stonehenge and the Pyramids built for religious purposes? There’s a very thin line between religion and art, so thin that saying one is better than the other is futile.
They both have the same core goals: to make sense of it all. To explain the universe and the human experience in particular in a way that makes sense and resonates emotionally with the participants. Two sides of the same coin. Which is better, mathematics or physics?
Now, if you just want to tally death tolls, again, you have an impossible task. Were the Crusades a purely religious exercise? Or do the underlying secular causes mean we have to cut Christianity some slack? Can we really quantify the suffering caused by millennia of romanticized war in art?
You just reminded me why I don’t do the traditional church ritual!
I’ll go with Art - since one of the most popular subject choices is the human body, this must have inspired contemplation about it’s makeup - leading to medical, scientific studies.
Torture…hmmm, well no examples come to mind…except my continual undeserved exposure to the sonic leprosy called “country music”… but that’s simply not true about persecution. While obviously not as deadly or as large a scale as the tortures of the Spanish Inquisition, lots of people have been vilified for their creation and/or support of art by performance artists and the avante-garde. The work of artists as disparate as Mark Twain, W.D. Griffith, Hal Roach, William Gaines, Robert Mapplethorpe, Frida Khalo, William Styron, Iggy Pop, Andres Serrano, Chris Ofili and Renée Cox has engendered a great deal of hostility and controversy, both in their lifetimes and posthumously.
No? Look to earlier history. Griots could publicly humiliate African kings. America went to civil war, in part, over a little novel called Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Even in the 20th century art could motivate young men to war as part of the military propaganda imagery of Nazi Germany, Communist China and America during World War II – and the perpetuation of racial, gender, political stereotypes in popular movies and television. Hollywood features have shaped public opinion ever since the war film, the newsreel-- and make no mistake, propaganda IS art. The medium is the massage.
Not true. EVERY colonial cultural invasion/domination introduces new people, languages, plants, foods, religions, artforms and other cultural components – ALL tend to blend in with native equivalents and then eradicate them. Look to the Americas, Austrailia, most of Africa, and the Caribbean for examples. Yeah, these cultures still produce native arts, but in much smaller, sometimes inferior and often overpriced quantities – and they aren’t widely VALUED except by the curious, collectors and tourists.
True. But to be perfectly fair, no existing religion has led to conflicts that have stretched over millenia, either.
No, art has many leaders, just like religion does. There are organized international bodies that promote, recognize, honor and perpetuate whole movements of fine arts, from photography to painting to literature to the culinary arts. The only difference between fine art and religion that while religion may promote a recognizable figurehead, art – on average – tends to be a leadership by anonymous committee.
This overstatement does a huge disservice to the very real rewards of true religious spirituality and fails to admit the paucity of art of any real value, expression or social consequence. Let’s face it: most art don’t mean diddly. Ever heard the phrase, “90% of everything is crap?” I’m pretty sure that maxim was originally applied to art.
Hey, I come from a family with art history professors, writers, poets and several interdenominational ministers. I can see the merits and demerits of both art and religion. Religion, as whole, is no paradise. Art, as a whole, is no oasis.
Another vote for art. I agree with AmericanMaid, take away art and you cheapen my life, take away religion…who cares? Or as someone once said:
Imagine there’s no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace.
The lack of Artistic Fundamentalists is also a plus for art.
Well, of course, take away religion and we’re probably not speaking English, either. By which I mean, take away religion, and you functionally take away pretty much any chance for Western society to have survived, since we’d have lost so much during the Dark Ages.
Take away art, and we’d be boring. Take away religion, and we wouldn’t be American.
Most of you seem to be saying Art, so for the sake of arguement, ill just say what im thinking at the moment.
First of all, we get out of the box of religion being simply about a supernatural God and a bunch of followers. Religion is simply a system of principles that someone follows faithfully. Most people (if not everyone) has a religion of some sort, or else they would be drifters that live for no reason.
So come to think of it, even talking about religion in the classical sense, it has given humanity a reason for living. remember that movie Memento? that guy needed a John G. in his life for him to continue to make sense of his life. i dont know why i mentioned that, but i suppose we could parallel that to our existence. Art is often an expression of our religion and our search for purpose in this all too absurd of a reality.
sorry for going a little overboard at the end there. ok, go ahead and rip away at me.
Religion.
In its drive to make accurate calendars we wound up removed from the centre of the universe and made insignificant through astronomy. That whole paradigm shift allowed future removal of “special” human characteristics like divine creation, and so helped lead to the ideas of evolution.
Not that I can recall. I can’t ever making that distinction, but it’s not a bad idea.
That’s probably true. Mostly because there are simply more pieces of art than there are religions. But if religion is a shaded window to view life through, art is what you’re seeing through that window. Some choose to change the shade of color, some choose to open the window and view life/art unobstructed. But IMO, they’re incompatible in comparison.
The problem is, this isn’t a poll.
Look, Religion is a subset of Art, so the question was framed incorrectly.
Most of the arguments against religion boil down to, “I have a grudge against religion, so I’m going to make up reasons or make a vapid statement like quoting Lennon as my argument.”
The real answer is, of course, that it’s nearly impossible to narrow down the benefits that each has brought. Both art and religion has been used for destructive and constructive ends.
The people who rely on religious organizations for food, shelter, education, medical care, etc? They might care. In fact, I’m willing to bet they’d get rid of art a lot quicker than they would religion.
I’m rather disturbed that many people keep referring to the Catholic church as some sort of end-all and be-all in this argument. Chinese, Mayan and Judeaic cultures all had highly functional calendars before the advent of the Julian calendar. We need to discard the intense Eurocentrism that pervades this discussion before we are going to make any progress.
While Buddhism might be called a religion, Zen and Taoism are most certainly not. Gigantic cultures and civilizations arose based upon these concepts and have produced stunning art work. All of this has been done without the intervention of theistic worship. We really need to dislodge the Christian church from is dominance in modeling this situation. I have already made mention of this.
Art (and the crafts it derives from) superceded a lot of religious notions, if only because day to day survival mandated it. The strictly mechanical operation of obtaining and manufacturing garments and goods combined with the harvest and preparation of food created myriad avenues for the development of artistic skills. None of these required any worship or (supposedly) divine intervention.
We don’t need to discard anything. I believe that’s where the fault of the OP lies - the overwillingness to discard or negate each positive that arises from a source that has a negative. If that’s the argument, than for every symmetrical arrowhead, I’ll present an accompanying Gigli.
B.S. Zen and Taoism aren’t religions. They might not be theistic religions, but they are still religions. Taoism is basically trying to get in harmony of the Tao, a supernatural force enveloping everything. It’s a religion.
How do you know that art superceded a lot of religious notions? Just out of curiosity.
I’d lay major odds most relief recipients could give a rat’s patootie about whatever brand of worship the aid workers are spouting. The big money is on their interest in food. I’d also put a sizeable chunk of change on how many non-industrialized cultures probably place extreme priority on thier given artistic modes. Hungry rug weavers might willingly accept some outside food aid, but don’t count on them dismissing centuries of looming expertise for a season’s meals.
Irrelevant.
The concept of Gods and worship requires a significant amount of forebrain activity that made its debut much later in history than the ability to decorate beads and pottery. Religious artifacts don’t carbon date anywhere near as far back as knapped flints and worked shells.
I’m pretty sure that many people do not regard the Tao as any sort of “supernatural” force. I view it as a sort of universal template by which energy and change manifest. The basic laws of physics could stand in for a lot of what the Tao signifies and do rather well in its stead.
Here is a definition of religion from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back – more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective
As you can see, only the fourth definition embraces the concept of strictly held nontheistic beliefs. At that point, one could just about declare the SDMB a religion. The primary definition implicitly includes belief in God or the supernatural. Zen most definitely does not include either of these aspects in its practice. As a contemplative pursuit and gestalt concept, Zen really does not have much in common with many (especially Western) religions. The non-Jesus oriented Quakers are one of the few that might be compared to Zen. I think Zen’s categorization as a religion is largely a result of western analysts’ inablility to classify such a (to them) nebulous concept.
Zen and its art forms have served its patron cultures rather well and science arose therein without the handmaiden of religion. While science reached greater heights in European cultures than those of Asia, that may be another matter altogether. Frankly, I find it difficult to attribute much assistance from the church in the name of science. They rather busily burned many alchemists and wise women at the stake for being witches. People like da Vinci and Harvey ran enormous risks performing vivisection to further the pool of human knowledge about phisiology.
I fully comprehend the role of the church in the spreading of knowledge (with a hefty dose of propaganda), and their parasitic legal function in the royal European courts. But I think that art had a substantial historic head start and served humanity in a far less tainted and more practical capacity.