…
But, atheists are just as likely to produce art.
Sounds like the main character of our narrative didn’t know that killing was wrong for a while.
Martin Luther King? Uppity, nothing worthwhile there.
Ghandi? Same.
Albert Schweitzer? Clearly delusional.
Sam Walton? Exploiter of the Working Class!
C S Lewis? A hack.
J.R.R. Tolkien? Even worse.
Bono? He never made a difference.
They are today, but how likely would they have been to produce art 1000 years ago? Or 5000? 10,000? Where would they have gotten the resources to produce that art, and what would that are have been directed towards? What would it’s purpose have been? Much of the early art was directed at religion after all. Cave paintings were directed at the spirits of the animals for the purposes of hunting. Much of the large architecture from the later stone age was religiously oriented.
I agree, today an atheist could produce great art, and that great art and architecture are mostly disconnected from religion. But that’s TODAY. In the past it certainly wasn’t, and ‘atheists’ were pretty scarce on the ground, and unlikely to generate the public support for monumental works of art or architecture that religion did.
-XT
The nation of Israel.
Porn. Quite possibly we’d have had tons and tons more art.
It may have given us no good ideas, but it certainly gave us some beautiful buildings.
Ever been to Chartres?
Much as I don’t like the ideas of religion, atheists have never built anything so lovely.
No, they didn’t unite they divided; they creates groups of “us” and “them” that would not exist without religion.
And they systematically destroyed anything they found “unchristian” or “unmuslim”; not just during the dark ages, but for centuries before and after. I see no reason to think they preserved more than they destroyed; especially since most of the destroyers were motivated by religion.
You take your bold stand against all the scholars in this field based on what exactly?
The aqueduct?
Damn, Der Trihs you are quite the roll on this.
May I make one simple request? Just one, I promise. Can you tell me in good faith that the concept of “us” and “them” is only, or even primarily driven by religion when it comes to human nature. If you can answer that in any semi-intelligent way, you win the internet. I will box it up and send it to you free of charge.
Go
It’s shaped the ideas of millions of people for thousands of years. Whether that’s good or bad it’s certainly something.
Divided from what?? When the earth mother and spirit totem religions began to emerge in humanity, afaik, there WERE no groups larger than a hunter gatherer band. Religion united those bands into tribes, and later into city states, kingdoms and empires. Religion was the common thread in an otherwise xenophobic mindset. Certainly religion acted as a divisive element as well as a uniting one, but it was religion initially that united so that there were actually groups to divide later.
Even if that was the case (and admittedly it was, by and large), so what? They built AND they destroyed, pretty much as humans, with or without religion are inclined to do. But it was the power of both religions (as well as all the OTHER religions out there) that unified people and produced some of the greatest achievements of early human history, as well as preserving so much that would have otherwise been lost.
I understand that you are no fan of religion (and, more specifically Christianity), but you need to find some balance here. Nothing humans do is all bad…just as nothing we do is all good. We destroy as well as create.
I suggest you travel around some then. Visit Europe or the Middle East, or India and see for yourself. Religion built MUCH more than it destroyed, in the end. I look at it in much the same way as I look at the matter/anti-matter thingy…for every matter/anti-matter annihilation, one bit of matter didn’t find it’s anti-matter counterpart. The stuff that’s left over makes up the universe. Religion is much like that. It certainly destroyed much…but it created and allowed for the creation of that little bit more. And that little bit is the foundation of our human society, culture and civilization.
Personally, I think we’ve move past the need for it now, or shortly will anyway. It’s served it’s purpose and we don’t need it anymore…in fact, today it’s more a divisive element than a help. However, like our modern science, I freely acknowledge that we all stand on the shoulders of those who came before, and without those shoulders we wouldn’t be where we are today. Without religion I don’t believe we’d have ever gone past the bands of hunters and gatherers stage. YMMV (well, it does, obviously), but that’s my take.
-XT
“The only good thing ever to come out of religion is the music.”
– George Carlin
There’s probably something to be said for maintaining the correctness of technological rituals in the absence of good theoretical grounding.
The way in which irrigation systems in the Himalyas and Andes were maintained might require a religious component.
Someone’s probably done a dissertation on the subject, but I don’t care enough to look that up. The point is that religions do aggregate and distribute knowledge in pre-technological, pre-literate, even pre-rational societies.
He also quoted from the OT which seems to imply that he approved of its ethnic cleansing.
Religion, like life, “gives” us what we want, opportunities to be who we really are.
**Religion has given us nothing
**
Not exactly. It’s given humanity a great deal of grief and misery. And it’s made a bucket of money for the folks who invented the religion or who run it.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Religion is simply a reflection of humanity. There have been some good things to come out of religion, and some bad. Not everything is so black or white.
Dogma.