Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Religion-What's the Point?

Page 3 of 3 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

ZakFiend
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 547

24 Nov 2010, 3:11 pm

"All my life I've wondered, what's the point in religion? All it is in my opinion is a false promise."

There is no point, it's just how our minds evolved, i.e. you're looking at our minds developed from a modern perspective where knowledge you take for granted today was not known many thousands and hundreds of thousands of years ago. Stupid monkeys believing in myths allowed bigger groups to bond and extend familial bonds beyond ones own blood clan to create larger complex of social organization and eventually cities and nations.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

24 Nov 2010, 5:07 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Sand wrote:
Morality based on distorted and archaic tribal traditions which religions preserve are amongst the most destructive social values in existence.


So is morality based on new traditions which aggressively cast off religion. The abuses undertaken during the Cultural Revolution were no less destructive to social cohesion than those of fundamentalists. Closer to home, the abuses undertaken by HUAC are equally destructive, depriving many of their livelihoods and their liberty.

It is not religion that is at fault, but tribalism and xenophobia. So long as we continue to band together to put down the outsider it doesn't matter whether we call that person an infidel, a capitalist roader or a communist.

It is entirely possible to be religious without being a xenophobic bigot.

Quote:
Religion did not produce great art, it was the wealthy source for creative artists to finance their ideas. Creativity follows wealth and wealth will always foster the projects of creative people.


You are conflating creativity with creation. Money will pay for the production of the arts, but money doesn't generally inspire the artist.


Inspiration is not sufficient to create massive amounts of art. All sorts of artists have ideas but artists have to have financial support to create what inspiration drives them to do. The reason religious art is produced is that it is paid for and artists produce where the money sustains it. If you think otherwise you have no conception as to how the system works.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

24 Nov 2010, 5:09 pm

I suppose it depends on what one means by "the point." For me, as a Baha'i, the point is drawing close to my Beloved (God).


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

24 Nov 2010, 6:00 pm

Sand wrote:
Inspiration is not sufficient to create massive amounts of art. All sorts of artists have ideas but artists have to have financial support to create what inspiration drives them to do. The reason religious art is produced is that it is paid for and artists produce where the money sustains it. If you think otherwise you have no conception as to how the system works.


And again, you conflate the two. Are you trying to be obtuse, or merely argumentative? The question at hand is, "What's the point of religion?" The question is not, "Is the point of religion sufficient to achieve its purpose without other factors?"

I never claimed that religion created art, I claimed that religion inspired art. I never claimed that inspiration was, in and of itself, sufficient; what's more, I have clearly claimed that money is not, in and of itself, sufficient.

Both inspiration and the means to give effect to that inspiration are requried. Religion provides one (in some cases), patronage the other.

Do I have to draw a picture for you?


_________________
--James


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

24 Nov 2010, 6:42 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Sand wrote:
Inspiration is not sufficient to create massive amounts of art. All sorts of artists have ideas but artists have to have financial support to create what inspiration drives them to do. The reason religious art is produced is that it is paid for and artists produce where the money sustains it. If you think otherwise you have no conception as to how the system works.


And again, you conflate the two. Are you trying to be obtuse, or merely argumentative? The question at hand is, "What's the point of religion?" The question is not, "Is the point of religion sufficient to achieve its purpose without other factors?"

I never claimed that religion created art, I claimed that religion inspired art. I never claimed that inspiration was, in and of itself, sufficient; what's more, I have clearly claimed that money is not, in and of itself, sufficient.

Both inspiration and the means to give effect to that inspiration are requried. Religion provides one (in some cases), patronage the other.

Do I have to draw a picture for you?


I am an artist. I have studied art all my life. I am fully aware of the nature of inspiration and its relation to art, to money and to how the stuff is produced. I need no crap about how the system works. The immense wealth of the Vatican saw to it that commissions were given to talented people and talented people gave the religious organizations what they paid for. That's where the massive art came from. Artists are producers and when money is offered for certain types of production that type of production is effected. That's the real world.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

24 Nov 2010, 7:03 pm

Sand wrote:
I am an artist. I have studied art all my life. I am fully aware of the nature of inspiration and its relation to art, to money and to how the stuff is produced. I need no crap about how the system works. The immense wealth of the Vatican saw to it that commissions were given to talented people and talented people gave the religious organizations what they paid for. That's where the massive art came from. Artists are producers and when money is offered for certain types of production that type of production is effected. That's the real world.


So the fact that the Vatican paid its artists means that those talented people did not display their own religious inspiration in their works?

'I live and love in God's peculiar light. '
- Michelangelo


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

24 Nov 2010, 7:15 pm

91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
I am an artist. I have studied art all my life. I am fully aware of the nature of inspiration and its relation to art, to money and to how the stuff is produced. I need no crap about how the system works. The immense wealth of the Vatican saw to it that commissions were given to talented people and talented people gave the religious organizations what they paid for. That's where the massive art came from. Artists are producers and when money is offered for certain types of production that type of production is effected. That's the real world.


So the fact that the Vatican paid its artists means that those talented people did not display their own religious inspiration in their works?

'I live and love in God's peculiar light. '
- Michelangelo


The culture of the time with the iron hand of religion penetrating all sectors of life ensured there were plenty of very talented artists willing to do the Vatican's bidding. The Vatican was immensely rich and powerful. What it desired got done.Talented people can create out of whatever material is desired and money is a huge inspiration to do whatever pays well and gets general social approval. Good artists produce good art.
Whether the area of a painting is a dark shadow, a striking patch of color, an amusing integration of some myth or other, a portrayal of Jesus or a saint or a herd of angels or Thor, or Zeus, or naked dancers, or monsters depends upon all sorts of technical factors and certain skilled arrangements produces fascinating art. Artists are quite clever in inserting whatever connotations are paid for.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

24 Nov 2010, 8:55 pm

Sand wrote:
91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
I am an artist. I have studied art all my life. I am fully aware of the nature of inspiration and its relation to art, to money and to how the stuff is produced. I need no crap about how the system works. The immense wealth of the Vatican saw to it that commissions were given to talented people and talented people gave the religious organizations what they paid for. That's where the massive art came from. Artists are producers and when money is offered for certain types of production that type of production is effected. That's the real world.


So the fact that the Vatican paid its artists means that those talented people did not display their own religious inspiration in their works?

'I live and love in God's peculiar light. '
- Michelangelo


The culture of the time with the iron hand of religion penetrating all sectors of life ensured there were plenty of very talented artists willing to do the Vatican's bidding. The Vatican was immensely rich and powerful. What it desired got done.Talented people can create out of whatever material is desired and money is a huge inspiration to do whatever pays well and gets general social approval. Good artists produce good art.
Whether the area of a painting is a dark shadow, a striking patch of color, an amusing integration of some myth or other, a portrayal of Jesus or a saint or a herd of angels or Thor, or Zeus, or naked dancers, or monsters depends upon all sorts of technical factors and certain skilled arrangements produces fascinating art. Artists are quite clever in inserting whatever connotations are paid for.


Out of curiosity, Sand, what is your attitude towards commercial art versus "art for art's sake" or "academic" art? My professors had a general disdain for all commercial interests in art/music, especially music such as popular music and John Williams style film music.

My own personal attitude, however, is that popular music and film industry music form a significant, un-ignorable part of our contemporary, postmodern folk tradition and is worthy of more noble notice and treatment. While some church congregations might think of what I'm doing creatively with church music as blasphemy or profanity, I see it as innovative and forward-thinking. I'm also not concerned with funding what I do or making a lot of money.

So, in relation to art, is it a bad thing to follow and expand on trends, maybe even make a buck or two, and still be able to claim artistic integrity? Or is anyone who does so prostituting themselves and their art?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

24 Nov 2010, 9:08 pm

91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
I am an artist. I have studied art all my life. I am fully aware of the nature of inspiration and its relation to art, to money and to how the stuff is produced. I need no crap about how the system works. The immense wealth of the Vatican saw to it that commissions were given to talented people and talented people gave the religious organizations what they paid for. That's where the massive art came from. Artists are producers and when money is offered for certain types of production that type of production is effected. That's the real world.


So the fact that the Vatican paid its artists means that those talented people did not display their own religious inspiration in their works?

'I live and love in God's peculiar light. '
- Michelangelo


Who the hell knows what went through the artist's heads? Certainly not you or me. They were fantastic craftsmen and they did marvelous jobs in satisfying the Vatican who was their client. And they got paid well for it and achieved popular acclaim. That much is known. The rest is speculation. Religion laid claim to many men's mind and it's probable they did believe in the religious propaganda but without the money to do the work no one could say how much would be done. If they were in a different culture I have little doubt other types of work would be done. The Greeks and Romans also did fabulous work and probably also got well paid for it.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

25 Nov 2010, 11:29 am

Sand wrote:
Who the hell knows what went through the artist's heads? Certainly not you or me. They were fantastic craftsmen and they did marvelous jobs in satisfying the Vatican who was their client. And they got paid well for it and achieved popular acclaim. That much is known. The rest is speculation. Religion laid claim to many men's mind and it's probable they did believe in the religious propaganda but without the money to do the work no one could say how much would be done. If they were in a different culture I have little doubt other types of work would be done. The Greeks and Romans also did fabulous work and probably also got well paid for it.


You are speaking as if the Vatican was the Wal-mart of the artistic world.

Please understand, I am talking about the capacity of any religious belief to inspire art, at any level. Not just the grand works that fill the cathedrals and palaces of Europe, but also the icons that are found in the homes of Russians, the totems and ritual wear of anamistic traditions, the calligraphy of Torah scrolls, the bas-reliefs of Angkor Wat. Every religious tradition has, I suggest, inspired art, and inspired art on scales ranging from the grand and statist, right down to the simple and personal.

Some religious art is created for the political purpose of entrenching the statist functions of the religion, yes. But is the art less grand for that? Do we denigrate Borobodur because it was created by a state? Is Bach's B Minor Mass less stirring because it was bought and paid for by a monarch?


_________________
--James


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Nov 2010, 11:33 am

visagrunt wrote:
Sand wrote:
Who the hell knows what went through the artist's heads? Certainly not you or me. They were fantastic craftsmen and they did marvelous jobs in satisfying the Vatican who was their client. And they got paid well for it and achieved popular acclaim. That much is known. The rest is speculation. Religion laid claim to many men's mind and it's probable they did believe in the religious propaganda but without the money to do the work no one could say how much would be done. If they were in a different culture I have little doubt other types of work would be done. The Greeks and Romans also did fabulous work and probably also got well paid for it.


You are speaking as if the Vatican was the Wal-mart of the artistic world.

Please understand, I am talking about the capacity of any religious belief to inspire art, at any level. Not just the grand works that fill the cathedrals and palaces of Europe, but also the icons that are found in the homes of Russians, the totems and ritual wear of anamistic traditions, the calligraphy of Torah scrolls, the bas-reliefs of Angkor Wat. Every religious tradition has, I suggest, inspired art, and inspired art on scales ranging from the grand and statist, right down to the simple and personal.

Some religious art is created for the political purpose of entrenching the statist functions of the religion, yes. But is the art less grand for that? Do we denigrate Borobodur because it was created by a state? Is Bach's B Minor Mass less stirring because it was bought and paid for by a monarch?


Some people will buy anything. Do you think artists and craftsmen gave that stuff away? It wasn't just the Vatican that dealt out gold for decorative propaganda.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

25 Nov 2010, 11:58 am

Sand wrote:
Some people will buy anything. Do you think artists and craftsmen gave that stuff away? It wasn't just the Vatican that dealt out gold for decorative propaganda.


Reread my post. I acknowledge precisely that point.

I maintain, however, that the art outlives the propaganda purpose. There is much grand, statist art that has outlived both the states that paid for it and the religions that inspired it. Egypt, Cambodia and Greece all contain vast troves of precisely such art.


_________________
--James


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Nov 2010, 2:51 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Sand wrote:
Some people will buy anything. Do you think artists and craftsmen gave that stuff away? It wasn't just the Vatican that dealt out gold for decorative propaganda.


Reread my post. I acknowledge precisely that point.

I maintain, however, that the art outlives the propaganda purpose. There is much grand, statist art that has outlived both the states that paid for it and the religions that inspired it. Egypt, Cambodia and Greece all contain vast troves of precisely such art.


And immense quantities of art not concerned with religion. Both good and bad just like religious art. If you can sell it, it will be made.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

26 Nov 2010, 1:39 pm

Sand wrote:
And immense quantities of art not concerned with religion. Both good and bad just like religious art. If you can sell it, it will be made.


Yes--I have never denied that.

So is it your position that since artists can find inspiration from sources other than religion that we can dispose of religiously inspired art? Is such art irrelevant to our understanding of human history? Are contemporary artists who continue to draw inspiration from religious themes of lesser merit than artists who draw their inspiration from other themes?


_________________
--James


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Nov 2010, 7:13 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Sand wrote:
And immense quantities of art not concerned with religion. Both good and bad just like religious art. If you can sell it, it will be made.


Yes--I have never denied that.

So is it your position that since artists can find inspiration from sources other than religion that we can dispose of religiously inspired art? Is such art irrelevant to our understanding of human history? Are contemporary artists who continue to draw inspiration from religious themes of lesser merit than artists who draw their inspiration from other themes?


I never claimed that some artists are not inspired by religion. Only that the subject of art is not restricted in any manner and the burgeoning of art, whatever the subject, is more responsive to it's economic sponsorship than to any particular subject matter. Artists are essentially explorers of the inter-relationships of the fundamentals of their craft such as line, color, composition, and whatever integration of those basics may be captured by current conventions. Understanding those basics catches the inter-relationships of Klee, Dali, Schwitters, DaVinci, and all the fascination these investigators display for the exercise of their imaginations. Monetary sponsorship by any social sector can insert other factors such as subject matter but basically subject matter is only one aspect of art which ranges, like any of the exploratory efforts of the human mind, over much wider and stranger areas than mere religion.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

26 Nov 2010, 8:02 pm

Religion is an attempt to give people control over the things they cannot control. There's a lot that can go wrong, there's insecurity, so instead of worrying about it why not get this explanation including rituals to perform to avoid things going wrong. So the Aztecs feared the sun would stop working so sacrifices were done to Tezcatlipoca and to get that rainfall sacrifices were done to Tlaloc and so on...

I think that the least religious societies are those with the most social security. This is why the US is more religious than Western Europe is. People can lose everything at the blink of an eye in the USA so better pray to prevent that...