Both appear to serve the same purpose to me- to aestheticize the world and make it bearable/meaningful for the individual.
The difference with religiion is, rather than offering a perspective, each respective religion wishes to claim absolute objectivity, thus placing it above all other beliefs/worldviews. Art on the other hand lays no claim on objectivity (some artists might, I don’t know but in general…); it may influence people as much as a religion, for instance think of a rockstar, however, they do not lay claim to absolute objectivity. I think if we forget religion’s ‘isness’ (Life IS this way, God IS a white bearded fellow in the clouds) then it is just the same as art. It is just another human creation to offer solace in an otherwise cruel environment.
Taking the ‘isess’ out of any person’s languge seems to solve this problem of purported objectivity, when we then realise it is not ‘something is X’ but rather ‘Person X holds the subjective belief that so and so is X’ is this what e-prime is about? I think it is the same. This has the potential of pretty much nixing out all conflicts I have with people if I keep this borne in mind while discussing differing opinions with them.
Robert Anton Wilson made the very sagacious claim that- ‘all art is seduction’. If religion loses it’s isness, and we accept that all creation is just a perspective (Perspectivism) then it is up to us whether we become seduced by one worldview over another. There will be less emphasis on fighting and more emphasis on competition of the most seductive wordview. Survival of the most charming?
Also, another thought I have had trouble with for a while related to this is: Where does science stand as it claims ‘objectivity’ in its ‘findings’. Just how much are the scientist’s tools subject to error/or merely a product of the experimentor’s perspective, rather than giving results of anything objective? Should we consider science ‘more true’ than other forms of creation such as art or should we consider it just as subject to interpretation? Is the body of science itself just accepted as true merely due to it’s rise in popularity such that people now just ‘accept it’ as with any other religion? I mean at first glance there is something to be said for the ‘scientific method’ and how one experiment can be replicated in another lab etc. but it’s with the same tools as the original experimentor, ie the same perspective as the original experiementer. It is the same as asking a question to someone with the exact same believe system the same question and getting the same answer, does this really say anything about the reliability of the results on our objective world? (I think I’m missing something out of the equation here that you may be able to fill me in on) So the main crux is: Is science any more ‘reliable’ of a tool as art at discerning the outside world? And, also, what then is the use of science over other things? Science certainly is good at building houses and technology helps us in ways which I don’t know if art would/could, so what are the disctinctions of the main purposes between art and science? Art gives meaning thats pretty easy, science I have read before, gives us the how and not the why, what does this mean and entail?
I know alot of the problems with current nihilism are due to the loss of artistic outlets as the rational scientific method overtakes and consumes the collective worldview thus sanitising it of any meaning.
Quite a bit to untangle here but once done I think it will get things alot more straight as to what to focus on and to what degree.
science is useful for improving upon nature and it would be foolish not to exploit that power. i’m only half-kidding - think about the half that’s not: science is a tool for arriving at consensus - a consensus which is necessary for society - and a dissension that’s necesary for consensus. you’re part of that dissension, but you’re wrong to discuss science as a religion.
That’s wht I’m trying to get straight. Subjective reality seems to also been pertinent in this regard also, I’m just trying to figure out to what degree.
Absolutely not. Art doesn’t necessarily have a metaphysics. I can’t think of any major religion in which the participant doesn’t have to accept some very specific metaphysical propositions.
You can find religious beliefs throughout science, and they are not that separate in their core beliefs. The urge to date the Universe, is an extention of the biblical idea that the Universe had a beginning and will have an end, and that it was consciouly created. The deeply intrenched notion of the linerary of time carries with it the idea of increasing entrophy or chaos, which, in turn, presupposes that the Universe is analogous to an artifact and that therefore it must have been created. The Big Bang Universe embraces the biblical notion of a begining to all creation, and has imbetted with it the percieved invoilacy of the law that everthing is degenerating into chaos and eventual extinction.