“[T]o astrology and its “supernatural” pretensions we owe the grand style of architecture in Asia and Egypt.”
[Nietzsche, BGE Preface.]
Does this (these pictures) validate the worthiness of religion or validate human ability to apply geometry?
Religion most certainly was sometimes (oftentimes it was slavery and tyranny) a motivating factor for creating great ancient structures, but it did not create the structures themselves. Humans did this.
What I am getting at is religion’s best asset is to make us feel good or offer us a subjective kind of meaning (in my opinion.) I have nothing against feeling good, so I am not anti-religious, and subjective meaning is important if you are thinking of how to apply emotional satisfaction to your life. Objective meaning almost always lies in things that are tangible or verifiable, objects in the tangible sense, math and deductive logic in the verifiable sense. In the subjective sense, religion is about feelings and how these feelings help create meaning in a world where “value” does not exist as a physcial property.
So I would say that great architechture owes somewhat to religion, but we don’t need it.
umm problematic argumentation for religion I think. Since the contra argument would be some awful bloody pictures of several wars and murders done in even this thing’s name. People did a lot of crazy things because of what they believed in; these building are just a few of them.
In the end, a tribute to the gods would only be a tribute to humanity.
Cool pics.
Well said.
It is difficult to distinguish what could have been done without religion and what not. I think the most rational way is looking at it is simply taking religious monuments for what they are - inspired by religion. Contrary to science, buildings inspired by religion usually, if not always, are constructed with the ideal of beauty in mind. Religious man wants to do as good as he can if it is for God.
If construction serves only financial gain, which the application of science usually amounts to, the design only has to be decently reliable, it has only to be enough for it’s purpose. It doesn’t increase the value of the human race. Relgion often does in the ways demonstrated above, as nothing is ever really enough for God.
Yes, religions have inspired as much bloodshed as science and greed have. There are countles arguments against relgion. I just wanted to make this simple one in favor of it.
Jakob, Thanks for the pics. They are extremely good shots. I think that the pictures represent the positve social powers of religion. Unfortunately the pictures aren’t balanced by shots of the inquisition dungeons of torture, the mass grave sites in Kosovo, and other such pictures that are also inspired by religion. But I guess that on Sunday, we should just look at the positives…
I don’t think the building of the Egyptian pyramids is anything to be admired. Their beauty today is simply self-adoration - a reminder of how great our species was/is. Where somebody sees a thing of beaut and of positive social powers, I see remnants of a stupid belief that enslaved millions of people. I can think of little else uglier than the pyramids or religion in general for that matter. Little freedom, but much oppression, has come of it.
Then again, they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Argument for science:
That’s exactly what I mean - without some form of reverence or dedication to a higher consciousness reckless architecture often turns out as chaotically distasteful as this.
There are of course exceptions - especially in France, the industrial revolution was celebrated with religious joy, and the results, like the Eiffel tower, but also a lot of steel bridges in the rocky inland are incredibly graceful. The number of churches and cathedrals there is astounding as well - the French seem to have held on to the classical spirit of veneration, whether it is for a deity, their own culture, the possibilities of science, or simply lthe experience of life. I think this can be called religious - it is beyond passionate.
Ah, yes, taste! The one thing the godless cannot afford.
The very first thing that comes to mind when looking at those pictures is their godless creators; seconded by their lack of taste!
Perhaps science, being the practical field of study it is, desires efficient architecture. Maybe?
At best I can only see an arguement for your opinion on architecture. Ancient Greece and Rome had (IMO) beautiful architectural stying, neither having any overarching religious connotations. Of course, the wonderful Sydney Opera House is an example of a beautiful & functional building with great artistic merit and no religious motif. Other amazing man-made structures include Mt Rushmore, the Great Wall of China, the Petronas Towers, the Eifel Town, the L’Arc d’Triumph, Hadrian’s Wall, The Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, and the Golden Gate Bridge.
If there are any ugly temples then one must concede that faith without good architecture of aesthetic sensibilities won’t get you very far!
These pictures represent how religion has ruined humanity in the past as it still does today. If you know who built the cathedrals and pyramids and why they did it, it would be sick to still look on in admiration. Masters oppressed the slaves into working for them through fear on the one-hand whilst the priests told the slaves that they mustn’t feel sad that they were exhausted and miserable, because after all if they kept in line and carried on working until it killed them then they would get into heaven or paradise.
This exploitation continued throughout the middle ages during feudalism, and combined with the new movement of capitalism during the industrial revolution in Britain it came to the stage where the working-class were living like savages to construct the visions of others. And capitalism has basically replaced religion in this form of exploitation today, most people in the world working the hardest and longest hours for a minimum wage that will barely feed them whilst the wealthy minority enjoy the fruits of the labour of other people. There’s just one difference, you would have been better off being a slave in ancient Egypt 5000 years ago because at least your slave-masters would have cared that you were well fed and healthy enough to work efficiently, whereas a manager now doesn’t care because he is in charge of a system that is more like legal prostitution than slavery, where every worker can be replaced because there are others who need money, meanwhile the unemployed are left impoverished and homeless.
These are all wonderful. And not because they were built with scientific efficiency in mind, but because of the spiritual motivations behind them. They are all religious in a certain sense - monuments to something greater than man. Except perhaps the Golden Gate bridge. But bridges are by default easy to look at.
Hah - efficient science; the father of the most atrocious crimes against nature - a great architectural motivation, sure. Yech.
Really? I found it was the complete lack of passion.
Of course, in the scientific quest for efficiency, being dispassionate is a virtue.
The only sort of passion I see in the pictures you provided is a passion for stubbornness - the cheapest type of passion. Perhaps disillusioned is a better term for this type of passion.
Naturally we are a very passionate creature holding ideas very close to heart. For countless thousands of years men were passionate in their beliefs about Gods. Their art reflected this. But their passion was not honorable. Their art is their martyrdom towards their dying Gods. But not even blood can revive a dying God.
“A very popular error: having the courage of one’s convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one’s convictions!” - [size=75]Nietzsche [/size]
You mean stubbornness against gravity or something?
Convictions, as a student of Nietzsche should know, serve only the will to power - the will to imprint one’s hand onto millennia as on wax.
The buildings did not serve the religion, but religion serves to dicipline a tribe into a culture. Amounting, as in the cases pictured above, in works of art for the ages. Not, as in the other images, in frivolous and undiciplined expressions of cultural anarchy. But I shouldn’t expect someone with an aparent disdain for taste as a value-giver to consider these differences.