Perchance

I posted this here because, frankly, I didn't know where else to post it.

I've read several arguments from atheists/freethinkers both on the Secular Web and in other places that advocate the complete throwing out of religion/supernaturalism. Among the main reasons seem to be:

1. The harm that religion has done in the past, or the harm that people with religious beliefs have done.

2. The barriers that religious thought, or religious belief systems, present to things like logic, reason, scientific thought, and the evidence of the senses.

3. The belief that religious systems are morally inferior to secular belief systems.

4. The writers' personal dislike of religion or religious belief systems.

Now, maybe my concern is peculiar because of what I am (an English major with a great liking for pre-twentieth-century poetry). But, I would ask...

Would the complete throwing out of religion or supernaturalism mean that all the art- poetry, fiction, painting, or other forms- that mentioned religion or the supernatural would have to go too?

For example, my favorite poet is Shelley, who was probably what you would call non-religious or at least non-Christian (he was tossed out of Oxford for writing the pamphlet The Necessity of Atheism). But he also wrote quite a lot of poetry with supernatural emphases, based on the Greek legends ("Arethusa," for example, and Prometheus Unbound), on personifications of natural objects (such as "To a Skylark" and "The Cloud"), or about other things that were not completely atheistic. Would all that poetry have to be thrown out or destroyed in order to achieve a completely "secular" world?

In spite of my longing to accept some atheistic arguments, I find that the thought horrifies me. That's why I'm asking what other people's opinions are on this. Am I interpreting the argument the wrong way? Or does it really argue for the complete destruction of anything touched by religion or superstition?

-Perchance.

Pitshade

No, of course not. Just because something mentions gods, the afterlife or whatever doesn't make it harmful. The Illiad is cover to cover gods, ghosts and whatnot, but it isn't in any way harmful. As a piece of literature, the Bible isn't harmful; it is only as a tool of those who wish to assert its 'truth' that it becomes objectionable. Art, regardless of the viewpoint of the artist, should IMO be protected as part of our culture and heritage.

Jane Bovary

[b] Am I interpreting the argument the wrong way? Or does it really argue for the complete destruction of anything touched by religion or superstition?[b/]

If that was what athiesm was about, we would be no better than the worst fundamentalist who will allow for no free expression of ideas.

Gurdur

Precisely.

However, it is sadly true there are many atheists who actually think that way.

Personally, I see the best value in secular humanism as being in playing a "referee" to society --- encouraging conditions so that there is unfettered religion as well as atheism, and that no single ideology or religion is ever allowed to get too anti-humanist in its practices.

I.e., secular humanism as a referee, not as a complete "answer".

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

The Other Michael

hello Perchance,

Religion/supernaturalism as fiction/art etc isn't the problem. It's religion/supernaturalism as THE TRUTH that is the problem.

When I went to Spain a few years ago I took the tour through the big cathedral in Toledo. It's an amazing bit of construction when you consider the time it was built, and my hat is off to the architects and builders. It has a lot of artwork, some of which is very fine (though things did get a bit gaudy for my tastes at times).

But the whole time I was going through the cathedral I had the thought in the back of my mind that "the Church had to squeeze a LOT of peasants etc for a LONG time to pay for this".

Do you read science fiction/fantasy? There have been many books that have had religion play a part in them, sometimes good, sometimes bad. But it plays a part in the storyline and (usually) achieves some effect the author intended. I've got no problems with that, though the bad-guy religionists do tend to creep me out some times.

But that's fiction, and hopefully isn't having an effect on someone's life other than providing some distraction, and maybe a bit of thought-provoking.

Religion in the real world often can't be said to be that benign.

So if someone wants to do a series of paintings of the IPU in all Her (She is a Her, isn't She?)radiant glory for fun and profit, I've got no problem with that. But when you get Oral bilking people of their money and building some monstrosity of a building filled with insipid "come to Daddy" paintings, then I think that is an entirely different thing.

cheers,
Michael

Perchance

Hmmmm.

Wouldn't "unfettered religion" come into conflict with "not allowed to get too anti-humanist in its practices," though? This isn't to say that I support allowing theists to persecute atheists or anything of the kind; I don't. But wouldn't imposing some kind of standard- being a "referee," as it were, whether on art or on practices- set limits on freedom of religion and art?

I do support bringing more attention to humanism, secularism, freethought, and atheism. However, I'm not sure that it should become the dominant standard in a society. It sounds as though it could be just as oppressive as religion, if it tried.

(This is further complicated by the fact that I would really like to believe such thought systems are capable of, or even necessary for, maintaining a neutral standard. However, I almost instinctively distrust any liking that I have, and so need to examine it from all angles).

Thoughts?

-Perchance.

ohwilleke

I long for the day when colleges have small clubs that preserve church traditions (without actually believing them) for their beauty, they way they do Latin or Gaelic or Sanskrit.

Perchance

Ah. I understand what you mean. In fact, this was something I thought might be possible to understand from the arguments I was referring to (about throwing everything out that isn't secular).

However, some of the ideas about "getting rid of religion completely" are so vehement that I wanted to see what other thinkers thought.


{QUOTE]
When I went to Spain a few years ago I took the tour through the big cathedral in Toledo. It's an amazing bit of construction when you consider the time it was built, and my hat is off to the architects and builders. It has a lot of artwork, some of which is very fine (though things did get a bit gaudy for my tastes at times).

But the whole time I was going through the cathedral I had the thought in the back of my mind that "the Church had to squeeze a LOT of peasants etc for a LONG time to pay for this".
[/QUOTE]

Yes, that's something that tends to taint the beauty of religious construction for me. I've been to Mexico, and seen immense, beautiful buildings, but knowing what I do about its history (I was a Spanish minor), I have to wonder how much it cost.

When an artist is working entirely by himself or herself, though- as poets tend to do, as a lot of painters do, as some musicians do- I think this becomes less of an issue.

Yes, I do read a lot of fantasy, and some science fiction (though for some reason it doesn't appeal to me as much as fantasy does). And I think religion can be used to very great effect in a created world.

In fact, this was one of the things I was wondering about when I made my original post. If we DID have to throw everything out that was "touched by the supernatural," what would happen to fantasy?

I agree about Oral Roberts, and that he plays on people's emotions to get them to send money. However, if someone voluntarily wants to contribute money to such a cause, I don't think there should be restraints put on this.

-Perchance.

"There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well-written or badly-written." -Oscar Wilde.

The Other Michael

Hi Perchance,

I've got no problems with that as such. But it looks to me that a lot of the voluntary contribution can be attributed to a level of indoctrination - "you must contribute for the greater glory of (insert deity(s) here)".

It seems more of a guilt trip than a voluntary act.

cheers,
Michael

Perchance

Hi Michael.

Again, I know what you mean. But it's extremely hard to tell (at least sometimes) what counts as "voluntary thought" and what counts as "indoctrination." If someone feels he's contributing money out of a genuine desire to do so, but someone else thinks it's only guilt...

Well, you could argue that the outsider has the clearer view. But you could also argue that only an individual really knows his own mind.

It's a puzzle. I suppose that's why I'm in favor (at least until I hear a better option) of disseminating information of all kinds, about all systems of thought, as widely as possible. I would be extremely disturbed if religion were to someday take over society again to the point where freethought was prohibited- the Theonomy movement scares the shit out of me, pardon the language- but I also don't see much value in a society where humanism destroys and tramples everything else. A book-burning to me is always harmful, no matter what kinds of books are being destroyed.

-Perchance.