Is life more satisfying as an atheist or religionist?

[FrustratedFool]

1) So you would argue that the best cultural works are religious? I strongly disagree. There's great religious works, of course, but to argue that the best works are religious seems untenable to me. If you made a list of all the greatest religious cultural works on one side and I made a list of all the greatest not-explicitly-religious works on the other, I think I'd much rather be confined to spending the rest of my life with my list than yours. It'd be larger, more varied, and generally better. You are, of course, allowed to differ on matters of taste. Indeed, I'd be happy to even take it turns to name great works from our lists in a thread. And yes, I'd much rather have Shakespeare than Dante, and definitely Augustine lol.

2) Sure. Understanding context is good. But the argument here is specifically about religious works being better than secular works. We have no idea what these same geniuses would have done in a parallel secular world. They could have produce greater works, or nothing. We can say nothing other than the goods they produced were done within an atmosphere saturated by religion and that the works were good. But they were not religious texts. and that's the point.

[Istvan]

Would you count Swift and Voltaire as religious?

Well, they were, weren't they? Both were scornful of clerical hypocrisy but they weren't atheists.

That whole voyage to Laputa in Gulliver's Travels, where the natives are obsessed with absurd research schemes, was a satire on the Dream of Reason. Voltaire's Doc Pangloss was the epitome of the man of science whose knowledge was little more than a slew of self-satisfied tautologies.

[Fake Messiah]

Is life more satisfying as an atheist or religionist?

Perhaps it is like asking if life is more satisfying as a man or a woman; or gay or straight. Meaning that it varies from person to person.

Some people find life more satisfying by believing in fantasies like religion, JFK conspiracies, alien visitations, holocaust denial, cryptids, etc. Just like some people find life more satisfying by being alcoholics, or nicotine addicts, or overeaters, or pill poppers, or sadomasochists. They just find a life of rationality and/ or health to be too boring and unliveable.

I mean I watched a documentary about the Westboro Baptist Church where you can see how these women have a constant grin cut into their faces as if they are experiencing a constant ecstasy while they scream their horrible hateful things.

[FrustratedFool]

Would you count Swift and Voltaire as religious?

Well, they were, weren't they? Both were scornful of clerical hypocrisy but they weren't atheists.

That whole voyage to Laputa in Gulliver's Travels, where the natives are obsessed with absurd research schemes, was a satire on the Dream of Reason. Voltaire's Doc Pangloss was the epitome of the man of science whose knowledge was little more than a slew of self-satisfied tautologies.

Fair enough.  But their texts weren't religious texts, and that's the important point.

[Belacqua]

1) So you would argue that the best cultural works are religious?

No, as I said, I would argue that in the history we have, the majority of great works are religious. 

If you want to say that the "best" are secular, then I guess that's a matter of taste. If you really want to make a list of painters that are greater than Giotto, Duccio, Cimabue, Masaccio, Masolino, Fra Angelico, Botticelli, Raphael, Michelangelo, van Eyck, Bosch, Breughel, Rembrandt, Rubens, the Pre-Raphaelites, Blake, and many etc., you might have a hard time selling it to historians.

 We have no idea what these same geniuses would have done in a parallel secular world.  They could have produce greater works, or nothing.  We can say nothing other than the goods they produced were done within an atmosphere saturated by religion and that the works were good.  But they were not religious texts.  and that's the point.

Well sure. If we conjure up alternate timelines, then who knows. 

I've seen people argue on this forum (or maybe one like it) that they enjoy religious art works from past by ignoring the meanings and enjoying the color and line. But to me, this is like listening to a poetry reading in a language you don't understand. And I think that works made by religious believers, in religious cultures, that are not explicitly on religious themes, nonetheless require us to have sympathy with their views of the world. A painting of autumn grass by an anonymous Japanese craftsman, for example, though it doesn't explicitly refer to a Buddhist sutra, is nonetheless a painting expressing a Buddhist worldview. 

As for Scorcese, I know nothing about his movies. But one of his most recent ones was on an explicitly Christian theme, based on a novel by a Japanese Christian writer. So he may be thinking more about religion than it first appears.

[FrustratedFool]

1) So you would argue that the best cultural works are religious?

No, as I said, I would argue that in the history we have, the majority of great works are religious. 

If you want to say that the "best" are secular, then I guess that's a matter of taste. If you really want to make a list of painters that are greater than Giotto, Duccio, Cimabue, Masaccio, Masolino, Fra Angelico, Botticelli, Raphael, Michelangelo, van Eyck, Bosch, Breughel, Rembrandt, Rubens, the Pre-Raphaelites, Blake, and many etc., you might have a hard time selling it to historians.

 We have no idea what these same geniuses would have done in a parallel secular world.  They could have produce greater works, or nothing.  We can say nothing other than the goods they produced were done within an atmosphere saturated by religion and that the works were good.  But they were not religious texts.  and that's the point.

Well sure. If we conjure up alternate timelines, then who knows. 

I've seen people argue on this forum (or maybe one like it) that they enjoy religious art works from past by ignoring the meanings and enjoying the color and line. But to me, this is like listening to a poetry reading in a language you don't understand. And I think that works made by religious believers, in religious cultures, that are not explicitly on religious themes, nonetheless require us to have sympathy with their views of the world. A painting of autumn grass by an anonymous Japanese craftsman, for example, though it doesn't explicitly refer to a Buddhist sutra, is nonetheless a painting expressing a Buddhist worldview. 

As for Scorcese, I know nothing about his movies. But one of his most recent ones was on an explicitly Christian theme, based on a novel by a Japanese Christian writer. So he may be thinking more about religion than it first appears.

1a) Then we agree that I am right to say that it is false to believe that the best cultural works are religious.

1b)  I'm not sure I'd even go so far as to say the majority of great works are religious.  I appreciate that many are, because of history, but the majority?  I'm not convinced.  The amount of art, film, music, literature produced the recent past is enormous.  

1c)  That list of painters is interesting.  Firstly, I'm not restricting cultural works to just fine art.  And secondly, I'm not sure that every work they did was explicitly religious.  But yes, even if we limit ourselves to just art and then made a list of religious artworks on one side and non-explicitly-religious artworks on the other, I'd rather have my list than yours, though with art I think it would be your best chance at winning.  With literature or film or music, I think my list dominates, lol

Shall we play the game?  I'll start a thread where we simply name great cultural works in turn.  You are restricted to only explicitly religious works, like the Sistine Chapel ceiling, the King James Bible, and Bach's StMatthew Passion, and I am restricted to everything but such, like The Raft of the Medusa, Hamlet, and Mozart's The Magic Flute etc.  I think most people will greatly prefer to live the rest of their lives with only the contents of my list, but I may be surprised.

Of course, it's all rather subjective as to what constitutes a great cultural work.  I think such low brow stuff as Chaplin and the Beatles would count.  But if we agree it's all subjective, then that is just another way I become correct in saying it is false to state that all the best culture is religious.

[Istvan]

Well, they were, weren't they? Both were scornful of clerical hypocrisy but they weren't atheists.

That whole voyage to Laputa in Gulliver's Travels, where the natives are obsessed with absurd research schemes, was a satire on the Dream of Reason. Voltaire's Doc Pangloss was the epitome of the man of science whose knowledge was little more than a slew of self-satisfied tautologies.

Fair enough.  But their texts weren't religious texts, and that's the important point.

Well, we were talking about comedy. So their worldview is at least relevant.

[FrustratedFool]

Fair enough.  But their texts weren't religious texts, and that's the important point.

Well, we were talking about comedy. So their worldview is at least relevant.

Sure.  Context is important.
But the issue is whether the best cultural artifacts are religious.  I think that is a false idea.

And, I will go further.  I think the list of non-religious cultural things is more preferable to live with than the religious, and that religion is not required to create great works, and that as the future becomes less religious the number of great secular works will increase and outsize by an increasing amount the great religious works.  But those are all side points.

Regarding comedy, I've laughed more at Blackadder than either Swift or Voltaire.

[Nanny]

Religion restricts personal freedom. I am so much happier without it, without "sin" and the big babysitter in the sky. This life is all we get, so I suck the marrow out of it. I have no time for religious nonsense.

We broke the cycle of religion with our kids. They are first generation atheist Americans. Religion is strange to them. If they choose to follow religion it's their choice. We're not forcing it on them.

[FrustratedFool]

I wouldn't say I am much happier without religion, but it's a little better for sure.

Interestingly, my secular child is finding it really hard to deal with the void of meaninglessness and hopelessness of life without religion and is clearly drawn to religion and wishes that it was true.

I think both worldviews are poisonous in their own way.