StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A comment Darth Wong made in the "found something fundies are good for" thread got me thinking.

Imagine, if you will, that you have the power to obliterate all fundamentalists. Bible-thumpers, Islamic militants, Pat Robertson, the lot of them, all into the incinerator. (Or, if you're feeling pacifist, you can convert them to normalcy). Sweet, right?

Here's the catch: in exchange, you must also obliterate all art ever inspired by religion. No Bach, Mozart, or Lord of the Rings. No William Blake or Renaissance art. Every cathedral, temple, mosque, et cetera, all destroyed. Would you do it?

After voting, please post and explain your reasoning.

In a heartbeat. Given the hatred that is inspired by religious fundamentalism, the loss of art inspired by religious fundamentalists (leaving aside the tenuous cause-and-effect relationships) is a small price to pay for getting rid of the hatred. People are suffering and dying, for fuck's sake. How can that be compared to "well, I really like that song?"

Here's the catch: in exchange, you must also obliterate all art ever inspired by religion. No Bach, Mozart, or Lord of the Rings. No William Blake or Renaissance art. Every cathedral, temple, mosque, et cetera, all destroyed. Would you do it?

But how do you make the distinction between art that is inspired by religion and art that is not ? Is it enough to use religious themes ? Does it still count if the artist made his work for artistic merit, but without a religious motivation ? If he or she only used religious themes or stories without their context ?

Do we also lose any art based on non-Abrahamic religions ? Will the Pantheon and the Pyramids still be there ?

Does this only remove the current crop of religious fundamentalists, or the very concept of fundamentalism throughout time ?

On a purely practical level, I'd say "yes", but I'm having trouble imagining such a world.

Only religious fundamentalism, right? That's a shitload of people, places, and things throughout history. I can't even imagine how things would be different if religious fundamentalism hadn't existed.

The OP talks about magically converting them all, and then magically wiping out all the art that was produced by previous generations of fundies. That doesn't mean we have to go back in time and alter history; we would just destroy the art right now.

I don't think that people should kill others just for the fun sake of it. It's much 'funner' and much more 'artistic' contemplating it then it is actually doing it. Besides, I don't want to have a guilty conscience, it affects my sleep.

Darth Wong wrote:The OP talks about magically converting them all, and then magically wiping out all the art that was produced by previous generations of fundies. That doesn't mean we have to go back in time and alter history; we would just destroy the art right now.

How do you decide which art was "inspired by religion" and which wasn't?

Obviously, however beautiful various religious works of art might be, they're immaterial compared to all of the suffering caused by religious fundamentalism.

Besides, before the modern age, the subject of artwork was influenced more by the desires of the patron than by the beliefs of the artist himself. If the Christian hegemony in Medieval and Renaissance Europe were wiped away, we would simply see fewer religious subjects and more artwork glorifying a noble patron's marriage or victory on the battlefield.

Or, depending on how strictly "fundamentalist" is being defined, we might not really lose very much artwork at all. Remember that fundamentalists throughout history haven't looked kindly towards artwork, because it's "materialist" or "idolatry". Plenty of art was burned in Savonarola's bonfire of the vanities, for example, and much ornamentation on Islamic mosques is purely abstract to avoid any accusations of "idolatry".

Or, depending on how strictly "fundamentalist" is being defined, we might not really lose very much artwork at all.

The OP says all artwork inspired by religion, not inspired or made by fundamentalists.

Obviously, however beautiful various religious works of art might be, they're immaterial compared to all of the suffering caused by religious fundamentalism.

You have great faith in the human race. Me, I'm sure that we'd have found some other justification for our atrocities. I'm not at all convinced a world without religion fundamentalism would be significantly better; something else would've taken it's place.

Does this clause include no more religious fundies in future generations? Because even if you wipe them all out now, there is definitely a chance for them to reappear...

And thus, all that beautiful art would be wasted.

Art and literature are not irreplaceable. Religious fundamentalists are.

I'd do it. I'd be sorry about the art, but it's not alive and we can make more easily enough.

Bounty wrote:Me, I'm sure that we'd have found some other justification for our atrocities. I'm not at all convinced a world without religion fundamentalism would be significantly better; something else would've taken it's place.

The most common religious apologist bullshit fallacy ever. If religion wasn't fucking up the world, something else would take its place. Naturally, you can't explain what this "something else" would be, or why it would magically arise in the absence of religion where it wouldn't have arisen with it.

The logic looks like this:

"Factor A causes problem B"
"If you eliminate factor B, then problem B will continue, because factor C will appear"
"I don't know what factor C is, but I'm confident this will happen"

That's not logic; it's bullshit.

The most common religious apologist bullshit fallacy ever.

Oh piss off. You can rip apart my errors all you want - in fact, I appreciate it - but don't even think I'm defending religion.

I wouldn't shed a tear if religion had never arisen. But to think that by removing it you end up with a significantly better world, that it's some sort of magic bullet, is beyond naive; greed, lust for power and feelings of superiority weren't created by religion, they're the factors that created it in the first place. Remove fundamentalism and you're still left with countless individuals without scrupules who'll latch on to any system of thought - nationalism, racism, fear of terrorists, whatever - to enrich themselves.

I'd convert them. Besides, we eliminate only fundies, right? Art would be obliterated; however, there's lots of non-funde theologists who will quickly replace and fill that niche - after all, it took only a few thousand years for the religion folk to build it; we could replace it in a hundred with current tech.

Bounty wrote:I wouldn't shed a tear if religion had never arisen. But to think that by removing it you end up with a significantly better world, that it's some sort of magic bullet, is beyond naive; greed, lust for power and feelings of superiority weren't created by religion, they're the factors that created it in the first place. Remove fundamentalism and you're still left with countless individuals without scrupules who'll latch on to any system of thought - nationalism, racism, fear of terrorists, whatever - to enrich themselves.

Those factors all exist in the real world alongside religious fundamentalism. Why would they necessarily get worse if fundamentalism were suddenly removed?

Spacebeard wrote:

Bounty wrote:I wouldn't shed a tear if religion had never arisen. But to think that by removing it you end up with a significantly better world, that it's some sort of magic bullet, is beyond naive; greed, lust for power and feelings of superiority weren't created by religion, they're the factors that created it in the first place. Remove fundamentalism and you're still left with countless individuals without scrupules who'll latch on to any system of thought - nationalism, racism, fear of terrorists, whatever - to enrich themselves.

Those factors all exist in the real world alongside religious fundamentalism. Why would they necessarily get worse if fundamentalism were suddenly removed?

Did I say it'd get worse ? No. Will it get better ? I doubt it.

Bounty wrote:

The most common religious apologist bullshit fallacy ever.

Oh piss off. You can rip apart my errors all you want - in fact, I appreciate it - but don't even think I'm defending religion.

But you are defending religion, moron. That's what your argument is doing: claiming that the elimination of every religion-inspired problem in history would have accomplished precisely nothing based on absolute bullshit pseudologic.

I wouldn't shed a tear if religion had never arisen. But to think that by removing it you end up with a significantly better world, that it's some sort of magic bullet, is beyond naive; greed, lust for power and feelings of superiority weren't created by religion, they're the factors that created it in the first place. Remove fundamentalism and you're still left with countless individuals without scrupules who'll latch on to any system of thought - nationalism, racism, fear of terrorists, whatever - to enrich themselves.

Yeah right, as if those problems must automatically get worse in the absence of religion.

Bounty wrote:

Spacebeard wrote:

Bounty wrote:I wouldn't shed a tear if religion had never arisen. But to think that by removing it you end up with a significantly better world, that it's some sort of magic bullet, is beyond naive; greed, lust for power and feelings of superiority weren't created by religion, they're the factors that created it in the first place. Remove fundamentalism and you're still left with countless individuals without scrupules who'll latch on to any system of thought - nationalism, racism, fear of terrorists, whatever - to enrich themselves.

Those factors all exist in the real world alongside religious fundamentalism. Why would they necessarily get worse if fundamentalism were suddenly removed?

Did I say it'd get worse ? No. Will it get better ? I doubt it.

You did say they would get worse: you are arguing that if fundamentalism didn't exist, the world would not be any better off because other factors would rise up to take its place. Since those factors all exist alongside fundamentalism in the real world, they would have to become more severe to replace all of the atrocities commited in the name of fundamentalism.

I figure that humanity is likely unstable against the formation of fundamentalism. So, there would, soon, be fundamentalists again. And then you just blew millennia of art - valuable for archaeological purposes if nothing else - for ten or twenty years of no fundamentalism.

How much good would twenty years of no fundamentalism do? Well, it depends if we also wiped out fundamentalist-strength nationalism.

Though my answer to the question is most likely yes (as Durandal said, Art can be replaced), I'm still a bit confused as to what exactly would count under this purge. Certainly, everything that directly refered to an established religion would go, but what of fiction that simply uses the concept of of dieties, a device obviously inspired by actual religions? And what of literature that, while not specifically about religion, in one way or another takes the supernatural as being real? Really, by the end, one might end up with comparatively very few works that were actually totally secular, most of them from the last few decades.

Noble Ire wrote:Really, by the end, one might end up with comparatively very few works that were actually totally secular, most of them from the last few decades.

I think you're underestimating the amount of artwork made for the self-aggrandizement of kings and nobles, and the amount of ornamentation even from ancient times that's completely abstract.

Much of the artistic output of China and Japan would stay: there are plenty of statues of Buddha and boddhisatvas, but there are many more examples of abstractly decorated pottery, landscape paintings, and secular poetry about nature.

A great deal of artwork from the Islamic world would also be untouched: due to the strong prejudice against any form of idolatry, the Turks and Arabs produced a lot of abstract floral designs, decorated weapons, and secular calligraphy. What would be lost would be the mosques and the calligraphic Koran verses.

Ancient Greece and Rome produced plenty of pottery, mosaics, and statues that glorified secular pursuits such as athletics. The Colosseum, the famous discus thrower, and the statues and busts of Roman emperors would be fine, for instance.

Finally, as early the Renaissance there were plenty of secular portraits and landscapes produced in Europe. Da Vinci's Last Supper would be gone, but not his Mona Lisa. The most famous works of Hals, Vermeer, and Rembrandt would be untouched.

Bounty wrote:But how do you make the distinction between art that is inspired by religion and art that is not ? Is it enough to use religious themes ? Does it still count if the artist made his work for artistic merit, but without a religious motivation ? If he or she only used religious themes or stories without their context ?

Do we also lose any art based on non-Abrahamic religions ? Will the Pantheon and the Pyramids still be there ?

Does this only remove the current crop of religious fundamentalists, or the very concept of fundamentalism throughout time ?

Oy, sorry for being so vague, guys. Since this post sums up fairly well the topics people seem to be confused on, I'll try to answer each question.

For the sake of the argument, let's disregard prehistoric art completely, because there is no way to determine whether the artist was "inspired by religion." Let's also disregard artists who were motivated purely by sponsorship.

Religious themes are allowable. It's only the art that was created primarily to glorify God (any god) that you'd be destroying. Take Bach as an example. The Sufi poets, Rumi and others, also come to mind.

You'd only be destroying the current crop of fundies.

I would choose rehabilitation for all the world's Fundies because it would make the world a better place, however the loss of art would be tragic. Many cathedrels and Mousques are among the most lovely historical buildings on earth and even though man will benifit in the Longterm from this, it is a loss.

Zor

As far as I'm concerned they're gone. What religion has added compared to what it's cost makes the call easy.

We can write new symphonies and paint new pictures. The idea of telling all the people harmed by AIDS in Africa for example 'I'd have saved you, but I do so love my Michaelangelo' is rather appaling.