History without religion?

fitz0

Looking at the material results throughout history, I got to thinking, if there had been no religion we wouldn't have all the architecture, art, music etc associated with it. There is a phenomenal amount of religious buildings, cathedrals, monasteries, tombs, shrines, temples, poems, songs, stories, philosophical works, paintings, sculptures, and all that in humanities history, there is so much that it's clear much of our ancestors time was dedicated to their professed faiths.

So my question is do you think we would have just not progressed culturally without religion? Would there have been nothing like St Peter's, or the music of Johnny Cash?

Or would we have built grand monuments to mankind's achievements, composed epics devoid of divine influences, pondered life rather than the afterlife, devoted our time on the earth to each other rather than the next life?

And to the religious who want reply, please dont state that all this is proof of a god because I don't want this thread to descend into a pointless argument over the existence of god. This isn't about whether he/she/it/they exist.

brosps

It's impossible to say really, it depends if religion inspired the artist or the artist used relegion as a medium of expression.

Most of the renaissance artists were funded by patrons and the church who constricted their works to religion and how lovely the patrons were if my junior cert history is correct, I suppose its a double-edged sword as the patrons allowed them to focus on their art but at the same time limited them.


It would certainly be different anyway.lee evans is a gob****e and isnt funny

fitz0

What has Lee Evans to do with it?

ZondaChai

I think Lee Evans is very funny, his on stage energy is what makes him so good. Why are we discussing Lee Evans?

mjg

No doubt, the patronage of religious figures had a large part to play in supporting artists etc. to enable them to make a living doing what they love. If there had been no religion however, I think that the creative spirit of all of the artists, musicians etc. through the years would have found inspiration in lots of other things and could have developed more if they had no limits imposed on them.

Who knows, we could have seen hundreds of more styles of painting and music be developed. On the flip side though, perhaps the most gifted might not have made it in a world where a benefactor wasn't available to support them and the world could have lost a host of amazing art and music.

Handsome Bob

fitz0 wrote: »

So my question is do you think we would have just not progressed culturally without religion? Would there have been nothing like St Peter's, or the music of Johnny Cash?

It's difficult to say. What we are essentially talking about are instigators. If I may draw on certain civil rights movements I can explain what I mean.

Gandhi was born a Hindu, deriving most of his principles from Hinduism. As a common Hindu, he believed all religions to be equal, and rejected all efforts to convert him to a different faith. Gandhi believed that at the core of every religion was truth and love (compassion, nonviolence and the golden rule). All of this played a significant role on what Gandhi strived for. It's a similar situation with Martin Luther King jr. Both of these men were and still are the inspirations behind their respective civil rights movements. How these men perceived their religion, and other religions, was central to what they preached to their movements. Religion in this case was an instigator for the progression of both movements. If there was no religion, I'm sure something else would have inevitably happened that progressed both movements. However religion had its' part to play in both movements in their respective moments in time.

pH

There is a phenomenal amount of religious buildings, cathedrals, monasteries, tombs, shrines, temples, poems, songs, stories, philosophical works, paintings, sculptures, and all that in humanities history

There's a fine line between religious works and the works built to glorify rich and powerful men. You probably would argue that say the pyramids are "religious buildings" , but if the "god" is the man, it's more a memorial to him than a religious observance.

Many grand castles and palaces have also been built, much of the best classical music does not have a religious theme, the same with literature, and if you look at what's currently considered great art, the majority of it is not religious (Mona Lisa, Van Gogh's work, Monet etc.)

So religion has had its influence, but I would argue more through its power and patronage than as a force of inspiration for the artist. Without powerful concentrations of wealth that some religious institutions muster, much of the larger works would not have been built, but I think that even without organised religion man would still have had a prolific creative output.

eoin5

I think we have a natural want to create grand works and any rationalisation will do. It would follow that a dogmatic control system to get people to help you might be useful.

Dont tell me you never imagined yourself building the biggest and bestest sandcastle ever when you were a young-un (some of us still do I'm sure ).

philologos

Our language and turn of expression would also be radically different, certain terms were neologised for the first time in translating the Bible into English.

Galvasean

History without religion is like Star Wars without spaceships, impossible to imagine.