Belindi wrote: ↑January 20th, 2022, 5:23 am
Gee wrote: ↑January 20th, 2022, 3:14 am
Belindi wrote: ↑January 19th, 2022, 6:35 am
Arts and sciences are separate means by which men make sense of the world.
Religion is an art, not a science. As art, modern religion still takes much from theatre. Religion and theatre once were the same. Some sects respect that fact and make no bones about music, poetry, costumery, decor, bodily movements, and symbolism, and even smells. I am fully in sympathy with all of those as I have recovered from my more Calvinistic phase.
I think of religion as a discipline that studies emotion, but it is not unreasonable to call it an art. I am not sure that I like comparing it to theatre, as that implies a certain falseness, but there probably is acting involved. My brother recently did some acting in his church. They had some kind of recital around Christmas and wanted him to stand up at the front of the church and smile while holding his hands out like he was welcoming everyone. He is in his seventies, has white hair and beard, and is six and a half feet tall, so he looks the part -- luckily, he did not have to talk. I wish I could have seen it, but probably would have broken out in giggles. It is just too hard to see a brother that way.
All art interprets emotion, that is what it does whether we are talking about the beauty of dance, the comfort or joy of music, or poetry, paintings, sculpture, architecture, etc. To be able to take paint or sound or even rock and work it until it creates emotion in another person requires study. So yes, one could call religion an art.
Congratulations on your Calvinistic recovery.
Gee
Whether you like it or not, historians and anthropologists tell us religion and art were once the same social activity.
I don'\t know what you are complaining about. I already stated that it is "not unreasonable to call it an art". As far as it being a "social activity", I don't study social activities, but if I did, I doubt that I would accept that historians and anthropologists tell us that religion is
nothing but a social activity, nor would I accept that art is
nothing but a social activity. That would be such a shallow and superficial explanation that I could not credit that it came from professionals.
You and I are coming at this from two different directions and it is causing miscommunication. You seem to be looking at the social, but I am looking at consciousness and how it works.
Belindi wrote: ↑January 20th, 2022, 5:23 am
Emotionalism is not the same as art, although superficial stories and pictures may be emotional while lacking any resemblance to life as it actually is experienced.
Saying that "emotionalism is not the same as art" is much like saying that "consciousness is not the same as thought". Of course it isn't, because if it were, then books would be conscious.
I am not talking about emotionalism; I am not talking about how emotion feels; what I am talking about is how emotion works. Emotion is analogue, not digital, so it does not break down into digital thoughts and language very well. Emotion works through the unconscious, so it is difficult to know, to pin down, to express to another, which is why we use art to express emotion. Art helps us to understand, express, and share emotion -- as does religion.
You initially stated that, "Arts and sciences are separate means by which men make sense of the world." I agree with this, but would explain it differently. Arts and religions interpret analogue emotion (the unconscious), while the sciences and philosophy interpret digital thoughts (the conscious mind), and together help us to understand ourselves and the world.
Gee