Art and Atheism

[cronus]

Why does atheism edge towards science more than art?

[Jason]

May I ask where you drew this assertion from? It smells funny.

Even so, if my brain was working, I'd raise the point, in detail, that much of art aspires to the 'sublime' which is often mistaken for 'god' in public perception. I might argue that many atheists want to disassociate themselves from any idea of 'god', and so they tend towards science where there are rules and algorithms and logical structure. I may say there is no god to be found in rules and algorithms and logical structures. But my brain is not working, and I did not raise that point.

Sometimes I bore even myself..

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Why does atheism edge towards science more than art?

Why are sweeping statements pointless?

[cronus]

Why does atheism edge towards science more than art?

Why are sweeping statements pointless?

Rationalia is steeped in a lethal tradition of bad mannered memes.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

To address your question seriously, you're wrong!

There is a preponderance of religious bollocks in art that pre-dates the 20th century because a lot of it was commissioned by the church, or by those that wanted to prove themselves godly!

Modern art (and by that I mean ALL aspects of the arts: music, film, literature, performance art, as well as visual art) is a melange of human opinion and includes every aspect of the sacred and the profane, much as one would expect from any slice of society.

[orpheus]

(Uncle Orph'sTM popcorn - "all-natural ingredients" )

[JimC]

Atheists probably talk and write about science more, since many connections can be drawn between science and a lack of any need for a deity.

But atheists have just as many interests in human activities other than banging on about the absence of god as non-atheists.

They just don't go on about them...

[mistermack]

Religion had a big start on atheism. It's not long ago that an atheist would have been executed as a heretic.
Churches have used art, paid for it, demanded it, and directed it, as a means of awing the flock into being led by their betters.

Nowadays, art is still closer to religion, because it peddles the notion that there is something ''spiritual'' about a work of art.
You stand in front of a pretty vague representation of a woman [Mona Lisa] and you are supposed to ''feel'' something.

Or to put it another way, Religion and art are about something undefinable. Science is about defining things.
Or it's mystery vs fact.

[Audley Strange]

Why does atheism edge towards science more than art?

I'm uncertain that it does. Rather why does Theism aspire to be science rather than Art?

[cronus]

My conjecture is science pays a lot better since atheists are usually individualists and art with individualism is a losers game. Keep following the money. You'll find a dead planet at the end of it all.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

My conjecture is science pays a lot better since atheists are usually individualists and art with individualism is a losers game. Keep following the money. You'll find a dead planet at the end of it all.

Damien Hirst? Hardly short of a few bob. And as long as there are tasteless plutocrats like Charles Saatchi to finance his hacked-up carcasses, he never will be.

You have rather a narrow definition of "art", Scrump. JK Rowling is an artist, as is Paul McCartney. I don't see either of them going hungry any time soon. There's plenty of money in art!

[cronus]

My conjecture is science pays a lot better since atheists are usually individualists and art with individualism is a losers game. Keep following the money. You'll find a dead planet at the end of it all.

Damien Hirst? Hardly short of a few bob. And as long as there are tasteless plutocrats like Charles Saatchi to finance his hacked-up carcasses, he never will be.

You have rather a narrow definition of "art", Scrump. JK Rowling is an artist, as is Paul McCartney. I don't see either of them going hungry any time soon. There's plenty of money in art!

Art is full of losers, worse than acting for it, so the few winners are paid well like the lottery winners they are and shine all the more for that.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

My conjecture is science pays a lot better since atheists are usually individualists and art with individualism is a losers game. Keep following the money. You'll find a dead planet at the end of it all.

Damien Hirst? Hardly short of a few bob. And as long as there are tasteless plutocrats like Charles Saatchi to finance his hacked-up carcasses, he never will be.

You have rather a narrow definition of "art", Scrump. JK Rowling is an artist, as is Paul McCartney. I don't see either of them going hungry any time soon. There's plenty of money in art!

Art is full of losers, worse than acting for it, so the few winners are paid well like the lottery winners they are and shine all the more for that.

So the money is not equitably distributed - is it anywhere? How many of the thousands of people that contributed to finding the Higgs particle got a share in the Nobel money? How many janitors earn a thousandth as much as the CEO? How many Pedigree Petfoods League footballers are paid like Gareth Bale?

Your argument applies across all fields of human endeavour, not simply the arts, and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[cronus]

My conjecture is science pays a lot better since atheists are usually individualists and art with individualism is a losers game. Keep following the money. You'll find a dead planet at the end of it all.

Damien Hirst? Hardly short of a few bob. And as long as there are tasteless plutocrats like Charles Saatchi to finance his hacked-up carcasses, he never will be.

You have rather a narrow definition of "art", Scrump. JK Rowling is an artist, as is Paul McCartney. I don't see either of them going hungry any time soon. There's plenty of money in art!

Art is full of losers, worse than acting for it, so the few winners are paid well like the lottery winners they are and shine all the more for that.

So the money is not equitably distributed - is it anywhere? How many of the thousands of people that contributed to finding the Higgs particle got a share in the Nobel money? How many janitors earn a thousandth as much as the CEO? How many Pedigree Petfoods League footballers are paid like Gareth Bale?

Your argument applies across all fields of human endeavour, not simply the arts, and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

No it isn't. Art and science are both unique in requiring individual dedication and attention. The inspired activity of looking and thinking and doing appears similar, could even be identical from some angles.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

No it isn't. Art and science are both unique in requiring individual dedication and attention. The inspired activity of looking and thinking and doing appears similar, could even be identical from some angles.

Sport doesn't require "individual dedication and attention"? Business doesn't? Playing poker doesn't? Are you going to tell a bus driver that his job doesn't require "individual dedication and attention"?