Anything good about religion at all?

PopePalpatine

pauldla wrote: »

No religion, no music?

Last time I checked, Matt Bellamy (of Muse fame) was a deist, and probably an agnostic.

The Mad Hatter

pauldla wrote: »

No religion, no music?

I imagine he's referring to the classical tradition, much of which has its roots in medieval church music.

It's true that the church paid musicians to write music. It's not true that if they had not been paying, then no-one would have written music.

Dades

To be fair, we know there's great religiously inspired music. I'll give Greaney the benefit of the doubt and suggest he wasn't saying there's be no music without religion.

robindch

I thought that the devil had all the best tunes.

Bannasidhe

Greaney wrote: »

Goodness, I tried reading some of these posts and some just really dissappeared into a conceptual vortex! To answer the OP's question about 'anything good about religion', I'll make it simple. Yes. Out of the Judeo Christian Culture you have....

1) The concept of human rights
2) Charities. What Roy Hattersley, a noted Atheist has to say about this is interesting
3) The Renaissance (its patronage)
4) Music
5) Education and hospitals
6) They campaigned to end Slavery (unfortunately, human beings are so stupid they had to do it again & again!!). And with respect to those who'll split hairs it was our own St. Patrick who officially kicked it off with his letter to Coroticus over slave raids , he was pretty sensitive to this after he'd been a slave himself. It was erradicated by the 10th Century in Europe and unfortunatly it drifted back and had to be re- eradicated again. It's still a scourge in our society (human trafficing, so it's erradication is an on-going work by some Christian organisations still)

It is difficult for us to imagine what kind of world we'd live in without the Judeo Christian Culture, (in the West anyway), but the arguments for it are compelling. You may not like it, but it has afforded you the freedom to say so.

Where to begin....

Point the first will have to do for now as I am quite busy.

1. The concept of human rights

From the link you posted - did you miss this bit?

The Code of Hammurabi from about 1800 B.C. is often cited by historians for its foundational place in the Western tradition of human rights. Two hundred eighty-two mostly rational clauses governed Babylonian existence and were rooted in “eye for an eye” justice. Of course, there was great disparity between judgment on nobility and judgment on slaves, but the document attempted to rid society of the violence of primitive tribalism left over from precivilization, “savage” human existence.
Among the most famous texts that shaped human behavior in the ancient world was the Hebrew Torah’s Ten Commandments, later part of the Christian Old Testament.

According to religious tradition, all of the laws found in the Torah, both written and oral, were given by God to Moses, some of them at Mount Sinai and others at the Tabernacle, and all the teachings were written down by Moses, which resulted in the Torah we have today. According to a Midrash, the Torah was created prior to the creation of the world, and was used as the blueprint for Creation. Most modern biblical scholars believe that the written books were a product of the Babylonian exilic period (c. 600 BCE) and that it was completed by the Persian period (c. 400 BCE)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

So you are claiming the concept of human rights belongs not just to religion but specifically to the Judeo-Christian stream (completely ignoring Buddhism and Hinduism among other major world religions in this Euro-centric nonsense you are spouting) - yet the link you posted states It is the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi which is generally agreed as the foundation of Western concepts of Human Rights.

The Code pre-dates the Torah, upon which the Judeo-Christian religions are based by over a 1,000 years - conservative estimate. Not only that - but the influence of the Code of Hammurabi upon the Torah is acknowledged by the vast majority of biblical scholars.

Sloppy work - your own link contradicted your first point. I could have provided academic sources but quite frankly wikipedia will suffice to show that you have done no research into your statements.

Fail.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sorry if the points below are a repetition of things I have already said in the thread. The last person I said them to however did a runner.

Greaney wrote: »

2) Charities.

What about them? Just because religious people have charities that does not make charity or charities anything to do with religion. You are making a clear correlation / causation error here.

There are many charities in existence that do not have any religious backing, grounding or affiliation and they operate just fine. That shows for a start that whatever relationship religion might have with charity, it is certainly superfluous to requirements.

Secondly one has to suspect the motivation too. Charity for charities sake is one thing. Charity as a cover for evangelism, preaching, spreading your religion and so forth is another.

Third as I said many times in this thread already one can not just cherry pick out a single good detail and call it "good". One has to look at the costs and side effects of that thing and see if it is "good" overall. For example if someone said "Is there anything good about Hamas" you could point out they engage in social services. Or that Louis Farrakan gets Black kids to give up drugs. However overall in the big picture this "good" is rather empty.

In essence I do not think charity can be listed as a good about religion. Rather it appears to be something religion has successfully associated itself with for it's own benefit. Charity exists a lot without religion, and without the large crust that many religions skim off the top of charity donations before reallocating them onwards to where they are actually needed. Cut out the superfluous middle man I say.

Greaney wrote: »

4) Music

The thing is if I was living in a community that was predominantly made of miners I would likely write a lot of music related to mining. When much of Ireland was emigrating much of the music to come from that era was about loss and emigration.

Artists tend to tailor their out put to the target audience in other words.

It is another correlation / causation error therefore you are making here. How do we know religious music was actually religiously inspired? Perhaps the Artists just followed the money and tailored their art to the people who were paying. Remember also much of the music you might cite came times in our history when it would be more than a small mistake to out yourself as a non believer.

On top of all that however Humans even without religion have a tendency to personify aspects of the universe and the human condition for artistic effect. This brings us much in the way of great music and literature and poetry and folk tales and more. It is that aspect of being human that gives us art AND religion and I rather fear that where X gives us Y and Z you are missing X and assuming Y gives us Z.

In other words I wonder how much "music" and "Religion" have a common root rather than how much of "music" was inspired in any way by "religion".

Our ability / penchant to personify our existence is a beautiful one. Religion is the result of going one step too far and thinking those personifications real.

pauldla

Dades wrote: »

To be fair, we know there's great religiously inspired music. I'll give Greaney the benefit of the doubt and suggest he wasn't saying there's be no music without religion.

Of course, though he may be arguing Clapton is God. If so, he's about forty years out of date.

nagirrac

pauldla wrote: »

Of course, though he may be arguing Clapton is God. If so, he's about forty years out of date.

Clapton wasn't even the best guitarist in the Yardbirds. That distinction belongs to Jeff Beck, a far superior technical player. True, Beck was never called God but he also never assaulted our ears with drivel like "Wonderful Tonight". I like Clapton but he has made some amount of hay by repeating the same blues riffs and solos for almost 50 years.

MagicMarker

There's being better technically and then there's just being better. Satriani is better than both of them technically, doesn't mean I'd rather listen to him.

But sorry to both of you, as the distinction for best Yardbirds player clearly goes to Jimmy Page.

nagirrac

MagicMarker wrote: »

But sorry to both of you, as the distinction for best Yardbirds player clearly goes to Jimmy Page.

Jimmy Page is sloppy, I would put him third.. and he sold his soul to the devil (Alister Crowley) to get the relatively limited skill he has

fitz0

Truly, religion isn't the most divisive issue in this thread!

EDIT: I'd have to say Jimmy Page out of those three.

pauldla

fitz0 wrote: »

Truly, religion isn't the most divisive issue in this thread!

EDIT: I'd have to say Jimmy Page out of those three.

Yes indeed!

Actually, I'd say neither Beck, Page or Clapton. Peter Green was yer only man. :cool:

nagirrac

pauldla wrote: »

Actually, I'd say neither Beck, Page or Clapton. Peter Green was yer only man. :cool:

+1
Peter Green was awesome. Sad he went the way of Syd Barrett.

pauldla

nagirrac wrote: »

+1
Peter Green was awesome. Sad he went the way of Syd Barrett.

He was, and it was sad he went the same way. Didn't BB King rate him as the best he'd heard...?

And of course there was Rory Gallagher. Are we off-topic yet? Or can we discuss great guitarists in this thread...?

nagirrac

pauldla wrote: »

He was, and it was sad he went the same way. Didn't BB King rate him as the best he'd heard...?

And of course there was Rory Gallagher. Are we off-topic yet? Or can we discuss great guitarists in this thread...?

better than discussing religion with atheists
I think from memory BB said he had the best tone of the British guitars and it's hard to argue with that. BB would have known all about tone. All of them were greatly influenced by American blues but Page really took the pish with the amount he ripped off (and I am a big Zep fan)
Rory was great, saw him a few times in Ireland

pauldla

We can probably thank religion for music in the same way we can thank arse-licking for Mozart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leck_mich_im_Arsch

Bannasidhe

Greaney wrote: »

Goodness, I tried reading some of these posts and some just really dissappeared into a conceptual vortex! To answer the OP's question about 'anything good about religion', I'll make it simple. Yes. Out of the Judeo Christian Culture you have....

1) The concept of human rights
2) Charities. What Roy Hattersley, a noted Atheist has to say about this is interesting
3) The Renaissance (its patronage)
4) Music
5) Education and hospitals
6) They campaigned to end Slavery (unfortunately, human beings are so stupid they had to do it again & again!!). And with respect to those who'll split hairs it was our own St. Patrick who officially kicked it off with his letter to Coroticus over slave raids , he was pretty sensitive to this after he'd been a slave himself. It was erradicated by the 10th Century in Europe and unfortunatly it drifted back and had to be re- eradicated again. It's still a scourge in our society (human trafficing, so it's erradication is an on-going work by some Christian organisations still)

It is difficult for us to imagine what kind of world we'd live in without the Judeo Christian Culture, (in the West anyway), but the arguments for it are compelling. You may not like it, but it has afforded you the freedom to say so.

In the hope of diverting the thread away from bloody guitarists lets have a quick looks at point the Third.

3. The Renaissance (Patronage).

Firstly - what does 'Renaissance' mean? It means 'Re-birth/Re-emergence' - in this case the re-birth/re-emergence of knowledge which had been 'lost'.

This begs the question - how was it 'lost'?

Quite simply due to censorship by the Church. Up until the invention of the printing press - or to be exact of the alloy that made mass produced movable type possible - by Gutenburg the Church had a monopoly over the written word and the dissemination of written information. Anything that smacked or heresy or paganism was rigorously suppressed.

Now - the 'Renaissance' you are referring to is, I assume, the Italian one of the 15th century - that was by no means the only 'renaissance' in Europe - ( for example the Carolingian Renaissance of 8th/9th centuries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_Renaissance) - the difference then was that the Carolingian version was an attempt to recapture the 'glory' of (pagan) Imperial Rome for Charlemagne's 'Holy Roman Empire' rather than a re-discovery of what had been 'lost' for 1000 years as the Italian 15th century version was.

Which bring us back to how was all of this 'pagan' knowledge 'lost' between the 9th and 15th centuries.

It wasn't. It was censored in Christendom by the Church - in the Islamic world it was preserved, studied, cherished and expanded upon. The only shining light of intellectual endeavor in late Medieval Continental Europe which still drew up the texts of the Ancient world was the Caliphate of Cordoba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate_of_C%C3%B3rdoba).

Ancient knowledge also survived in Constantinople which was also outside of Rome's sphere of control.


I should also mention that in Gaelic Ireland there was also a 'renaissance' in the period between the death of Boru and the arrival of Strongbow but of Gaelic culture which was not greatly influenced by Rome (Imperial or Church). It may be coincidence that prior to the arrival of Strongbow and the Creation of the Lordship of Ireland by Henry II in 1177, Rome had very little control over the Gaelic Church. The impetus behind the Gaelic Renaissance was not religious but political as various Rí (kings) vied for the High kingship and so sought to establish their credentials as patrons and scholars as well as military commanders and just and able rulers.

There is much debate among historians as to when the 'Renaissance' began, what sparked it and where it really started with various theories being advanced. NOT ONE of these many theories credit the Roman Catholic Church - all historians agree that it happened in spite of Rome.

Theories include:

The socio-economic fall-out from the Black Death resulted in people questioning the authority of the church and it's insistence on a fixed social order where little changed. The period just after the Black Death saw the emergence of scholars such as Chaucer, Petrarch and Dante who pioneered a 'human' based vernacular literature and Giotto who used nature as his inspiration not religious ideology. However, Rome's stranglehold over the dissemination of information meant only a literate minority has access to their works - or knowledge of their existence.

Another theory is that the fall of Constantinople in 1453 led to refugees fleeing to Italy ( a logical move as the 'Byzantine' Empire was still essentially the Roman Empire albeit with a distinctly Hellenic flavour) and bringing ancient texts with them. Gutenburg's press had been up and running since about 1439 and printing was not only established across Europe - it was largely unregulated and outside the control of the Church. They could not stem the tide of information.

Now lets look at the question of Patronage.

The Italian Renaissance is inextricably linked in our minds to the House of Medici (mainly due to Vasari's Life of the Artists which privileged Florence over all the other Italian city states and considered anything from North of the Alps to be barbarian and, apart from Durer, not worthy of comment).
The Medici were bankers first and foremost. Bankers who ensured they had their fingers in many pies and allies in influential positions - such as the Church.

In 1513, the de Medici finally captured the greatest prize when Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici (2nd son of Lorenzo 'The Magnificent' de' Medici) became Pope Leo X. During his tenure Luther kicked off about the Sale of Indulgences - and why was Rome flogging time off in Purgatory? To pay for the 'patronage' you speak off...
If you really want to understand why patronage was important - read Machiavelli's The Prince. Clue -It had nothing to do with religion...

So - to summarise - The main patrons of the Italian Renaissance were a handful of wealthy families who controlled the various city states. These families - de Medici in Florence, Sforza in Milan, a 'league' of Patrician families in Venice, Gonzaga in Mantua, Petrucci in Sienna etc etc. All of these families vied to get members into important positions in the Church - with the Papacy as the greatest prize of all. It had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with dynastic power.

In Italy, the Church was the only organisation that had power throughout the entire peninsula, it was also unbelievably wealthy with centuries of experience in the control of information. In an age when the majority of people were not literate visual images such as paintings were an incredibly important medium for disseminating information. The Church knew this and brought it's considerable resources to bear to ensure it paid the pipers and named the tunes.

Of course - In France the Royal House of Guise was the money behind the French Renaissance - a renaissance that was cut short by the Wars of Religion which tore France apart.

In the Netherlands it was the Merchant classes who funded the Dutch Golden Age.

In England, it was the Tudor propaganda machine that funded their Renaissance well before Henry VIII even considered breaking with Rome - the reason - the Tudor hold on the throne was never fully secure so it was vital they portray themselves as all powerful, all-seeing and the only people who could protect England. They employed artists such as Holbein to get this message across to the illiterate masses.

I could go on but normally I get paid for this stuff so that'll do. :cool:

MagicMarker

^^^^^^



I have a feeling Greaney won't be responding to this thread for quite a while....

Bannasidhe

MagicMarker wrote: »

I have a feeling Greaney won't be responding to this thread for quite a while....

Oh dear - I hope it was something I said.

The Bishop!

Bow down before Rory. Eric who??

Cork Boy!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnwCA8042po

The Bishop!

jimi was without doubt the best songwriter in the yardbirds.

nagirrac

The Bishop! wrote: »

jimi was without doubt the best songwriter in the yardbirds.

Jimi couldn't write a song to save his soul
Good man to rip off a riff though:)