Response to Lacey Benter's post on Abstract Art, Abstract Music, and Abstract Religion

I like your comparison of Beethoven's music to Polloc's art. The idea of expression through a creative medium is very appealing, since there are things that it seems cannot be expressed any other way. Beethoven and Polloc must then have been extremely imaginative people to have emotions or ideas that could not be expressed with words or action. What is fortunate for us is that they were very talented at finding a way to express themselves in the medium of their choice, so that their audience could try to make their own interpretation or comprehend the message/emotion behind the art. Another artist that I can think of who shares this same talent is Bach with the organ. He creates patterns within his music in which eventually the listener becomes lost in with his own thoughts, in order to reflect about life. Most of Bach's music was composed for church mass in his time, and perhaps this was the intention behind much of his work.

Truth

In the poem On the Road Home, Wallace Stevens questions the idea of absolute truth. He states that there is no such thing as the truth. This is true when considering what source a truth comes from. Truth is only true to the person who believes it. The world must be measured by eye indeed, since truth changes according to the observer. Consider the Kurosawa movie Rashomon, where witnesses called to testify at the trial of a murder each have their own version of the truth, and no story seems to corroborate with the others. When trying to explain truths in the form of religion, obviously they will have different interpretations that do not fit for everyone. In addition, religions may assert untruth, or myths that followers are expected to believe. The danger in belief of untruth occurs when violence is the end result from the beliefs that result. This is what Stevens seems to suggest in the fifth stanza (or at least whoever he was talking to) by saying "The idols have seen lots of poverty, Snakes and gold and lice, But not the truth". What then is the truth? What do we owe to our existence? Or is seeking the knowledge of the truth like seeking sour grapes (first stanza)? I don't believe this, but will instead continue to seek the truth in this existence, since it is up to the observer to interpret what he sees in order to understand a mystery.

Sunday Morning

Wallace Stevens seems to believe that death is the mother of beauty. His assertion is that the paradise that exists is better than the world we see today, where fruit do not go overripe, and women do not stray through leaves of obliteration (VI, V). And yet, he seems to question the existence of a God or world hereafter, by calling Earth an island of solitude, unsponsored (VIII). Perhaps a compromise is reached by believing in a spirit world and paradise after death without God. In addition, Stevens seems to have a solid connection to nature by referencing mother earth as where people go to join after death (VI). He also discredits the idea of a great paradise after death as being more than the paradise we can see here like April's green (IV). However I am confident that he believes that death will be every bit of paradise as life may have been by saying all of our dreams will be fulfilled through death (V). These insinuations about death and life after seem to contradict each other, making the mystery even more mysterious.

There are many religions that seem to claim knowledge of the life after death, or the spirit world. Many claim that belief in a God and some prophet will get you to heaven. However, what is the true nature of heaven? Does it resemble our existence here on earth like what Stevens seems to imply, with a strong connection to life and rebirth, perhaps in a different plane of existence? The closest example paralleling the idea of life after death resembling that of the life we know today can be seen in the movie What Dreams May Come. This movie suggests that in death we will be reunited with those we knew in life, in a world that somewhat resembles what we knew of life alive. The connection to Earth and life on Earth is very strong, with the same settings. However, paradise takes on a surreal aspect like an impressionistic painting, or something Jackson Polloc would paint as well when the main character lives in a painting made by his still living wife. Perhaps heaven or life after death is really what the mind makes it, which is heavily impacted by our alive life. Therefore Steven's idea of fulfilment of dreams would make sense. For in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil, must give us pause (Shakespeare).

Abstraction and Religion

The creation of art seems to be inextricably tied to religion ever since humans could express themselves. Paleolithic artists undoubtedly drew cave paintings to express dreams, hunting, and thought. Imagination and dreams are often connected to vision quests in Native American religions. The mechanics of belief also ties back into art in the way the brain is structured in a way to make belief in abstractions possible. This goes back to Mithen's description of the difference between neanderthal and modern man. In addition, Golding in Paths to the Absolute captures the relationship between man and art through the quote from John Dewey: "a mode of communication between man and his environment," (pg 114). It seems then that the environment inspires humans to create new environments and visualizations. This is how religions are created by imagining other places foreign to what we can observe, or beings that are also abstract.

Its seems that Jackson Pollock tried to capture the abstract nature of religion in his art by rendering his imagination of what that would be on canvas. Consider the artwork Guardians of the Secret, which mirrors beliefs of Mayas and Ancient Egyptians (Golding, 124). They believed in a sort of underworld linked to the world above through a square hole where people could enter. This is an analogy for abstract thought coming from observation. The Ancient Egyptians and Mayans created art to represent these beliefs. Therefore abstract thought connected to art is no new concept, but has changed through the ages.

Reponse to Catrina Poor's blog on Adam and Eve

This Adam and Eve nonsense was developed in order to explain why people act the way they do. No one knew about genetics or psychology/neurology when the Bible was written. The story is like any other myth created by religions to explain the world when no means existed other than the imagination. My guess is that people wore clothing to protect themselves from the elements, and was incorporated into culture by becoming tradition. Therefore it was incorporated into religion that survives to this day based upon survival techniques.

Red

The movie Red was very philosophical. The Judge questioned basic morality based upon the effects of turning up crime or vice. Red also questioned choices made in life that lead to misfortune. Being a judge made the Judge to make a decision about one case that he felt he wrongly decided. That decision came to haunt him for the rest of his life. I understand that being a judge could lead to deep questioning of morality and laws, but that doesn't mean that it will ruin your life. It seems that those who are judges are highly regarded and generally have families and social lives. The film seems to take awhile to unfold, but is tied up in a twist at the end, like a tootsie roll. I enjoyed the film because of its acoustics and picture. The questions about religion were also interesting, since morality is a seemingly arbitrary agreement. Obviously survival would be at the top of such mutual agreements. However, I wonder about laws today, whether they were conceived through the best means for survival or those that are from religions. Who gets to decide morals for us all? I believe that survival is the best.

Response to comment on Oliver's Atheism as a religion blog

No, scientific theories are not proven, they can only be disproven or supported. They are supported by evidence through experimentation by many different groups of qualified scientists to be as objective as possible. In addition, any finding that is published in a scientific journal is peer evaluated to maintain the objectivity of the results. Therefore change in thinking in the scientific world is a very controlled process. However, any theory believed today as fact could conceivably be disproven or modified in the future in light of new results and conclusions from research. No theory is absolute.

On a different note, I agree with Oliver that Atheism with a capital letter is a religion of its own. Just because someone does not believe in God as a part of their religion does not mean that their religion is not one. A religion by definition is the set of ideals that a person lives his/her life by. Therefore any set of ideals designed to govern how a person lives, no matter how ridiculous, could be considered a religion.

Religion and Humanitarianism

The best religions for living life are those that have humanitarian motives. Just like in game theory, helping one another to accomplish a goal is beneficial to all when that goal increases living standards. The idea of living a religion's tenets is best when those tenets call for peace and fellowship. When was the last time that a Quaker led a holy war? Flexibility in tolerance also allows people to come together as a group, just as Jane Addams proposes (ch 5 pg 112, ch 6 pg 127). This allows us to celebrate our differences, especially since conformity yields boredom. I am thankful that society today within the US has become more equal as far as rights and living standards go since Addams' time. However, the economic disparity between the poor and the wealthy has increased lately. I hope that people today continue to aspire toward fellowship and greater tolerance, something that has been less important as of late.

Religion has a place in modern society to act as a leveling agent. Just as Jane Addams said, death is a universal experience (ch 3 pg 53). Everyone must die at some point, but how that person dies is not entirely up to the individual. I refer to the objective of increased survival benefits as a group versus individuals holding all the wealth. This also comes back to Metropolis, where the unity between the head and the hands is the heart. An ideal heaven would be one where no man or woman was better than any other, and everyone could live a full life. The ultimate goal of humanitarianism is to bring this heaven to earth. Whenever religion supports this goal, then it has a real place for everyone in society.

Jane Addams and humanitarianism

In reading Jane Addams's Twenty Years at Hull House, I couldn't help but notice the similarities between her very humanitarian way of thinking and that of the Bahai faith. Bahai may call for a unity of religions with a belief of God, but Jane Addams calls for a unity of man based upon the teachings of Jesus. Addams's beliefs must have come from the Quaker tradition of peace and brotherhood. Most likely it was her father who instilled this philosophy in her the most. The Baha'i Faith also has a very humanitarian outlook on life, helping with Unicef and other programs to increase living standards around the world. This also seems to be shared in the reading of This Is a Short Relation by Sarah Cheever and Katherine Bates(?). They were quakers as well, trying to increase the living standards of those oppressed by the Inquisition through non-violent means.
The quaker faith is so close to being non-secular with a set of morals designed to be humanitarian. I wonder what they would say if they could conceive of a world of morals without the need for a God or Jesus. Perhaps recognizing Jesus as only a prophet or sage would bring people closer together in the world diversity of religions. Quakerism also seems to teach the original ideals of Christianity without the pomp and circumstance attributed to other Christian sects. Perhaps if those other sects could learn from the Quaker example there would be less violence in the world today. This can be said of any prejudicial thinking of one's own religion superceding another. If the teachings of peace, helping those in need, and turning the other cheek were followed in day-to-day living in the world, there would be less need for violence and more would be accomplished toward the greater good. (The greater good being, enhancing the living standards for all in the world.)

Response to Emily Shankman's "Margaret Fell"

I agree with your point of view. The only reason men of past times would have kept women from church was to keep them under control. However, when I think of other societies of the world from that time period, many of them were dominated or at least had equality for women. Many African and Native American tribes had a very strong association between women and leadership and/or religion. The question then becomes why Christianity developed into a patriarchal religion. It probably has to do with the fact that Judaism was very patriarchal. Where can it be traced from there? Probably back to ancient tribal structure and division of labor. However that still does not explain why many other cultures in the world were dominated by women in the past. It must have to do with how traditions developed and were ingrained into society. From there I would ask an anthropologist.

The Baha'i Faith

The Bahai Faith to me seems so far to be the most tolerant of the faiths that I have read about in this class. A unification of faiths seems to be an intuitive conclusion about God and his prophets. Reading about the intolerance within Christianity to the point where it caused torturing was enough to question relying on one religion to explain the world. If people are sentenced to hell because they are not within a specific sect of a religion -that only its members call the true religion- then everyone else would go to hell as well because they are not Christian. This is a very narrow and impossible way of thinking about the world. However, I can see why the Baha'i Faith is persecuted in the Islamic world. The acceptance of many religions in one religion is not consistent with Islamic views. Many of the tenets of Islam, Christianity and Judaism were fashioned after the best practical way to live in ancient times. A rejection of living with just one religion to teach how to live life is more of a modern approach considering the global nature of present day religion. This is what the Baha'i Faith seems to have done in the 19th century in order to evolve to the changing ways of explaining the world. Religion developed today will also reflect the times. The two tenets I do not agree with in the Bahai Faith are belief in a god, and obedience to the political party in power. This leaves Buddhism, Daoism, and any polytheistic religions out of the equation. Therefore the Baha'i Faith still reflects the time it was founded by ruling out non-monotheistic religions, despite the very liberal unification of religions.

This is not a short relation

When I think of puritan pride and the quakers I think of a peace-loving, hermet-like group (as in they keep to themselves). I was unprepared for the fanaticism and proselytism apparent in "This is a Short Relation" by Daniel Baker, Sarah Cheever and Katherine Evans. What I read was not a short relation by any means. It was an outpouring of conservative christian drivel that kept on repeating the same tenets (praise god, the heavier the cross the greater the crown). I do admire the authors for standing up to the inquisitors. That must have taken no small amount of courage. However in many ways the authors were very much like the inquisitors in believing that their religion was righteous over any other religion. Just because the quaker bible differed in sayings from the catholic church the two christian religion representatives were at each other's throats. I am glad that such a time period is over, when two sects come to fisticuffs over so small a matter. Maybe this time isn't over for other religions, like Islam. Whenever people believe in a religion so thoroughly where they are willing to die for that said religion, watch out. I don't think I will ever look at the quaker religion the same way.