4 ms·

> I have the idea that it's related to atheism. Once you believe all of life and all of nature is ultimately some brute atoms buzzing back and forth anyway, the

> I have the idea that it's related to atheism. Once you believe all of life and all of nature is ultimately some brute atoms buzzing back and forth anyway, then what your imagination creates is likely to look pretty brutalist. If you believe it's angels and God's creation all the way down you will place meaning and symbols into the large elements and every tiny bit. Anyone else can see this connection? I don't see why it wouldn't apply equally to religion. If you believe our life on earth is just a brief prelude to an eternity in something much better, why bother building anything beautiful? There'll be plenty of time for that in heaven. Indeed the best buildings and cities you could possibly build on earth pale in comparison to the shabbiest in heaven. Additionally you wouldn't want beauty on earth to distract from the glory of God. The best way to build is pragmatic, as cheap, durable, and functional as possible with no wasted frivolity. Something like square buildings made of reinforced concrete placed close together so people don't have to spend a lot of time traveling. So I think it's a wash. It seems like it could go either way honestly.

alexvoda 4y ago
Wonderfully constructed argument. It may very well be that this is a case of correlation rather than causation. I do agree however that at first sight they do appear to corelate
Gibbon1 4y ago
> I don't see why it wouldn't apply equally to religion. Observation of mine. Old religious buildings and art were inspired. You have to admit that even if you believe the religion itself was bunkum. But look at newer religious buildings and art.
- PolygonSheep 4y ago
  I think old religious buildings and art were better, but we only now have the great ones that have survived. There must have been a lot of cheaply built, unimpressive churches built throughout the centuries that were demolished and forgotten at some point. There must have been a lot of religious art that was the medieval/renaissance/etc equivalent of a kitschy Thomas Kincade painting that no one will remember after it's gone. It's kind of like old books or old music. We remember the greats but for every Mozart there must have been at least a dozen 18th century composers whose work wasn't as good, never got traction, was never recorded on vinyl/cd and now might as well never have existed. There's like a curation effect over time.

alexvoda 4y ago

Wonderfully constructed argument. It may very well be that this is a case of correlation rather than causation. I do agree however that at first sight they do appear to corelate

Gibbon1 4y ago

> I don't see why it wouldn't apply equally to religion. Observation of mine. Old religious buildings and art were inspired. You have to admit that even if you believe the religion itself was bunkum. But look at newer religious buildings and art.

PolygonSheep 4y ago
I think old religious buildings and art were better, but we only now have the great ones that have survived. There must have been a lot of cheaply built, unimpressive churches built throughout the centuries that were demolished and forgotten at some point. There must have been a lot of religious art that was the medieval/renaissance/etc equivalent of a kitschy Thomas Kincade painting that no one will remember after it's gone. It's kind of like old books or old music. We remember the greats but for every Mozart there must have been at least a dozen 18th century composers whose work wasn't as good, never got traction, was never recorded on vinyl/cd and now might as well never have existed. There's like a curation effect over time.