science (and philosophy, of which science is a branch) provides us with information on the state of human nature, our existence, our history, and how it all works. how we got here, how it is, and how it may be. the arts provide us with deep looks into the human condition, beauty, existence. and science gives us a sense of awe in pondering the craziness that is our universe. there is a sense of beauty in seeing a lion, or a full reconstructed dinosaur, or of our outer space.

religion is simply not making verifiable claims about the world, nor reasonable ones. science and the arts -- music, movies, pictures, paintings -- these seem the real representations of the world as it is, of the reality we face on a day-to-day basis.

Jesus does not approve of this thread.

jesus was a philosopher; george w. bush said so.

i don't think a lot of art is a realistic representation of the world

i also don't see why something's value is necessarily derived from the realism present within it

do you mean that some art is crap? of course, i agree.

but even abstracts can be read in subjective or objective ways as representations of a worldview.

I think that probably the more accurate is a representation of reality, the less likely it is to be appreciated.

Example: The wave/particle duality of light.

of course not, but i am not sure something of that nature would be an attempt at representing reality.

but isn't religion also a representation of the worldview of its followers, because it is inherently providing at least a portion of th worldview for its followers?

I would say that art is perhaps the most pure representation of the world of the human mind, but that it is the least understood.

Religion, as you describe it, helps support the claim I made above regarding reality.

i'll respond a little more tomorrow, my brain isn't ripe for too much philosophical debate at the current time

ok, i need to sleep on this.

by the way, human nature may be vague language that allows for religion and religious experience. but i would exclude it.

How do you feel about religious art?

Is the bible art?

"It is told that the great Angelo, in decorating a church, painted some angels wearing sandals. A cardinal looking at this picture said the to artist: "Whoever saw angels with sandals?" Angelo answered with another question: "Whoever saw an angel barefooted?"

Robert G. Ingersoll, Why I Am An Agnostic.

some day ceebs is going to get so far up his own ass with his philosophy that he will simply reach critical mass and supernova..........

youtube?

i explain this to people as this. picture an absolute truth at the middle of a giant sphere. math, science, art, religion, philosophy, ect are all approaching that center of the sphere from different angles. there may be a point where all these things become one universal truth, though i suspect we don't find out what that is.

seems to me that science is descriptive of the material world in general, and those descriptions would be universal.

art would be a representation or interpretation of our reality as we perceive it, filtered through our senses and our own personal experience. the meaning assigned to any piece of art, whether we talk about the artist or any one else that appoaches it, is going to be different from person to person. i guess that would mean it's not universal. i don't know if other kinds of life or intelligence besides our own would be able to appreciate it.