Interesting Point FOR superstition

[SkepticalScience]

So I was talking w/ my wife last night and said something to the effect of:

"Look at all that science has provided us. . . the food we eat, the imunizations we receive, the transportation, the weather predicting, etc. . . all these things are the result of science. What has supersticious thinking brought us. . . absolutley nothing."

So she goes, "well, that's pretty short sighted. . . supersticious thinking has brought us beautiful books, and art. . . "

I thought that was a pretty good point. . . and wasn't quite sure how to respond to it. How would any of you??

(One of the things I often hear from time to time is that scientists can't appreciate beauty in the same way that woo-woo's do. . . and I think my wife was arguing that in some sense)

 

[geni]

Science has brought you the paper, the paint, the ink and several journers of fiction. Superstion has brought you about 2.

 

[Hellbound]

And, actually, I would argue that superstition has NOT brought us any art at all.

Imagination has brought us art. Ability has brought us art. Dedication has brought us art. None of this required the superstition to be there, as is easily evidenced by skeptical and aetheist artists of various times.

Art has been inspired by superstition, but art has also been inspired by genocide (Shindler's List), death (numerous music, stories), disease (Masque of the Red Death), Murder (MacBeth), and any other vice one would care to name (as well as virtues, it's equal opportunity).

Basically, it's a non argument. Art has been inspired by superstition, but not caused by it. The art could have existed without it, although subject matter might be different. Seriously, would Michelangelo have been less of an artist if his works were secular rather than religious? Although, he mainly created what was common in his time. Had religion and superstition not had a hold then, he might have created more secular works and sculptures that would be celebrated today.

This seems to me a combination of the post hoc fallacy and the Either/Or fallacy. Science has improved the techniques of art, superstition has provided some inspiration, but neither is responsbile for it. The ONLY thing that can be said to be responsible for art are these little 5lb. or so lumps of spongy grey material.

Thank you

Edited bekaws hukt own fonix wurkt fore mee!

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Humans have creativity. Anything can be an inspiration for art. Superstitions can quell creativity. Ever seen a broken mirror collage or exhibit?

 

[scribble]

What superstition was responsible for the invention of the written word? Inks, dyes, and paint? Gutenberg's press? Modern (or ancient) paper?

Susperstition brought us art and literature - bulls**t.

And what's beautiful about a book preaching superstition? The Holy Bible, the Quaran? They're at *least* as ugly as they are beautiful. Oh, the wonderful things supersition has brought us.

 

[Ladewig]

One of the things I often hear from time to time is that scientists can't appreciate beauty in the same way that woo-woo's do. . . and I think my wife was arguing that in some sense

I think there is awe-inspiring beauty in fractals, spiral galaxies, and crystal formations. I've spent hours looking at the subtle colors created by stretched Scotch tape sandwiched between rotating polarizing filters.

Perhaps scientists cannot see the beauty of auras and angels, but they can see (and appreciate) the beauty of flowers photographed on ultra-violet film or people photographed on infra-red film.

Biologists can appreciate the beauty of whales singing without anthromorphizing it. Geologists appreciate the beauty of the Arizona desert without imagining it to be one of the twelve energy portals to another dimension. Statisticans can appreciate the beauty of being dealt a straight flush without believing that a lucky hat made it possible.

 

[Phil]

. . . (One of the things I often hear from time to time is that scientists can't appreciate beauty in the same way that woo-woo's do. . . and I think my wife was arguing that in some sense)

I don't know that I would say scientists ". . . can't appreciate beauty in the same way that woo-woo's do", but I would speculate that they " . . . don't appreciate beauty in the same way that woo-woo's do". And I wouldn't limit the sampling to just the two groups (scientists & woo-woos). Instead, I'd include all varieties of informed people in that statement.

The key phrase here is ". . . in the same way . . ."

It occurs to me that our appreciation of beauty stems from a number of factors, and is affected to some measure by our worldview. An art teaher and an accountant both might have a deep appreciation for a painting of Christ, for example. Let's say that neither person's appreciation for the painting is deeper than the other's, but the art teacher's appreciation perhaps stems from his knowledge of how the painting was rendered, and the accountant's appreciation perhaps stems from his respect for the person depicted in the painting. We could flip-flop the basis for each person's appreciation in this example, but it's clear that the objet d'art is not appreciated ". . . in the same way . . .".

I submit that this is the case where scientists and the superstitious are concerned.

But as others have mentioned, I, too, would whole-heartedly disagree if the implication is that scientists have zero appreciation of things beautiful.

Appreciation of beauty is based on an emotional connection of some sort, and to say scientists can't have that emotional connection is to suggest that they are somehow not human.

The level of appreciation depends on ones emotional connection to the objet d'art. And as humans, scientists are emotional creatures, like anyone else, and their appreciation of beauty varies just like anyone else's. One's chosen field does not eliminate human characteristics.

I think "sour grape" statements like this arise when a superstitious person or a believer has the mystery removed from their pet superstition or belief by science. It's a knee-jerk statement to being personally stung. And in that sense, I can understand why it's been said.

But where beauty is concerned, remember (paraphrasing Shakespear): There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in our philosophies. There's a wealth of beauty in the dreams and imagination, just as there is a wealth of beauty within the philosophies themselves.