This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Can religion tell us more than science?

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 65 by achromat666

Comment 63,

The problem with your assessment of the opposition to the viewpoints expressed in the OP are numerous but all reflect the same idea: that the form of expression through creative or non scientific means lends credibility to your position. Nothing in any concievable way could be farther from the truth.

Creativity comes in many forms and all are reflective of an expressing of ideas we wish to convey. The methods by which we perform those action do in fact have a scientific understanding. One can explain how the process of composing a form of music, a literary masterpiece or a painting or sculpture. Simply because the arts don't have to convey a grounded scientific idea doesn't make the method any more mysterious. As an illustrator and singer I can relay the methods I use to do what I do and give some insight to the things that influence my work. I can even relate which of my parents had the skills that I inherited.

And while all artists don't automatically get such things passed down every part of the physical act of creating can be explained, and the human imagination can be examined from a scientific standpoint. You don't get a pass on the burden of proof by resorting this art as expression of the infinite.

It is an expression of our perceptions and attempts at understanding, and by their nature are not inherently religious. Saying that art proves god is confused, irrational and pedantic at best. Grasping at intangibles is not the same as god.

Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:50:27 UTC | #951226