My Favorite Atheist Talks About Religion and the Arts
A tip of the Hatlo Hat goes to Vox Day for linking to this wonderful discussion by Camille Paglia in Arion: A Journal of Humanities and the Classics.
This, in particular spoke to me:
“To fully appreciate world art, one must learn how to respond to religious expression in all its forms. Art began as religion in prehistory. It does not require belief to be moved by a sacred shrine, icon, or scripture. Hence art lovers, even when as citizens they stoutly defend democratic institutions against religious intrusion, should always speak with respect of religion. Conservatives, on the other hand, need to expand their parched and narrow view of culture. Every vibrant civilization welcomes and nurtures the arts.”
There are also links to three other talks by the Divine Ms. P on the page. I highly recommend them for those who want to delve further into her philosophy.
Tom
Comment by Brian on 6 August 2007 at 5:38 pm:
I agree with that quote, and it reminds me of a discussion on another blog I read about whether Christopher Hitchens is a hypocrite because he cites Dostoevsky as a source of literary enjoyment. More specifically, he cites writers like these as capable of providing genuine inspiration and enlightenment in ways that sacred books like the Bible can’t possibly duplicate. Dostoevsky, of course, was a quite religious writer whose novels encouraged deeply held spirituality. It seemed to me to be an odd thing to criticize Hitchens for, for similar reasons to those laid out in this post. It would be basically impossible for atheists to limit their intellectual and artistic exploration to only thinkers and artists who were fellow atheists, and there is of course value in the expressions of beauty and wonder present in so much religious art.
Comment by Lally on 7 August 2007 at 9:30 am:
I saw this posted on 3quarks a week or so ago and am working on a blog post over at my blog about it. Camille Paglia, if you otherwise know her philosophy, is a very special brand of feminist, different than quite possibly most anyone has ever encountered.
This particular article is great, but you used the wrong quote to show what she is really getting at. I think this works better:
“I would argue that the route to a renaissance of the American fine arts lies through religion. Let me make my premises clear: I am a professed atheist and a pro-choice libertarian Democrat. But based on my college experiences in the 1960s, when interest in Hinduism and Buddhism was intense, I have been calling for nearly two decades for massive educational reform that would put the study of comparative religion at the center of the university curriculum. Though I shared the exasperation of my generation with the moralism and prudery of organized religion, I view each world religion, including Judeo-Christianity and Islam, as a complex symbol system, a metaphysical lens through which we can see the vastness and sublimity of the universe. Knowledge of the Bible, one of the West’s foundational texts, is dangerously waning among aspiring young artists and writers. When a society becomes all-consumed in the provincial minutiae of partisan politics (as has happened in the US over the past twenty years), all perspective is lost. Great art can be made out of love for religion as well as rebellion against it. But a totally secularized society with contempt for religion sinks into materialism and self-absorption and gradually goes slack, without leaving an artistic legacy.”
Comment by tet on 7 August 2007 at 9:47 am:
That’s another great paragraph, hell, the whole article is great.
Camille Paglia sets a standard to which I aspire daily as far as her writing goes. Her prose is so acute that reading her is like walking over a field of brilliant glass shards. It is almost painful to move from sentence to sentence, it’s so good.
Her knowledge of economics is worse than mine (and probably the reason that she’s still a Democrat,) but I am more than willing to forgive her that because of the depth to which she understands American culture (and Western culture in general.)
If all feminists were of her ilk, I would have no trouble with the movement whatsoever.
Tom
Comment by tet on 8 August 2007 at 10:30 am:
Further exposition…
In today’s Salon.com article, she says that the point of her Arion piece was this:
“Secular humanism has reached a dead end — and any liberals who don’t recognize that are simply enabling the worldwide conservative reaction of fundamentalism in both Christianity and Islam.”
Seems pretty straightforward to me, and something that I can get behind.
You can read the entire piece at Salon, of course.
Tom