• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question for Artists. Isn't theology just really bad air guitar? Or the cult of logicalism.

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This is a question for those who question the practice of theology either atheistically, theistically, or agnostically. . Isn't it just a sort of play make believe, it is true only in a self contextualized self contained kind of way. in reality For me it's just Air guitar being played to a stereo with equalizer. Where some like the Wesley equalizer settings, some like the Calvinist equalizer settings, some prefer just making them up as they go a little this a little that? Personally I find it to be simply logicalism and that is rather cult-urally, cult-ish and totally NORMAL.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
This is a question for those who question the practice of theology either atheistically, theistically, or agnostically. . Isn't it just a sort of play make believe, it is true only in a self contextualized self contained kind of way. in reality For me it's just Air guitar being played to a stereo with equalizer. Where some like the Wesley equalizer settings, some like the Calvinist equalizer settings, some prefer just making them up as they go a little this a little that? Personally I find it to be simply logicalism and that is rather cult-urally, cult-ish and totally NORMAL.
As the years go on I have found myself less interested in traditional theology and logical debates about things like God's existence. It seems it all can be wrestled to an endless stalemate. I need evidence like considering ramifications of paranormal phenomena and the transcendent insights of other humans to give me a direction. Logic and thinking alone can never tell us what we really want to know.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The verdict is still out on these "spiritual experiences" (something I don't doubt myself, and have experienced), so I wouldn't compare it to an air guitar, but more broadly really as the tool of any artist, with it being apparent who has put more time, effort, dedication, and their soul into rather than those who lack any knowledge or training or just do slop.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The verdict is still out on these "spiritual experiences" (something I don't doubt myself, and have experienced), so I wouldn't compare it to an air guitar, but more broadly really as the tool of any artist, with it being apparent who has put more time, effort, dedication, and their soul into rather than those who lack any knowledge or training or just do slop.
I've read miles and miles of theology since my degree was in it. I got involved because of experience independent of narratives. What I found was like science religious narrative especially theology especially it's accedemic version tends to determine interpretation of experience and that is determined by the sub conscious and history. There addresses to be three theological worlds. One is the historical structure of the church asethetic, the newer one is systematic, the last one is rare in christianity at least is called mystical. I think today what really goes on is just a whole lot of nothing arguing with a whole lot of nothing in religious debating. I remember reading Barth and bultman and realizing that it was miles and miles of words just to say "I really really really love the bible" and that's it's. Like a horribly boring Rothko painting linguistically. That's just my take on the whole accedemic nonsense of theology. Besides Christianity was founded by a female and taught by men for 2,000 years so it's not surprising we end up with the alma mater nonsense.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I've read miles and miles of theology since my degree was in it. I got involved because of experience independent of narratives. What I found was like science religious narrative especially theology especially it's accedemic version tends to determine interpretation of experience and that is determined by the sub conscious and history. There addresses to be three theological worlds. One is the historical structure of the church asethetic, the newer one is systematic, the last one is rare in christianity at least is called mystical. I think today what really goes on is just a whole lot of nothing arguing with a whole lot of nothing in religious debating. I remember reading Barth and bultman and realizing that it was miles and miles of words just to say "I really really really love the bible" and that's it's. Like a horribly boring Rothko painting linguistically. That's just my take on the whole accedemic nonsense of theology. Besides Christianity was founded by a female and taught by men for 2,000 years so it's not surprising we end up with the alma mater nonsense.
I wasn't really talking about exclusively Christianity.
And Christianity was founded by Christ and his Disciples.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I wasn't really talking about exclusively Christianity.
And Christianity was founded by Christ and his Disciples.
It was Founded by Mary Magdalene the text says so it's extremely clear like a Buddhist koan. I have no sub conscious bias as to that specific topic of Jesus as the founder he is not he is a something other than that. One could say he is the yin to her yang. Or together they are that in flesh, or spectrum, or emergence or logos, or Tao how ever you want to call it it's consistent.
 
Last edited:

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
This is a question for those who question the practice of theology either atheistically, theistically, or agnostically. . Isn't it just a sort of play make believe, it is true only in a self contextualized self contained kind of way. in reality For me it's just Air guitar being played to a stereo with equalizer. Where some like the Wesley equalizer settings, some like the Calvinist equalizer settings, some prefer just making them up as they go a little this a little that? Personally I find it to be simply logicalism and that is rather cult-urally, cult-ish and totally NORMAL.

Anyone who attempts to answer the great existential questions, whether through theology, philosophy or religion
is going to be guilty of creative speculation simply because such questions are by their nature mostly beyond comprehension.
The thing is, you offer no actual answers to the existential question, and thus you are the guy sitting in the audience
complaining that the air-guitarist is doing a lousy job; all the while you sit and watch.

So let me ask you to answer this one question:
How did causality begin?
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Anyone who attempts to answer the great existential questions, whether through theology, philosophy or religion
is going to be guilty of creative speculation simply because such questions are by their nature mostly beyond comprehension.
The thing is, you offer no actual answers to the existential question, and thus you are the guy sitting in the audience
complaining that the air-guitarist is doing a lousy job; all the while you sit and watch.

So let me ask you to answer this one question:
How did causality begin?
Leonard Cohen answered you in the hallelujah song. So anyone engaged in the discussion of art, is simply hopelessly lost in speculation about art!! Reminds me of the tension between salivari and mozart in the Amadeus movie! Salivari was clueless as to how mozart created!!! So are you claiming that paint by numbers is real while I Mock paint by numbers is trite? Reductionism in either religious drag or scientific drag is still paint by numbers no matter how abstracted it is.
 

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
So are you claiming that paint by numbers is real while I Mock paint by numbers is trite?

Not quite.
I'm saying that to make paint-by-numbers go away, you should show us a better painting.
All you do by mocking paint-by-numbers, is highlight paint-by-numbers.

Reductionism in either religious drag or scientific drag is still paint by numbers no matter how abstracted it is.

Your answer is itself reductionist.

But you still did not even attempt to answer the question:

How did causality begin?
or better
Just give us one possible answer as to how causality could have begun?
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It (assuming you mean the NT) doesn't say that.
Mary walks into the room and proclaimed "he has risen" the spirit decended upon the room they spoke in tongues, and they all sold their stuff and moved in together with one another". Uh which part am I missing here?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Mary walks into the room and proclaimed "he has risen" the spirit decended upon the room they spoke in tongues, and they all sold their stuff and moved in together with one another". Uh which part am I missing here?
That isn't starting a religion.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Not quite.
I'm saying that to make paint-by-numbers go away, you should show us a better painting.
All you do by mocking paint-by-numbers, is highlight paint-by-numbers.

It's interesting, artists and especially musiciAns get this what I posted . So what musicAl instrument do you play? "asked kokopelli".



Your answer is itself reductionist.

But you still did not even attempt to answer the question:

How did causality begin?
or better
Just give us one possible answer as to how causality could have begun?
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
How did causality begin?

By causality said the Cheshire cat!!! Oh wait that's self referential And thus cannot be true. So then there is a something other than causality. The question becomes what is causing causes? And the Answer is that causes are causing causes which is circular and thus not true because it's self referential. So I might say there is a circular assumption in the question itself. But that is determined by the sub conscious and I can't do a thing about that, off limits to me by mother nature herself. All i can do is ask the questions and play a character in a Lewis Carol dialect. Annoying as that is. I say breathe, laugh, move the point of objectivity to its proper place, in the background state or landscape, play music make love.



Your answer is itself reductionist.

But you still did not even attempt to answer the question:

How did causality begin?
or better
Just give us one possible answer as to how causality could have begun?[/QUOTE]
 

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
How did causality begin?

By causality said the Cheshire cat!!! Oh wait that's self referential And thus cannot be true. So then there is a something other than causality. The question becomes what is causing causes? And the Answer is that causes are causing causes which is circular and thus not true because it's self referential. So I might say there is a circular assumption in the question itself. But that is determined by the sub conscious and I can't do a thing about that, off limits to me by mother nature herself. All i can do is ask the questions and play a character in a Lewis Carol dialect. Annoying as that is. I say breathe, laugh, move the point of objectivity to its proper place, in the background state or landscape, play music make love.



Your answer is itself reductionist.

But you still did not even attempt to answer the question:

How did causality begin?
or better
Just give us one possible answer as to how causality could have begun?

But if all is causality, then causality has no reason to exist.
Seeing as though it does exist; the only conclusion is that
not everything is causality.

So an a-causal reason is: creativity.
I had hoped you'd figure that out.

I play upside-down left-handed nylon strings
and after 25 years, I am proud to admit that
I do not know the name of a single chord.
Its just more creative this way.
Its less like play-by-numbers
and more like
listening to the angels in the subconscious etheric many-colored land
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
But if all is causality, then causality has no reason to exist.
Seeing as though it does exist; the only conclusion is that
not everything is causality.

So an a-causal reason is: creativity.
I had hoped you'd figure that out.

I play upside-down left-handed nylon strings
and after 25 years, I am proud to admit that
I do not know the name of a single chord.
Its just more creative this way.
Its less like play-by-numbers
and more like
listening to the angels in the subconscious etheric many-colored land
Awesomeness exactly my point. I have a story about an illiterate pre literate story teller that is very famous. He showed up one day to work and there were 150 people there that were there to tell his stories. They all were reading parts of his story, and he was not able to read a word of it. As he told the story, he had to describe to them what the part required and they would then dutifully translate what he said into writing
Now he found this all very intimidating he could not read nor write, but they were all there to tell his stories.. his name Eric Clapton, in his recording his stories with a Philharmonic symphony. Truth starts somewhere other than in the cranium l, in english, math, or literate symbolism of the alma mater. There is a reason why music is a major part of religion and it's pre literate roots goes back before language as we know it.
 

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
Awesomeness exactly my point. I have a story about an illiterate pre literate story teller that is very famous. He showed up one day to work and there were 150 people there that were there to tell his stories. They all were reading parts of his story, and he was not able to read a word of it. As he told the story, he had to describe to them what the part required and they would then dutifully translate what he said into writing
Now he found this all very intimidating he could not read nor write, but they were all there to tell his stories.. his name Eric Clapton, in his recording his stories with a Philharmonic symphony. Truth starts somewhere other than in the cranium l, in english, math, or literate symbolism of the alma mater. There is a reason why music is a major part of religion and it's pre literate roots goes back before language as we know it.

So Eric Clapton could not read or write music?
Its a pity that more musos have not heard that story.
 
Top