Is Religion Poetry? – Is Poetry of Highest Value? «

Is Religion Poetry? – Is Poetry of Highest Value?

January 1, 2020 Open Religion No Comments

Poetry as a way of being, of being motivated, of giving attention is religion.

►►► WHY read this? Religion is frequently non-poetic. In a rational age, this leads to huge clashes and fundamentalism.◄◄◄

Religion, poetry. It is exactly the same.

Good poetry is an orientation, as is religion.

Good poetry is a metaphor, as is religion.

Good poetry has many layers, as has religion.

Good poetry is endless, as is religion.

Good poetry unites the personal and the universal, as does religion.

Good poetry is inspiration, as is religion.

Good poetry is its own goal, as is religion.

Good poetry is Open. [see: “Open Religion = Poetry“]

Bad poetry is no poetry.

Bad religion is no religion.

A gradation exists between good and bad poetry/religion. Religions are not immune for comparison. One religion can be ‘better’ than another, as some poetry can be ‘better’ than another.

Then who says what is good or bad poetry?

Quite tricky. The ‘experts’ say what is good and bad, based on their own opinion: “Because I say so.” To a scientific mind, this sounds imperfect, no?

So, the agreement lives – satisfactorily to some – that science and religion/poetry are two separate domains. There should then be a separation between science and religion, as between state and religion. The state organizes science; religious organizations organize religion.

I disagree because that puts poetry outside of science as a most general endeavor, and we end up with unpoetic science. In my view, that’s the worst thing imaginable. [see: “No Rationality without Poetry“]

Science is worth much more.

For that, we have to bring the subconceptual into science. Quite a venture, if you look at it this way:

We need to bring poetry into science.

We need to bring religion into science.

I don’t mean science about religion. I mean, the religious stance right into science itself as a most general endeavor. One way to see commonality: both eventually have ultimate truth as a goal. Since no two different ultimate truths can exist, both have the same goal.

At the same time, we need to keep out bad religion, which is no religion.

Bad religion is non-poetic.

Bad science, bad religion

Bad science pushes out all subconceptual processing, only keeping the conceptual as ‘valid.’ Before you know it, bad science tries to push out of the worthwhile world everything that is deeply worthwhile. Many people rightfully object to this. A main problem is: They may quit science altogether. Another problem: It leaves science crippled.

Bad religion internalizes the conceptual and puts it in a vast mixing pot with the subconceptual. You see: one ends up with bad poetry, which is no poetry at all.

From the moment you make something conceptual, it is the domain of conceptual science. Science has the best methods to prove or disprove anything conceptual, by definition, because it is the core of such. At least, it should be.

If you say that God lives on a cloud, then show me the cloud.

That’s a good start.

If you say that “God is Love,” – poetically – then that is also the domain of science, only much more difficult. We can understand it as the metaphor that it is, trying to see in it something of the ultimate truth. We can – at least – try to understand and explain it in a way that everybody agrees, personally and universally.

We can make it into good poetry.