Art, science or religion and other matters pertaining to information are not entities that ought to be personified. Have you ever tried personifying a language? Have you ever used a sentence like, “English tells us that verbing words weirds language”?
Never the less I have heard the expressions, “science tells us that…” or “<insert religion name> tells us that…” as though these collections of information, like language, are actual persons.
“I have faith in science but not in religion”, is another expression I have heard. I’ve heard the converse expression as well which would actually translate to “I have belief in beliefs but not in science”. These kinds of persons have a belief that a particular set of information cannot be compatible nor coexist with another set of information. I however believe that it is all merely information to begin with and all of those sets belong to the same class called art.
Premis1: All that is perceivable or conceivable by any living being is art.
Commentary: You are art… I am art… and we are simultaneously artists alongside every living entity including the smallest blade of grass which can perceive light.
There is no such thing as “unique” for all art is comparable to all other art by virtue of having been a perception or conception.
God is not art. I have come to believe that God is unique even though I have no means of verifying that. A belief need not be contingent on perceptible or conceivable rationale.
Premis2: All art that pertains to testable information i.e. computation, is science.
Commentary: Here there is an embedded assumption of precision where a phenomena must be observable in the same manner again and again for it to be recorded as science. Even things of axiomatic nature are repeatedly verifiable. If there was however a phenomenon that could only be observed once, the poor entity that observed it would never manage to convince others of that phenomenon’s existence and that perception wouldn’t qualify as science but it would indeed be art.
Premis3: All art that remains beyond the realm of testable information (beyond science) is belief.
Commentary: This portion of art doesn’t have anything that can be verified. It is often related to notions like life, value, love, deity and God. I do not call this portion metaphysics because metaphysics need not incorporate the notion of deity or Supreme. Also, metaphysics is concerned with acutely discernable perceptions and conceptions that codify the origins of such perceptions and conceptions. Metaphysics is science. Belief is much more fuzzy, for example, there isn’t a logical and acutely discernable way to define things like square root of love. The fact that I was able to articulate such a convolved construct without sufficient understanding of it is evidence of my beliefs which is, in general, truly indispensable to me being a human. Beliefs are indeed labeled as illogical and illogic is associated with negative connotations by many people. The answer to “should illogical constructs be deemed worthy or worthless?” is in itself a belief.
A popular question I have come across is, “Dose any form of belief constitute devine knowledge?” That question’s answer would also be a belief and I don’t have the linguistic faculty to articulate that answer which any ways wouldn’t be verifiable.
See Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem to gauge why such issues may arise.
Premis4: That which is beyond art (supposedly exists) and is simply addressed as “the unknown”.
Commentary: No living entity can perceive nor conceive the unknown, it never has been and thus it can never be discovered by any living entity. I have an inkling that all art has already been conceived and the portions that humanity’s shared conscience becomes aware of bit-by-bit and records as science or belief have never been in the realm of the unknown. This notion might seem thoroughly deranged and convoluted so please don’t dwell upon it. Doing that might lead to a weird notion like, “All that is being said and done has already been said and done.”
After reading all this, I’m sure, one of my friends would have quipped, “Hmmm… all this is like a deja moo”
Deja vu is the notion that “I’ve seen this somewhere before”. Deja moo is the notion that, “I’ve heard this bullshit before… mmmooooo”