How do atheists reconcile their disbelief in traditional Judeo-Christian religious texts with a desire to appreciate the allusions and stories depicted in the art created during periods of particular spirituality like the Renaissance? Also, how can one be Atheist and not instinctively reject the works of heavily religious writers like Kierkegaard and Pascal simply on the basis of disagreement with their ideologies?

How can a European like Picasso appreciate African art without he himself being African? Its simple, recontextualization. Kierkegaard, like the Bible, is not something an atheist attempts to ignore as literature, but something they ignore as a context within which to frame their world. One does not have to belief in Narnia to appreciate the novels. Similarly one does not have to share anything whatsoever with the artwork to be able to appreciate it, it is the magnitude of difference we often appreciate.

Let me ask you a similar, inversed question. How can theists reconcile their tribal beliefs with scientific inquiry? The answer is all to similar. A Christian, for example, has to extend the biblical metaphor that "God Created the Earth in 7 days" to be symbolic of a larger time frame just to accommodate the findings of evolution. I mean, we have a decent enough understanding of biology to disprove all metaphysical concepts of the soul, so now the soul is ephemeral.

well, how do christians value hindu art?
or vise versa?
the basis of the art doesn't have to effect its beauty.

and how do christians read Nietchze?
I got o a religious school and have take a few philosophy classes and my christian professor has read all the philsophers covered in the courses- religious (including non-christian) and atheist and agnostic- and can value varies pieces of their work despite the religious differences

__________________
GO CUBS

Psych Majors are JUNG and HORNEY

When other girls wanted to be a ballerina, I wanted to be a Vampire.

You believe in the goodness of art and not so much in the goodness of religion.

__________________
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. " Demosthenes

good quote ,I think atheists work so hard at not believing in anything
that atheism almost is a religion.Without religion early man would have had
few moral giudelines.One cant deny the beauty and cleverness of the writers
of our constitution and the way religion was both included an excluded.
I prefer to believe in something just to be safe!

Quite simply, it is the abilty to distinguish the differnce between art, literature, fiction, objective thought, and fictional non secularism.

I think this is self evident,is it not ?
Or, is there some point you are trying to make based on the difinitive answer ?

Funny you mention Pascal in this question...are you sure you meant to do that ?

__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid

Yeah it hurts, you have been fucked by an Elephant !

"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"

Not believing in fantasy comes as easily as not thinking TV is real. Its hardly something an atheist works hard to achieve, and no, it isn't a religion, thats the point. Dont try and blur the highly specific definition of a religion to include its opposite; that'll make the word as intangible as everything else theists mutter on about.

Ahhh but you see...that has been an ongoing effort for centuries now.
The anti logic of equating the lack of theism, with a distinct theism, is nothing new.
It is the haven of the angry not so bright non secular

__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid

Yeah it hurts, you have been fucked by an Elephant !

"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"

but we know for sure tv is fake- we can watch it being created and filmed

the great thing with religion is we can neither prove nor disporve the exisistance of God.
it comes down to faith

although atheism isn't a religion- notice you still make atheist under religious status on basic profiles?
perhaps writing in "none' would be more accurate.
(personally I typically write in 'other' or 'christian-other' because I don't believe in organized religion)

__________________
GO CUBS

Psych Majors are JUNG and HORNEY

When other girls wanted to be a ballerina, I wanted to be a Vampire.

Anyone can distinguish between what you listed, it doesn't matter what his religious disposition or cultural heritage is. However, merely distinguishing between various forms of art and literature, say Hindu or African doesn't establish the connection that exists between you and the art when you deeply understand it. This raises another question about the nature of art - to appreciate art do we need to have knowledge of the inspiration for the piece as well as of the specific techniques used, or can someone uneducated in a specific culture look at that culture's artistic tradition and appreciate it? By appreciate I mean to rightly recognize its cultural significance (if it has any), and sense the emotional state of the artist during the piece's creation.

How this question about art is answered is critical to my first question - how can an atheist appreciate art that employs religious imagery to evoke feeling or to stimulate discussion? If art is reliant on specific cultural knowledge, and one is ignorant of this knowledge (by choice or circumstance) or chooses to reject this knowledge, then how can art be correctly evaluated to determine cultural significance and the mindset of the creator?