# classical music is not only religious, you may like a religious work being an atheist



## deprofundis (Apr 25, 2014)

What im trying to says is some religious music reach out to atheist and atheist can enjoy it
take per instance Vesper and lithurgie of st John crysostom, two work so wonderfull, sutch a pleasure plate, it like a kid skipping a meal and goeing straight to cookies and cakes.

First i introduce my scottish friend to Gesualdo heck i bought him a cd, this is how mutch i loved Gesualdo, he started gaining appreciation for vocal music than i loan him my Rachmaninov cds
love the work so mutch...

and eventually im gradually making him lisen motets of lassus and Tallis...im a prozelyth mad classical affecionado, im proud when someone dig classical because of me.

This same friend i made him heard George Crumbs makrokosmos and arvo part per se and he was like wow, never thought something could be this cerebral...

Than i have another disciple i gave him one of my numerous Gesualdo tenebrae responsoria, i whant him to dig it too but i can't force thing, he most make the effort, to understand genieous...

That not all i have two more disciples im working on them, one a hipster but like some of my stuff, onne a metalhead and like jean nicolas pancrace royer.Hell yeah...im reaching on to people like jésus
or some mad zealot...lol

What about you guys , do you feel the utter joy when some jazz dude or a metalhead dig classical or a whatever(inser style).Me it's my hidden pleasure, im like yeah i got disciples i got convert to my religion classical music...im insane or a rational man?

:tiphat:

Let start a Gesualdo guild of appreciation society and Lassus devotee


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I don't know if any religious music necessarily reaches out to atheists so much as many people (atheist, agnostic, religious) will listen to religious classical works purely for the musical value.


----------



## deprofundis (Apr 25, 2014)

i agree Florestan good argument


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

As a devout atheist (I love saying that) some of my favourite music is often classified as religious. However i love this music be it Mass, Requiem, Stabat Mater etc, not because of its sacred content (allegedly) but because it is great music.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I'm religious and I appreciate "atheist" music, as in music that would be considered even blasphemous to my beliefs in some form. Scriabin comes to mind... It just happens. *shrugs*


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

yes..............


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

I suspect that music - likewise all the other arts - may be literally religious. That is, like the existence of God, its value as anything other than frivolous entertainment (and maybe a way to grow brain cells or whatever) ultimately has to be accepted on authority. So, as our society becomes more and more atheistic, we'll also, for the same reasons, become more and more indifferent to music. (Speaking as an atheist.) Enjoy the interim, I guess.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Florestan said:


> I don't know if any religious music necessarily reaches out to atheists so much as many people (atheist, agnostic, religious) will listen to religious classical works purely for the musical value.


Spot on, I am not religious at all but do like the music :tiphat:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I'm another atheist who will happily listen to religious classical music. Having been raised Catholic, the religious content is too familiar to be bothersome - though Bach's "dialogue cantatas" are uniquely weird!

You don't have to believe in elves to enjoy Tolkien, so I don't see why you have to believe in God to enjoy religious music.

And let's not forget that St. Augustine of Hippo thought it was sinful to enjoy the music more than the words.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

I never let my atheism get in the way of a good Mass! Music is music. I like it or I don't.


----------



## The nose (Jan 14, 2014)

I think an atheist can appreciate religious music as a catholic can appreciate Brahm's Deutsches Requiem.
If you don't like Bach's St. Matthew Passion because of the subject you're an Atheist with bad taste.


----------



## Metairie Road (Apr 30, 2014)

Well, I'm an Agnostic, so I enjoy both sacred and secular music without worrying about where the inspiration came from.

Regards


----------



## Rik1 (Sep 22, 2015)

I just like good music, some of that is Religious in content but that doesn't bother me. I do however know people who absolutely hate anything with Religious content regardless of whether the music is good or not. The thing with Religious classical music, is that the philosophical nature of the texts tends to inspire composers to create very deeply felt serious music conveying different emotional aspects of scriptures. So, I have found this type of music is often incredibly layered. Knowing the texts also enhances my enjoyment of it. For example, I do not have Christian beliefs but I can still understand the meanings and emotional outpouring of a Passion story. The Bible is full of great human ideas and stories that inspire great music. When a Mass setting describes in music the transition from life to after life, the effect is very powerful. 

After all, you don't need to believe in the supernatural to enjoy a ghost story.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

An atheist can enjoy religious music, perhaps just as much as religious people; just as every culture vulture can enjoy the Iliad without believing in Zeus. Taken as "pure music" there is no good argument against this, taken as "programme music" then you have to ask, "Is aesthetic impact reduced if the content is taken as fiction". The argument against that is that the cultural characters taken to have highest aesthetic value (Hamlet, lead characters in War & Peace...) are fictional. Maybe, in being able to take the characters in a Mass as fictional, atheists actually gain greater aesthetic enjoyment than Christians! Who knows? No one can say, because no one can be atheist and Christian at the same time.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

deprofundis said:


> What about you guys , do you feel the utter joy when some jazz dude or a metalhead dig classical or a whatever(inser style).Me it's my hidden pleasure, im like yeah i got disciples i got convert to my religion classical music...im insane or a rational man?


No, I don't feel this.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Florestan said:


> I don't know if any religious music necessarily reaches out to atheists so much as many people (atheist, agnostic, religious) will listen to religious classical works purely for the musical value.


One thing to think about is chant. A lot of chant recordings are no more interesting than impeccable competition singing. But sometimes you have a real feeling of listening in to believers praying, and I find that quite a different sort of experience than just listening to professional musicians doing a mass.

I think that God does not exist, and that religion is the opium of the people, but I have heard people pray, pray out loud, and I find their certainty disorienting and disturbing. The same for hearing the monks at Einsiedeln chanting.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

The nose said:


> I think an atheist can appreciate religious music as a catholic can appreciate Brahm's Deutsches Requiem.
> If you don't like Bach's St. Matthew Passion because of the subject you're an Atheist with bad taste.


How can I not like this?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

You'd have to be a very very overly-sensitive type of atheist to get offended by the subject or let the lyrics of religious classical music get in the way of enjoying the piece in question. Most of the words to religious works are either recounting Biblical stories as they appear in the Bible (more or less, usually) or they're the incredibly generic Mass Texts or something similar to that.

The only time I ever get offended at religion is when it's used to spew hate at various groups of people, stifle human rights or used as a justification for murder.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> One thing to think about is chant. A lot of chant recordings are no more interesting than impeccable competition singing.


I'll take a barbershop quartet over chant! :lol:


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

violadude said:


> You'd have to be a very very overly-sensitive type of atheist to get offended by the subject or let the lyrics of religious classical music get in the way of enjoying the piece in question. Most of the words to religious works are either recounting Biblical stories as they appear in the Bible (more or less, usually) or they're the incredibly generic Mass Texts or something similar to that.
> 
> *The only time I ever get offended at religion is when it's used to spew hate at various groups of people, stifle human rights or used as a justification for murder*.


Me too, as well as secularists that do the same. :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Music by itself can't contain or convey religious beliefs. There's no such thing as "religious music," only music used for religious purposes, and some traditional church music has secular origins anyway: either it was directly cribbed or adapted from popular song or classical composers, or it's in a style which didn't originate in a religious context. Renaissance composers based polyphonic settings of the mass on popular tunes (_L'Homme arme_ is the most famous of those, and served as the basis for dozens of masses), Martin Luther drew on secular melodies and gave them religious words, and nowadays we have "Christian rock" and plenty of liturgical music by composers who are nonbelievers. Music is just music. But, that said, music written to religious texts is intended to be heard with certain ideas in mind, and there is no more reason for the nonbeliever to ignore that than to ignore the text of a Schubert song. After all, religion is an expression of human experience, and whether we agree with all the tenets of a religion or not we can empathize with the feelings the composer wants to express. In the end, we can find whatever we want to find in the music. The "Kyrie" of Bach's b-minor mass may be a plea for God's mercy, but as music its expressive content is much less specific and we can experience in it whatever we ourselves feel and find meaningful.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Music by itself can't contain or convey religious beliefs. . .


It's music in performance which is expressive, and my contention is that prayerful chant can contain and convey religious beliefs.



Woodduck said:


> In the end, we can find whatever we want to find in the music.


I wonder what people think of this idea. A jolly performance of the Eroica funeral march?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Music that seems to us "religious" achieves its effect by a number of conventions that originated in church music. We have learned to associate these conventions with religious music and react accordingly. This is similar to the "pastoral" effects that give Beethoven's 6th Symphony and similar works their "rustic" effect. I believe someone who hasn't "learned" the conventions would have difficulty associating either kind of music (or several other kinds) with the non-musical associations that we usually hear.

Would a Martian guess that the 2nd movement of the Eroica was a funeral march? I have it on good authority that their own funeral marches are in quintuple time (since they have five legs).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> It's music in performance which is expressive, and my contention is that prayerful chant can contain and convey religious beliefs.
> 
> I wonder what people think of this idea. A jolly performance of the Eroica funeral march?


How can music convey a belief? A belief can only be articulated verbally.

You've misinterpreted my second remark. I didn't mean that any music can be construed as expressing anything at all, simply that music can't express specific emotions (since particular emotions have an ideational content that music can't convey) and that people will make varied interpretations of it.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> How can music convey a belief?


Probably not the content of a belief, you're right, but it might convey the distinctive affective state of a believer in prayer. Indeed, it may propagate that state.



Woodduck said:


> You've misinterpreted my second remark. I didn't mean that any music can be construed as expressing anything at all, simply that music can't express specific emotions (since particular emotions have an ideational content that music can't convey) and that people will make varied interpretations of it.


I see, sorry.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Music that seems to us "religious" achieves its effect by a number of conventions that originated in church music. We have learned to associate these conventions with religious music and react accordingly. This is similar to the "pastoral" effects that give Beethoven's 6th Symphony and similar works their "rustic" effect. I believe someone who hasn't "learned" the conventions would have difficulty associating either kind of music (or several other kinds) with the non-musical associations that we usually hear.


Be careful you don't just beg all the questions!

Psychology was not my subject, but I believe there's good evidence that we come preprogrammed with an innate knowledge of the meaning of some sounds - that a certain sort of baby's cry means pain, for example. You can see how that's useful for survival. Convention has a rôle I expect, but there's a lot of work to be done. This is something Wittgenstein talks about in the Investigations.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Probably not the content of a belief, you're right, but it might convey the distinctive affective state of a believer in prayer.


How?

Music may well sound meditative, (and even then I'm reaching) but "the distinctive affective state of a believer in prayer" seems far too specific to convey via music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Adam Weber said:


> Music may well sound meditative, (and even then I'm reaching) but "the distinctive affective state of a believer in prayer" seems far too specific to convey via music.


Sounds can convey the distinctive affective state of someone in pain, why not in prayer?

Newborn baby sounds are really central for this question.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> Be careful you don't just beg all the questions!


Sorry, exactly which questions did I beg? Seems plain enough to me.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Sounds can convey the distinctive affective state of someone in pain, why not in prayer?
> 
> Newborn baby sounds are really central for this question.


Only sound _in context_ can convey the "distinctive affective state of someone in pain."

Even facial expressions rely on context for emotional content.

Are you familiar with the Kuleshov Effect?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_Effect

Anyway, we're not talking about sounds in general, we're talking about music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Adam Weber said:


> Only sound _in context_ can convey the "distinctive affective state of someone in pain."


Are you sure? Aren't their animal cries, transmitted by evolution, which we understand innately?

What I'm suggesting is that these are part of the foundation of a theory of expression in music.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

Keep in mind, I don't completely disagree with you. Music _can_ inspire the same affective mindset as prayer.

It's only that _achieving_ that effect is a crapshoot.

That's where I'm coming from.

If you believe that music can consistently, like a language, convey one meaning to multiple people over long periods of time, I disagree with you.

On the other hand, if you simply believe that music can inspire a state of mind similar to prayer some of the time, but not all of the time, then we're arguing over nothing.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Adam Weber said:


> Keep in mind, I don't completely disagree with you. Music _can_ inspire the same affective mindset as prayer.
> 
> It's only that _achieving_ that effect is a crapshoot.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what I believe . . . I just think it's an interesting area which isn't as open and shut as Ken OC suggests.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I'm agnostic and I love Bach's b minor Mass, and religious cantatas, Haydn's late masses, Mozart's c minor Mass, Handel's Messiah, Faure's Requiem, etc. They make me feel good. Great music is great music-to be enjoyed by all.

I also love Beethoven's Missa Solemnis and the Verdi Requiem, but these works are more theatrical than religious in intention.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> Are you sure? Aren't their animal cries, transmitted by evolution, which we understand innately?
> 
> What I'm suggesting is that these are part of the foundation of a theory of expression in music.


I'm open to the idea that there are innate, primal responses to certain sounds and certain qualities of sound, since humans appear to have such responses to visual and tactile stimuli as well. It even seems reasonable to think that certain _patterns_ of sound are recognized by the brain as corresponding to patterns of sensation, perception, and conceptual thought, and that this recognition determines, in part, the organization of music and its potential for expression.

Personally, I think musical expression involves a complex mix of innate responses to sound and sound patterns, convention, and structural musical context. It seems popular now (if my observation of opinion here on TC is any indication, which it may not be) to downplay the element of innateness, or even to deny it altogether, as if people did not belong to a species of a certain kind but were infinitely malleable balls of clay molded entirely by accidents of culture. Musicological studies find common elements in the musics of widely divergent cultures which I think ought to be viewed as, at least potentially, windows into the basic structure of human experience. The power of sounds, even surprisingly simple sounds arranged in simple ways, to provoke intense affective experience - the "magic" of music, astonishing to humankind through all the ages - seems to me sufficient reason to think this.

I'm actually quite sympathetic to your statement that a certain type of music "might convey the distinctive affective state of a believer in prayer. Indeed, it may propagate that state." Though our perception of this particular expressive content of the music will depend partly on our conventional associations, there's no doubt that we can recognize even in styles of music unfamiliar to us certain possibilities of meaning, and limitations on possible meanings. And I think that to make sense of that fact we have to look beyond culture and into the fundamental shape of human experience and perception.


----------



## Rik1 (Sep 22, 2015)

violadude said:


> You'd have to be a very very overly-sensitive type of atheist to get offended by the subject or let the lyrics of religious classical music get in the way of enjoying the piece in question. Most of the words to religious works are either recounting Biblical stories as they appear in the Bible (more or less, usually) or they're the incredibly generic Mass Texts or something similar to that.
> 
> The only time I ever get offended at religion is when it's used to spew hate at various groups of people, stifle human rights or used as a justification for murder.


I do know people who tend to refuse listening to or attending concerts which have Religious musical content on the basis that they feel like they are being preached to in the music. They aren't refusing to listen on a point of principle, they just don't feel very comfortable and are therefore closed to it saying the music 'sounds like church' to them. It's not really to do with being offended, just personal taste that is affected by the subject matter rather than the music. Not everyone approaches music purely for its music. Many people choose music based on what it means culturally to them or based on what it is saying. As musicians, we tend to be equally interested in the pure music aspect as well.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Rik1 said:


> I do know people who tend to refuse listening to or attending concerts which have Religious musical content on the basis that they feel like they are being preached to in the music. They aren't refusing to listen on a point of principle, they just don't feel very comfortable and are therefore closed to it saying the music 'sounds like church' to them. It's not really to do with being offended, just personal taste that is affected by the subject matter rather than the music. Not everyone approaches music purely for its music. Many people choose music based on what it means culturally to them or based on what it is saying. As musicians, we tend to be equally interested in the pure music aspect as well.


Makes sense to me. There are religious works I avoid because they contradict my religious beliefs.


----------



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

I'm an atheist, but when I listen to things like Mozart's requiem, Schubert's Mass, Schnittke's 2nd/4th Symphonies and his choir concerti, etc. , I feel a very "spiritual" sensation. I hear the joy and inspiration that it has instilled into artists and sometimes feel kind of jealous that I don't really have something similar when composing. My musical self is very different than my standard for every-day people. If someone starts going off about jesus etc. on the bus or something, that might be kind of annoying. But in music the feeling is very mystical and provides this sort of huge arch of mythos. It is very often moving.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

There is no such thing as "religious music," there is only such a thing as music that people _call_ "religious."


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Just popped in to say that "Et Resurrexit" from Bach's Mass in b minor has been stuck in my head for the past three days and I'm LOVING every minute of it!


----------



## Rik1 (Sep 22, 2015)

Klassic said:


> There is no such thing as "religious music," there is only such a thing as music that people _call_ "religious."


Well yes, that's what 'Religious music' is. Most things in the world are defined by the words humans use to describe them.


----------



## Rik1 (Sep 22, 2015)

Cosmos said:


> Just popped in to say that "Et Resurrexit" from Bach's Mass in b minor has been stuck in my head for the past three days and I'm LOVING every minute of it!


Yep, been there.  It's glorious isn't it? It's also amazing to play in the orchestra during it, one of my bucket list activities that I'm please has been 'ticked'.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Klassic said:


> There is no such thing as "religious music," there is only such a thing as music that people _call_ "religious."


Not true if you just have a look at the definition of the word religious..

Never fear, enjoying such music doesn't mean you have to buy into anything other than the music.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Florestan said:


> Makes sense to me. There are religious works I avoid because they contradict my religious beliefs.


Do you mean "Ave Maria" or something?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

hpowders said:


> I'm agnostic and I love Bach's b minor Mass, and religious cantatas, Haydn's late masses, Mozart's c minor Mass, Handel's Messiah, Faure's Requiem, etc. They make me feel good. Great music is great music-to be enjoyed by all.
> 
> I also love Beethoven's Missa Solemnis and the Verdi Requiem, but these works are more theatrical than religious in intention.


When I was a Christian, I used to listen to "Christian Contemporary" and believed classical music to be just a little too stifled and "ceremonial" to express genuine worship. Now that I am a heathen, I listen to Bach, Haydn, Bruckner, Handel - and enjoying them all thoroughly and without reservations. The words of some Bach's "O woe is me a miserable sinner!" type cantatas are just a little bit cringeworthy (who wrote those texts anyway?), but the beauty of the music more than makes up for it.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Do you mean "Ave Maria" or something?


That is a good example.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Florestan said:


> That is a good example.


I see. Catholics are idol worshipers who are destined for hell.
And for Catholics it is the Protestants who are heretics destined for hell.
I praise the Gods every day for delivering me out of this Christian serpentarium.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I see. Catholics are idol worshipers who are destined for hell.
> And for Catholics it is the Protestants who are heretics destined for hell.
> I praise the Gods every day for delivering me out of this Christian serpentarium.


I would never say Catholics are destined for hell. I am sure there are many Catholics who will be in Heaven, and there are many Lutherans who won't, and vice versa. But I prefer to stick to religious music that is closer my beliefs. In that I like Beethoven's Missa Solemnis very much. It looks like it could be drawn word-for-word from the Lutheran hymnal.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Florestan said:


> I would never say Catholics are destined for hell. I am sure there are many Catholics who will be in Heaven, and there are many Lutherans who won't, and vice versa. But I prefer to stick to religious music that is closer my beliefs. In that I like Beethoven's Missa Solemnis very much. It looks like it could be drawn word-for-word from the Lutheran hymnal.


Dear friend, there is no such thing as "religious music": there is such a thing as _religious words_ set to music, but there is no such thing as _religious music_.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I am an atheist, but listening to Bach's sacred music sometimes makes me want to reconsider. :angel:


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Klassic said:


> Dear friend, there is no such thing as "religious music": there is such a thing as _religious words_ set to music, but there is no such thing as _religious music_.


You are splitting hairs. Religious words set to music is generally what is meant by the phrase "religious music."


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Florestan said:


> You are splitting hairs. Religious words set to music is generally what is meant by the phrase "religious music."


If you exchanged the religious words for non-religious ones would the music still be religious?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Klassic said:


> If you exchanged the religious words for non-religious ones would the music still be religious?


Of course not. Music is not inherently religious or non-religious. It is just music. I don't think anyone would question that. But I suppose one could argue it all day and night. I can easily find definitions such as this online,


> Religious music (also sacred music) is music performed or composed for religious use or through religious influence. Ritual music is music, sacred or not, performed or composed for or as ritual.


But then we get into the question of does it make it so just because it is defined that way? By whom? What authority? Well, generally common usage makes it generally accepted, and so "religious music" appears to be a perfectly acceptable way to say "music with religious words or used in religious ceremony."


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Florestan said:


> Music is not inherently religious or non-religious. It is just music.


I think you affirmed my position.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2016)

Similarly, I like black gospel and acknowledge how much modern American music owes to it even though I have found a great many black churches full of hatred for Jews and expressing extreme homophobia. When a Satanist group wanted to unveil a Satanic statue in Detroit, blacks went crazy! When I asked some of them what any Satanist had ever done to them or to black people as a whole, I was told that had nothing to do with it. They're right. It didn't. They hate Satanism because they are mindless robots to their religion that orders them to hate it. But, with that said, black gospel music is some of the greatest music around and it gave birth to REAL rock n roll:






And as irreligious as I am, I don't know where I'd be without Bach even though everything he wrote was in service to the Lutheran Church. But then, one of my bass instructors was a strict, devout Catholic and he loves Bach! In fact, when people refuse to acknowledge the greatness of something because of the artist's religion or something, that gives me a pain. I know of a case where a doctor was helping this guy whose health had deteriorated by having him run through a set of stretching and breathing exercises designed to get the blood and cardio-vascular working. He started doing them and reported great results. The doctor told him the exercises were developed by Buddhist monks centuries ago and the guy refused to do them anymore--he was a devout Christian. That's just idiotic. He deserves to die if he's that stupid.


----------



## Scopitone (Nov 22, 2015)

Beautiful music is beautiful music. I don't have to be Muslim to enjoy Sufi poetry. I don't have to believe in Zeus to appreciate Homer. Same with explicitly Christian themed music. If it's good music, I can appreciate it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

violadude said:


> You'd have to be a very very overly-sensitive type of atheist to get offended by the subject or let the lyrics of religious classical music get in the way of enjoying the piece in question. Most of the words to religious works are either recounting Biblical stories as they appear in the Bible (more or less, usually) or they're the incredibly generic Mass Texts or something similar to that.
> 
> The only time I ever get offended at religion is when it's used to spew hate at various groups of people, stifle human rights or used as a justification for murder.


Yeah, but you sang "For the Beauty of the Earth" in a choir.

Violadude is right, though, in pointing out that religion has been used to justify all sorts of bad human tendencies.

Religion is best when it brings us together, as part of Humanity in all its glory. Are you ready for this? Are you ready to give up your biases and pet peeves?

Are you ready for religion to put all your dislikes, and the dark sides of yourself that even you are not fully aware of (it's called your shadow), and be an active participant in this gigantic conspiracy that we call 'Humanity'?

Are you ready to hold hands with a Buddhist? To sing in a choir with Southern Baptists? To embrace Mormons? To bow to the pope? To revere the Dali Lama? To watch a Pentecostal writhe on the floor, speaking in tongues?

Yes, I am! I'm ready to get on that Gospel Train!!!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

My thoughts are pretty much summed up in post 2. 

Love the B minor mass, for example, and its religious aspects, whatever they are, play no part in my enjoyment of the music.

By the way, what's up with the religious interest lately on TC?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Religion is best when it brings us together, as part of Humanity in all its glory. Are you ready for this? Are you ready to give up your biases and pet peeves?
> 
> Are you ready for religion to put all your dislikes, and the dark sides of yourself that even you are not fully aware of (it's called your shadow), and be an active participant in this gigantic conspiracy that we call 'Humanity'?
> 
> ...


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY - MEN, brother!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Are you ready to hold hands with a Buddhist? To sing in a choir with Southern Baptists? To embrace Mormons? To bow to the pope? To revere the Dali Lama? To watch a Pentecostal writhe on the floor, speaking in tongues?


There are some very contradictory belief among these groups. Nothing wrong with being nice to each other, but common worship is excluded if it is to have any meaning.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

answering a question of OP whether it brings us joy when we see someone dig into CM more due to us introducing them to it, especially so called religious music.

well, yes, I do feel lots of joy when suddenly one of my atheist friends finds out how much he loves listening some Bach's stuff or Vivaldi sacred works. Yes, it fills me with joy , but much more sort of a feeling of joy of knowing this piece/pieces of music shared with someone who finally could understand that beauty of CM, but not the fact that this person is converted into CM ( far from it being a truth :lol: ) and not much hope that these explorations in CM will be continued, perhaps sporadically, but not as a continuous path into a discovery of CM.....


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Florestan said:


> There are some very contradictory belief among these groups. Nothing wrong with being nice to each other, but common worship is excluded if it is to have any meaning.


I should imagine that watching a Pentecostal writhe on the floor speaking in tongues would be a true test of a Buddhist's meditation skills, just as a Buddhist in deep meditation would be a true test of a Pentecostal's evangelical skills.

But if they'd both just listen to Bach... :kiss:


----------



## Nevum (Nov 28, 2013)

I am as atheist and agnostic as it gets. And I definitely love religious music. Especially requiems. In my opinion, religion is a refection of anxiety and a human defense mechanism to the unknown. And religious classical music is the best possible expression of this human weakness and anxiety.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Nevum said:


> I am as atheist and agnostic as it gets. And I definitely love religious music. Especially requiems. In my opinion, religion is a refection of anxiety and a human defense mechanism to the unknown. And religious classical music is the best possible expression of this human weakness and anxiety.


Yes, and religion, like art, provides a vehicle for the open experience and expression of many feelings which everyday life forces people to keep under cover - some good and some bad. Religious images and stories - which is to say myths, in the proper sense of the term - are works of art in themselves, full of intense emotions, and often ideal for musical expression. It isn't surprising that so many of the greatest musical creations have religious themes.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

As others have said, good music is good music, no matter if it has 'religious intent' or not. 

I am an agnostic atheist (yes, the 2 positions are NOT mutually exclusive), but I own and enjoy a lot of what would be considered religious music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I contend that music which is harmonically static, such as a drone, or one note and its partials, can be inherently 'spiritual' because of its universal propensity to affect us as humans. This 'spirituality' is the note, or drone itself, so it is a structurally inseparable quality of the sound.

As a result, all things or sound events which follow are secondary, and inessential, as they are derived from this one sound. This sound, it could be said, is "God." This is a possible interpretation of the words "In the beginning was the word, and the word was God."

In other words, the unchanging note, or drone, is the center of being, which is sacred and holy. This center of being is impervious to the passage of time; it is stillness, it is being, it is no-mind. This is OM.

All change which follows, which is defined by change in time, is illusion. Being does not travel; things around it come and go, but it remains.

Thus, the early Gregorian chant was inherently religious music; its drone-like qualities attracted 20th century audiences with the smash hit "Chant," and revealed that people are in search of a stillness and peace which only the uncluttered effects of such harmonically centered drone-like music can bring. 
All other music which is 'busy' is music of the 'ego,' and while it has its purpose, ultimately it is a distraction, or artifice, or merely a metaphor for the spiritual. 

This is the basis of Indian raga, which is spiritual music designed to enhance one's spiritual awareness.

'The drone' is universal. All folk and ethnic musics exhibit elements of it, as it is my contention that all people, no matter how 'primitive,' are inherently spiritual from their beginning. Of course, many are distracted away from the path.

The drone is the manifestation of being, not just a reference or metaphor for the sacred. The spirit is sound, and the sound is sacred.

We are tuned-in already, before any religion was. We are inherently spiritual beings, however you agnostics and atheists wish to define that; I say it is a real, physical state of spirituality, in that sense, and can be manifest as sound. Being resonates with sound.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Harold in Columbia said:


> I suspect that music - likewise all the other arts - may be literally religious. That is, like the existence of God, its value as anything other than frivolous entertainment (and maybe a way to grow brain cells or whatever) ultimately has to be accepted on authority. So, as our society becomes more and more atheistic, we'll also, for the same reasons, become more and more indifferent to music. (Speaking as an atheist.) Enjoy the interim, I guess.


This just might be one of the most beautiful posts I've ever read on TC. Thank you. Just five sentences, but so prophetic, sobering and... grimly empowering. Thank you again!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Harold in Columbia said:


> I suspect that music - likewise all the other arts - may be literally religious.


And by what follows, you see religion as an authority, or a finger which points to God, but which cannot prove it.



> That is, like the existence of God, its value as anything other than frivolous entertainment (and maybe a way to grow brain cells or whatever) ultimately has to be accepted on authority.


What other way is there? This is metaphysics, not science. The real, proven existence of God is good for science, but irrelevant to religion; religion can say, but cannot prove. The acceptance of God's existence is totally subjective.



> So, as our society becomes more and more atheistic, we'll also, for the same reasons, become more and more indifferent to music. (Speaking as an atheist.) Enjoy the interim, I guess.


Yes, I can't "prove" that Beethoven is good music, so why bother listening to it?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Originally Posted by *Harold in Columbia* 
_I suspect that music - likewise all the other arts - may be literally religious. That is, like the existence of God, its value as anything other than frivolous entertainment (and maybe a way to grow brain cells or whatever) ultimately has to be accepted on authority. So, as our society becomes more and more atheistic, we'll also, for the same reasons, become more and more indifferent to music. (Speaking as an atheist.) Enjoy the interim, I guess._



Xaltotun said:


> This just might be one of the most beautiful posts I've ever read on TC. Thank you. Just five sentences, but so prophetic, sobering and... grimly empowering. Thank you again!


Yes, comrade, this is very inspiring. Don't forget to take your protein pill.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

It may not be obvious what I thought so inspiring there, millionrainbows; anyway, I have a hunch that you misunderstood me. It's my own fault as I usually write either in a consciously cryptic style or I leave the meat of the message/opinion/argument out, providing just food for the reader's own imagination. I usually don't care if I'm misunderstood (I rather like it), but there are people who are exceptions to this, like yourself and Woodduck. I don't like so much to be misunderstood by people who I like and respect so much. So I'll come out now and clarify a bit.

I liked Harold's post so much because it so frankly and honestly described the Hell of what will happen if we don't do the right thing. The "on authority" is totally positive to me. So I think we're on the same side on this one! I might be a comrade, but I won't take a protein pill, symbolic function pill, more like.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Harold in Columbia said:


> I suspect that music - likewise all the other arts - may be literally religious. That is, like the existence of God, its value as anything other than frivolous entertainment (and maybe a way to grow brain cells or whatever) ultimately has to be accepted on authority. So, as our society becomes more and more atheistic, we'll also, for the same reasons, become more and more indifferent to music. (Speaking as an atheist.) Enjoy the interim, I guess.


I don't see what others find to agree with in this. I see no reason why a more "atheistic society" - which I assume to mean a society in which fewer people profess belief in a supernatural, supreme (or at least superior) being - will have less use for serious music, except in the obvious context of religious observance (but how much artistically serious music is actually heard in that context?). Music's value for the many atheists among us (of whom I am one) has nothing to do with the supernatural, and our love of music, like our love of anything, is not grounded in "authority."

Religion itself, with its reifications of human imaginings, is a kind of art appreciated by many people whose artistic tastes are on the whole dismayingly shallow; just ask those fundamentalists who, on Sunday, tremble in awe of the cinematic fantasies of Revelation and the Rapture, what kind of music they listen to on Monday - or, even better, what they watch on television. The atheists and agnostics I know, however, listen to Monteverdi, Bruckner, Wagner and Stravinsky, and are more likely to keep up with scientific discoveries and world affairs than with the Kardashians. I don't want to conclude too much from this, or to oversimplify or stereotype anyone, but the independent (of religion) power of art, and its inherent meaning for those capable and desirous of understanding it (and capable and desirous of thinking independently of "authority") seems pretty obvious to me.

Why would an atheistic society's art degenerate into mere frivolous entertainment, when religion is not only no guarantor of seriousness, but obviously and often relieves people of the serious responsibility of thinking for themselves?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I don't see what others find to agree with in this. I see no reason why a more "atheistic society" - which I assume to mean a society in which fewer people profess belief in a supernatural, supreme (or at least superior) being - will have less use for serious music, except in the obvious context of religious observance (but how much artistically serious music is actually heard in that context?). Music's value for the many atheists among us (of whom I am one) has nothing to do with the supernatural, and our love of music, like our love of anything, is not grounded in "authority."


Art and music, especially music, is an act of "being in time," and as such, is connected inextricably to the sacred fact of our existence. This is a "sacred fact" of our existence. So, although being is not "supernatural," it is nonetheless "sacred" in a very practical and very real way. We will all eventually die, and we wish to preserve this sacred state of existence.

In this sense, as a "spiritual" being ("spiritual" being used here not in a metaphysical or supernatural way, but as a term which expresses our innate sense of being) who listens to music, you are, indeed, engaging in a sacred act, even as a professed atheist.



> Religion itself, with its reifications of human imaginings, is a kind of art appreciated by many people whose artistic tastes are on the whole dismayingly shallow; just ask those fundamentalists who, on Sunday, tremble in awe of the cinematic fantasies of Revelation and the Rapture, what kind of music they listen to on Monday - or, even better, what they watch on television.


As atheists, you are as guilty as religious believers: you are dealing with an unprovable assertion which is better left to the metaphysical realm.



> The atheists and agnostics I know, however, listen to Monteverdi, Bruckner, Wagner and Stravinsky, and are more likely to keep up with scientific discoveries and world affairs than with the Kardashians. I don't want to conclude too much from this, or to oversimplify or stereotype anyone, but the independent (of religion) power of art, and its inherent meaning for those capable and desirous of understanding it (and capable and desirous of thinking independently of "authority") seems pretty obvious to me.


This is the birthright of every human being: the ability to think independently. The "scientific" literal mindset is what keeps people from truly submitting to the talismanic power of art.



> Why would an atheistic society's art degenerate into mere frivolous entertainment, when religion is not only no guarantor of seriousness, but obviously and often relieves people of the serious responsibility of thinking for themselves?


Because the atheist mindset is based on contradictions, and scientific literalness. They completely reject that which they cannot quantify and therefore control; it's no wonder that John Cage's aleatoric excursions upset them so.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Art and music, especially music, is an act of "being in time," and as such, is connected inextricably to the sacred fact of our existence. This is a "sacred fact" of our existence. So, although being is not "supernatural," it is nonetheless "sacred" in a very practical and very real way. We will all eventually die, and we wish to preserve this sacred state of existence.
> 
> In this sense, as a "spiritual" being ("spiritual" being used here not in a metaphysical or supernatural way, but as a term which expresses our innate sense of being) who listens to music, you are, indeed, engaging in a sacred act, even as a professed atheist.
> 
> ...


There is no such thing as an "atheist mindset." Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the undemonstrable assertion that a supernatural deity exists. It is not an "unprovable assertion," but the rational refusal to assent to one. It involves no contradictions. Your preachy fulminations about "sacredness" and "spirituality" are pointless, and - as usual - insulting to people whose beliefs don't accord with yours.

I have news for you: the religious have no monopoly on values or spiritual insight. Some of us nonreligious, however, do have the self-knowledge, steadiness and clarity of mind, humility, and good manners not to yammer on and on about the "spiritual" deficiencies of people who rightly don't give a fig for our arrogant judgments.

You are telling non-believers in Jehovah or Vishnu or Zeus or whoever - stuck, according to you, in some "scientific literal mindset" - that they cannot "truly submit to the talismanic power of art." Whether or not this means anything real at all, it's a damned strange thing to say about vast numbers of people whose musical perceptions are surely the equal of yours. I can assure you that we exist.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Amazing to hear that atheists (and presumably agnostics) are especially upset by aleatoric music. You heard it hear first, folks. Isn't this place great? 

Yes, all those who do not believe
Will never succeed to achieve
A taste for John Cage.
They’ll fly in a rage
and sulk in a sullen dark peeve.


----------



## jailhouse (Sep 2, 2016)

I'm an atheist an my favorite composers are messiaen and j.s. bach, so...

if you think atheists dont get the same *~*~spiritually uplifting*~*~ feeling from religious composers' music then you're not thinking clearly

edit



Nevum said:


> I am as atheist and agnostic as it gets. And I definitely love religious music. Especially requiems. In my opinion, religion is a refection of anxiety and a human defense mechanism to the unknown. And religious classical music is the best possible expression of this human weakness and anxiety.


lol completely nailed it. Bravo, thread end


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Your (statements) about "sacredness" and "spirituality" are...insulting to people whose beliefs don't accord with yours.





> I have news for you: the religious have no monopoly on values or spiritual insight.


Ahh, so "spirituality" is nonsense, except when YOU want it to be in your favor?



> You are telling non-believers...that they cannot "truly submit to the talismanic power of art."


That's correct. Especially when they try to separate the religious meaning of the work from the music. You might as well be listening to John Cage's Etudes Australes. It has no "content" either.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

jailhouse said:


> I'm an atheist an my favorite composers are messiaen and j.s. bach, so...if you think atheists dont get the same spiritually uplifting feeling from religious composers' music then you're…blah, blah


We are all spiritual to begin with; religion is a tool only to enhance that.

Religious music is also just a tool, to enhance our spirituality. In that primary sense, religious music is accessible to all people, believers and non-believers. I never denied that "primary" response. But you must accept the premise of a primary "spirituality" which precedes all religious dogma.

But religious music, like J.S. Bach, although it has primary spiritual power (as most all music does), also was intended to convey a specific religious message.

Non-believers will not experience the full talismanic power of the music if they try to separate the music, as a complete work, from its intended religious message.

They will be too busy being "rational" about the music. Their rational mind, which rejects such metaphysical things, is in the realm of scientific impotence, as far as this kind of religiously-charged music is concerned.

Atheists, especially, are rational and scientific, since they can't understand the idea of "belief," or "faith." They must have things "proven" to them.

Frankly, I doubt that these rational atheists are even able to tap-into the primary "spiritual" aspects of music. I have no idea what they are experiencing when they get "uplifted" by Bach. A form of rationally mild amusement, perhaps?

The "scientific" literal mindset is what keeps these people, these atheists, from truly submitting to the talismanic power of art, because the atheist mindset is based on contradictions, and scientific literalness. They completely reject that which they cannot quantify and therefore control.

These people are not of any "spirit;" they are rationalists. That's the atheist mindset.




> You are telling non-believers in Jehovah or Vishnu or Zeus or whoever - stuck, according to you, in some "scientific literal mindset" - that they cannot "truly submit to the talismanic power of art."


Those are just scriptures, talismans, and dogma. The spirit supersedes all of that. If an atheist recognizes that he has a spiritual dimension, the music will affect him; but only in that way.

No non-believer will get the full effect of the talismanic power of a specifically dogmatic religion's music or art, unless that religion or art contains an implicit recognition that the spirit is primary, and universal, and that the function of religion comes after that.



> Whether or not this means anything real at all, it's a damned strange thing to say about vast numbers of people whose musical perceptions are surely the equal of yours. I can assure you that we exist.



I have no idea if they are "in their spirit" or "in their mind." You do exist, though, I recognize that.

Remember, you must accept the premise of a primary "spirituality" which precedes all religious dogma in order to get at the essence of music. You accept it by "being."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Amazing to hear that atheists (and presumably agnostics) are especially upset by aleatoric music. You heard it…blah, blah


I'm generalizing for convenience. A rational mindset is better suited to science, not art and metaphysics, unless it's just a diversion.



> Yes, all those who do not believe
> Will never succeed to achieve
> A taste for John Cage.


I never said that. Buddhism, and John Cage, is a good example of "spirituality" in music, and this requires no belief; only a clean mind & body, and awareness, and being.



> They'll fly in a rage
> and sulk in a sullen dark peeve.


They probably will. Then again, they are so rational that they will channel that anger in some other way, like writing poetry.

Maybe atheists would prefer Morton Feldman to John Cage. His music is like "existential spirituality" with no joy.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Atheists, especially, are rational and scientific, since they can't understand the idea of "belief," or "faith." They must have things "proven" to them.


On the contrary. As an atheist, I have faith that there is no God, in spite of the lack of proof for - and unprovability of - his nonexistence.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Philosophical question: If atheists can't appreciate religious music, are religious people unable to appreciate a secular work like Brahms' German requiem?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Philosophical question: If atheists can't appreciate religious music, are religious people unable to appreciate a secular work like Brahms' German requiem?


Interesting question but I believe your premise is based on a single ignorant opinion about atheists. I really doubt the vast majority of religious people think you need to be religious to appreciate religious music.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Interesting question but I believe your premise is based on a single ignorant opinion about atheists.


Be that as it may, I'm just asking: If we for the sake of argument concede the first, does the second then necessarily also apply?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Be that as it may, I'm just asking: If we for the sake of argument concede the first, does the second then necessarily also apply?


I don't see an argument for it, no.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Philosophical question: If atheists can't appreciate religious music, are religious people unable to appreciate a secular work like Brahms' German requiem?


I enjoy Brahm's German requiem and it is the only requiem I will listen to because I don't agree with the religious basis (mass for the dead) of other requiems. Brahms requiem is simply a work to comfort the bereaved--a worthy cause.


----------



## Vinyl (Jan 22, 2014)

I haven't read the entire thread, but I have no religion and enjoy religious music just fine. Nothing has informed me more deeply about religious sentiments than music. The St Matthew Passion made me feel actual grief for Christ. Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan made me feel the joy and intensity of letting yourself go in the pursuit of *something* (call it ihsan if it matters to you).
If I actually believed the stories they convey so beautifully, perhaps the feeling would be even more profound, who knows. But I don't, so it goes no deeper than any other piece of art, book, or movie that moved me. I can live with that. 

I wish they had pipe organs in less ... uh ... imposing buildings, though.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Thanks to Nereffid, Vinyl and others for stating simply what should be obvious: music moves human beings because they are human, not because they have specific beliefs about the supernatural, creation, salvation, or immortality. These factors make no difference to people's capacity to experience music's power - or their ability to compose profound, powerful, beautiful music, on religious themes or otherwise. 

Having grown up surrounded by people who held very narrow beliefs and strong prejudices against those who looked, behaved, and thought differently, I'm not surprised to encounter such prejudices in certain subcultures of society, and so I suppose it shouldn't be surprising to encounter them here. But no prejudices are more potentially dangerous that those of people who feel justified by some "sacred" principle or entity inaccessible to and superior to rational analysis or challenge. Beliefs untouchable by reason fueled the fires that burned "witches" at the stake, and the bombs of those who would demonize and destroy the "infidel"; civilization is presently witnessing a wave of such irrational horrors right now, and it isn't some fictional "atheist mindset" that's responsible for them. It's dismaying to see anything resembling religious bigotry on a forum where people of every ideological persuasion have come together because music is capable of speaking profoundly to them. 

It may provide a little perspective on the relevance of religion to music to recall that Bach, Haydn, Bruckner, Liszt, Dvorak, Messiaen and Stravinsky were Christians; Beethoven and Mozart were deists; Debussy was a pantheist; Brahms and Tchaikovsky were agnostics or atheists; and Wagner, Schumann, Saint-Saens, Bizet, Rimsky-Korsakov, Delius, Janacek, Strauss, Ravel, Vaughan Williams, Bartok, Prokofiev, Shostakovich and Tippett were explicit atheists.

What you or I may happen to believe, shouldn't be open to question or criticism here.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Imagine yourself walking with your friend through a beautiful garden with beautiful flowers, and as you stop and savor the smell of some roses your friend in all seriousness says, “Isn’t it a beautiful garden the magic garden-pixies have created for us with their glittering magic spells? So wondrous, their powers! Such beauty they create!” And you reply, “Uh, well, no I don’t believe in them. I’m just enjoying nature. It’s beautiful here.” To which they reply, “What a shame you cannot enjoy this garden on the same level as I. If only you believed in the magic garden-pixies. You’d understand the beauty I’m talking about.”

That’s what this argument is like.

I’ve enjoyed music, even that of a religious nature, while both as a Christian and as an atheist and can tell you the experience is similar. For me, it’s Bach’s Cantata 140. Has always given me goosebumps my whole life. Still does. So beautiful.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Thanks to Nereffid, Vinyl and others for stating simply what should be obvious: music moves human beings because they are human, not because they have specific beliefs about the supernatural, creation, salvation, or immortality. These factors make no difference to people's capacity to experience music's power - or their ability to compose profound, powerful, beautiful music, on religious themes or otherwise.
> 
> Having grown up surrounded by people who held very narrow beliefs and strong prejudices against those who looked, behaved, and thought differently, I'm not surprised to encounter such prejudices in certain subcultures of society, and so I suppose it shouldn't be surprising to encounter them here. But no prejudices are more potentially dangerous that those of people who feel justified by some "sacred" principle or entity inaccessible to and superior to rational analysis or challenge. Beliefs untouchable by reason fueled the fires that burned "witches" at the stake, and the bombs of those who would demonize and destroy the "infidel"; civilization is presently witnessing a wave of such irrational horrors right now, and it isn't some fictional "atheist mindset" that's responsible for them. It's dismaying to see anything resembling religious bigotry on a forum where people of every ideological persuasion have come together because music is capable of speaking profoundly to them.
> 
> ...


As a music-loving rational atheist, I can be moved by music of a religious or secular nature. But when it happens, I don't attribute that response to some ineffable deity moving in mysterious ways. Music, and our response to and need for it, is quite mysterious enough.

And don't diss the garden pixies - they have feelings too!


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

As a fervent atheist, I'll say that Mozart's Ave verum corpus is probably the most beautiful music ever written.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Harold in Columbia said:


> I suspect that music - likewise all the other arts - may be literally religious. That is, like the existence of God, its value as anything other than frivolous entertainment (and maybe a way to grow brain cells or whatever) ultimately has to be accepted on authority. So, as our society becomes more and more atheistic, we'll also, for the same reasons, become more and more indifferent to music. (Speaking as an atheist.) Enjoy the interim, I guess.


1 Samuel 16: 14 - 23 is the Biblical story about God & music. The story's ingredients are King Saul, visits by a spirit that causes fits of anger and David's playing on the lyre to return peace of mind to the King. This playing on the lyre is the beginning of Classical music (John Dowland took inspiration from this story). Classical music haunts away the haunting spirit of uncontrolled anger. It worked for King Saul and it wouldn't do so today?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Pat Fairlea said:


> And don't diss the garden pixies - they have feelings too!


----------



## Voltair (Oct 10, 2017)

Hi Ladies and Gents. Glad to meet you all.

I too consider myself an atheist (tattoo on arm to boot) and while I don't know classical music as well as you all just reading through here, I do like the religious classical that I know, and going into the present a bit so I apologize, but in my mind John Tesh is an incredible piano player I enjoy listening to and he's pretty religiously inspired. To me anyway, all music that can capture your mind and grab your soul (for a lack of a better word) is spiritual.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

I am an atheist and I also enjoy sacred music. I love JS Bach's cantatas, passions, and mass in B minor as much as I love Beethoven's symphonies, sonatas, and concertos. I do wonder sometimes how religious certain composers actually were. Music would always have come first even if that thought stayed firmly in the composers' minds. The reason being is it is easy to be religious, you just have to pray all the time and go to church at least once a week. To write say one cantata a week from scratch alongside other duties, now that takes some talent, patience, dutifulness, and most of all, genius. These men wouldn't have had much time to stop and think about something they could never see. But keep quiet about that, hmm?!


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Another atheist here. 

I don't care what the subject matter or the religious motivations of the composer, good music is good music, based on its own merit.

The only thing that bothers me, is if lyrically, it gets too preachy.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't see a correlation between belief, or a lack there of and musical taste.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Please concentrate on music and your enjoyment of it rather than discussing religion.

A number of posts discussing religion have been removed.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Taggart said:


> Please concentrate on music and your enjoyment of it rather than discussing religion.
> 
> A number of posts discussing religion have been removed.


Only a number mind. I recall bringing it back to music.


----------

