# Non-christian religious classical music?



## lupinix

As european classical music stems from a christian tradition, most spiritual classical pieces are christian. I know Cage's way of writing music is influenced on Zen buddhism (though I don't like his music or at least not yet), but I know but few other example of a classical composer (I believe Ton de Leeuw but not sure?) making religious music which isn't classical. 

I'd like to know if there's more religious classical music, or maybe even masslike/ritual, which is for other religions like islam or hinduism, or maybe paganism/shamanism things like that


----------



## MJongo

The closest thing I can think of is an album called Hosianna Mantra by Popol Vuh, though it probably isn't what you are looking for:


----------



## lupinix

MJongo said:


> The closest thing I can think of is an album called Hosianna Mantra by Popol Vuh, though it probably isn't what you are looking for:


not really but thanks anyway I'm gonna listen to it ^^


----------



## mountmccabe

Gregory Brown's Missa Charles Darwin is written in the style/form of a Catholic mass using texts on evolution. There are excerpts on YouTube.

I am not familiar with much non-Christian sacred music but that seems like an interesting area to explore; there certainly is a lot out there.


----------



## ahammel

mountmccabe said:


> Gregory Brown's Missa Charles Darwin is written in the style/form of a Catholic mass using texts on evolution. There are excerpts on YouTube.


Charlie did not exactly write prose that begs to be set to music.


----------



## ahammel

Delius's _Mass of Life_ is a setting of Neitzsche's writings.

Wagner considered the life of the Buddah as the subject of an opera.

Glass' _Akhnaten_ is about ancient Egyptian religion.

EDIT: oh yes, and there's Schoenberg's _Moses und Aron_, of course.


----------



## Mahlerian

ahammel said:


> Wagner considered the life of the Buddah as the subject of an opera.


And Jonathan Harvey wrote an opera based on Wagner considering writing that opera....


----------



## ahammel

Mahlerian said:


> And Jonathan Harvey wrote an opera based on Wagner considering writing that opera....


An opera about almost writing an opera? Sounds extremely dull.

There are, of course, many composers who chose to express themselves using the forms and words of Christian worship without being orthodox believers themselves (Brahms, Fauré, Verdi, Vaughan Williams, Rachmaninoff(?)) You may or may not wish to count those.


----------



## Mahlerian

ahammel said:


> An opera about almost writing an opera? Sounds extremely dull.


Well, it's not just that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Dream



ahammel said:


> There are, of course, many composers who chose to express themselves using the forms and words of Christian worship without being orthodox believers themselves (Brahms, Fauré, Verdi, Vaughan Williams, Rachmaninoff(?)) You may or may not wish to count those.


Mahler too, in the 8th. Mahler believed in God, but his concept of God was not orthodox at all. He once said told someone who asked why he hadn't written a Mass that he couldn't, in good faith, set the Credo.


----------



## joen_cph

If we expand the subject a bit towards mythology or philosophy, there are more examples.

_Nørgård_´s percussion piece "I Ching" is based on the ancient Chinese book of wisdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching
It also exists in a spectacular version as a percussion concerto, Gert Mortensen´s recording being recommended.

The Gilgamesh Myth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh has been the subject of several pieces, including an opera by _Nørgård_ and the vocal work by _Martinu_.

_Scelsi_ has a lot of esoteric titles, such as the Maya-myth inspired Uaxuctum 




_Villa-Lobos_ wrote the Uirapuru ballet inspired by Amazon folk tales http://www.ravenousbirds.com/eolson/papers/villalobos.html


----------



## dgee

Jonathan Harvey, as noted above, references all sorts of religion in his works. There's lots of Buddhism, but there's also some Hinduism (and obviously there is some cross-pollination between Hindu and Buddhism) and a guitar piece called Sufi - alongside Christianity. 

You can probably DYOR on Judaism in western classical music ;-)

I think it might be more "local colour" than religious music per se, but Silvestre Revueltas's Night of the Mayans is a thing that exists - maybe look into latin american music a bit?


----------



## PetrB

Toshiro Mayuzumi ( 黛 敏郎 ) ~ Nirvana-Symphony 





Darius Milhaud ~ Service Sacré op.279





Leonard Bernstein ~ Symphony No. 3 "Kaddish"

Maurice Ravel ~ Deux Mélodies hébraïques (one is a Kaddish)

If you consider them holy rather than cultural artifact (and there is that latter regard by westerners on much outside its own sphere), then works like Alberto Ginastera's _Cantata para América Mágica_ for soprano and large percussion ensemble, using pre-colimbian texts then gets included. [[ADD the musical idiom is 'western' and contemporary, the composer's own vs. any attempt at recreating or imitating the 'ethnic' Ancient American musics.]]


----------



## joen_cph

Well, for some reason we have totally forgotten the world of Nordic mythology, probably because of it being (in the main) extint;

the most monumental efforts to revive its world were probably those of _Jon Leifs_ ("Edda", http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2009/Apr09/Leifs_Edda_bissacd1350.htm, "Baldr" etc.)

_Geirr Tveitt_ also worked with the Baldr myth, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geirr_Tveitt.

The Kalevala myth https://www.google.dk/#q=kalevala is mostly known from the _Sibelius_ pieces, but _Uuno Klami _has also made a spectacular orchestral suite from it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uuno_Klami ,

and _Veljo Tormis_ has worked with choral works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veljo_Tormis, such as http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/tormis-vision-of-kalevala/


----------



## lupinix

Thank you all! Many great and interesting suggestions already 



joen_cph said:


> If we expand the subject a bit towards mythology or philosophy, there are more examples.


Ah yes why not, anything related to religion/spirituality would be nice



PetrB said:


> If you consider them holy rather than cultural artifact (and there is that latter regard by westerners on much outside its own sphere),


not sure what "holy rather than cultural artifact" means, I don't care very much about the word art though, and I think evenly of non western culture as western culture (although "holy" sounds as if it is even more special?)


----------



## lupinix

joen_cph said:


> Well, for some reason we have totally forgotten the theme of Nordic Mythology;
> 
> the most monumental efforts were probably those of _Jon Leifs_ ("Edda", http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2009/Apr09/Leifs_Edda_bissacd1350.htm, "Baldr" etc.)
> 
> _Geirr Tveitt_ also worked with the Baldr myth, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geirr_Tveitt.
> 
> The Kalevala myth https://www.google.dk/#q=kalevala is mostly known from the Sibelius pieces, but _Uuno Klami _has also made a spectacular orchestral suite from it etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uuno_Klami , and _Veljo Tormis_ has worked with choral works from it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veljo_Tormis, such as http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/tormis-vision-of-kalevala/


funny, I just thought of thay myself while reading "If we expand the subject a bit towards mythology or philosophy", thank you!


----------



## Aramis

Pagan religious rites at the half-legendary Irminsul:


----------



## PetrB

lupinix said:


> ... not sure what "holy rather than cultural artifact" means


Sacred rather than, through a lens of bias, thinking of the other culture's sacred things as 'quaint' spiritual artifact -- i.e. not at all sacred but a mere folk tale.

_The "God is real but Zeus and Odin are quaint antiquated stories," sort of thinking._


----------



## ahammel

Bartók's _Cantata Profana_ is a bit of and odd case. On the one hand, Bartók considered it his "most profound credo". On the other hand, the words do not by any means make it clear what that credo is, and it's explicitly a worldly ("profane") piece of music rather than a sacred one.

Bartók was an atheist who took an interest in Unitarianism later in life (I do not believe the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.)


----------



## lupinix

PetrB said:


> Sacred rather than, through a lens of bias, thinking of the other culture's sacred things as 'quaint' spiritual artifact -- i.e. not at all sacred but a mere folk tale.
> 
> _The "God is real but Zeus and Odin are quaint antiquated stories," sort of thinking._


Ah I understand ^^


----------



## hreichgott

I think there's a difference between music which is animated by a religious purpose and music that uses religion as an interesting creative element. The pieces for Odin etc. I think would only be religious if written by someone who was devoted to Odin or written for the purposes of Odin worship, or both.

Here is some music for synagogue by a contemporary of Monteverdi, Salamone Rossi.


----------



## PetrB

As much a 'religion' as is Zen Buddhism, i.e. at least as much philosophy entwined with pragmatica, blended with a healthy dose of 'mysticism'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff#Music
(there is a segment specifically on the music, dance, etc.)

Gurdjieff ~ Sacred songs in the monastary, for chant, songs and dance.
In the Monastery:




Sacred Dance




Sacred Dances




A demonstration of Gurdieff Sacred Danses


----------



## PetrB

ahammel said:


> Bartók's _Cantata Profana_ is a bit of and odd case. On the one hand, Bartók considered it his "most profound credo". On the other hand, the words do not by any means make it clear what that credo is, and it's explicitly a worldly ("profane") piece of music rather than a sacred one.
> 
> Bartók was an atheist who took an interest in Unitarianism later in life (I do not believe the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.)


The texts are profane, and 'pagan.' Bartok loved and probably revered nature (all that out of doors and quite specifically night music, evoking forests, fauna (insects, birds). The Cantata is a magnificent and (imo) gorgeous large scale choral work for large forces... large choir and orchestra near always tipping just about any listener from the western cultures to near automatically perceive it as sacred, and / or solemn or joyous rite.


----------



## PetrB

The Ramayana Monkey Chant ("Ketjak")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kecak

The link is a longish fragment from the full-length track.





The following is for me THE recording, (all Balinese music, Gamelan music, etc. in superb done-on-location field recordings -- which I owned for many years until I wore it out... (for all its tracks The original LP recording was later re-released in CD format, then dropped out of the catalogue. I have not looked lately; it may have been put back in circulation. My being deeply attracted to the music, this recording has me deeply biased enough to urge just about anyone, unreservedly, to find and procure a copy of it.

_This is the real deal,_ an entire village, men, women, children, the occasional dog and other fauna heard within the overall ambiance. The choppy sound and rhythm is part and parcel of this narrative, a hero's battle with a demon, the belief being that demons cannot travel but in straight lines -- a pervasive tenet through a number of Asian cultures (viz, the zig-zag layout of planks or stones covering streams, garden paths, etc.)


----------



## hpowders

PetrB said:


> The Ramayana Monkey Chant ("Ketjak")
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kecak
> 
> The link is a longish fragment from the full-length track.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is for me THE recording, was re-issued in a CD (all Balinese music, Gamelan music, etc. in superb done-on-location field recordings -- which I owned for many years until I wore it... (for all its tracks The original LP recording was re-released in CD format, then dropped out of the catalogue. I have not looked lately, but it might have been put back into circulation. My being deeply attracted to the music, this recording has me deeply biased enough to urge just about anyone, unreservedly, to find and procure a copy of it.
> 
> _This is the real deal,_ an entire village, men, women, children, the occasional dog and other fauna heard within the overall ambiance. The choppy sound and rhythm is part and parcel of this narrative, a hero's battle with a demon, the belief being that demons cannot travel but in straight lines -- a pervasive tenet through a number of Asian cultures (viz, the zig-zag layout of planks or stones covering streams, garden paths, etc.)


Not my thing.

Thanks.

hpowders


----------



## ahammel

hreichgott said:


> I think there's a difference between music which is animated by a religious purpose and music that uses religion as an interesting creative element. The pieces for Odin etc. I think would only be religious if written by someone who was devoted to Odin or written for the purposes of Odin worship, or both.


Well, there's music on the topic of religion, and then there's music that is used in the context of religion (e.g., church music), and then there's music written to express a personal religious feeling or belief.

I'm sure one could fill in all the holes on that Venn diagram if one were so inclined.


----------



## lupinix

hreichgott said:


> I think there's a difference between music which is animated by a religious purpose and music that uses religion as an interesting creative element. The pieces for Odin etc. I think would only be religious if written by someone who was devoted to Odin or written for the purposes of Odin worship, or both.
> 
> Here is some music for synagogue by a contemporary of Monteverdi, Salamone Rossi.


Yeah I think so too, but I am just happy with everything that comes close that people post  thank you!


----------



## lupinix

ahammel said:


> Well, there's music on the topic of religion, and then there's music that is used in the context of religion (e.g., church music), and then there's music written to express a personal religious feeling or belief.
> 
> I'm sure one could fill in all the holes on that Venn diagram if one were so inclined.


true, and Im interested in all atm  mostly though in music that is either a real part of spiritual ritual (like a mass but of course it can be instrumental too) or at least can be used with a ritual in a religious way, or music that is about the personal religious feeling or belief


----------



## Simon Moon

How about Michael Tippett's 'King Priam'?

The libretto is based on The Iliad.


----------



## hreichgott

PetrB said:


> The Ramayana Monkey Chant ("Ketjak")
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kecak
> 
> The link is a longish fragment from the full-length track.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is for me THE recording, (all Balinese music, Gamelan music, etc. in superb done-on-location field recordings -- which I owned for many years until I wore it out... (for all its tracks The original LP recording was later re-released in CD format, then dropped out of the catalogue. I have not looked lately; it may have been put back in circulation. My being deeply attracted to the music, this recording has me deeply biased enough to urge just about anyone, unreservedly, to find and procure a copy of it.
> 
> _This is the real deal,_ an entire village, men, women, children, the occasional dog and other fauna heard within the overall ambiance. The choppy sound and rhythm is part and parcel of this narrative, a hero's battle with a demon, the belief being that demons cannot travel but in straight lines -- a pervasive tenet through a number of Asian cultures (viz, the zig-zag layout of planks or stones covering streams, garden paths, etc.)


This was seriously cool.


----------



## violadude

PetrB said:


> The Ramayana Monkey Chant ("Ketjak")
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kecak
> 
> The link is a longish fragment from the full-length track.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is for me THE recording, (all Balinese music, Gamelan music, etc. in superb done-on-location field recordings -- which I owned for many years until I wore it out... (for all its tracks The original LP recording was later re-released in CD format, then dropped out of the catalogue. I have not looked lately; it may have been put back in circulation. My being deeply attracted to the music, this recording has me deeply biased enough to urge just about anyone, unreservedly, to find and procure a copy of it.
> 
> _This is the real deal,_ an entire village, men, women, children, the occasional dog and other fauna heard within the overall ambiance. The choppy sound and rhythm is part and parcel of this narrative, a hero's battle with a demon, the belief being that demons cannot travel but in straight lines -- a pervasive tenet through a number of Asian cultures (viz, the zig-zag layout of planks or stones covering streams, garden paths, etc.)


I LOVE the monkey chant. First heard about it in a World Music History class last year.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

There's an obvious one no one has mentioned, Bruch's Kol Nidrei






Music for Yom Kippur, in this case being played for the Pope.


----------



## Alfacharger

Mendelssohn's "Die Erste Walpurgisnacht".






Jerry Goldsmith's "Christus Apollo". Based on a Bradbury poem, it is an unconventional take on Christ.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Taoist


----------



## Vinyl

During my first visit to Baku in the late nineties, I stumbled over a box set of Azeri classical music, and for a while listened to it quite often. There were a couple of composers that stood out, and one of them was Fikret Amirov. 

His work was all done during the Soviet era, so any religious significance was toned down, but he was heavily influenced by old Azeri folk music, in particular the mugam. He made a whole new genre by incorporating the mugam in orchestral music. Now the mugam wasn't sacred or in-your-face religious, but many of the songs deal with prayer, and the heritage is definitely more eastern and Arab than "European" or christian. 

So that would be my tip: Fikret Amirov's symphonic mugams. Even if it fails to be religious enough for you, I'm sure you'll enjoy the 'exotic' flavour of it. Or, I did, anyway. 


The music that, for me, embodies worship as much as any mass or passion from the Western world is the Sufi inspired music of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, but I guess that's not 'classical' in the sense you're after...?


----------



## mtmailey

Such music is rare not going to be easy to find anyway.


----------



## lupinix

Vinyl said:


> During my first visit to Baku in the late nineties, I stumbled over a box set of Azeri classical music, and for a while listened to it quite often. There were a couple of composers that stood out, and one of them was Fikret Amirov.
> 
> His work was all done during the Soviet era, so any religious significance was toned down, but he was heavily influenced by old Azeri folk music, in particular the mugam. He made a whole new genre by incorporating the mugam in orchestral music. Now the mugam wasn't sacred or in-your-face religious, but many of the songs deal with prayer, and the heritage is definitely more eastern and Arab than "European" or christian.
> 
> So that would be my tip: Fikret Amirov's symphonic mugams. Even if it fails to be religious enough for you, I'm sure you'll enjoy the 'exotic' flavour of it. Or, I did, anyway.
> 
> The music that, for me, embodies worship as much as any mass or passion from the Western world is the Sufi inspired music of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, but I guess that's not 'classical' in the sense you're after...?


it may not be that "classical" in the sense I meant it (refering mostly to music of western tradition which is religious but not christian, but I might have been not too clear deliberately because Im just interested in much music and also was interested in what people might make of it and if there would be discussions on what is "really religious" music) but it is interesting still, I like eastern music a lot ^^


----------



## lupinix

mtmailey said:


> Such music is rare not going to be easy to find anyway.


I know, thats why I ask ^^ People might already found some, maybe not even intentionally.


----------



## Orange Soda King

Charles-Valentin Alkan was Jewish, and wrote music inspired by his devotion and enthusiasm toward Judaism.


----------



## cjvinthechair

http://classical-music-online.net/en/production/13772

Fikret Amirov Symphonic Mugam 'Kurd Afshari'.


----------



## Vinyl

Nice find. 
Not explicitly religious, but the folk songs that inspire and inform Amirov are often at the very least spiritual in nature. As far as I know.


----------



## sankalp

For me music it self is a religion of its own.If you are open to soulful music you can listen to some of indian classicals like hindustani and pakistans sufi, qawali, indian carnatic musics especially the instrument would give you a heavenly experience.


----------



## science

I'm not sure about the category "classical" so I won't push too hard, but I enjoyed this album today:










There's a lot of things to like about that music.


----------



## mtmailey

I believe there is non-christian religious music it maybe hard to find though it is rare as you know.


----------



## millionrainbows

First, we need to clear up what is implied by the opening post; i.e., that 'religious' music is 'tied' to specific cultures and religions. While this is true on some level, it is not a requirement of 'sacred' music. So, for me, the question is rather superficial.

Messiaen's music, while referring to mystic Catholicism, is nonetheless universal in its appeal, as well as containing many non-Western musical elements (Rhythms derived from India, Balinese scales, etc.

Beethoven's Ninth, as well as Mahler's Eighth, both contain references to God and Man which seek to be universal, and to 'separate' themselves from an overt Christian statement of doctrine. I consider this to be admirable in today's world.


----------



## Jobis

ahammel said:


> Bartók's _Cantata Profana_ is a bit of and odd case. On the one hand, Bartók considered it his "most profound credo". On the other hand, the words do not by any means make it clear what that credo is, and it's explicitly a worldly ("profane") piece of music rather than a sacred one.
> 
> Bartók was an atheist who took an interest in Unitarianism later in life (I do not believe the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.)


They're by definition mutually exclusive.

Atheism = the belief that there is no god.
Unitarianism is a form of theism.

Many self-proclaimed 'atheists' merely view the issue of God's existence as unknowable or irrelevant, which is not true atheism but a kind of doubtful or sceptic agnosticism.


----------



## DavidA

Interesting that atheists are now starting 'churches' to 'worship' in. And they call believers wacky!


----------



## Blake

Well, atheism is a belief system as well. It's the belief that there is no god. But hey, different strokes.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Well, atheism is a belief system as well. It's the belief that there is no god. But hey, different strokes.


What is your name for someone who has no beliefs?


----------



## science

On topic here, again not sure whether it counts as "classical" music, I'm listening to volume nine of the Music of Islam series:

View attachment 40729


This is definitely classical-ish in the sense that it is obviously highly restrained - this isn't the music of shamans who can get possessed by just any old spirit and say just any old thing regardless of any political authorities; it is (like most traditional Christian music from Ambrosian and Byzantine chant right up until the 19th century or so) the music of people who need to be careful to channel their religious ecstasies into politically acceptable forms. In that sense, this music fits millionrainbow's classification of "sacred music," which probably isn't surprising since Rumi and the Mevlevi Order both probably fit his idea of "sacred" very closely.

But I'm not sure it's composer-centric. I haven't read the liner notes yet, but I'm guessing this is music that has been passed down by memory rather than writing. If my guess is right, then in that sense it should probably count as "folk" rather than "classical" music.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> What is your name for someone who has no beliefs?


Nothing. This obsession with naming the Universe is absurd. Just live. You don't always have to give into the mind's twisted desires to quantify everything.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Nothing. This obsession with naming the Universe is absurd. Just live. You don't always have to give into the mind's twisted desires to quantify everything.


Well, whatever name you'd give to the absence of belief, to that I aspire.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Well, whatever name you'd give to the absence of belief, to that I aspire.


I think that very wise. Believing shows a sort of discontent. It's reminiscent of people glorifying hope… well, to hope means you have to be on a foundation of misery…

so to be in a place where no beliefs are necessary nor matter... that seems like the ultimate to me.


----------



## lupinix

science said:


> What is your name for someone who has no beliefs?


I'm not sure it's possible to really believe nothing. I guess everyone has to believe thousands of things just to keep on living, and even more to talk about it. Btw believing doesn't mean you can't be critical or open to other possibilities.


----------



## science

lupinix said:


> I'm not sure it's possible to really believe nothing. I guess everyone has to believe thousands of things just to keep on living, and even more to talk about it. Btw believing doesn't mean you can't be critical or open to other possibilities.


No, I want to take nothing on faith if I can. If that's impossible, I want to take as little on faith as I can. I want my ideas about the world to be based as _exclusively_ on evidence and reason as possible. When the evidence is ambiguous (which is most of the time probably), I want to try to proportion my confidence in an idea to the weight of the evidence in its favor; when there is conflicting evidence I am willing to hold different provisional ideas in my mind simultaneously.

No beliefs at all, if I can do it; in any event, as few beliefs as possible, as little faith as possible - that is my goal.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> No, I want to take nothing on faith if I can. If that's impossible, I want to take as little on faith as I can. I want my ideas about the world to be based as _exclusively_ on evidence and reason as possible. When the evidence is ambiguous (which is most of the time probably), I want to try to proportion my confidence in an idea to the weight of the evidence in its favor; when there is conflicting evidence I am willing to hold different provisional ideas in my mind simultaneously.
> 
> No beliefs at all, if I can do it; in any event, as few beliefs as possible, as little faith as possible - that is my goal.


You could be believing too much in your mind. Watch out for that. They say the mind is a beautiful servant, but a wicked master.


----------



## Cosmos

science said:


> What is your name for someone who has no beliefs?


Atheism doesn't mean "I have no beliefs" it just says "I don't believe in god(s)/deities" Good example: a lot of Buddhists are atheists


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> You could be believing too much in your mind. Watch out for that. They say the mind is a beautiful servant, but a wicked master.


I guess that's a good point, so I want to make it clear that I think this is a collective enterprise. The challenge is to create human institutions that pool thought and labor and resources in ways that reward people for helping us understand the world more accurately _especially when their findings disconfirm our former ideas_.

That sounds like what we call "science" and for a good reason, but it applies to the way we do history, archaeology, religion, pretty much anything.

So, it's not about MY mind, I'm not in this alone; it's a project that includes an awful lot of wonderful, brilliant, albeit definitely flawed people. And as long as the institutional incentives are structured correctly, it appears that we can place a bit of confidence in their findings.

Also, I need to be clear that I'm fairly strict about the fact/value distinction at a fundamental level, and I'm glad you've brought this up because it's been nagging me a bit as I've made these posts that I need to make that clear. I'm using "belief" as "an idea about the world that cannot be justified using exclusively reason and evidence" and faith as "believing things about the world without evidence." So that's all strictly on the "fact" side of the distinction.

On the "value" side, there can only be something analogous to "belief." Values have some murky origins deep inside us; they can be (I would say "ought to be as much as possible") affected by reason and evidence, but unlike ideas on the "fact side" they are not and can never be purely rational or purely empirical.

So we have to have values and it's not a purely rational thing. Having good values may be a more difficult thing than getting good ideas, and it'd be interesting to discuss how we can know whether our values are good, but hitherto the discussion has only been about "faith" and "belief."


----------



## science

Cosmos said:


> Atheism doesn't mean "I have no beliefs" it just says "I don't believe in god(s)/deities" Good example: a lot of Buddhists are atheists


That's a great point. There are many kind of atheists.

I personally am not married to being an atheist. If the evidence points to the existence of a God or any supernatural being, I'll accept it.

But I am married to not having any faith, or having as little as I can. If you catch me believing something, let me know!


----------



## Morimur

Indian, Persian and Japanese Classical are religious, non-Christian musics.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> I guess that's a good point, so I want to make it clear that I think this is a collective enterprise. The challenge is to create human institutions that pool thought and labor and resources in ways that reward people for helping us understand the world more accurately _especially when their findings disconfirm our former ideas_.
> 
> That sounds like what we call "science" and for a good reason, but it applies to the way we do history, archaeology, religion, pretty much anything.
> 
> So, it's not about MY mind, I'm not in this alone; it's a project that includes an awful lot of wonderful, brilliant, albeit definitely flawed people. And as long as the institutional incentives are structured correctly, it appears that we can place a bit of confidence in their findings.
> 
> Also, I need to be clear that I'm fairly strict about the fact/value distinction at a fundamental level, and I'm glad you've brought this up because it's been nagging me a bit as I've made these posts that I need to make that clear. I'm using "belief" as "an idea about the world that cannot be justified using exclusively reason and evidence" and faith as "believing things about the world without evidence." So that's all strictly on the "fact" side of the distinction.
> 
> On the "value" side, there can only be something analogous to "belief." Values have some murky origins deep inside us; they can be (I would say "ought to be as much as possible") affected by reason and evidence, but unlike ideas on the "fact side" they are not and can never be purely rational or purely empirical.
> 
> So we have to have values and it's not a purely rational thing. Having good values may be a more difficult thing than getting good ideas, and it'd be interesting to discuss how we can know whether our values are good, but hitherto the discussion has only been about "faith" and "belief."


Yea, I've said many times that I'm a big fan of scientific thought.

However, funny thing I've noticed through years of taking classes and studying science in varying ways is that all the theories and extrapolations are simply gross simplifications of things that are much 'bigger' and 'abstract.' And combining these theories covers more ground, but it's still not enough. Sure, on an intellectual level they can produce some satisfaction and contentment, but on the truly experiential level there is something missing… you see what I'm saying?

Just because we can't write a mathematical theory about something doesn't mean it can't be scientific. It's like learning how to consistently achieve some inner state through meditation, but you can't really explain it… you just know the subtle ways of aligning energies to achieve an effect - and to me that's just as much a science.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Yea, I've said many times that I'm a big fan of scientific thought.
> 
> However, funny thing I've noticed through years of taking classes and studying science in varying ways is that all the theories and extrapolations are simply gross simplifications of things that are much 'bigger' and 'abstract.' And combining these theories covers more ground, but it's still not enough. *Sure, on an intellectual level they can produce some satisfaction and contentment, but on the truly experiential level there is something missing… you see what I'm saying?*
> 
> Just because we can't write a mathematical theory about something doesn't mean it can't be scientific. It's like learning how to consistently achieve some inner state through meditation, but you can't really explain it… you just know the subtle ways of aligning energies to achieve an effect - and to me that's just as much a science.


I guess so. If you're looking for information and reason to fill your heart fully, you're looking in the wrong place.

No ideas or even beliefs are going to satisfy a human heart. We need love, we need to have people we can really count on, we need a sense of ethical purpose, we need to experience awe and sublimity, we need all kinds of thing besides knowledge.

However, there is a common romantic idea that knowledge and those other fulfilling sorts of things are in conflict or something. That is actually true for a lot people because of where they are and what they would have to go through if they changed their minds about some of their fundamental beliefs. I'm not thinking only of creationism and other sorts of religious beliefs, but of the "unweaving the rainbow" sort of thing as well.

That is tragic because it is so unnecessary. Absent all the social pressures and prejudices that put so many people in that situation, there need be no inherent conflict between a good heart and an honest and even well-informed mind. And in fact, generally they should be able to reinforce each other - knowing about optics makes viewing a rainbow an even more awesome experience; having good antibiotics gives us many more years with our loved ones.

But some institutions depend for their continued flourishing on attitudes that erect barriers between living a fulfilling life and searching for truth with honest skepticism; and many people use those institutions and attitudes to enhance their own social status. Those institutions and individuals are _at least in that sense_ evil. And sadly, that evil is very often a means toward even more evil ends. (Ironically, when the institutions in question are religious ones, very often the religious tradition itself has to be worked over in a highly selective fashion to achieve those evil ends; and yet for some powerful people the manipulation of those traditions is the most direct way and even an essential part of persuading other people to cede them even more wealth and power.)

I know that asking someone who has bought into those mythologies to come all the way across to the other side is usually asking too much, but hopefully we can help younger people avoid buying into all of that and the world will be a little bit of a better place.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> I guess so. If you're looking for information and reason to fill your heart fully, you're looking in the wrong place.
> 
> No ideas or even beliefs are going to satisfy a human heart. We need love, we need to have people we can really count on, we need a sense of ethical purpose, we need to experience awe and sublimity, we need all kinds of thing besides knowledge.
> 
> However, there is a common romantic idea that knowledge and those other fulfilling sorts of things are in conflict or something. That is actually true for a lot people because of where they are and what they would have to go through if they changed their minds about some of their fundamental beliefs. I'm not thinking only of creationism and other sorts of religious beliefs, but of the "unweaving the rainbow" sort of thing as well.
> 
> That is tragic because it is so unnecessary. *Absent all the social pressures and prejudices that put so many people in that situation, there need be no inherent conflict between a good heart and an honest and even well-informed mind.* And in fact, generally they should be able to reinforce each other - knowing about optics makes viewing a rainbow an even more awesome experience; having good antibiotics gives us many more years with our loved ones.
> 
> But some institutions depend for their continued flourishing on attitudes that erect barriers between living a fulfilling life and searching for truth with honest skepticism; and many people use those institutions and attitudes to enhance their own social status. Those institutions and individuals are _at least in that sense_ evil. And sadly, that evil is very often a means toward even more evil ends. (Ironically, when the institutions in question are religious ones, very often the religious tradition itself has to be worked over in a highly selective fashion to achieve those evil ends; and yet for some powerful people the manipulation of those traditions is the most direct way and even an essential part of persuading other people to cede them even more wealth and power.)
> 
> I know that asking someone who has bought into those mythologies to come all the way across to the other side is usually asking too much, but hopefully we can help younger people avoid buying into all of that and the world will be a little bit of a better place.


I particularly like the bold. I don't take you to be a dry intellectual, more as someone who doesn't feel the need to put structural beliefs on all the abstractions of life - live and love - which I agree.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> I particularly like the bold. I don't take you to be a dry intellectual, more as someone who doesn't feel the need to put structural beliefs on all the abstractions of life - live and love - which I agree.


Ok, that's good, I guess!

I suspect you and I, besides having different ideas of course, have just slightly different vocabularies. I'm very strongly attracted to using words as as literally as I can, and you feel a little more freedom. So phrases like "put structural beliefs on all the abstractions of life" come easily to you but I choke on them, even if perhaps the idea is exactly what I think myself. One thing I think I've seen a lot of times is that people have misunderstandings because their vocabularies differ as much as because their ideas differ.

But if you get that sweet spot of having the right amount of difference - different enough ideas and different enough vocabularies to be stimulating, but not so different as to make communication too difficult - then good conversations happen.

And I think we would have even better conversations in person!


----------



## lupinix

Don't take me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with rational thinking, I used to be a really very rational thinker myself
But I have realised that believing comes before rational thinking, because eventually I know nothing for certain
If I would read a news report of something I've not even seen with my own eyes, I have no purely rational reason to believe it
Same goes for a science research report, or for the doctor when he tells you you have laryngitis...
Even if you do the research yourself you can never be sure, because firstly before you do the experiment you have to study a lot on the subject and take a lot for granted, and secondly because you have to believe that what you see with your eyes (or sometimes maybe smell with your nose or hear with your ears etc) is accurate and real. 
Maybe this sounds a bit vague and dreamy but it is not meant that way, I could explain more what I mean if it isn't clear. 

Even when thinking as rational as possible you have to chose what to believe a lot of times, and sadly a lot of times ones choices may have to do with a certain (social) status or attitude or similar things. 
Personally, I believe what I believe, but I'm always trying to be critical and open-minded at the same time, I want to be open for all possibilities, and would never tell anyone what absolute truth is, this whole post is also simply about what I believe


----------



## Blake

lupinix said:


> Don't take me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with rational thinking, I used to be a really very rational thinker myself
> But I have realised that believing comes before rational thinking, because eventually I know nothing for certain
> If I would read a news report of something I've not even seen with my own eyes, I have no purely rational reason to believe it
> Same goes for a science research report, or for the doctor when he tells you you have laryngitis...
> Even if you do the research yourself you can never be sure, because firstly before you do the experiment you have to study a lot on the subject and take a lot for granted, and secondly because you have to believe that what you see with your eyes (or sometimes maybe smell with your nose or hear with your ears etc) is accurate and real.
> Maybe this sounds a bit vague and dreamy but it is not meant that way, I could explain more what I mean if it isn't clear.
> 
> Even when thinking as rational as possible you have to chose what to believe a lot of times, and sadly a lot of times ones choices may have to do with a certain (social) status or attitude or similar things.
> Personally, I believe what I believe, but I'm always trying to be critical and open-minded at the same time, I want to be open for all possibilities, and would never tell anyone what absolute truth is, this whole post is also simply about what I believe


I think this is great. Even the most intelligent scientist eventually have to use a bit of belief in their work, otherwise they'd be able to test it right to the very source of existence - which obviously hasn't happened yet, so this leaves an array of contradictions for both the intellectuals and the dogmatic-believers alike… But it's some of the few tools we have, so I guess we have to make do.

Understanding the limitations of both belief and personal intellect is very important, I feel. To think that it's possible to understand absolutes with limited tools of perception doesn't really make sense. How can an absolute fit into what is inherently limited? But then again, life doesn't really make sense, hah.


----------



## Morimur

Vesuvius said:


> How can an absolute fit into what is inherently limited? But then again, life doesn't really make sense, hah.


Life is certainly beyond human comprehension, at times. Just ask the Übermensch himself, Nietzsche. :tiphat:


----------



## science

I don't think "believe" in a strict sense is the right word for anyone's attitude to the news. No one says something like, "I put my faith in CNN, regardless of evidence or reason." If a CNN report were to be contradicted by other news reports, no one would argue for CNN's infallibility.


----------



## Morimur

science said:


> I don't think "believe" in a strict sense is the right word for anyone's attitude to the news. No one says something like, "I put my faith in CNN, regardless of evidence or reason." If a CNN report were to be contradicted by other news reports, no one would argue for CNN's infallibility.


CNN lost all credibility a long time ago.


----------



## Delilah

Has Sufi music been mentioned on this thread yet??? Some of the most outstanding music I heard live happened to be Sufi poetry set to classical/Persian classical music. Sufi poetry, mainly that of Hafez, Rumi, Attar is earth-shatteringly beautiful on its own. Set it to music, and magic. Absolute magic.

Here is an amazing Persian singer/Musician, his name is Ali Reza Ghorbani.






Translation of FEW of the verses he is singing:

"Oh sky, without me, do not change, 
Oh moon, without me, do not shine; 
Oh earth, without me, do not grow,
Oh time, without me, do not go.

Oh my heart and my heartache 
Others give you the name of Love,
And me the sultan of that love. 
Higher than such illusions, 
Oh, you cannot go, without me."

Rumi's actual poem, for those interested in the whole bit is titled 'Don't go without me':

Dancing in ecstasy you go,
my soul of souls -
Don't go without me.
Laughing with your friends
you enter the garden - 
Don't go without me.
Don't let the sky turn without me.
Don't let the Moon shine without me.
Don't let the Earth spin without me.
Don't let the days pass without me.

The two worlds are joyous
because of you.
Don't stay in this world without me.
Don't go to the next world without me.
Don't let your eyes look without me.
Don't let your tongue speak without me.
Don't let your hands hold without me.
Don't let your soul stir without me.

Moonlight reveals the sky's bright face.
I am the light, you are the Moon - 
Don't rise without me.
The thorn is protected by the rose!
You are the rose, I am the thorn - 
Don't show your beauty without me.
I am the curve of your mallet,
the bits of stone beneath your chisel.
Don't strike the stone without me.
Don't move the chisel without me.
Oh joyous companion of the King,
Don't drink without me.
Oh watchman on the rooftop,
Don't stay up without me.
Woe to those who travel alone . . .
You know every sign,
You've walked upon every path - 
Don't go without me.

Some call you love,
I call you the King of Love.
You are beyond all imaginings,
taking me places
I can't even dream of.
Oh Ruler of my Heart,
wherever you go . . .

Don't go without me.


----------

