# Enjoying religious music while not religious



## tgtr0660

Hi. As you can see my favorite composer is JS Bach. His music is probably my favorite of all musics. His St Matthew Passion is my favorite work, period. And from other composers I love many religious-linked works like Mozart's Requiem, Bruckner's Masses, etc. I'm NOT a religious person (quite the contrary) yet when I hear this works I feel a connection with such a high place in the human experience that I feel compelled to understand the connection others have with their religious beliefs. 

Anybody else experiencing similar things? Sorry if this topic has been done already.


----------



## ClassicalListener

Saying "I'm not religious" is a statement. Feeling and understanding Bach or Bruckner or many others is _being_ religious.


----------



## Ukko

ClassicalListener said:


> Saying "I'm not religious" is a statement. Feeling and understanding Bach or Bruckner or many others is _being_ religious.


"Religious" is the adjective form of 'religion'. Pretty easy to determine if one is or isn't. Generation of the subject emotion(s) is no indication.


----------



## Cosmos

Same here. A lot of music has this quality to it, where my reaction feels (dare I say) almost spiritual. Just the way some works hit me, I get a sense of what some describe as "religious ecstasy" or a "connection with the supernatural". Falls under the philosophy that art in general acts as both a balloon that lifts the profane toward the sacred, and an anchor that brings the sacred down a bit, helping us achieve a middle ground.

Though that's more poetic than empirical, it's a nice thought. Also, it reminds me how amazing the power of music is


----------



## Ingélou

'Religion' comes from a Latin word meaning 'to bind' and as Durkheim says, is primarily a social phenomenon, as opposed to a word like 'faith'.
But I can see what the OP means. I am a religious person now, but at university, I was an atheist - and still felt there was something 'holy' about beauty in nature, poetry, art and music. 

I loved the religious poet Gerald Manley Hopkins, and particularly his espousal of Duns Scotus's doctrine of 'haecceitas'. 
...Each mortal thing does one thing and the same:
Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;
Selves — goes itself; myself it speaks and spells,
Crying Whát I dó is me: for that I came....

When listening to great music that moves me, I feel a communion with that person and with the great mysterious beauty of the universe. I am a Catholic, but when I listen to Hindu Vedic prayers, for example, I do feel awe. 

An interesting thread - will be good to read further posts from non-religious people.


----------



## hpowders

I am not religious yet I enjoy Verdi's Requiem, Haydn's six late Masses, Mozart's C minor Mass, Handel's Messiah.
I have absolutely no trouble in doing so and find this music can bring me to "another level" outside myself; a spiritual experience, perhaps, without believing in the Christian gospel.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

I share hpowders experience almost exactly, I am moved by Mozart and Verdi's Requiem, Bach's Mass, Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, etc. They're absolutely beautiful works and I can be moved by a work immensely even though I'm not religious (agnostic would be the best term, I suppose).

I feel that the attempting to connect with a higher power in religious music has an effect on me, even though I may not be attempting to connect with that same power. I appreciate and value it, I feel closer to the universe and with myself while listening to it. I sense something "more" to it than the composer merely expressing his/her artistry, it's their attempt to reach a higher plane and I hear that in the music, whether it's imagined sometimes or not.


----------



## Mandryka

I'm an atheist.

I enjoy Bach, Wagner etc rather like I enjoy Greek myths - good stories, sometimes with interesting and amusing ideas about life and stuff.


----------



## Woodduck

Although I don't believe that reality is divided into "natural" and "supernatural," I do believe that there are levels of consciousness which encompass different concepts and senses of the "self" and its relation to the universe. I have had a few experiences of the sort often described as "mystical," in which I felt a sense of union with things, a lack of the usual "I vs. it" awareness we have most of the time. It was a wonderful, if transient, state; I'm not able to summon it at will, but of all the "normal" experiences we can have I find that music is the one that can bring me nearest that self-expanding, being-part-of-the-whole feeling. I find as well that the type of music I listen to makes a difference; I can get "the feeling" from Renaissance choral works, Bach, late Beethoven, Bruckner, Brahms' _Requiem_, Wagner's _Parsifal_ - all of these, not coincidentally I think, having some relationship to religion, but not necessarily "religious" music, and dissimilar in idiom and structure. I don't get this sort of feeling from choral works of Haydn and Mozart, Berlioz, or Verdi, even when they are setting liturgical texts. In twentieth-century music there's a lot of self-conscious "mysticism" (Messiaen, Part, Tavener), but it seems often a striving for a "mystical effect" and tends to put me off. Others will have their own musical "gateways to higher consciousness." But whatever music does it for any particular person, there do appear to be certain characteristics shared by much of the music that people cite as inducing religious or quasi-religious feelings, feelings not at all reducible to our usual categories of emotion and all the more remarkable for that reason as part of the spectrum of human experience to which music can speak.


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> In twentieth-century music there's a lot of self-conscious "mysticism" (Messiaen, Part, Tavener), but it seems often a striving for a "mystical effect" and tends to put me off.


How is it more "self-conscious" than the music you mentioned? Certainly you find yourself put off by something in the music, but how do you know this is not simply a reaction against 20th century styles rather than a reaction to some kind of willful effort on the creator's part?

Non-tonal music and post-common practice tonal music of all kinds are, I believe, generally better at capturing "the infinite" than pre-20th century music.


----------



## DeepR

I don't necessarily get these feelings from religious music, or classical music for that matter. I have experienced such mysterious, spiritual states of mind also with other types of music, feeling part of a non-physical world.
I do enjoy religious classical music while not being religious. Some of Rachmaninoff's religious choral works are exceptional in creating that sacred, mystical feeling and I don't understand or care for the meaning of the words.


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> How is it more "self-conscious" than the music you mentioned? Certainly you find yourself put off by something in the music, but how do you know this is not simply a reaction against 20th century styles rather than a reaction to some kind of willful effort on the creator's part?
> 
> Non-tonal music and post-common practice tonal music of all kinds are, I believe, generally better at capturing "the infinite" than pre-20th century music.


I've only said that it feels that way to me. Others may certainly perceive it differently. I _feel_ that some avowedly "mystical" art is so fixated on the "infinite," or on some magically altered state of being, that it largely leaves "finite" humanity behind, conveying not so much an _expansion_ of the everyday self as an abandonment of it. I don't see the transcendental as something that leaves ordinary human emotion behind but rather attains a higher perspective on it (which is why I can include even_ Parsifal_, which, after four hours of sometimes excruciatingly agonized music, attains a serene exaltation which justifies the harrowing journey).

But we could very well be talking about different states of being here, as well as different personal musical contexts, so I'm not making any assertions about what any particular music might do for anyone but myself.


----------



## Blake

It's innate in our species to strive to be better, so of course the imagining of a supreme power is going to be attractive. I'm not religious in the least, although I'm open to explore. I do appreciate the beauty that comes out of certain devotees. And where does that appreciation and beauty come from? I don't know... But I'm not willing to believe in anything simply because I don't know. I'll hold the weight of not-knowing until I know for sure.


----------



## millionrainbows

Any recovering drunk will tell you that they are connected to a "higher power," and that is, simply, a state of being. 

The native American Indians called alcohol the "spirit-killer," so it's obvious that we are born with a "sense of the sacredness of being" which can be blocked or obscured by alcohol, drugs, abuse, or being a shoe salesman in a mall.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> Any recovering drunk will tell you that they are connected to a "higher power," and that is, simply, a state of being.
> 
> The native American Indians called alcohol the "spirit-killer," so it's obvious that we are born with a "sense of the sacredness of being" which can be blocked or obscured by alcohol, drugs, abuse, or being a shoe salesman in a mall.


You've never heard of the "mad monk?" He was considered by many to be a sage of the utmost caliber, and he would go around in utter debauchery. Not trying to say this is the way to go about finding the source of our existence, haha. Just trying to break the walls of this prison-house of regulations.


----------



## DeepR

I've communicated with some people who have experimented a lot with psychedelic drugs and judging from their amazing stories I almost envy them for what they've experienced, although I'd never go down that road myself. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayahuasca

Anyway, this was about music and not drugs. I like to think that reaching certain states of mind from listening to music is much more noble and worthy than doing drugs.


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> I've only said that it feels that way to me. Others may certainly perceive it differently. I _feel_ that some avowedly "mystical" art is so fixated on the "infinite," or on some magically altered state of being, that it largely leaves "finite" humanity behind, conveying not so much an _expansion_ of the everyday self as an abandonment of it. I don't see the transcendental as something that leaves ordinary human emotion behind but rather attains a higher perspective on it (which is why I can include even_ Parsifal_, which, after four hours of sometimes excruciatingly agonized music, attains a serene exaltation which justifies the harrowing journey).
> 
> But we could very well be talking about different states of being here, as well as different personal musical contexts, so I'm not making any assertions about what any particular music might do for anyone but myself.


The main thing I'm wondering is how you can perceive self-consciousness or willfulness. You gave as your examples three wildly different composers and said that their styles seem to you to exude a sense of self-consciousness that is not present (or not important) in earlier music.

But as in our discussions in the past, I am aware that you are predisposed against contemporary styles of any kind, so I think it is a simpler explanation to simply say that this sensation of self-consciousness is a reaction, not to the religious qualities of the work itself, but to the outward style, which is neutral in terms of spirituality.


----------



## tdc

DeepR said:


> I've communicated with some people who have experimented a lot with psychedelic drugs and judging from their amazing stories I almost envy them for what they've experienced, although I'd never go down that road myself. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayahuasca
> 
> Anyway, this was about music and not drugs. I like to think that reaching certain states of mind from listening to music is much more noble and worthy than doing drugs.


Some drugs show people certain doorways and possibilities of their own mind and spirit,_ but they come at a cost_. The problem is when people use frequently trying to get a free pass to enlightenment - it doesn't work that way. Before long the negative impacts will far outweigh anything positive. Those who can find enlightenment through things like meditation have found a much more reliable path. This is not to say nothing good or even spiritual has ever come out of drug use, because I think that is incorrect.

_First it giveth then it taketh away. _

Myself, I see the way religions developed over time for the most part as fraudulent. Not to say that no one can find God or a strong spiritual connection through religion - because I think one certainly can, but whenever this popular notion came out of "my religion is the true religion and all others are false" that is seemingly so prevalent in many religions - it began to lose its way.

I consider music like Bach's more _spiritual_ than _religious_ (not that the two are mutually exclusive), and considering myself a spiritual person I don't feel any disconnect when listening to it.


----------



## aleazk

As human beings, I think we all (believers and non-believers) are overwhelmed by our existential questions. For believers, this is often experienced through their religiosity, spirituality and connection with God. For non-believers, at least for me, it's a feeling of absolute, fascinating, and perhaps unapproachable mystery, our minimal and efimerous place in the seemingly absolute, immutabile and monolithic universe.

I think that, to some extent, the subjective experience for both, believers and non-believers, has certain similarities because the human component behind it is the same, as I mentioned.

I think that good religious music is capable of evoking these 'feelings' in both 'camps'. Although, of course, they interpret them in different optics; but, I think, at the very core they are the same thing and type of experience.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

aleazk said:


> As human beings, I think we all (believers and non-believers) are overwhelmed by our existential questions. For believers, this is often experienced through their religiosity, spirituality and connection with God. For non-believers, at least for me, it's a feeling of absolute, fascinating, and perhaps unapproachable mystery, our minimal and efimerous place in the seemingly absolute, immutabile and monolithic universe.
> 
> I think that, to some extent, the subjective experience for both, believers and non-believers, has certain similarities because the human component behind it is the same, as I mentioned.
> 
> I think that good religious music is capable of evoking these 'feelings' in both 'camps'. Although, of course, they interpret them in different optics; but, I think, at the very core they are the same thing and type of experience.


Well done, I agree 100%


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> The main thing I'm wondering is how you can perceive self-consciousness or willfulness. You gave as your examples three wildly different composers and said that their styles seem to you to exude a sense of self-consciousness that is not present (or not important) in earlier music.
> 
> But as in our discussions in the past, I am aware that you are predisposed against contemporary styles of any kind, so I think it is a simpler explanation to simply say that this sensation of self-consciousness is a reaction, not to the religious qualities of the work itself, but to the outward style, which is neutral in terms of spirituality.


I think "self-conscious" was a less than ideal way of saying what I was really getting at. "Conscious mysticism" would probably have been sufficient - but it's arguable that if one is portraying a mystical vision consciously, as I think Messiaen, Part and Tavener all did in characteristic works, one is _ipso facto_ pretty self-conscious! I'm not saying that's necessarily a _bad_ thing, if that is one's thing. However, I think it's reasonable to assume that Bach, Beethoven and Brahms, in those works of theirs which I cited, were not trying to do that sort of thing; and if they succeed in evoking transcendental states of being for some of us it is as a consequence of their pursuit of other goals. Though I am not Christian or of any other religious persuasion, I think my mild antipathy toward consciously "mystical" music is akin to my (stronger) antipathy toward New Age "easy" spirituality, in which I often sense a very self-conscious effort to "transcend" and attain "higher" states without having done much work on one's lower ones. And, to cite again that idiosyncratic final opera of Wagner's, the hero's journey to enlightenment does not consist of chanting mantras, listening to a channeller, sleeping under pyramids - or, for that matter, unloading one's guilt on a divine scapegoat. The lower states must be gone through, not around. But now I'm getting away from music!

Actually I do enjoy some music by Messiaen (especially organ music), Part, and Tavener (though not much of the latter two), as well as other "post-common-practice" 20th century composers, which you may not guess from how little I say about them on TC!). But however different those three are musically they all seem to me to want to create "otherworldly" sensations which I don't identify with and have a hard time connecting with the humanist tradition I feel a part of. Although I understand much about music from a technical standpoint, I like or dislike music mainly the way most people do, by "feel"; I have no problem with any "style," from ars antiqua to minimalism, if the music has an effect on me, emotionally and intellectually, which pleases me.
Of course we all end up liking some styles more than others.


----------



## SixFootScowl

As a religious person I try to avoid religious music that is contrary to my beliefs. As an example, I excludes Requiems except for Brahms German Requiem. I avoid Ava Maria and Stabat Mater, even though sung in a foreign language it still bugs me. Handel's Messiah is my favorite religious work. Funny thing, I am Lutheran but rarely listen to Bach, although I do realize that I must get a copy of Bach's B minor mass someday. It is the standard for masses I think. I heard it once on a library loan, but just have not followed through with my own copy.


----------



## aleazk

Woodduck said:


> I think "self-conscious" was a less than ideal way of saying what I was really getting at. "Conscious mysticism" would probably have been sufficient - but it's arguable that if one is portraying a mystical vision consciously, as I think Messiaen, Part and Tavener all did in characteristic works, one is _ipso facto_ pretty self-conscious! I'm not saying that's necessarily a _bad_ thing, if that is one's thing. However, I think it's reasonable to assume that Bach, Beethoven and Brahms, in those works of theirs which I cited, were not trying to do that sort of thing; and if they succeed in evoking transcendental states of being for some of us it is as a consequence of their pursuit of other goals. Though I am not Christian or of any other religious persuasion, I think my mild antipathy toward consciously "mystical" music is akin to my (stronger) antipathy toward New Age "easy" spirituality, in which I often sense a very self-conscious effort to "transcend" and attain "higher" states without having done much work on one's lower ones. And, to cite again that idiosyncratic final opera of Wagner's, the hero's journey to enlightenment does not consist of chanting mantras, listening to a channeller, sleeping under pyramids - or, for that matter, unloading one's guilt on a divine scapegoat. The lower states must be gone through, not around. But now I'm getting away from music!
> 
> Actually I do enjoy some music by Messiaen (especially organ music), Part, and Tavener (though not much of the latter two), as well as other "post-common-practice" 20th century composers, which you may not guess from how little I say about them on TC!). But however different those three are musically they all seem to me to want to create "otherworldly" sensations which I don't identify with and have a hard time connecting with the humanist tradition I feel a part of. Although I understand much about music from a technical standpoint, I like or dislike music mainly the way most people do, by "feel"; I have no problem with any "style," from ars antiqua to minimalism, if the music has an effect on me, emotionally and intellectually, which pleases me.
> Of course we all end up liking some styles more than others.


I don't like Part and Tavener because I find their 'spirituality' and the way in which it's expressed a little cheap and new agy, i.e., banal and superficial. So, we agree on that. But my dislike is to that particular aesthetics and musical resources, it has nothing to do with spirituality per se. My very personal take is that they banalize spirituality. Not sure if you are reacting to that or indeed to a sense of 'detached or objective spirituality' in music.

In my case, I enjoy that sense of detached or objective spirituality (for a non-believer like me, 'spirituality' in the sense I described in my previous post), and I don't see any contradiction in enjoying these aspects over the more mundane ones, or that one has to experience first the mundane in order to go to the 'detached' plane. I also enjoy the mundane, of course.

Examples of this, I think, are: Perotin; Scelsi.

Those are my favorite examples. Perotin from the christian side, and Scelsi from the buddhist side. Both were pretty religious and they tried to express that in a very absolute way in this music. And, indeed, when I listen to the pieces, I feel something profound and objective, beyond me, which has nothing to do with the easy sentimentality in Part or Taverner.


----------



## mmsbls

I've never had issues with enjoying religious music while not being religious. I find many requiems and masses beautiful and profoundly moving on a musical level. However, I would say that the fact that those works are religious has nothing to do with my response. There are many other works that seem to effect me in a similar manner.

Also I'm not sure if certain works are religious or not. I assume Tallis's _Spem in alium_ is religious because it's in Latin and written in the Renaissance era, but I have no idea what the words mean. I'm never quite certain what exactly is meant by spiritual, but I can imagine that Spem in alium gets me as close to a "spiritual sense" as any work. On the other hand, Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante probably does as well.


----------



## Guest

Atheism is a religion, btw. (Agnosticism is not)

I guess it depends on your point of view. Based on your original post, you seem to be someone who wants to understand others, have empathy, etc. If you're more along the lines of Bill Maher atheism, the only way to appreciate religious music is to listen to it as absolute music and hope like hell you never wake up one day understanding the latin texts. If you can "understand" religion as you seem to, I see no issue.


----------



## KenOC

arcaneholocaust said:


> Atheism is a religion, btw.


??? I have no belief in the existence of things that have no evidence of existence. Flying pigs, for example. Of course if somebody has evidence, I'll be happy to take a gander. Does that make me religious? :lol:


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> ??? I have no belief in the existence of things that have no evidence of existence. Flying pigs, for example. Of course if somebody has evidence, I'll be happy to take a gander. Does that make me religious? :lol:


Yes. Agnosticism is purely "There is no evidence, so I'm not sure." Atheism, "There is no evidence, so I will choose to believe it doesn't exist", requires a leap of faith whether you like it or not. You are putting your belief in something. Even if that "something" is "nothing", well it's still "something".


----------



## KenOC

arcaneholocaust said:


> Yes. Agnosticism is purely "There is no evidence, so I'm not sure." Atheism, "There is no evidence, so I will choose to believe it doesn't exist", requires a leap of faith whether you like it or not. You are putting your belief in something. Even if that "something" is "nothing", well it's still "something".


Not exactly. "There is no evidence, so I will not choose to believe it exists." There is a crucial difference from what you said. In other words, a person may say "I do not believe that God exists" without saying "I believe that God does not exist." Different things entirely.


----------



## Guest

In other words, you believe that there is nothing out there to believe in. Paradoxical as it may seem, you have belief. This is religion. I can't see why you'd deny it unless you're one of those hostile-to-religion types.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Not exactly. "There is no evidence, so I will not choose to believe it exists." There is a crucial difference from what you said.


Yes. You just described agnosticism. "We don't know." Atheism is belief.


----------



## KenOC

I am describing an absence of belief, not a belief in absence. At this point, I have no evidence of the existence of a God (especially as this term has not been defined!) and so have no belief whatever in such. If this fits your conception of "agnosticism," well fine; it doesn't fit mine! I certainly don't see how the absence of a belief is, itself, a belief.


----------



## Guest

That is what we call agnosticism, yes. Atheism requires a jump from "no evidence" to just "no", a jump that is specifically a leap of faith. Sounds like you're an agnostic. Cool!


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> Though I am not Christian or of any other religious persuasion, I think my mild antipathy toward consciously "mystical" music is akin to my (stronger) antipathy toward New Age "easy" spirituality, in which I often sense a very self-conscious effort to "transcend" and attain "higher" states without having done much work on one's lower ones. And, to cite again that idiosyncratic final opera of Wagner's, the hero's journey to enlightenment does not consist of chanting mantras, listening to a channeller, sleeping under pyramids - or, for that matter, unloading one's guilt on a divine scapegoat. The lower states must be gone through, not around. But now I'm getting away from music!


"Easy spirituality" has been around for a very long time, there is actually nothing "new age" about it, nor is there anything particularly new age about any of the other things you mentioned (which are not necessarily at all related to "easy spirituality"). Bach and Mozart participated in the Free Masons, Debussy in the Rosicrucians. Ever hear of Madame Blavatsky? The Order of the Golden Dawn? Did you know that Napoleon slept a night in the great pyramid (and apparently came out feeling mentally disturbed). Check out all the cult symbolism on the American dollar bill and their many other institutions. Look at the pyramids themselves. There is nothing "new age" about the occult, taking an interest in the pyramids, rituals, magic etc. Though like any other belief system these things can be easily misused/abused and misunderstood.

*Edit to add* - I realize Blavatsky and many of these thinkers are said to have influenced the "new age" movement, but I doubt she would have really liked the term or how the movement has been represented. I think the term "new age" is a misnomer because it gives people ideas of things radical and new, but many of the ideas associated with it are in fact very old, and have been used by many influential people in many different fields. Labels often make things divisive, I think. For the record I certainly don't think of myself as "new age" though I agree with the philosophy in some areas, just as I don't consider myself a Christian, but I do agree with many of the things in the Bible.


----------



## KenOC

arcaneholocaust said:


> That is what we call agnosticism, yes. Atheism requires a jump from "no evidence" to just "no", a jump that is specifically a leap of faith. Sounds like you're an agnostic. Cool!


If that's what you call agnosticism, then I am also an agnostic with respect to flying pigs. I have no evidentiary grounds for denying their existence -- nor do I see how I possibly could. But I would judge them improbable to the point of vanishment.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> If that's what you call agnosticism, then I am also an agnostic with respect to flying pigs. I have no evidentiary grounds for denying their existence -- nor do I see how I possibly could. But I would judge them improbable to the point of vanishment.


If that judgement takes you to *believe* that pigs can never fly, then you are atheist/religious with respect to flying pigs. If you leave your judgements up to doubt on either side, you are agnostic with respect to flying pigs. Now, how you've answered the baffling questions of the universe with a similar amount of certainty to your a-airborn-swinism, I'm sure we'd all love to know, if each and every one of us hadn't seen these petty arguments roughly 397,245 times already.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

arcaneholocaust said:


> If that judgement takes you to *believe* that pigs can never fly, then you are atheist/religious with respect to flying pigs. If you leave your judgements up to doubt on either side, you are agnostic with respect to flying pigs. Now, how you've answered the baffling questions of the universe with a similar amount of certainty to your a-airborn-swinism, I'm sure we'd all love to know, if each and every one of us hadn't seen these petty arguments roughly 397,245 times already.


arcaneholocaust, I'm not sure it is a petty argument, it's been repeated so often because it's the most simple and effective way of defending the "atheism takes faith" stance. That same argument was first used by one of those most revered philosophers and mathematicians, Bertrand Russell. Using the same reasoning of "atheism requires faith", you could be called an atheist, too, with respect to Zeus or Thor. Certainly, it does not take faith to not believe Zeus and Thor. The reason why this sounds so absurd is because these are extinct religions that nobody believes in anymore. So, you can imagine how it sounds to someone who doesn't believe in the main gods of today, that lack of belief requires faith. It's easy to forget that everyone is an atheist with regards to gods of other religions.

Furthermore, the lack of belief isn't an *active* disbelief, I don't actively have a disbelief in Zeus and Thor. By the same token, I don't actively disbelieve in god. To say a "lack" of something is "active" is an oxymoron. In other words, the deity that is believed in or worshiped does not _predicate_ the lack of disbelief. It's a common misconception.

ps. I have my reasons for not claiming to be an atheist, I still claim to be agnostic with atheistic leanings. lol Also, I consider myself very spiritual, organized religion seems to have a monopoly on that word and it isn't right. I follow an author/scientist names Sam Harris who speaks and writes at length on the very topic of spirituality without religion.


----------



## Bulldog

I get my spiritual lift from great music - makes no difference whether it's a requiem, concerto, quartet or keyboard work.


----------



## Guest

@ active - yes, you are right to state that atheism is a religion that doesn't require much of its members although there are certainly those who go above and beyond on the internet, on television, etc in representing the institution. I don't see how it's absurd to state that faith is required to state that various pagan deities don't exist. Actually, that's not true. I do *see* how it can be seen as absurd: many people place massive negative connotations on the word faith, and get a tad bit irritated to have any connection to the word.


----------



## Blue Miasma

tgtr0660 said:


> Hi. As you can see my favorite composer is JS Bach. His music is probably my favorite of all musics. His St Matthew Passion is my favorite work, period. And from other composers I love many religious-linked works like Mozart's Requiem, Bruckner's Masses, etc. I'm NOT a religious person (quite the contrary) yet when I hear this works I feel a connection with such a high place in the human experience that I feel compelled to understand the connection others have with their religious beliefs.
> 
> Anybody else experiencing similar things? Sorry if this topic has been done already.


Well for me I wouldn't call myself religious I prefer to call myself a seeker of knowledge, I own a Bible KJV, the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita and Crowley's the Book of the Law but that's as far as I'm going with this topic outside of the music. 
Now with regards to the music I have Handel's Messiah, Mozart's Requiem and Rachmaninov's Vespers of those 3 it's only the Mozart Requiem that I've felt some sort of spiritual heightening to and I honestly can't say whether it was because of the music or a psychotropic effect but I definitely felt something I have since listened to all 3 recordings sober and again under the influence but haven't experienced that feeling again, my thoughts regarding this is subject is that I think for some the music has a placebo effect on those that are religious and even for those that don't believe but are susceptible to spiritualism whether consciously or subconsciously, there's things as well that need to be taken into account like mood and surroundings when listening to the music but I wonder for those that say they feel a spiritual heightening when listening to these types of religious works if you took away the vocalisation and just had the music on it's own would they still get the same feeling


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> I think "self-conscious" was a less than ideal way of saying what I was really getting at. "Conscious mysticism" would probably have been sufficient - but it's arguable that if one is portraying a mystical vision consciously, as I think Messiaen, Part and Tavener all did in characteristic works, one is _ipso facto_ pretty self-conscious! I'm not saying that's necessarily a _bad_ thing, if that is one's thing. However, I think it's reasonable to assume that Bach, Beethoven and Brahms, in those works of theirs which I cited, were not trying to do that sort of thing; and if they succeed in evoking transcendental states of being for some of us it is as a consequence of their pursuit of other goals. Though I am not Christian or of any other religious persuasion, I think my mild antipathy toward consciously "mystical" music is akin to my (stronger) antipathy toward New Age "easy" spirituality, in which I often sense a very self-conscious effort to "transcend" and attain "higher" states without having done much work on one's lower ones. And, to cite again that idiosyncratic final opera of Wagner's, the hero's journey to enlightenment does not consist of chanting mantras, listening to a channeller, sleeping under pyramids - or, for that matter, unloading one's guilt on a divine scapegoat. The lower states must be gone through, not around. But now I'm getting away from music!
> 
> Actually I do enjoy some music by Messiaen (especially organ music), Part, and Tavener (though not much of the latter two), as well as other "post-common-practice" 20th century composers, which you may not guess from how little I say about them on TC!). But however different those three are musically they all seem to me to want to create "otherworldly" sensations which I don't identify with and have a hard time connecting with the humanist tradition I feel a part of.


Then the question is whether the reaction is due to the music itself or to associations with the composers, all of whom are known to be outspokenly religious and used religious themes in their works and in the titles of their works. The religion of Bach or Dvorak may seem distant compared to the present day, but Messiaen lived until 1992, Tavener until 2013, and Part is still alive.

I'm not sure that Messiaen was trying to evoke a mystical state in the listener so much as expressing his own (very personal) impression of what the transcendent meant or expressing aspects of his faith. I'll admit that I don't care much for Part either, as his range seems quite small, and Tavener I find extremely dull. Messiaen on the other hand composed quite a bit of music, not all of it explicitly religious in subject matter (though for him religion was a part of everything), and indeed there's a good bit of Debussy in his Quartet for the End of Time and a bit more of Stravinsky's Les Noces in Trois Petites Liturgies.



Woodduck said:


> Although I understand much about music from a technical standpoint, I like or dislike music mainly the way most people do, by "feel"; I have no problem with any "style," from ars antiqua to minimalism, if the music has an effect on me, emotionally and intellectually, which pleases me.
> Of course we all end up liking some styles more than others.


Like/dislike is not primarily the issue here. I specifically remember you saying that every kind of music outside of Western common practice tonality is inherently less expressive. If this is true, then of course your perception that religious music outside of the common practice is somehow "affected" is a natural corollary.

Of course, I have my likes and dislikes, as we all do. But I am passionate about the tradition, which I consider to be alive and thriving to this day.


----------



## Guest

There is, as usual, the problem of labelling - who's calling it 'religious'? I'm assuming that when we refer to 'religious music' we acknowledge something of a continuum. At one end, is music with explicit references to religious figures and deities; and at the other, music without. We must surely be talking about the words or other extra-musical labelling anyway (?)

Music that inspires the listener to think/feel they are connected to some higher being (or some such transcendent idea) is something else - what some call spiritual - that may or may not have explicit religious connotations.

As a doubting atheist, I can be put off by explicit religious content, but not always - if, for example, Beethoven's 9th can be called 'religious'. My preference remains for 'absolute' music (though I'm not a fan of the term).


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> There is, as usual, the problem of labelling - who's calling it 'religious'?


A very good question. Is Beethoven's Op. 111 piano sonata "religious"? Some might say so...


----------



## MagneticGhost

Religion for me, is the natural human tendency or need, to identify with something externally bigger than themselves. This may be an anthropomorphic 'man with beard' father figure, or a more loose spirituality. Gaia, the cosmos and cosmology and science are all manifestations of mankind's hunt for the truth, answers and meaning.

So although I reject all religions and dogma, I can appreciate the ultimate force behind all these religious works that celebrate this innate drive. 

Religious music is my favourite type of music. And I am not a christian, muslim or a subscriber to any other type of organised religion. I just admire the wonder of being part of this miraculous universe. The Glory of God is the Glory of Nature; Of the incredible success of Homo Sapiens; The incomprehensible cosmos. I find this wonder more accurately reflected in religious works than any other type of art.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I used to be very religious - and mostly listened to that which goes by the name of "Contemporary Christian Music" (I still have a bunch of WOW Worship CDs somewhere). Now I am not - and I adore Bach, Bruckner, Wagner's Parsifal and Schubert's "Ave Maria".



Ingélou said:


> I am a religious person now, but at university, I was an atheist - *and still felt there was something 'holy' about beauty in nature, poetry, art and music.*


I feel the same way now. Even my signature contains a reference to the "holiness" of art, that is being exalted, awe-inspiring and set apart. I can feel awe when looking at the mountains, the sea, the starry skies or being in an old great forest in autumn, listening to music (especially organ music), standing inside the Cologne Cathedral or some other majestic structure etc. In fact, now that I am not religious, my ability to admire art, music, architecture and other works of human hands has only increased because I do not have to view them as tainted by man's inherent sinfulness. And my enjoyment of nature's beauty has increased as well because I do not have to view it as mere creation that is secondary and inferior to the invisible Creator and that is destined some day to perish in a cosmic fire.


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> *Then the question is whether the reaction is due to the music itself or to associations with the composers, all of whom are known to be outspokenly religious and used religious themes in their works and in the titles of their works. * The religion of Bach or Dvorak may seem distant compared to the present day, but Messiaen lived until 1992, Tavener until 2013, and Part is still alive.
> 
> *I'm not sure that Messiaen was trying to evoke a mystical state in the listener so much as expressing his own (very personal) impression of what the transcendent meant or expressing aspects of his faith.* I'll admit that I don't care much for Part either, as his range seems quite small, and Tavener I find extremely dull. Messiaen on the other hand composed quite a bit of music, not all of it explicitly religious in subject matter (though for him religion was a part of everything), and indeed there's a good bit of Debussy in his Quartet for the End of Time and a bit more of Stravinsky's Les Noces in Trois Petites Liturgies.
> 
> *Like/dislike is not primarily the issue here.* *I specifically remember you saying that every kind of music outside of Western common practice tonality is inherently less expressive. If this is true, then of course your perception that religious music outside of the common practice is somehow "affected" is a natural corollary.*
> 
> Of course, I have my likes and dislikes, as we all do. But I am passionate about the tradition, which I consider to be alive and thriving to this day.


I think you're reading too much into my initial statement of my taste in "spiritual" music and the reasons I gave for my feelings. Like/dislike - specifically of the _music_ - really _is_ primarily the issue here! As a listener I really couldn't care less about the religious convictions of any composer, and frankly don't even know much about most of them. I'm put off by Bach's Christianity - all that Lutheran pietist moaning about his sins and his Jesu - but it doesn't affect my regard for his music, or my perception of its profundity. If I don't respond to Part or Tavener, it's primarily because they seem rather superficial, empty, or boring to me; their "spiritual" posture doesn't create those feelings in me, it merely sheds further light on the relevant qualities in their music and leads to speculations such as I've expressed on the meaning of spirituality in music. Messiaen is certainly a more complex case and his music is more interesting, but whether he is "trying" to evoke a particular state in me doesn't matter if the aesthetic vision he presents sometimes impresses me as more bizarre than profound. It's what the music actually _does_ evoke that matters ; discussions of the meaning of spirituality are just interesting attempts to understand why the music affects me as it does.

My feelings about music in styles outside of "common practice tonality" are as varied as the works and styles themselves. I enjoy (for example) Dufay, Josquin, Lassus, Byrd, north Indian classical music (sitar, sarod, or surbahar, with tabla), Javanese gamelan, Chinese music of certain types, some jazz... It remains true that I find the hierarchical tonal system of harmonic relations as it developed in Europe and reached maximum richness and subtlety in the late Romantic era a unique and incomparable "language," capable of expressing a wider range of feeling than any other system in world music. I might even try to relate tonal hierarchy to spirituality, but I think I'll spare myself and everyone else that conversation today! (Besides, I seem to recall that millionrainbows has a thread on tonality as God. Correct me if I'm wrong, millionrainbows.)


----------



## hpowders

Some seem to be confusing "religious" with "spiritual". One can certainly be quite spiritual without being religious.

I'd be more comfortable hanging out with spiritual agnostics over folks who profess to be devoutly religious.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> I think you're reading too much into my initial statement of my taste in "spiritual" music and the reasons I gave for my feelings. Like/dislike - specifically of the _music_ - really _is_ primarily the issue here! As a listener I really couldn't care less about the religious convictions of any composer, and frankly don't even know much about most of them. I'm put off by Bach's Christianity - all that Lutheran pietist moaning about his sins and his Jesu - but it doesn't affect my regard for his music, or my perception of its profundity. If I don't respond to Part or Tavener, it's primarily because they seem rather superficial, empty, or boring to me; their "spiritual" posture doesn't create those feelings in me, it merely sheds further light on the relevant qualities in their music and leads to speculations such as I've expressed on the meaning of spirituality in music. Messiaen is certainly a more complex case and his music is more interesting, but whether he is "trying" to evoke a particular state in me doesn't matter if the aesthetic vision he presents sometimes impresses me as more bizarre than profound. It's what the music actually _does_ evoke that matters ; discussions of the meaning of spirituality are just interesting attempts to understand why the music affects me as it does.
> 
> My feelings about music in styles outside of "common practice tonality" are as varied as the works and styles themselves. I enjoy (for example) Dufay, Josquin, Lassus, Byrd, north Indian classical music (sitar, sarod, or surbahar, with tabla), Javanese gamelan, Chinese music of certain types, some jazz... It remains true that I find the hierarchical tonal system of harmonic relations as it developed in Europe and reached maximum richness and subtlety in the late Romantic era a unique and incomparable "language," capable of expressing a wider range of feeling than any other system in world music. I might even try to relate tonal hierarchy to spirituality, but I think I'll spare myself and everyone else that conversation today! (Besides, I seem to recall that millionrainbows has a thread on tonality as God. Correct me if I'm wrong, millionrainbows.)


I. . . I just. . . I just love _everything _about this post: critical, perceptive,_ judicious_, learned. . . and absolutely _hilarious_.

I agree.

What fundamentally matters with me is the quality and profundity of the music, not its provenance, or whether its religious, secular, or otherwise.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> You've never heard of the "mad monk?" He was considered by many to be a sage of the utmost caliber, and he would go around in utter debauchery. Not trying to say this is the way to go about finding the source of our existence, haha. Just trying to break the walls of this prison-house of regulations.


If that's the way you want to seek enlightenment, go right ahead, and I'll give you a bottle of wine later. Which street corner will you be on?


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> If that's the way you want to seek enlightenment, go right ahead, and I'll give you a bottle of wine later. Which street corner will you be on?


I guess we're going to have to work through your selective reading. I did say "Not trying to say this is the way to go about finding the source of our existence, haha. Just trying to break the walls of this prison-house of regulations."

You were implying things as absolutes. I'm saying nothing is absolute, so why such loyalty? The individual has to find a way that's cohesive with their disposition. You can't say there is one way to do it, and this way you must go... It's never worked that way in the history of mankind.

Edit: maybe you weren't stating things as absolutes this time. You usually do, though. Oh well, regardless... I wanted to make a point. So I used you as a platform.


----------



## starthrower

Enough of these threads, because the music gets forgotten. Take it to a philosophy forum. And there are some good ones where you can lurk and take in the ideas.


----------



## Blake

starthrower said:


> Enough of these threads, because the music gets forgotten. Take it to a philosophy forum. And there are some good ones where you can lurk and take in the ideas.


I wonder what you were expecting in a thread questioning -religious music and not being religious-.

However... you should take your own advice. There are plenty of other threads/forums that you can lurk around and not be bothered by such matters.


----------



## starthrower

Vesuvius said:


> I wonder what you were expecting in a thread questioning -religious music and not being religious-.
> 
> However... you should take your own advice. There are plenty of other threads/forums that you can lurk around and not be bothered by such matters.


OK, continue with your armchair philosophizing. But the subject is rather silly. I personally don't put music in secular/sacred bags. And this subject has been hashed and rehashed in other threads.


----------



## Blake

starthrower said:


> OK, continue with your armchair philosophizing. But the subject is rather silly. I personally don't put music in secular/sacred bags. And this subject has been hashed and rehashed in other threads.


I may... some people apparently find it to be interesting still. I hope you get tired of your armchair criticizing soon.

Okay, enough of this now.


----------



## Nereffid

I am an atheist (which is not a religion, FFS ) and am able to enjoy music that is religious.

Also, I have never been to Mantua, am not a hunchback, and have never inadvertently caused my daughter to be murdered, but I can enjoy Rigoletto...


----------



## Giordano

Cosmos said:


> Same here. A lot of music has this quality to it, where my reaction feels (dare I say) almost spiritual. Just the way some works hit me, I get a sense of what some describe as "religious ecstasy" or a "connection with the supernatural". Falls under the philosophy that art in general acts as both a balloon that lifts the profane toward the sacred, and an anchor that brings the sacred down a bit, helping us achieve a middle ground.
> 
> *Though that's more poetic than empirical*, it's a nice thought. Also, it reminds me how amazing the power of music is


I agree with you, but I would like to interject (although I'm not sure I should...):

As far as I can see, there is nothing in the universe that is not empirical (experiential). "Poetic" is a label to categorize limited human linear linguistic expressions of (greater but still limited) multi-dimensional perceptions (of phenomena or information).

Ideas like "supernatural," "mystical," "ecstasy" are all understandable (given the limited human understanding of what constitutes nature), but it also appears to me that we must first admit that ordinary human consciousness is limited if we want to understand something (perceive greater aspects) about the "power of music" instead of just throwing up our hands in awe or, on the other hand, pronounce that "music is useless."

Another point I'd like to make is that we should distinguish between being religious (subscribing to a belief system) and being spiritual (being dedicated to learning and growth). What we call the "connection to the sacred" happens in a person (a composer for example) despite particular personal beliefs about the sacred. One could say that the sincerity of the heart bypasses the hurdles of doctrine. So the composer speaks from the heart in music, the listener perceives through the heart and feels a "connection to the sacred." So whatever labels we attach to music are not very relevant to the actual content and the "power to evoke feelings of the sacred."

In any case, seeing beauty and feeling joy are ever in our being no matter what we may or may not perceive and understand.


----------



## ClassicalListener

Man cannot be irreligious anymore than he can be "amathematical".


----------



## starthrower

Vesuvius said:


> I may... some people apparently find it to be interesting still. I hope you get tired of your armchair criticizing soon.
> 
> Okay, enough of this now.


I agree! Enough. Now when does the music come in to the discussion?


----------



## Blake

starthrower said:


> I agree! Enough. Now when does the music come in to the discussion?


Well, this is a music forum. I don't calculate that you have too far to wander to find threads chock-full of such discussions.

My ego will not let me digress with ye olde sparing session just yet. I don't think this relationship is going to last. Nothing personal... it's me, not you.


----------



## starthrower

Dufay said:


> whatever labels we attach to music are not very relevant to the actual content and the "power to evoke feelings of the sacred."
> 
> In any case, seeing beauty and feeling joy are ever in our being no matter what we may or may not perceive and understand.


Bingo! We hear and enjoy music as children without distinction or labeling, or asking ourselves if we're allowed to enjoy a certain musical piece in relation to our beliefs.

I remember a childhood friend relating a catholic school story about one of the nuns telling the kids what a horrible song John Lennon's Imagine was. We kind of felt sorry for this pathetic nun indoctrinated with her dogmatic world view.


----------



## Guest

Dufay said:


> Ideas like "supernatural," "mystical," "ecstasy" are all understandable (given the limited human understanding of what constitutes nature), but it also appears to me that we must first admit that *ordinary human consciousness is limited* if we want to understand something (perceive greater aspects) about the "power of music" instead of just throwing up our hands in awe or, on the other hand, pronounce that "music is useless."


In what sense? Only if we start from the premise that there must be something beyond our capacity to perceive it.

On the other hand, if we accept that our response to music is nothing more than a complex interaction between our emotions and our thoughts and imagination, we needn't worry about what might lie beyond our capacity to perceive, because there is nothing.


----------



## Giordano

MacLeod said:


> In what sense? Only if we start from the premise that there must be something beyond our capacity to perceive it.
> 
> On the other hand, if we accept that our response to music is nothing more than a complex interaction between our emotions and our thoughts and imagination, we needn't worry about what might lie beyond our capacity to perceive, because there is nothing.


As you wish.......


----------



## Blake

MacLeod said:


> In what sense? Only if we start from the premise that there must be something beyond our capacity to perceive it.
> 
> On the other hand, if we accept that our response to music is nothing more than a complex interaction between our emotions and our thoughts and imagination, we needn't worry about what might lie beyond our capacity to perceive, because there is nothing.


This seems pretty reasonable to me. I wonder what it is in our minds that keep pulling us away from being intellectually clean. I mean, this complex interaction of music and our thoughts and senses is already a majestic thing without convoluting it with stories.

People are going to do what they do, and I hope they find the joy they seek. But it certainly becomes a mess when one tries to marry fantasy with the factual-physical world. And I'm referring to fantasy as anything believed in that's not 100% sure.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Apropos of no post in particular, I'm sure devout composers such as Messiaen didn't have any problems with people of other faiths enjoying - or performing - their work and presumably this would include atheists and agnostics as well.


----------



## Marcel

Tétrico, i'm not religious also but your likes is mi mine...


----------



## Schubussy

DeepR said:


> I've communicated with some people who have experimented a lot with psychedelic drugs and judging from their amazing stories I almost envy them for what they've experienced, although I'd never go down that road myself. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayahuasca
> 
> Anyway, this was about music and not drugs. I like to think that reaching certain states of mind from listening to music is much more noble and worthy than doing drugs.


I have to say, I smoked changa which is a smokable form of ayahuasca and it was the most incredible, and intensely spiritual experience of my life. I'm not religious at all but I think it gave me more of an appreciation of strong religious experiences some might have.


----------



## Mahlerian

elgars ghost said:


> Apropos of no post in particular, I'm sure devout composers such as Messiaen didn't have any problems with people of other faiths enjoying - or performing - their work and presumably this would include atheists and agnostics as well.


Of course not. Messiaen considered Boulez (an open atheist) one of the best interpreters of his music, including that with religiously inspired titles.


----------



## Hmmbug

I would imagine one can have sensory human experiences and pleasure of the sort often equated with religion without being religious. (Well, I can say it - it does apply to me.) I'm reminded of the new Sam Harris (of _The End of Faith_ fame) book in which he describes walking along some Jewish holy path and feeling a "spiritual lift" though he is an atheist.


----------



## millionrainbows

elgars ghost said:


> Apropos of no post in particular, I'm sure devout composers such as Messiaen didn't have any problems with people of other faiths enjoying - or performing - their work and presumably this would include atheists and agnostics as well.


I agree, but* not simply* because people of other faiths, including atheists and agnostics, have different belief systems, because this is different than spiritual or "mystic" experience. Messiaen was a mystic Catholic, and thus, religion is as much an *experience* as it is a belief system. I'm sure Messiaen realized that "real musical experience" would allow listeners and performers to tap into the mystical aspects of Catholicism. Yes, even young Pierre.


----------



## elgar's ghost

millionrainbows said:


> I agree, but* not simply* because people of other faiths, including atheists and agnostics, have different belief systems, because this is different than spiritual or "mystic" experience. Messiaen was a mystic Catholic, and thus, religion is as much an *experience* as it is a belief system. I'm sure Messiaen realized that "real musical experience" would allow listeners and performers to tap into the mystical aspects of Catholicism. Yes, even young Pierre.


Yes - your reply is better than my post and captures the essence of what I was thinking as far as Messiaen was concerned.


----------



## hpowders

I have a problem with the phrase "enjoying religious music". I can't see myself ever exclaiming, "man did I enjoy Church today!!" Anybody says that to me, my first thought would be, "this dude's mental!"


----------



## Jobis

starthrower said:


> Bingo! We hear and enjoy music as children without distinction or labeling, or asking ourselves if we're allowed to enjoy a certain musical piece in relation to our beliefs.
> 
> I remember a childhood friend relating a catholic school story about one of the nuns telling the kids what a horrible song John Lennon's Imagine was. We kind of felt sorry for this pathetic nun indoctrinated with her dogmatic world view.


Imagine is a horrible song, and its not pathetic to realise that. Imagine there's no heaven? Without life after death there is no justice, the world is for many a meaningless horror, that's a pretty bleak notion.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Jobis said:


> Imagine is a horrible song, and its not pathetic to realise that. Imagine there's no heaven? Without life after death there is no justice, the world is for many a meaningless horror, that's a pretty bleak notion.


_We_ give meaning to existence, to life. I never understood the "_If we aren't eternally rewarded after we die, what's the point?_". It shocks me every time I hear it, me and my best friend argue over this at least once a month. lol. Wouldn't our short physical lives on this earth be rendered trivial and meaningless compared to the _unfathomable_ and _eternal_ existence in heaven? What could be more profound, meaningful, and real than the actual meaning we real humans give to existence and life? What could be more profound than knowing we have a relatively small time on this planet called earth, so we better make the most of it? To me, the "_If there's no heaven, life is bleak and meaningless_" showcases a cognitive dissonance.

Just because something seems like a bleak notion doesn't make something false. Children starving in Africa is as bleak as it gets, but it is indeed real. By the same token, the existence of heaven and god aren't real just because they comfort you. "The universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not. The existence or nonexistence of a creator is independent of our desires. A world without God or purpose may seem harsh or pointless, but that alone doesn't require God to actually exist."


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Of course, the post I made above would be my 666th post. Of course! :lol:


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


>


Jeez...

Stupid thread idea: precocious in music... and baldness!: Boulez or Schoenberg? choose one!


----------



## DavidA

Jobis said:


> Imagine is a horrible song, and its not pathetic to realise that. Imagine there's no heaven? Without life after death there is no justice, the world is for many a meaningless horror, that's a pretty bleak notion.


Written by a man who he reckoned he was an 'instinctive socialist' and who thought money should be abolished. He died worth £75 million! Well you know, 'don't do as I say......'


----------



## Blake

DavidA said:


> Written by a man who he reckoned he was an 'instinctive socialist' and who thought money should be abolished. He died worth £75 million! Well you know, 'don't do as I say......'


That does seem to be painfully ironic.


----------



## Blake

DiesIraeVIX said:


> _We_ give meaning to existence, to life. I never understood the "_If we aren't eternally rewarded after we die, what's the point?_". It shocks me every time I hear it, me and my best friend argue over this at least once a month. lol. Wouldn't our short physical lives on this earth be rendered trivial and meaningless compared to the _unfathomable_ and _eternal_ existence in heaven? What could be more profound, meaningful, and real than the actual meaning we real humans give to existence and life? What could be more profound than knowing we have a relatively small time on this planet called earth, so we better make the most of it? To me, the "_If there's no heaven, life is bleak and meaningless_" showcases a cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Just because something seems like a bleak notion doesn't make something false. Children starving in Africa is as bleak as it gets, but it is indeed real. By the same token, the existence of heaven and god aren't real just because they comfort you. "The universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not. The existence or nonexistence of a creator is independent of our desires. A world without God or purpose may seem harsh or pointless, but that alone doesn't require God to actually exist."


I guess it narrows down to... if nothing in this manifestation last eternally, then everything is quite meaningless. Think about it, when this universe of life is done, who will be there to remember that there was such an existence? It's like it never happened. It doesn't mean we shouldn't enjoy and be loving and kind, as those qualities seem to feel much better than hate and selfishness. And maybe there is a part of us that is eternal, but it's certainly not the person with its mind and body. As for god, well, I've never met such an entity.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> Written by a man who he reckoned he was an 'instinctive socialist' and who thought money should be abolished. He died worth £75 million! Well you know, 'don't do as I say......'


Did the "instinctive socialist" give away _his _money? Or did he merely advocate giving away _other people's_ money?


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Vesuvius said:


> I guess it narrows down to... if nothing in this manifestation last eternally, then everything is quite meaningless. Think about it, when this universe of life is done, who will be there to remember that there was such an existence? It's like it never happened. It doesn't mean we shouldn't enjoy and be loving and kind, as those qualities seem to feel much better than hate and selfishness. And maybe there is a part of us that is eternal, but it's certainly not the person with its mind and body. As for god, well, I've never met such an entity.


We need to remember, however, that we can apply meaning to the "NOW". Limited time is what makes our existence precious. Just as precious metals are "precious" because they are extremely limited in number.

Yes, the human species won't last forever, so ultimately "meaningless" in the universal sense. Yes, it is rather disappointing, I suppose. However, we are real and we are here on this earth for a certain amount of time and we can give meaning to it, just as we do to EVERYTHING ELSE. I love my son, my parents and my friends, yet I know it won't last forever. I never see anyone walk out of a movie because it's going to end. Gasp! A movie that ends! Where's the justice, where's the meaning?! Our very life on earth is based on humans giving meaning to things. The whole idea that if something doesn't last forever, it's meaningless *now* is a terrifying line of reasoning to me. Certain religious terrorists feel justified in their actions because of this very type of reasoning. Those religious fundamentalists know for a certainty that they are going to heaven, so what they do here on this finite earth matters little because they're going to heaven for eternity. No, what we do here matters a great deal! Go ahead and stop drinking water and eating food and tell me if those things are trivial or meaningless. Yes, water and food will be meaningless a billion years in the future, but they matter now! Stop loving your loved ones because they won't be here a billion years from now.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Haydn's Creation and then his late masses got me into religious music - although I have no religion, I really enjoy religious works. I'm now also very much into Handel's oratorios, Bach's Mass in B minor, Mozart's Requiem, Telemann's Masses and Passions, etc. It's great classical music, some of the best ever written. I think it would be silly to deny the quality of this music just because one doesn't share the religious belief they're based on. In the end, as some have already said, it's all about the human search for meaning in life, which I think most people can relate to, whether religious or not.


----------



## Blake

DiesIraeVIX said:


> We need to remember, however, that we can apply meaning to the "NOW". Limited time is what makes our existence precious. Just as precious metals are "precious" because they are extremely limited in number.
> 
> Yes, the human species won't last forever, so ultimately "meaningless" in the universal sense. Yes, it is rather disappointing, I suppose. However, we are real and we are here on this earth for a certain amount of time and we can give meaning to it, just as we do to EVERYTHING ELSE. I love my son, my parents and my friends, yet I know it won't last forever. I never see anyone walk out of a movie because it's going to end. Gasp! A movie that ends! Where's the justice, where's the meaning?! Our very life on earth is based on humans giving meaning to things. The whole idea that if something doesn't last forever, it's meaningless *now* is a terrifying line of reasoning to me. Certain religious terrorists feel justified in their actions because of this very type of reasoning. Those religious fundamentalists know for a certainty that they are going to heaven, so what they do here on this finite earth matters little because they're going to heaven for eternity. No, what we do here matters a great deal! Go ahead and stop drinking water and eating food and tell me if those things are trivial or meaningless. Yes, water and food will be meaningless a billion years in the future, but they matter now! Stop loving your loved ones because they won't be here a billion years from now. This is an absurd notion.


Those fundamental terrorist do in fact believe that what they do on earth has meaning. So much meaning, in fact, that they are willing to go to extremes to prove themselves.

Like I said, I love seeing people happy and sharing in beautiful relationships... but there is no lasting affect, so I'm also aware of how meaningless it is. Anything given or gained will come to an end. But that won't stop me from loving this beautiful existence while I'm here. I can't seem to help it.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Vesuvius said:


> Those fundamental terrorist do in fact believe that what they do on earth has meaning. So much meaning, in fact, that they are willing to go to extremes to prove themselves.
> 
> Like I said, I love seeing people happy and sharing in beautiful relationships... but there is no lasting affect, so I'm also aware of how meaningless it is. Anything given or gained will come to an end. But that won't stop me from loving this beautiful existence while I'm here. I can't seem to help it.


That's a good point, I mean to say that they have no regard for the real-life consequences (they have no sympathy for people's pain, death, and suffering), their consequences are other-worldly.

I can't help but love this short existence while I'm here as well.


----------



## Guest

Jobis said:


> Imagine is a horrible song, and its not pathetic to realise that.


IYO. I beg to differ.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Nothing is bleaker than the concept of eternal life. 
Imagine that never-ending state. Forever and ever and ever. 
*That* renders life meaningless.

'Imagine' the song is still bit a rubbish though


----------



## Guest

Jobis said:


> Imagine is a horrible song, and its not pathetic to realise that. Imagine there's no heaven? Without life after death there is no justice, the world is for many a meaningless horror, that's a pretty bleak notion.


Agreed - it really is nothing more than a simplistic melody tied to a paean to dime store socialist/marxist/atheist doctrine. No heaven, no religion, no countries, no possessions. And yeah, the hypocrisy was pretty blatant. In addition to his net worth at the time of his death, this guy who imagined no possessions lived in the ritzy Dakota in Manhattan - in the Upper West Side by Central Park. Currently, apartments there sell for anywhere from $4 million to $30 million. One of the most insipid songs that was ever written.


----------



## Guest

Both sides here misunderstand the other. 

Atheists seek meaning in the here and now. Fine. That's what works for you.

But religious people don't disregard this life, focusing only on eternity. On the contrary, many religious traditions believe strongly, and their doctrine teaches, that the quality of the experience after this life is inextricably tied to actions and choices in this life. And I don't picture an infinite existence as particularly boring. The universe is infinite - do physicists and astronomers find it particularly boring? Matter and energy are infinite - and even more vast and variable than we can imagine. Everything that is fundamental in this universe is infinite - that is not a religious statement, that is merely stating scientific theories. So why not life? True, it may change, it may not be the same as what we now experience, but why can't it be infinite, in one form or another?


----------



## starthrower

Jobis said:


> Imagine is a horrible song, and its not pathetic to realise that. Imagine there's no heaven? Without life after death there is no justice, the world is for many a meaningless horror, that's a pretty bleak notion.


I believe the assumption of an actual heaven, judgement, and eternal justice is small consolation for the families of the countless victims in this world. And extending these shallow sentiments to those who have suffered great loss is an insult. The state of Israel is a perfect example of the rejection of this mindset. You don't see the Israeli's acting meek and waiting around for eternal justice.

And what is pathetic about the nun's actions and words to the children is the art of indoctrination. Not the fact that she was in disagreement with Lennon's world view.

And I don't see what's so horrible about the Lennon song. He was simply stating the idea of questioning the dogma drilled into our heads as children, and entertaining the thought of an alternative reality. And regardless of one's beliefs, it's actions that matter. Three of the most outspoken opponents of that horrible Vietnam war were Lennon, a non-believer, Martin Luther King, a Christian, and Howard Zinn, a Jew.


----------



## Blake

MagneticGhost said:


> Nothing is bleaker than the concept of eternal life.
> Imagine that never-ending state. Forever and ever and ever.
> *That* renders life meaningless.
> 
> 'Imagine' the song is still bit a rubbish though


The "nothing" that our minds project is of course bleak, because we're so hard-wired to want to be "something." I imagine that it's something like deep-sleep, and how wonderful deep-sleep is. I mean, do you remember anything before this body was born and you acquired the knowledge that you exist? So this knowledge of existence can't be infinite because it wasn't there all along.


----------



## Bulldog

starthrower said:


> And I don't see what's so horrible about the Lennon song. He was simply stating the idea of questioning the dogma drilled into our heads as children, and entertaining the thought of an alternative reality.


"Horrible" is too extreme for a simple song. I just think the song stinks. The pie-in-the-sky lyrics are ridiculous, but that's not my primary objection. It's the syrup-laden music that turns me off - too many calories.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> I believe the assumption of an actual heaven, judgement, and eternal justice is small consolation for the families of the countless victims in this world. And extending these shallow sentiments to those who have suffered great loss is an insult. The state of Israel is a perfect example of the rejection of this mindset. You don't see the Israeli's acting meek and waiting around for eternal justice.


Justice in this life and justice in the next are not mutually exclusive. And justice does not only refer to punishing wrongdoing. Israel is also not merely acting out of a sense of justice - they are acting out of self-defense. They don't intend to allow anybody, ever again, make them wish for justice. They'd rather not be killed in the first place.


----------



## Ingélou

MagneticGhost said:


> Nothing is bleaker than the concept of eternal life.
> Imagine that never-ending state. Forever and ever and ever.
> *That* renders life meaningless.
> 
> 'Imagine' the song is still bit a rubbish though


I don't think you've done justice here to the concept of Eternal Life; it isn't just like life in this world, something that 'drags on' like terrestrial time. It is a Beatific State that is timeless - more akin to Enlightenment in the Buddhist sense - I would *imagine*, she added hastily. 

Not so much *this* -










as *this* -










I don't like the smugness that John Lennon's song exudes; plus, I don't think it shows very much imagination...


----------



## aleazk

... more likely, *this*










Entry requirement? being freshly dead.


----------



## Blake

Nothing also means no "me" and "you". So, where's the club? It's nowhere. Hehe.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

DrMike said:


> Justice in this life and justice in the next are not mutually exclusive. And justice does not only refer to punishing wrongdoing. Israel is also not merely acting out of a sense of justice - they are acting out of self-defense. They don't intend to allow anybody, ever again, make them wish for justice. They'd rather not be killed in the first place.


I'm not going to enter into the discussion about Israel because I'm woefully inexperienced in the Israel-Palestine issue, therefore I'm going to keep shut.

Your first statement, however, I can address. Justice in this life and justice in the "next life" are completely and mutually exclusive. One of those justices is 100% provable with empirical evidence, the other justice is 100% unprovable, untestable, unseeable.

My interest in these topics has _nothing_ to do with the existence or nonexistence of a creator. That doesn't interest me and that's why I won't go by "atheist". I'm interested in what we call reality, what is real, I'm interested in evidence. This is how we live our lives. There is zero sense talking about real-life justice with next-life justice in the same sentence. _They don't play by the same rules_. I find this quote by Dr. Sam Harris to be pertinent (and equally hilarious), "Tell a devout [person] that his [spouse] is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence what so ever.". Here you see the two sets of rules at play, they're completely exclusive from each other. That's why evidence is valued in the real world. We don't send men and women to space based on what we hope to be true or what we cannot prove, we send them to space with the most rigorous evidence-based scientific testing and technology.

Regarding your previous post, scientists do *not* know for certain that the universe is infinite (in size), so we shouldn't state with certainty that the universe is infinite when we don't actually know that. Yes, the very data-information that the universe consists of will go on for the rest of the universe's existence, absolutely. Life is a state of being, just as a star is a state of being. The matter that makes up our bodies (which contains life) will deteriorate and die, just as a star will die. Yet, the matter that makes up humans and stars will forever be part of this universe. Information-data cannot disappear or vanish. The components of the star will be there, but it won't be a star anymore. The components of humans will be there, but they won't be human anymore and won't have life.

Also, I want to expand on your statement that nonbelievers find meaning in the "now". I find meaning and importance in the "now", meaning as long as humans are around. So, the "now" can mean thousands or millions of years (I don't claim to know how long we'll be around for as a species).


----------



## Ingélou

aleazk said:


> ... more likely, *this*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Entry requirement? being freshly dead.


Um - this picture doesn't actually illustrate *the concept* of eternal life, which was what I was discussing ...

Sed pax tecum:


----------



## Guest

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I'm not going to enter into the discussion about Israel because I'm woefully inexperienced in the Israel-Palestine issue, therefore I'm going to keep shut.
> 
> Your first statement, however, I can address. Justice in this life and justice in the "next life" are completely and mutually exclusive. One of those justices is 100% provable with empirical evidence, the other justice is 100% unprovable, untestable, unseeable.
> 
> My interest in these topics has _nothing_ to do with the existence or nonexistence of a creator. That doesn't interest me and that's why I won't go by "atheist". I'm interested in what we call reality, what is real, I'm interested in evidence. This is how we live our lives. There is zero sense talking about real-life justice with next-life justice in the same sentence. _They don't play by the same rules_. I find this quote by Dr. Sam Harris to be pertinent (and equally hilarious), "Tell a devout [person] that his [spouse] is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence what so ever.". Here you see the two sets of rules at play, they're completely exclusive from each other. That's why evidence is valued in the real world. We don't send men and women to space based on what we hope to be true or what we cannot prove, we send them to space with the most rigorous evidence-based scientific testing and technology.
> 
> Regarding your previous post, scientists do *not* know for certain that the universe is infinite (in size), so we shouldn't state with certainty that the universe is infinite when we don't actually know that. Yes, the very data-information that the universe consists of will go on for the rest of the universe's existence, absolutely. Life is a state of being, just as a star is a state of being. The matter that makes up our bodies (which contains life) will deteriorate and die, just as a star will die. Yet, the matter that makes up humans and stars will forever be part of this universe. Information-data cannot disappear or vanish. The components of the star will be there, but it won't be a star anymore. The components of humans will be there, but they won't be human anymore and won't have life.
> 
> Also, I want to expand on your statement that nonbelievers find meaning in the "now". I find meaning and importance in the "now", meaning as long as humans are around. So, the "now" can mean thousands or millions of years (I don't claim to know how long we'll be around for as a species).


You misunderstood the part about justice I was trying to convey. My point was that, even if a person does believe in justice after this life, it doesn't exclude the possibility of justice in this life. For example, if someone murders a member of my family, I may very well believe that that murderer will face justice after they die. But that doesn't mean they can't also face justice in this life. That was what I meant by them not being mutually exclusive. And, in fact, they should be made to face justice in this life, if their action merits it, regardless of what may come after.

As to your other points, I really don't feel like having this conversation again, and no doubt the mods will come in here and say to shut down the religious chatter. You demand evidence. Fine. I happen to believe that I have had experiences, feelings, impressions, etc., that I count as evidence for myself that there is a creator, and that this life is not all there is. Contrary to Sam Harris' assertion, I am not just taking someone's word for it. He does like to caricature us, though, doesn't he? Get a few laughs at the expense of people of faith? That's fine - ultimately, his opinion is irrelevant.

And you make some statements of belief, not fact. How do you know that matter will forever be a part of the universe? That is fairly widely accepted among scientists, but I'm not sure you can prove that - forever is a long time to test.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

DrMike said:


> And you make some statements of belief, not fact. How do you know that matter will forever be a part of the universe? That is fairly widely accepted among scientists, but I'm not sure you can prove that - forever is a long time to test.


I see what you're saying about justice, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

About matter not being able to vanish, that's a law just as gravity is a law, it exists independent of my believing in it or not. It's called the "Conservation of Mass law".


----------



## aleazk

DrMike said:


> I happen to believe that I have had experiences, feelings, impressions, etc., that I count as evidence for myself that there is a creator, and that this life is not all there is. Contrary to Sam Harris' assertion, I am not just taking someone's word for it. He does like to caricature us, though, doesn't he? Get a few laughs at the expense of people of faith? That's fine - ultimately, his opinion is irrelevant.
> 
> And you make some statements of belief, not fact. How do you know that matter will forever be a part of the universe? That is fairly widely accepted among scientists, but I'm not sure you can prove that - forever is a long time to test.


So, we believe more in these "experiences, feelings, impressions" than in scientific predictions, based on the best science we have?

Science made/makes mistakes, sure, but I will take science over "experiences, feelings, impressions" any day.


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> So, we believe more in these "experiences, feelings, impressions" than in scientific predictions, based on the best science we have?
> 
> Science made/makes mistakes, sure, but I will take science over "experiences, feelings, impressions" any day.


I never said that, so I'm not sure from where you took that. I don't believe that any science has disproven what I believe regarding my religious faith. In science, I do look for scientific evidence. In my faith, I rely on other kinds of evidence. I don't hold the two to be mutually exclusive. I'm not sure where you found this conflict in me - it isn't there. I consider both science and faith.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Vesuvius said:


> The "nothing" that our minds project is of course bleak, because we're so hard-wired to want to be "something." I imagine that it's something like deep-sleep, and how wonderful deep-sleep is. I mean, do you remember anything before this body was born and you acquired the knowledge that you exist? So this knowledge of existence can't be infinite because it wasn't there all along.


That's what I was saying.
When I said Nothing - I meant There isn't anything that approaches the bleakness of the concept of Eternal Life.
I'm quite happy with the idea of slipping back into nothingness and sharing my atoms with the universe.


----------



## Guest

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I see what you're saying about justice, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
> 
> About matter not being able to vanish, that's a law just as gravity is a law, it exists independent of my believing in it or not. It's called the "Conservation of Mass law".


It is a law because it has stood up to repeated testing and not been disproven. That is what a law is in science - and I will nitpick here and point out that the law stipulates a closed system. Are we considering the universe a closed system? I don't know what physicists actually think in that regard. But my point is that it is a law only insomuch that, to the best of our ability to test, it has been proven true so often that there is little or no doubt. At any given time, were it somehow to be disproven, you would have to abandon it. The chances are probably infinitely small that it would be disproven, but if you are so wed to evidence, you have to accept that you would have to abandon it if proven wrong. You have some faith, though, that won't happen. You say it exists independent of your believing it or not. Of course it does - that is the nature of truth. I feel the same way about God - he exists independently of whether you accept his existence, and I believe I have found sufficient evidence to justify my belief in him.


----------



## Ingélou

Vesuvius said:


> I mean, do you remember anything before this body was born and you acquired the knowledge that you exist? So this knowledge of existence can't be infinite because it wasn't there all along.


Interesting. Wordsworth thought the exact opposite:

*Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting: 
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star, 
Hath had elsewhere its setting, 
And cometh from afar: 
Not in entire forgetfulness, 
And not in utter nakedness, 
But trailing clouds of glory do we come 
From God, who is our home: 
Heaven lies about us in our infancy! 
Shades of the prison-house begin to close 
Upon the growing Boy, 
But he beholds the light, and whence it flows, 
He sees it in his joy; 
The Youth, who daily farther from the east 
Must travel, still is Nature's priest, 
And by the vision splendid 
Is on his way attended; 
At length the Man perceives it die away, 
And fade into the light of common day.*

from Ode: Intimations of Immortality.

Not arguing; everyone must think as they please & follow their own conscience; I just love this poem and couldn't resist quoting it... 

The Young Wordsworth was quite something...










Okay, that was my plug for English Literature. I'm off now.


----------



## aleazk

DrMike said:


> I never said that, so I'm not sure from where you took that. I don't believe that any science has disproven what I believe regarding my religious faith. In science, I do look for scientific evidence. In my faith, I rely on other kinds of evidence. I don't hold the two to be mutually exclusive. I'm not sure where you found this conflict in me - it isn't there. I consider both science and faith.


To be honest, to me, things like evolution really make the search for an objective metaphysical meaning of life (is not religious faith all about that?  ) a lost cause. Also, the concept of 'a creator' is completely flawed from the logical point of view. This creator also creates time, so I am told, but how you can have causation and therefore causal concepts like creation if you don't have time? Not to mention the obvious infinite regress if you start to ask who created the creator...

So, yeah, assuming you fully believe in logic and in the obvious implications of scientific theories, I do find conflicts. Believe whatever you want, though.


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> To be honest, to me, things like evolution really make the search for an objective metaphysical meaning of life (is not religious faith all about that?  ) a lost cause. Also, the concept of 'a creator' is completely flawed from the logical point of view. This creator also creates time, so I am told, but how you can have causation and therefore causal concepts like creation if you don't have time?
> 
> So, yeah, assuming you fully believe in logic and in the obvious implications of scientific theories, I do find conflicts. Believe whatever you want, though.


I can't speak for all religious beliefs. I have not heard the idea of the creator creating time - it is not part of the doctrine in which I believe. But why can't you have causal concepts without time? Time is a relative thing - we speak of time, but only in reference to certain events. Was there anything before the Big Bang? And yet we can still talk about things in reference to how long we think it has been since the Big Bang, or our estimation for when our galaxy formed, or our solar system, or our planet, or life, or the dawn of our species. Time is a relative term, an arbitrary term for measurement.

My doctrine does not explain every last thing there is to be explained - on some things, it is rather silent. I don't have a conflict.


----------



## Blake

Ingélou said:


> Interesting. Wordsworth thought the exact opposite:
> 
> *Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
> The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
> Hath had elsewhere its setting,
> And cometh from afar:
> Not in entire forgetfulness,
> And not in utter nakedness,
> But trailing clouds of glory do we come
> From God, who is our home:
> Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
> Shades of the prison-house begin to close
> Upon the growing Boy,
> But he beholds the light, and whence it flows,
> He sees it in his joy;
> The Youth, who daily farther from the east
> Must travel, still is Nature's priest,
> And by the vision splendid
> Is on his way attended;
> At length the Man perceives it die away,
> And fade into the light of common day.*
> 
> from Ode: Intimations of Immortality.
> 
> Not arguing; everyone must think as they please & follow their own conscience; I just love this poem and couldn't resist quoting it...


That is a great poem. I'm surprised we don't have a poetry section around here. Such an awesome artistic form.

Another plug:

"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow ****** of his cavern."

-William Blake


----------



## tdc

aleazk said:


> So, we believe more in these "experiences, feelings, impressions" than in scientific predictions, based on the best science we have?
> 
> Science made/makes mistakes, sure, but I will take science over "experiences, feelings, impressions" any day.


Fair enough, so then (out of curiosity) what scientific evidence are you going by when you suggest there is "nothing" after death?


----------



## aleazk

DrMike said:


> I can't speak for all religious beliefs. I have not heard the idea of the creator creating time - it is not part of the doctrine in which I believe. But why can't you have causal concepts without time? Time is a relative thing - we speak of time, but only in reference to certain events. Was there anything before the Big Bang? And yet we can still talk about things in reference to how long we think it has been since the Big Bang, or our estimation for when our galaxy formed, or our solar system, or our planet, or life, or the dawn of our species. Time is a relative term, an arbitrary term for measurement.
> 
> My doctrine does not explain every last thing there is to be explained - on some things, it is rather silent. I don't have a conflict.


Time is an objective physical concept and it's the dimension that allows change and therefore to _differentiate and order_ events, which is essential for causality, where you have cause first and then effect. This is the standard scientific view on time.

The idea that God is outside time was put forward by Thomas Aquinas.

Ok, what does explain your doctrine then? us? our purpose? our moral? the 'after death'? divine justice? or it simply says we were created by this entity and nothing more?

Evolution tell us that human beings are simply the final product of a chain of events driven by very banal processes. As I said, it really makes the search for an objective metaphysical meaning of our human qualities and even life itself perhaps (all this being the point of most religions) a lost cause.


----------



## aleazk

tdc said:


> Fair enough, so then (out of curiosity) what scientific evidence are you going by when you suggest there is "nothing" after death?


That the mind, consciousness, etc., all seem to be just brain products, and, in particular, that will cease once this brain dies. And, also, brains are just products of banal natural processes according to evolution, which eliminates any necessity for a divine explanation of their existence (and therefore of the mind and all of our singular experiences). This, of course, also adds to the banal origin of our cherished singular experiences, which gives even more weight to the idea that they will simply disappear one day because of other natural process occurring to the brain (i.e., death).


----------



## DiesIraeCX

tdc said:


> Fair enough, so then (out of curiosity) what scientific evidence are you going by when you suggest there is "nothing" after death?


Because there is absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise, the burden of proof falls on those making the claim that you don't actually die when you die. Let's not forget what die/death means, the "termination of all biological functions that sustain a living organism". It's a difficult pill to swallow, I sympathize with that. It is tough and I struggle with that thought from time to time.


----------



## Blake

My man Frost:

Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Because there is absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise, the burden of proof falls on those making the claim that you don't actually die when you die. Let's not forget what die/death means, the "termination of all biological functions that sustain a living organism". It's a difficult pill to swallow, I sympathize with that. It is tough and I struggle with that thought from time to time.


Fallacy of Proving a Negative.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Marschallin Blair said:


> Fallacy of Proving a Negative.


There is nothing to suggest that we keep living after we die, therefore I think that when we die. We die. Life stops (definition of death)

I probably misunderstand your post, I think I may have.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Because there is absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise, the burden of proof falls on those making the claim that you don't actually die when you die. Let's not forget what die/death means, the "termination of all biological functions that sustain a living organism". It's a difficult pill to swallow, I sympathize with that. It is tough and I struggle with that thought from time to time.


I actually find the idea that there is nothing after death quite comforting. I may wory about the manner of my death. Death itself I do not fear, because it is the end. I won't know anything different, because I will be dead.


----------



## aleazk

DiesIraeVIX said:


> There is nothing to suggest that we keep living after we die, therefore I think that when we die. We die. Life stops (definition of death)
> 
> Please tell me what I'm trying to _prove_ here.


Marschallin Blair seems to be very formal for this. She will seriously consider if there's a teapot orbiting Mars just because the fact that it's a very unlikely and ridiculous event does not *formally* show that there's no teapot in said situation... 

I accept that in mathematics. In the real world? it's close to useless...


----------



## echo

ohh now this thread is hilarious

funnier than the comments on youtube


----------



## tdc

*@DiesIraeVIX and Aleazk*, I think that evidence is far from conclusive. What about all the people who remember past lives? What about all those "near" death experiences? It seems like there have been many cases where people actually "die" and are revived, and there usually are some things these individuals seem to experience after "death". Why are their first-hand accounts not taken seriously? You talk about biological processes and the brain, but have not adequately addressed the concept of the soul.

The concept of evolution as it has been commonly thought of has also been challenged in more recent science, there is evidence of massive quick bursts of evolution (ie - the Cambrian explosion) that are harder to fully explain as opposed to the slow genetic mutation explanation due to "banal" processes.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

GregMitchell said:


> I actually find the idea that there is nothing after death quite comforting. I may wory about the manner of my death. Death itself I do not fear, because it is the end. I won't know anything different, because I will be dead.


Yes, I have given thought to this as well. I think, for the most part, I am conflating fear of death with my fear of dying (the actual act of dying). Hopefully it won't be for a good while longer!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

GregMitchell said:


> I actually find the idea that there is nothing after death quite comforting. I may wory about the manner of my death. Death itself I do not fear, because it is the end. I won't know anything different, because I will be dead.


I don't believe in imaginary Canaanite Baals or fear non-existent hells, myself.

I don't fear them any more than I fear vampires, leprechauns, gremlins or anything else that doesn't exist.


----------



## Blake

Everyone has settled their faith somewhere, and no one really knows. How long should we pick on each other, I wonder? We're all quite ignorant of the topic. One settles in the holes of the intellect, and the other in the holes of their emotions... both in the imagination at this level. None conclusive. 

Regretfully, we can't talk to any dead guys.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

aleazk said:


> Marschallin Blair seems to be very formal for this. She will seriously consider if there's a teapot orbiting Mars just because the fact that it's a very unlikely and ridiculous event does not *formally* proves that there's no teapot in said situation...
> 
> I accept that in mathematics. In the real world? it's close to useless...


No, actually I'm_ not_; not any more than Bertrand Russell would accept it-- who not only was the co-author of _Principia Mathematica _but the originator of the orbiting-teapot idea itself.

You misread what I wrote.

Both Bertie and the blonde Super Model would agree that an orbiting teapot is, "'Possible' but not 'probable,'" certainly.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

tdc said:


> *@DiesIraeVIX and Aleazk*, I think that evidence is far from conclusive. What about all the people who remember past lives? What about all those "near" death experiences? It seems like there have been many cases where people actually "die" and are revived, and there usually are some things these individuals seem to experience after "death". Why are their first-hand accounts not taken seriously? You talk about biological processes and the brain, but have not adequately addressed the concept of the soul.
> 
> The concept of evolution as it has been commonly thought of has also been challenged in more recent science, there is evidence of massive quick bursts of evolution (ie - the Cambrian explosion) that are harder to fully explain as opposed to the slow genetic mutation explanation due to "banal" processes.


An article on this very topic of near-death experiences, by a neuroscientist. The subject is fascinating.
Article Link - Science on the Brink of Death


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Marschallin Blair said:


> I don't fear imaginary Canaanite Baals or non-existent hells, myself.
> 
> I don't fear them any more than I fear vampires, leprechauns, gremlins or anything else that doesn't exist.


Me neither. So how is saying, "we die when we die rather than keep living", proving a negative?


----------



## aleazk

Marschallin Blair said:


> No, actually I'm_ not_; not any more than Bertrand Russell would accept it-- who not only was the co-author of _Principia Mathematica _but the originator of the orbiting-teapot idea itself.
> 
> You misread what I wrote.
> 
> Both Bertie and the blonde Super Model would agree that an orbiting teapot is, "'Possible' but not 'probable,'" certainly.


I perfectly understood what you wrote, M, I just found it a little pedantic and excessive  . As you say, we all know it's 'Possible' but not 'probable,' which, of course, it's not the same as saying 'it's impossible'. Anyway, I can't say you were wrong, so you win


----------



## Marschallin Blair

aleazk said:


> I perfectly understood what you wrote, M, I just found it a little pedantic and excessive  . As you say, we all know it's 'Possible' but not 'probable,' which, of course, it's not the same as saying 'it's impossible'. Anyway, I can't say you were wrong, so you win


I don't win.

Bertie does.

I'm just the Supermodel who's Eliza Doolittling his ideas. _;D_


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Me neither. So how is saying, "we die when we die rather than keep living", proving a negative?


Sorry Day-of-Wrath.

I was actually replying to 'tdc,' who wrote:

Fair enough, so then (out of curiosity) what scientific evidence are you going by when you suggest there is "nothing" after death?

This was above your opine, and I just blonde-moment, glazed-doughnut-facial-expression replied to what_ he _wrote and not what_ you _wrote.

My apologies.

-- Blonde phenotypes can only be hidden for so long you know.

_;D_


----------



## aleazk

Jeez, I completely misread what you wrote. Well, as a non NES, I rarely get what you write anyway


----------



## Marschallin Blair

aleazk said:


> Jeez, I completely misread what you wrote. Well, as a non NES, I rarely get what you write anyway


(Blonde-moment number? Ummmmmmmmmm. . . 'four,' I think for today.)

What's a "non-NES"?


----------



## aleazk

tdc said:


> *@DiesIraeVIX and Aleazk*, I think that evidence is far from conclusive. What about all the people who remember past lives? What about all those "near" death experiences? It seems like there have been many cases where people actually "die" and are revived, and there usually are some things these individuals seem to experience after "death". Why are their first-hand accounts not taken seriously? You talk about biological processes and the brain, but have not adequately addressed the concept of the soul.
> 
> The concept of evolution as it has been commonly thought of has also been challenged in more recent science, there is evidence of massive quick bursts of evolution (ie - the Cambrian explosion) that are harder to fully explain as opposed to the slow genetic mutation explanation due to "banal" processes.


As a biologist friend of mine explained to me, that the Cambrian explosion can't be explained by evolution is a common myth.

The thing is that, sometimes, certain type of characteristic arises (e.g., the possibility of having certain type of appendices, vision, etc.) that allows many possible variations. So, in these explosions, you see a lot of species, but they all correspond to different and bizarre variations of the same basic characteristic. He mentioned the characteristics in the Cambrian explosion, though I can't remember them, he showed me pictures in his technical books. Many of these bizarre species disappeared quickly through natural selection, while others evolved into more sophisticated adaptations.


----------



## aleazk

Marschallin Blair said:


> (Blonde-moment number? Ummmmmmmmmm. . . 'four,' I think for today.)
> 
> What's a "non-NES"?


Non-Native English-Speaker.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

aleazk said:


> Non-Native English-Speaker.


I think you express youself perfectly well. I apologize that I don't. _;D_


----------



## Blake

Yea, English isn't my natural language either. I used to scream and cry a lot, but I feel I'm expressing myself much better now.


----------



## tdc

Marschallin Blair said:


> Sorry Day-of-Wrath.
> I was actually replying to 'tdc,' who wrote:
> Fair enough, so then (out of curiosity) what scientific evidence are you going by when you suggest there is "nothing" after death?


Well if you were replying to the above statement and suggesting it was a logical fallacy you are incorrect as (from the article you linked to) "_The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence_", but in my statement I did not propose existence, I simply asked aleazk what made him believe his views of non-belief in an afterlife are somehow more "scientific". From the science I've looked at I'm still not convinced of this. No where in this thread have I proposed the existence of any specific thing in relationship to this topic.

Also if we read further along into the article you linked to:

_"One important element to remember in regards to negative proof is that once positive evidence has been presented the burden shifts to the skeptic to refute the evidence presented. One cannot keep arguing from the position of "negative proof" after the presentation of evidence."_

I've presented evidence, and could keep supplying more, but we are drifting quite a ways from the OP. I think for the most part people believe what they want in such matters, given all the available evidence I don't think its fair to say belief or non-belief in an afterlife is very scientific. People tend to make decisions on these things and then search for the evidence that will support their initial belief.


----------



## tdc

The type of fallacy I've been accused of is generally the kind of thing people use to refute creationist type thinking. I'm not a creationist, I believe the earth is billions of years old. It isn't only the superstitious and/or very religious that believe in a higher intelligence behind creation and/or an afterlife.


----------



## samurai

I think that this very erudite and entertaining thread addresses--at its core--the great difficulty of "proving" a negative, be it that God doesn't exist or that there is no"afterlife" all beings experience after their body has died.
Without trying to further"stir the pot"--really--I would simply ask--as an agnostic--if anybody, anywhere has ever heard of or experienced a person or animal returning to life after they have died. It is the only way I, at least, with my rather simple, uncomplicated brain and belief system, could possibly conceive of *disproving* the aforementioned negatives so many of us adhere to.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> Israel is also not merely acting out of a sense of justice - they are acting out of self-defense. They don't intend to allow anybody, ever again, make them wish for justice. They'd rather not be killed in the first place.


Of course! The meek shall inherit nothing.


----------



## Guest

samurai said:


> I think that this very erudite and entertaining thread addresses--at its core--the great difficulty of "proving" a negative, be it that God doesn't exist or that there is actually an "afterlife" all beings experience after their body has died.
> Without trying to further"stir the pot"--really--I would simply ask--as an agnostic--if anybody, anywhere has ever heard of or experienced a person or animal returning to life after they have died. It is the only way I, at least, with my rather simple, uncomplicated brain and belief system, could possibly conceive of *disproving* the aforementioned negatives so many of us adhere to.


Well, there was this Jew that lived ~2000 years ago, over in the Middle East . . .


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Of course! The meek shall inherit nothing.


On an individual basis, sure. But a government has the responsibility to protect its citizens.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> Well, there was this Jew that lived ~2000 years ago, over in the Middle East . . .


I'm trying to read Elaine Pagel's historical account of early Christianity (Adam, Eve, and the Serpent) but haven't had much leisure time lately.


----------



## Guest

tgtr0660 said:


> I'm NOT a religious person (quite the contrary) yet when I hear this works I feel a connection with such a high place in the human experience that I feel compelled to understand the connection others have with their religious beliefs.
> 
> Anybody else experiencing similar things?


The focus of the discussion seems to have wandered away from the OP ("Enjoying religious music while not religious") which is about the experience of listening to music that has been written for a specified purpose - not whether god or heaven exist.

It would be interesting to know what tgtr0660 makes of the replies so far which are, on the whole, predictable:


anyone can enjoy religious music without signing up to religion
some report an experience when listening to such music that they characterise as connecting to something above, beyond, outside themselves.

I've not spotted anyone saying that they can get that same experience listening to music that isn't 'religious' - maybe I just missed it.


----------



## starthrower

Music is music. It's not religious or irreligious. The text or dedication may have religious connotations, but that's as far as it goes.


----------



## DavidA

aleazk said:


> As a biologist friend of mine explained to me, that the Cambrian explosion can't be explained by evolution is a common myth.
> 
> The thing is that, sometimes, certain type of characteristic arises (e.g., the possibility of having certain type of appendices, vision, etc.) that allows many possible variations. So, in these explosions, you see a lot of species, but they all correspond to different and bizarre variations of the same basic characteristic. He mentioned the characteristics in the Cambrian explosion, though I can't remember them, he showed me pictures in his technical books. Many of these bizarre species disappeared quickly through natural selection, while others evolved into more sophisticated adaptations.


It is really most amusing how Darwinian fundamentalists tie themselves in knots trying to explain away the contradictions in their theory!


----------



## DiesIraeCX

DavidA said:


> It is really most amusing how Darwinian fundamentalists tie themselves in knots trying to explain away the contradictions in their theory!


Even more amusing (although 'unfortunate' would be the more fitting adjective) is when I see an adult who actually thinks the scientific "theory" of evolution needs to be proven. This sincerely makes me fear for our future.


----------



## aleazk

DavidA said:


> It is really most amusing how Darwinian fundamentalists tie themselves in knots trying to explain away the contradictions in their theory!


How it can be a 'contradiction' when it's explained so simply within the parameters of the theory?

Yes, it's 'a contradiction' when we have naive ideas about evolution and biology...


----------



## Guest

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Even more amusing (although 'unfortunate' would be the more fitting adjective) is when I see an adult who actually thinks the scientific "theory" of evolution needs to be proven. This sincerely makes me fear for our future.


What is frightening to me is when you get scientific zealots who think that theories don't need to be tested or proven. Or who decry any non-acceptance. One of the biggest threats to scientific enquiry is the concept of "settled science." Spontaneous generation was settled science at one point. There is no area of science that cannot stand to be submitted to further testing.

The problem with evolution at this point - and I am not meaning this as a criticism of evolution per se, or commenting on the truthfulness - is that the acceptance has become near religious. They pay lip service to the scientific method, but at this point, I don't think they would ever accept any evidence that might potentially disprove it, just as data that contradicts global warming orthodoxy is derided. Any scientific theory or hypothesis has to be falsifiable - in other words, there has to be a way to test whether it is wrong. If there is no way, then it is not scientific.


----------



## DavidA

It is a complete contradiction of the processes Darwin envisaged. The whole theory of evolution is riddled with naivety.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

DrMike said:


> What is frightening to me is when you get scientific zealots who think that theories don't need to be tested or proven.


Holy moly. Why must someone have to explain this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the *scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation*. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force."

That IS tested. Attack the "Scientific Zealotry" strawman all you want, the academic information is out there on the internet, for all to see. No scientific zealotry needed.

Yes, I accept the Law of Gravity, the Law of Conservation of Mass (something else you fought against as "unprovable"), the Law of etc. etc. I accept the Scientific Theory of Evolution and other Scientific Laws because of the definition above this.

It's the best humans have in describing reality.


----------



## DavidA

DrMike said:


> What is frightening to me is when you get scientific zealots who think that theories don't need to be tested or proven. Or who decry any non-acceptance. One of the biggest threats to scientific enquiry is the concept of "settled science." Spontaneous generation was settled science at one point. There is no area of science that cannot stand to be submitted to further testing.
> 
> The problem with evolution at this point - and I am not meaning this as a criticism of evolution per se, or commenting on the truthfulness - is that the acceptance has become near religious. They pay lip service to the scientific method, but at this point, I don't think they would ever accept any evidence that might potentially disprove it, just as data that contradicts global warming orthodoxy is derided. Any scientific theory or hypothesis has to be falsifiable - in other words, there has to be a way to test whether it is wrong. If there is no way, then it is not scientific.


Somone has said, you can question Newton, Einstein or any other famous scientist. But express doubts about Darwin and you could lose your job!


----------



## Guest

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Holy moly. Why must someone have to explain this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
> 
> "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force."
> 
> That IS tested. Attack the "Scientific Zealotry" strawman all you want, the academic information is out there on the internet, for all to see. No scientific zealotry needed.


That is a nice wikipedia definition. But scientific theory does not mean indisputable fact. There is virtually nothing in science that meets that threshold. Anything can still be tested, and has to be ready to be discarded if it is disproven. I'm not saying throw if out at the first scrap of contradictory evidence. But if reproducible and verified data comes through that clearly contradicts a theory, the theory must be discarded or altered. That is what science is. I do it for a living. That definition even states it - well-substantiated. It does not say irrefutably proven. Many times, even the advent of new technology that allows for previously unknown analyses changes paradigms completely.

You think people who deny evolution are the biggest problems. I think there is another problem - people who feel a zealotry to defend things that their adherence to theories borders on the irrational, because they think that anything less lets the other side win. Yes, currently Darwinian evolution is the leading scientific theory. But if there comes a point where it can be disproven, it would have to be rejected. Will that happen? I honestly don't know. But as a scientist, I can't say definitively that it couldn't be disproven.

I also think that evolution is quite a bit different than many other theories in that most of the cited evidence is circumstantial, rather than directly tested. How does one directly test whether you can generate a jawed vertebrate from naked nucleic acids?


----------



## DiesIraeCX

aleazk said:


> How it can be a 'contradiction' when it's explained so simply within the parameters of the theory?
> 
> Yes, it's 'a contradiction' when we have naive ideas about evolution and biology...


aleazk, naive is putting it very lightly. It's nearly impossible to have an honest discussion about these matters with _anyone_ whose beliefs are closer to someone in the Dark Ages than today. It's a dead-end.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> That is a nice wikipedia definition. But scientific theory does not mean indisputable fact. There is virtually nothing in science that meets that threshold. Anything can still be tested, and has to be ready to be discarded if it is disproven. I'm not saying throw if out at the first scrap of contradictory evidence. But if reproducible and verified data comes through that clearly contradicts a theory, the theory must be discarded or altered. That is what science is. I do it for a living. That definition even states it - well-substantiated. It does not say irrefutably proven. Many times, even the advent of new technology that allows for previously unknown analyses changes paradigms completely.
> 
> You think people who deny evolution are the biggest problems. I think there is another problem - people who feel a zealotry to defend things that their adherence to theories borders on the irrational, because they think that anything less lets the other side win. Yes, currently Darwinian evolution is the leading scientific theory. But if there comes a point where it can be disproven, it would have to be rejected. Will that happen? I honestly don't know. But as a scientist, I can't say definitively that it couldn't be disproven.
> 
> I also think that evolution is quite a bit different than many other theories in that most of the cited evidence is circumstantial, rather than directly tested. How does one directly test whether you can generate a jawed vertebrate from naked nucleic acids?


Or how do you directly test that man was made from dirt?-- as another, competing theory puts it.


----------



## KenOC

Sorry, feel like jumping in here! Wikipedia seems pretty correct. Also DrMike's comment (at the end of his post #144) that any scientific theory has to be falsifiable. That exact argument was used in a decision to bar "intelligent design" from school science curricula in the US.

No scientific theory has been "proven" or will ever be proven. In every case, we're waiting for that one contrary example that will demolish it. So, again, DrMike's comment (about some scientists, not science itself) seems accurate. Like everybody else, scientists can have quite closed minds.

But accusing some scientists of a close-minded attitude toward evolution is hardly an argument that the theory is fundamentally wrong.


----------



## DavidA

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Even more amusing (although 'unfortunate' would be the more fitting adjective) is when I see an adult who actually thinks the scientific "theory" of evolution needs to be proven. This sincerely makes me fear for our future.


Makes me fear for the scientific future the furious reaction when someone dares to question it.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Marschallin Blair said:


> Or how do you directly test that man was made from dirt-- as another, competing theory puts it.


That's just it Marschallin, scientific laws and theories are the best humans have at describing reality. Yet, when these very laws and theories are brought up, they bring up that they aren't indisputable fact. All of a sudden "Indisputable facts" are important. Is this not the height of irony?


----------



## DavidA

DiesIraeVIX said:


> aleazk, naive is putting it very lightly. It's nearly impossible to have an honest discussion about these matters with _anyone_ whose beliefs are closer to someone in the Dark Ages than today. It's a dead-end.


Well if Darwinian fundamentalism isn't naive I don't know what is.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

DavidA said:


> Makes me fear for the scientific future the furious reaction when someone dares to question it.


Question scientific theories and laws all you want, but make sure you argue with facts and scientifically tested arguments. I can claim all I want that the Law of Gravity is false and not real! I'm not daring to question the law of gravity in any meaningful way. I'm just stating that it's false without anything to stand on. That's what you're doing.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> Well if Darwinian fundamentalism isn't naive I don't know what is.


Do the mud man, the rib woman, and the walking-talking snake qualify?


----------



## aleazk

DrMike said:


> That is a nice wikipedia definition. But scientific theory does not mean indisputable fact. There is virtually nothing in science that meets that threshold. Anything can still be tested, and has to be ready to be discarded if it is disproven. I'm not saying throw if out at the first scrap of contradictory evidence. But if reproducible and verified data comes through that clearly contradicts a theory, the theory must be discarded or altered. That is what science is. I do it for a living. That definition even states it - well-substantiated. It does not say irrefutably proven. Many times, even the advent of new technology that allows for previously unknown analyses changes paradigms completely.
> 
> You think people who deny evolution are the biggest problems. I think there is another problem - people who feel a zealotry to defend things that their adherence to theories borders on the irrational, because they think that anything less lets the other side win. Yes, currently Darwinian evolution is the leading scientific theory. But if there comes a point where it can be disproven, it would have to be rejected. Will that happen? I honestly don't know. But as a scientist, I can't say definitively that it couldn't be disproven.
> 
> I also think that evolution is quite a bit different than many other theories in that most of the cited evidence is circumstantial, rather than directly tested. How does one directly test whether you can generate a jawed vertebrate from naked nucleic acids?


You seem to be guided by some very naive Kuhnian view. No, science is not some succession of unrelated paradigms. Certainly, science changes, but it's an evolution. Once a theory has been supported by the experience, it's here to stay. Even if some better theory replaces it, it has to reproduce it in some adequate limit since, within those limits, the old theory has proven to work. So, even if evolution is replaced by something better, the basic picture it gives is still correct and will be correct always.

As you may know, when they went to the moon in 1969, all the calculations about orbits, trajectories, etc., were done in the realm of Newtonian gravitation and mechanics...


----------



## DavidA

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Question scientific theories and laws all you want, but make sure you argue with facts and scientifically tested arguments. I can claim all I want that the Law of Gravity is false and not real! I'm not daring to question the law of gravity in any meaningful way. I'm just stating that it's false without anything to stand on. That's what you're doing.


No we are saying that Darwinianism is flawed as a historical concept. The idea that information can come from nowhere baffles me. Bit like saying Gates employs unguided forces to write his programmes. We are not questioning our observations but the interpretation of them.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

aleazk said:


> You seem to be guided by some very naive Kuhnian view. No, science is not some succession of unrelated paradigms. Certainly, science changes, but it's an evolution. Once a theory has been supported by the experience, it's here to stay. Even if some better theory replaces it, it has to reproduce it in some adequate limit since, within those limits, the old theory has proven to work. So, even if evolution is replaced by something better, the basic picture it gives is still correct and will be correct always.
> 
> As you may know, when they went to the moon in 1969, all the calculations about orbits, trajectories, etc., were done in the realm of Newtonian gravitation and mechanics...


That's a good point.

Kuhn's book the_ Logic of Scientific Revolutions _is a misnomer of a title. The book is actually about the history of the sociology of scientific _belief_.

In the long run, theories with greater informational content and predictive value, which haven't as yet been falsified, win out over theories that have less informational content and a smaller predictive value-- independently of what this or that group of scientists think of the theories.

A much better book than Kuhn's on what science is and how it actually progresses is Sir Karl Popper's _Conjectures and Refutations: On the Growth of Scientific Knowledge_.


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> Does the mud man, the rib woman, and the walking-talking snake qualify?


That story has fascinated generations who find meaning into it. But even a materialist would have to admit we are made of the same sort of stuff as mud!


----------



## DiesIraeCX

DavidA said:


> No we are saying that Darwinianism is flawed as a historical concept. The idea that information can come from nowhere baffles me. Bit like saying Gates employs unguided forces to write his programmes. We are not questioning our observations but the interpretation of them.


It's flawed as a "historical concept", what does that even mean? Elaborate. The idea that information can come from "nowhere"? What does that mean? Who said that? No scientist said it, that's for sure.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

DavidA said:


> That story has fascinated generations who find meaning into it. But even a materialist would have to admit we are made of the same sort of stuff as mud!


What does that have to do with anything in the context of this discussion? The plays of Shakespeare have also fascinated generations who find meaning in them. That says nothing of the veracity or historicity of the plays. _Hamlet_ and _Romeo and Juliet_ are fiction plays.

"Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus"


----------



## KenOC

One thing I've read that I found striking: 99% of fossil species discovered no longer exist, and most species living now are never found in strata older than a certain age. That is certainly suggestive.

To my mind, there are three questions at least that need to be considered:

1. How do species change in form over time, often radically?
2. Do species "evolve" from less to more complex, and how?
3. How did life originate in the first place?

I'm not sure that one answer fits all three questions.


----------



## DavidA

DiesIraeVIX said:


> It's flawed as a "historical concept", what does that even mean? Elaborate. The idea that information can come from "nowhere"? What does that mean? Who said that? No scientist said it, that's for sure.


The idea that non living matter can form itself into living cells requires information! So where does it come from?


----------



## DiesIraeCX

KenOC said:


> One thing I've read that I found striking: 99% of fossil species discovered no longer exist, and species living now are never found in strata older than a certain age. That is certainly suggestive.
> 
> To my mind, there are three questions at least that need to be considered:
> 
> 1. How do species change in form over time, often radically?
> 2. Do species "evolve" from less to more complex, and how?
> 3. How did life originate in the first place?
> 
> I'm not sure that one answer fits all three questions.


Questions 1 and 2 have been answered, it's the reason why Evolution is a scientific theory. Question 3 has not, it's a question that has puzzled biochemists for some time.

Furthermore, question number 3 is a question for Abiogenesis, not evolution.


----------



## DavidA

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Questions 1 and 2 have been answered, it's the reason why Evolution is a scientific theory. Question 3 has not, it's a question that has puzzled evolutionary biologists for some time.
> 
> Furthermore, question number 3 is a question for Abiogenesis, not evolution.


The questions have not been answered. they are only answered to the satisfaction of the people who believe the dogma. The problem is when anyone questions there is generally the unthinking cacophony rather than proper debate. One problem is in the scientific community there is an awful lot of pride and money involved!


----------



## DiesIraeCX

DavidA said:


> The idea that non living matter can form itself into living cells requires information! So where does it come from?


The question of how life first arose from non-living matter is the main question of Abiogenesis, not evolution. It has _not_ been answered. The law of conservation of mass states that information cannot come from "nowhere". You saying that non-living matter turning into living cells requires information that come from nowhere doesn't mean anything.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DiesIraeVIX said:


> That's just it Marschallin, scientific laws and theories are the best humans have at describing reality. Yet, when these very laws and theories are brought up, they bring up that they aren't indisputable fact. All of a sudden "Indisputable facts" are important. Is this not the height of irony?


The height of irony for_ me _is a True Believer not putting their belief in the curative power of their prayer cloth but rather in a skilled cardiologist.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> The idea that non living matter can form itself into living cells requires information! So where does it come from?


http://www.amazon.com/Vital-Dust-Or...TF8&qid=1414094582&sr=1-1&keywords=vital+dust


----------



## DiesIraeCX

DavidA said:


> The questions have not been answered. they are only answered to the satisfaction of the people who believe the dogma. The problem is when anyone questions there is generally the unthinking cacophony rather than proper debate. One problem is in the scientific community there is an awful lot of pride and money involved!


Read this article for starters, then work your way from there. 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/


----------



## aleazk

DrMike said:


> I also think that evolution is quite a bit different than many other theories in that most of the cited evidence is circumstantial, rather than directly tested. How does one directly test whether you can generate a jawed vertebrate from naked nucleic acids?


Evolution is tested everyday by virologists. In fact, one of the reasons why it's difficult to develop vaccines for flu is that the virus mutates very rapidly and the strains that survive are the ones that are resistant to the vaccine. So, the vaccine becomes useless for the next season, since the viruses evolved and adapted to the new environment with vaccine.

This can be applied to the evolution of species during long period of times in the past in the same sense in which physical theories that were developed in the Earth and in our time frame, like quantum mechanics and general relativity, are applied in astrophysics to explain (to great success) the evolution and formation of galaxies, star systems, etc.


----------



## DavidA

Sorry that statement is a literalistic travesty. Like saying the cemetery is full of people who've put their faith in a skilled cardiologist! It's true but a travesty!


----------



## DavidA

aleazk said:


> Evolution is tested everyday by virologists. In fact, one of the reasons why it's difficult to develop vaccines for flu is that the virus mutates very rapidly and the strains that survive are the ones that are resistant to the vaccine. So, the vaccine becomes useless for the next season, since the viruses evolved and adapted to the new environment with vaccine.
> 
> This can be applied to the evolution of species during long period of times in the past in the same sense in which physical theories that were developed in the Earth and in our time frame, like quantum mechanics and general relativity, are applied in astrophysics to explain (to great succes) the evolution and formation of galaxies, star systems, etc.


I think we must be clear what we are talking about. Of course, everyone believes in the development within species. That is not in question. What is are the extrapolations put upon these observations.


----------



## Guest

Science can't answer everything. As I said before, my religion doesn't speak to everything, and there is plenty of room in there for science. With things like creation and what not, it speaks only in broad strokes, and doesn't get into the specifics of the mechanics. God created the heavens and the earth, and all things that are in them. Doesn't really go into the specifics as to how he did it. Could he have used evolution? I don't know. But at any rate, I don't feel any particular conflict. My qualms with evolution aren't so much religiously motivated as I still have a really hard time picturing how you first somehow generate nucleic acids from the primordial soup (I think I read somewhere that the prevailing current thought was that RNA came first - if someone knows better speak up), and then evolve from that to single cell organisms, all the way up to jawed vertebrates, to human and non-human primates.

My religion also allows me to at least speculate as to why you see similar things across species, or even wider - information that people cite as proof of common ancestry. It could also be that, someone designing all life would use the same thing from one creature to another, and not reinvent the wheel for each. But that is just a musing of mine based on my beliefs, and I wouldn't teach it in school. I personally don't think creationism should be taught in school - it isn't scientific, but religious. Teach it in Sunday School. Normal school is for science, and what current scientific knowledge is.

Science can't explain everything to me, and neither can religion. I don't reject either, though, based on what they CAN'T tell me. I accept them for what they can tell me. Science is great for teaching us the things it is capable of teaching. But it can't teach us everything.


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> http://www.amazon.com/Vital-Dust-Or...TF8&qid=1414094582&sr=1-1&keywords=vital+dust


Yes, and in a few years they'll be another theory! Like the chemical evolution theory that has now been disproved by its originator but the textbook is still used in schools.


----------



## Blake

DavidA said:


> Makes me fear for the scientific future the furious reaction when someone dares to question it.


I think what is so admirable about science is that nothing is so strongly believed in... there's a detachment keeping the intellect clean. If hard evidence comes in to disprove a widely held theory, and it's consistently testable, a true scientist will drop that theory like a bad habit.

Of course, there are scientists who get overly attached and emotional with their craft; turning a non-personal tool into a personal religion, but those aren't the ones I give much time to. At the core, everything should remain questionable. Use what we have now, but who knows when nature will throw a custard pie in our face.


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> Evolution is tested everyday by virologists. In fact, one of the reasons why it's difficult to develop vaccines for flu is that the virus mutates very rapidly and the strains that survive are the ones that are resistant to the vaccine. So, the vaccine becomes useless for the next season, since the viruses evolved and adapted to the new environment with vaccine.
> 
> This can be applied to the evolution of species during long period of times in the past in the same sense in which physical theories that were developed in the Earth and in our time frame, like quantum mechanics and general relativity, are applied in astrophysics to explain (to great success) the evolution and formation of galaxies, star systems, etc.


Microevolution is a fairly easy sell, and that is not really where the problems arise. Viruses mutate - true. But there you cited a flu virus mutating into . . . a flu virus with slightly different proteins. The mutations there aren't necessarily even that drastic - the proteins still have the same function. The two proteins that they talk about in these mutations for making vaccines - the hemagglutinin, and the neuraminidase (the H and the N in H1N1) are still hemagglutinin and neuraminidase. Now, in some instances, it might be more drastic. For example, it is believed that HIV evolved or mutated from SIV - simian immunodeficiency virus - more specifically, a chimpanzee strain of SIV. Still, it remains an immunodeficiency virus, still a lentivirus in the Retroviridae family.

The bigger, harder to swallow concept is the macroevolution. The one that says that, for example, a lamprey and a chimpanzee both evolved from a common ancestor, and that common ancestor evolved from some configuration of proteins and nucleic acids. That is clearly the harder sell.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Well if Darwinian fundamentalism isn't naive I don't know what is.


What is Darwinian fundamentalism, and who here is propounding it?


----------



## Guest

Vesuvius said:


> I think what is so admirable about science is that nothing is so strongly believed in... there's a detachment keeping the intellect clean. If hard evidence comes in to disprove a widely held theory, and it's consistently testable, a true scientist will drop that theory like a bad habit.
> 
> Of course, there are scientists who get overly attached and emotional with their craft; turning a non-personal tool into a personal religion, but those aren't the ones I give much time to. At the core, everything should remain questionable. Use what we have now, but who knows when nature will throw a custard pie in our face.


And could you easily tell the difference between these two hypothetical scientists of yours?


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> The height of irony for_ me _is a True Believer not putting their belief in the curative power of their prayer cloth but rather in a skilled cardiologist.


That is such a fallacious argument. Tell me - if God created man, blessed them with skills, and the intellect to be able to learn how the body functions and how to repair it, why shouldn't we look to people with such skills? How does that in anyway undermine a faith in God? That argument carries no water. Could not God be working through that cardiologist?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> Sorry that statement is a literalistic travesty. Like saying the cemetery is full of people who've put their faith in a skilled cardiologist! It's true but a travesty!


The travesty is that the True Believer_ isn't even _a True Believer.

They put their money where their mouth is and hedge their bet by buying healthcare insurance.


----------



## Blake

DrMike said:


> And could you easily tell the difference between these two hypothetical scientists of yours?


Not always. But if something is apparently driven by emotion or imagination, then I won't take what's said as science. It's either provable or not, nothing personal.

By the way, I'm not arguing against your faith. I was making a general statement about science.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> That is such a fallacious argument. Tell me - if God created man, blessed them with skills, and the intellect to be able to learn how the body functions and how to repair it, why shouldn't we look to people with such skills? How does that in anyway undermine a faith in God? That argument carries no water. Could not God be working through that cardiologist?


That's not _my_ argument.

That's the Good Book's argument.

Rational grown ups know that faith alone isn't going to perform an apendectomy.


----------



## aleazk

DrMike said:


> The bigger, harder to swallow concept is the macroevolution. The one that says that, for example, a lamprey and a chimpanzee both evolved from a common ancestor, and that common ancestor evolved from some configuration of proteins and nucleic acids. That is clearly the harder sell.


But it's there in the fossil record, that's the key to that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> The travesty is that the True Believer_ isn't even _a True Believer.
> 
> They put their money where their mouth is and hedge their bet by buying healthcare insurance.


Are you familiar with the Bible? Are you familiar with the story of Christ fasting for 40 days, and then being tempted by the devil? Throw yourself from the temple - God will save you. Turn these stones into bread! Christ didn't. Why? To not tempt God, first of all, and also, I think, because God is not there like some kind of vending machine, to request miracles whenever we want them. Perhaps in the past, when a disease was incurable, a miracle would be needed. But why ask God for a miracle to cure a disease when now we have pills? Why ask God to fix your heart when a doctor has the skills? Miracles aren't fancy little trifles that you can just request to make sure God is still listening.

Were someone to do as you suggest - forego open heart surgery in lieu of awaiting a miracle from God, I suspect that, when he passes those pearly gates and asks God why he didn't save him, God might just look right at him and say, "Why didn't you go see that cardiologist - I blessed him with all the skills he would need to be a skilled physician who would be able to help you?"


----------



## Piwikiwi

DavidA said:


> The idea that non living matter can form itself into living cells requires information! So where does it come from?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> But it's there in the fossil record, that's the key to that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent


I understand what evolutionary biologists cite as evidence.

But might not my religious explanation also explain it? If I were creating a bunch of different creatures, and I needed, for example, a receptor on a cell surface that performed a particular function, and I needed it in multiple species, some vastly different, wouldn't I use pretty much the same thing? I'm not saying this disproves science. I reiterate what I said before - I believe God is behind creation - I just don't know what method he used. Could he have worked through evolution? I suppose so. But the macroevolution is pretty circumstantial. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, there would be common things among different species. And there is. But an experiment to test that directly has not yet been devised. Again, I'm not saying that is proof against, and circumstantial evidence can certainly be powerful, but it is not entirely definitive.

At any rate, nothing in the scientific theory of evolution proves that there could not be a God involved in the process. So I feel no threat from either side.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> Yes, and in a few years they'll be another theory! Like the chemical evolution theory that has now been disproved by its originator but the textbook is still used in schools.


Yes, of course!

The mutually-corroborative yet completely disparate scientific disciplines of geology, comparative anatomy and embryology, paleontology, physics, statigraphy, and cosmology all point to evolution.

-- Just because its 'faddish.'

But not so 'faddish' that it prevents True Believers from buying their health care insurance-- a modern medical amenity made possible _only by _science.


----------



## Piwikiwi

DrMike said:


> I understand what evolutionary biologists cite as evidence.
> 
> But might not my religious explanation also explain it? If I were creating a bunch of different creatures, and I needed, for example, a receptor on a cell surface that performed a particular function, and I needed it in multiple species, some vastly different, wouldn't I use pretty much the same thing? I'm not saying this disproves science. I reiterate what I said before - I believe God is behind creation - I just don't know what method he used. Could he have worked through evolution? I suppose so. But the macroevolution is pretty circumstantial. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, there would be common things among different species. And there is. But an experiment to test that directly has not yet been devised. Again, I'm not saying that is proof against, and circumstantial evidence can certainly be powerful, but it is not entirely definitive.
> 
> At any rate, nothing in the scientific theory of evolution proves that there could not be a God involved in the process. So I feel no threat from either side.


There are things common among all live: DNA

And you are absolutely right on the last bit and the big bang theory also doesn't contradict the existence of god.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> Are you familiar with the Bible? Are you familiar with the story of Christ fasting for 40 days, and then being tempted by the devil? Throw yourself from the temple - God will save you. Turn these stones into bread! Christ didn't. Why? To not tempt God, first of all, and also, I think, because God is not there like some kind of vending machine, to request miracles whenever we want them. Perhaps in the past, when a disease was incurable, a miracle would be needed. But why ask God for a miracle to cure a disease when now we have pills? Why ask God to fix your heart when a doctor has the skills? Miracles aren't fancy little trifles that you can just request to make sure God is still listening.
> 
> Were someone to do as you suggest - forego open heart surgery in lieu of awaiting a miracle from God, I suspect that, when he passes those pearly gates and asks God why he didn't save him, God might just look right at him and say, "Why didn't you go see that cardiologist - I blessed him with all the skills he would need to be a skilled physician who would be able to help you?"


Absolutely.

And I'm also familiar with D.C. Comics and _Muggle's Book of Magic_.

I did go to private Catholic school for eight years._ ;D_

But, like St. Paul says, "There comes a time to give up childish things."


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> That is such a fallacious argument. Tell me - if God created man, blessed them with skills, and the intellect to be able to learn how the body functions and how to repair it, why shouldn't we look to people with such skills? How does that in anyway undermine a faith in God? That argument carries no water. Could not God be working through that cardiologist?


Tell _you_?

Why don't you tell _Jesus_?-- since he's the one who believes in healing through faith.


----------



## Blake

I really don't think it matters if one believes in god or not. What's detrimental is the extreme arrogance and unwillingness to move from either side. Everyone is still playing in their imagination as long as they can't admit that they don't know diddly. I'm not a believer, but I'm not going to go around so ridiculously and act as if I have some unshakable evidence to disprove god. I wonder what's so attractive about this.


----------



## aleazk

Vesuvius said:


> I really don't think it matters if one believes in god or not. What's detrimental is the extreme arrogance and unwillingness to move from either side. Everyone is still playing in their imagination as long as they can't admit that they don't know diddly. I'm not a believer, but I'm not going to go around so ridiculously and act as if I have some unshakable evidence to disprove god. I wonder what's so attractive about this.


And who's saying that? strawman...


----------



## aleazk

DrMike said:


> I understand what evolutionary biologists cite as evidence.
> 
> But might not my religious explanation also explain it? If I were creating a bunch of different creatures, and I needed, for example, a receptor on a cell surface that performed a particular function, and I needed it in multiple species, some vastly different, wouldn't I use pretty much the same thing? I'm not saying this disproves science. I reiterate what I said before - I believe God is behind creation - I just don't know what method he used. Could he have worked through evolution? I suppose so. But the macroevolution is pretty circumstantial. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, there would be common things among different species. And there is. But an experiment to test that directly has not yet been devised. Again, I'm not saying that is proof against, and circumstantial evidence can certainly be powerful, but it is not entirely definitive.
> 
> At any rate, nothing in the scientific theory of evolution proves that there could not be a God involved in the process. So I feel no threat from either side.


As I mentioned with the astrophysics example, these extrapolations are done routinely and to great success. Of course you can't put history or the evolution of a galaxy in a lab and check them, but you are taking that as some kind of fundamental flaw in the theory, while it only means that we have to find other means. Science asks for evidence, that's all.

Anyway, yes, you can argue like that about God. I actually addressed that point in my first posts in this conversation. Certainly I don't claim to disprove God with evolution. But I do think it greatly relegates the necessity for its invocation.


----------



## Blake

aleazk said:


> And who's saying that? strawman...


The implications are aplenty... wheatman.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Tell _you_?
> 
> Why don't you tell _Jesus_?-- since he's the one who believes in healing through faith.


Did he state that was the only way to heal? Did he ever say to not go to a physician?

For that matter, by your logic, those who believe in God should never eat - they should just have faith that God will sustain them. They should never work. They should just have faith that God will provide for all their needs. Hell, we shouldn't do anything - God will provide everything. Except maybe, just maybe, God expect us to put in some kind of effort as well. There are some areas where medical science is still not to the point of being able to cure - faith can play a strong role there. But I don't think God is expecting us to not use the things in the world with which he has blessed us, and to expect him to do everything. I do believe that faith can be used in the healing process. I don't think, though, that using other medical tools in any way detracts from that.

I have diabetes - tell me, do you think Jesus wants me to not take insulin and just ask him to heal me? Is my taking insulin proof that I have no faith in God? I would be really surprised if anybody here buys this argument of yours. I think it is just trying to score cheap points, and really has no serious weight in terms of this debate.


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> Anyway, yes, you can argue like that about God. I actually addressed that point in my first posts in this conversation. Certainly I don't claim to disprove God with evolution. But I do think it greatly relegates the necessity for its invocation.


And see, we are arguing different things. You say it doesn't relegate the necessity for its invocation. That isn't what I'm doing. It's not that I don't believe in evolution, and therefore I need for their to be a God to explain how everything came to be. I believe there is a God. And with that belief comes the possibility for other explanations as to how things came to be that you don't consider. I don't believe in God because I need to in order to explain the world around me. I believe in God, regardless of the rest. And I don't know exactly how he created all of this. Simply because your explanation doesn't require a God for it to work in no way undermines my belief. My belief in God is completely independent of evolution, or science in general.


----------



## SixFootScowl

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Even more amusing (although 'unfortunate' would be the more fitting adjective) is when I see an adult who actually thinks the scientific "theory" of evolution needs to be proven. This sincerely makes me fear for our future.


It is hardly scientific in the sense of experimental science. It is all intepretation of data. It really lies in the relm of philosophy, not science. You cannot prove evolution and you cannot prove creation, but there is One who says, "... *every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God*. " The point being that the creation is self-evident.


----------



## mmsbls

OK, these evolution - religion/God debates can be very interesting, but they have nothing to do with the thread. More importantly, these are the type of debates that lead to deleted posts and infractions. That's why we have rules for posting about politics and religion in the groups rather than the open forum.

Please get back to the topic of the thread - "Enjoying religious music while not religious".


----------



## Guest

With regards to the OP, I think it is entirely possible to enjoy religious music - yes, there is such a thing - without being religious at all, whether that mean atheist, agnostic, whatever. There are numerous people who can appreciate the beauty in the Bible as a work of literature - the Book of Job, in particular, is often studied - without even believing in its literal truth. I do think, though, that the music impacts you in a vastly different way depending on whether you listen to it as a believer or a non-believer.


----------



## starthrower

mmsbls said:


> Please get back to the topic of the thread - "Enjoying religious music while not religious".


I'm pretty sure everyone agrees on this point. This thread is spent!


----------



## DavidA

Getting back to the point, of course an unbeliever can appreciate religious music. Hence I have heard an atheist like Jonathan Miller say how moved he is by the St Matthew Passion. What an unbeliever cannot do is enter into the dimension of true faith and worship as they do not believe in the God in question. Interestingly the St Matthew was one of the stepping stones for my wife going from atheism to faith.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> Getting back to the point, of course an unbeliever can appreciate religious music. Hence I have heard an atheist like Jonathan Miller say how moved he is by the St Matthew Passion. What an unbeliever cannot do is enter into the dimension of true faith and worship as they do not believe in the God in question. Interestingly the St Matthew was one of the stepping stones for my wife going from atheism to faith.


For myself, enjoying the ravagingly beautiful choral and vocal music of Bach doesn't logically entail jumping into a magic circle of mysticism and irrationalism.

Just like enjoying the high-drama of the Shostakovich Eleventh or Twelfth doesn't logically mean that I have to endorse Bolshevism.

The music is essential.

The ideology is merely incidental.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> I do think, though, that the music impacts you in a vastly different way depending on whether you listen to it as a believer or a non-believer.





DavidA said:


> What an unbeliever cannot do is enter into the dimension of true faith and worship as they do not believe in the God in question. Interestingly the St Matthew was one of the stepping stones for my wife going from atheism to faith.


Non-believers obviously will not feel any religious impact from a religious work. There likely would be a different dimension or or perhaps different focus in your mental processes while listening. I have two questions.

1) Does this differing effect of religious works come from the words associated with the work or from the music alone? For example, I mentioned the work Spem in alium by Tallis. The words are in Latin and presumably the vast majority of people will not know what the words actually mean when they listen. It is a religiosu work, but does it have the same impact on religious people (you for example) as a work where you know the meaning better?

2) When you say that religious works impact religious people differently or that non-believers can not enter into the same dimension, do you mean that religious people will react in some sense more strongly or emotionally to religious works? Or do you simply mean that religious people will react differently?


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> For myself, enjoying the ravagingly beautiful choral and vocal music of Bach doesn't logically entail jumping into a magic circle of mysticism and irrationalism.
> 
> Just like enjoying the high-drama of the Shostakovich Eleventh or Twelfth doesn't logically mean that I have to endorse Bolshevism.
> 
> The music is essential.
> 
> The ideology is merely incidental.


This points to the fact that no human emotional state is the exclusive province of religion. Indeed, religious ideas and rituals appeal to humans precisely because they find ways of concentrating, through concepts, rituals, and artistic expressions, basic emotions humans possess by virtue of their humanity.

When I was a college student, already a couple of years past believing the religious dogmas I'd been raised in, I attended every performance of Bach's _B-minor Mass_ in the Boston area I could locate and afford. The music's phenomenal complexity and emotional range - Bach at the top of his game - simply carried me to places of power and splendor nothing else could. But I did not think while listening that the sense of cosmic grandeur I felt necessitated the belief that a SuperSomeone had set the stars and planets spinning in six days. Indeed, that feat would not have been more impressive than the feat of musical creation I was witnessing and being overwhelmed by.


----------



## Guest

Can I just refer to my post four pages ago which appeared to make no impression in the midst of the 'god' debate (it could have been a rubbish post of course)?

http://www.talkclassical.com/34585-enjoying-religious-music-while-post744412.html#post744412

Can I also add to mmsbls question by asking what a 'religious' response might be to 'religious' music? It's possible, isn't it, that what I feel when listening to music is exactly the same as others feel - we just can't quite tally the experiences, as we're in different bodies.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> The music's phenomenal complexity and emotional range - Bach at the top of his game - simply carried me to places of *power and splendor* nothing else could. But I did not think while listening that the sense of *cosmic grandeur*


Interesting terms to describe the experience. I know you don't mean these things literally, but to what extent are you describing an emotional reaction and/or a cerebral/imaginative one?


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> For myself, enjoying the ravagingly beautiful choral and vocal music of Bach doesn't logically entail jumping into a magic circle of mysticism and irrationalism.
> 
> Just like enjoying the high-drama of the Shostakovich Eleventh or Twelfth doesn't logically mean that I have to endorse Bolshevism.
> 
> The music is essential.
> 
> The ideology is merely incidental.


No we don't jump into a 'magical circle of mysticism and irrationalism'. We actually jump into a vital experience which a reasoned and intellectually arguable experiential faith gives us. Leave irrationalism to the neo-atheists!


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Interesting terms to describe the experience. I know you don't mean these things literally, but to what extent are you describing an emotional reaction and/or a cerebral/imaginative one?


Interesting question! My experiences of music often entail imagery - not necessarily clearly visualized imagery, but some sort of substrate of forms or concepts of forms which can manifest themselves aurally, visually, or poetically. I don't think I'm unique in this; in fact I think it's a broadly human way of experiencing art. The formal aspects of music and visual art often employ a shared vocabulary - weight, movement, tension, balance, symmetry, etc. - which is precisely a naming of these structural and dynamic forms which are simultaneously vehicles of expression. When I hear Bach's contrapuntal complexity and sonorous richness, the thousands of notes whirling in relentless rhythm, creating a magnificent noise that overwhelms my mind and body and induces an almost unbearable euphoria (if there can be such a thing!), such images as the vastness of the heavens and such poetic fancies as the stars dancing and singing are my subconscious mind's spontaneous attempts to find a visual or conceptual equivalent to an aural experience. I suppose you could call it an act of reactive creation, not fundamentally different from the creative act of a composer inspired by a poetic subject, but merely happening in reverse. In such an act, whether the music is inspired by an idea or an idea by the music, the emotional and cerebral aspects are experienced at the creative moment as an inseparable whole.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> We actually jump into a vital experience





Woodduck said:


> My experiences of music often entail imagery - not necessarily clearly visualized imagery, but some sort of substrate of forms or concepts of forms which can manifest themselves aurally, visually, or poetically. I don't think I'm unique in this; in fact I think it's a broadly human way of experiencing art. The formal aspects of music and visual art often employ a shared vocabulary - weight, movement, tension, balance, symmetry, etc. - which is precisely a naming of these structural and dynamic forms which are simultaneously vehicles of expression. When I hear Bach's contrapuntal complexity and sonorous richness, the thousands of notes whirling in relentless rhythm, creating a magnificent noise that overwhelms my mind and body and induces an almost unbearable euphoria (if there can be such a thing!), such images as the vastness of the heavens and such poetic fancies as the stars dancing and singing are my subconscious mind's spontaneous attempts to find a visual or conceptual equivalent to an aural experience. I suppose you could call it an act of reactive creation, not fundamentally different from the creative act of a composer inspired by a poetic subject, but merely happening in reverse. In such an act, whether the music is inspired by an idea or an idea by the music, the emotional and cerebral aspects are experienced at the creative moment as an inseparable whole.


Perhaps, David, you might like to explore/explain your vital experience to the same helpful degree that Woodduck has?


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> That's why we have rules for posting about politics and religion in the groups rather than the open forum.


Alas, few people read them. That's why such discussions keep bursting out here.

But I'll go there and ask again the question I put to David A about Darwinian fundamentalism and hope he follows!

http://www.talkclassical.com/groups...at-darwinian-fundamentalism.html#gmessage4041


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Alas, few people read them. That's why such discussions keep bursting out here.
> 
> But I'll go there and ask again the question I put to David A about Darwinian fundamentalism and hope he follows!
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/groups...94-my-favorite-people-page2.html#gmessage4040


The moderator has asked we do not continue that line on this thread!


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Perhaps, David, you might like to explore/explain your vital experience to the same helpful degree that Woodduck has?


As they say, more easily 'felt than telt'! I love music and can be lifted to a state of euphoria like Woodduck. To me this is something of the soul in man - the fact he is a spiritual being and not just so many chemicals. However, I find worship a different experience. The music doesn't have to be great but there is a very real sense that at that moment your spirit is in relationship with God. Now of course, the materialist will just say it's just worked up emotion but it is quite different from the emotions you feel when listening to (e.g.) a Beethoven symphony. It can come in a quiet song or even in a silence. It's best described in the words of St Paul: "By Him [the Holy Spirit] we cry "Abba, Father The [Holy] Spirit witnesses with our [human] spirit that we are the children of God." I think of it as the 'kiss' from my Heavenly Father!
Just think of E B Nesbit's 'Railway Children'. At the end Bobble sees her father get off the train having been released from prison. She runs to him and cries, "My daddy! My daddy! My daddy!" and hugs him tight. Something like that!
Sorry to appear simple but this is my best shot at describing the indescribable. it was Jesus, of course, who said that unless we become as little children we shall not see the Kingdom of Heaven!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> The moderator has asked we do not continue that line on this thread!


Which is why I posted a link to the discussion group instead!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> As they say, more easily 'felt than telt'! I love music and can be lifted to a state of euphoria like Woodduck. To me this is something of the soul in man - the fact he is a spiritual being and not just so many chemicals. However, I find worship a different experience. The music doesn't have to be great but there is a very real sense that at that moment your spirit is in relationship with God. Now of course, the materialist will just say it's just worked up emotion but it is quite different from the emotions you feel when listening to (e.g.) a Beethoven symphony. It can come in a quiet song or even in a silence. It's best described in the words of St Paul: "By Him [the Holy Spirit] we cry "Abba, Father The [Holy] Spirit witnesses with our [human] spirit that we are the children of God." I think of it as the 'kiss' from my Heavenly Father!
> Just think of E B Nesbit's 'Railway Children'. At the end Bobble sees her father get off the train having been released from prison. She runs to him and cries, "My daddy! My daddy! My daddy!" and hugs him tight. Something like that!
> Sorry to appear simple but this is my best shot at describing the indescribable. it was Jesus, of course, who said that unless we become as little children we shall not see the Kingdom of Heaven!


Interesting analogies - thank you. The Railway Children one does strike a chord - it is a moving moment, just worked up emotion, perhaps, or something else besides? For example, the personal baggage I bring to watching such a scene must surely affect my reading and feeling of it? By personal baggage, I mean my understanding and experience of concepts such as 'father', 'daughter', 'loss', 'reunion', 'childhood', 'railways' (!)...I hope you get the idea.

I wonder whether 'emotion' like 'pain' has not only thresholds that vary from one person to another, but the actual experience of it is qualitatively different? We can try to compare, and use a common language, but if you and I were to say that something was, say, 'uplifting', there is still no guarantee that we are feeling the same thing. Another analogy: is the 'red' you see the same 'red' that I see?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> No we don't jump into a 'magical circle of mysticism and irrationalism'. We actually jump into a vital experience which a reasoned and intellectually arguable experiential faith gives us. Leave irrationalism to the neo-atheists!


Interesting _non sequitur_.

Faith is "belief in absence of the evidence," yet at the same time-- to _some_ at any rate-- it is "reasoned" and "intellectually arguable."

How?

By means of _non_-proof and_ non_-existence?

Thank God that Bach's music stands on its _own_ merits.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> This points to the fact that no human emotional state is the exclusive province of religion. Indeed, religious ideas and rituals appeal to humans precisely because they find ways of concentrating, through concepts, rituals, and artistic expressions, basic emotions humans possess by virtue of their humanity.
> 
> When I was a college student, already a couple of years past believing the religious dogmas I'd been raised in, I attended every performance of Bach's _B-minor Mass_ in the Boston area I could locate and afford. The music's phenomenal complexity and emotional range - Bach at the top of his game - simply carried me to places of power and splendor nothing else could. But I did not think while listening that the sense of cosmic grandeur I felt necessitated the belief that a SuperSomeone had set the stars and planets spinning in six days. Indeed, that feat would not have been more impressive than the feat of musical creation I was witnessing and being overwhelmed by.


If God created Beethoven and Bach, then clearly Beethoven and Bach are superior to God.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Non-believers obviously will not feel any religious impact from a religious work. There likely would be a different dimension or or perhaps different focus in your mental processes while listening. I have two questions.
> 
> 1) Does this differing effect of religious works come from the words associated with the work or from the music alone? For example, I mentioned the work Spem in alium by Tallis. The words are in Latin and presumably the vast majority of people will not know what the words actually mean when they listen. It is a religiosu work, but does it have the same impact on religious people (you for example) as a work where you know the meaning better?
> 
> 2) When you say that religious works impact religious people differently or that non-believers can not enter into the same dimension, do you mean that religious people will react in some sense more strongly or emotionally to religious works? Or do you simply mean that religious people will react differently?


I think context, and the words of a work, play a huge role in the impact. Of course something like Spem in alium can be appreciated by both believers and non-believers. But knowing what they words mean, to a believer, can add a whole other dimension to the experience.

The same with the St. Matthew Passion. The music itself is incredibly beautiful, but when you tie it to how it is trying to describe the agony that Christ experienced during the Passion, for a Christian individual, this has an incredible emotional impact.

Think of it like this - how moved are you by depictions of wanton slaughter in comparing some random horror/slasher movie (think something like Saw, or Hostel) as compared to something like Schindler's List.

For a Christian, these religious works are tied to things they believe to be true, and so they have an emotional connection to not just the music, but the message in the music, whereas a non-believer does not have the same connection to the music. They both can enjoy the music at a common, musical appreciation level. But there is another level for the believer that I don't think the non-believer necessarily cares about, because they don't have an emotional context for the message in the music.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> DrMike: For a Christian, these religious works are tied to things they believe to be true, and so they have an emotional connection to not just the music, but the message in the music, whereas a non-believer does not have the same connection to the music. They both can enjoy the music at a common, musical appreciation level.


Well, rest assured, there's nothing 'common' about _my_ emotional and intellectual appreciation of a Bach cantada or vocal music.

I tend to think of_ lofty _and _elevated_ things when listening to his music: like beautifully-dressed duchesses in the hall of mirrors at Versailles-- something as about as far from humility and self-abnegation as one can get.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Well, rest assured, there's nothing 'common' about _my_ emotional and intellectual appreciation of a Bach cantada or vocal music.
> 
> I tend to think of_ lofty _and _elevated_ things when listening to his music: like beautifully-dressed duchesses in the hall of mirrors at Versailles-- something as about as far from humility and self-abnegation as one can get.


Good for you. Still not the same thing as what a believer experiences, and I doubt you could have the same experience. Especially if you are eschewing the humility aspect.

But I am glad you still enjoy his religious works.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Interesting _non sequitur_.
> 
> Faith is "belief in absence of the evidence," yet at the same time-- to _some_ at any rate-- it is "reasoned" and "intellectually arguable."
> 
> How?
> 
> By means of _non_-proof and_ non_-existence?
> 
> Thank God that Bach's music stands on its _own_ merits.


I'm not sure where that evidence of faith came from. I like Paul's version better, in his Epistle to the Hebrews.
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV):
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> Good for you. Still not the same thing as what a believer experiences, and I doubt you could have the same experience. Especially if you are eschewing the humility aspect.
> 
> But I am glad you still enjoy his religious works.


Yes, I throroughly enjoy the music despite the text-- which frankly adds very little if anything to the aesthetic experience.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Yes, I throroughly enjoy the music despite the text-- which frankly adds very little if anything to the aesthetic experience.


For you, I'm sure it doesn't. For me, it does. But really, isn't that like saying you thoroughly enjoy an opera despite the words? Can you truly experience the full weight and beauty of the opera if you don't consider also more than just the music? I know you love opera - do you think there that the text adds very little if anything to the aesthetic experience?

Don't Mahler's Kindertoternlieder take on a new poignancy when you know they are Songs on the Death of Children? Doesn't Schubert's Winterreise take on a new level of despair when you know it isn't merely about a Winter's Journey, rather a man lamenting his lost love?


----------



## Blake

Faith and belief are just energies inside of the psyche that magnify certain concepts, and many have such a strong faith that it manifest in certain ways. It could create grand images, sensations, etc... but it's still in the mind. The brain is an absurdly powerful machine. I really don't think many are aware of its potential and effect. It is wonderful, but it doesn't have to be made into a religious thing.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> For you, I'm sure it doesn't. For me, it does. But really, isn't that like saying you thoroughly enjoy an opera despite the words? Can you truly experience the full weight and beauty of the opera if you don't consider also more than just the music? I know you love opera - do you think there that the text adds very little if anything to the aesthetic experience?
> Don't Mahler's Kindertoternlieder take on a new poignancy when you know they are Songs on the Death of Children? Doesn't Schubert's Winterreise take on a new level of despair when you know it isn't merely about a Winter's Journey, rather a man lamenting his lost love?


Absolutely.

But then opera's a_ dramatic _experience and not a_ religious _one. . . well, aside from Divina that is. _;D_


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DrMike said:


> I'm not sure where that evidence of faith came from. I like Paul's version better, in his Epistle to the Hebrews.
> Hebrews 11:1 (KJV):
> "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."


Right: belief in_ absence _of evidence.

Well-said, Paul.


----------



## Woodduck

DrMike said:


> I think context, and the words of a work, play a huge role in the impact. Of course something like Spem in alium can be appreciated by both believers and non-believers. But knowing what they words mean, to a believer, can add a whole other dimension to the experience.
> 
> The same with the St. Matthew Passion. The music itself is incredibly beautiful, but when you tie it to how it is trying to describe the agony that Christ experienced during the Passion, for a Christian individual, this has an incredible emotional impact.
> 
> Think of it like this - how moved are you by depictions of wanton slaughter in comparing some random horror/slasher movie (think something like Saw, or Hostel) as compared to something like Schindler's List.
> 
> For a Christian, these religious works are tied to things they believe to be true, and so they have an emotional connection to not just the music, but the message in the music, whereas a non-believer does not have the same connection to the music. They both can enjoy the music at a common, musical appreciation level. But there is another level for the believer that I don't think the non-believer necessarily cares about, because they don't have an emotional context for the message in the music.


As a non-Christian - actually an ex-Christian whose "transitional phase" included majoring in music at a conservative Christian college and having a number of Christian friends there who were studying music or simply loved it - I had conversations about what "Christian" or "religious" music was and how we all responded to it. I believe that DrMike is correct in saying that religious belief _may_ make a difference in how the believer responds emotionally to a work which expresses his religious sensibility, whether in its text or through some other kind of association, ritual or sentimental. It stands to reason that there might be, for him, an additional layer of meaning which would be absent for a nonbeliever; given the same music without a religious text or association, that layer of meaning would not be perceived, and the emotional response engendered by it would not be present.

However, I would like to point out that not every believer in a given religion conceives, or experiences emotionally, the ideas and symbols of his own religion in the same way, and that religious concepts and feelings are _human_ concepts and feelings; they are, in their basic components, part of the makeup of all people. A religion embodies them symbolically and doctrinally, it taps into them, inspires them, makes use of them - but it does not invent them, and it cannot prescribe or determine their existence or form in any individual. A religious believer does not have a set of feelings, or a capacity for feeling, a nonbeliever lacks; he merely experiences certain universal human feelings in response to certain beliefs, or symbolic representations of them, on an occasion and in a context in which the nonbeliever does not - _and in a manner personal to him._ Different believers, being different people, must differ considerably in how they respond emotionally to the same ideas and symbols.

What does this have to do with music? Music, like religion, is a very personal, individual matter. Different music lovers may love the same music but respond to it emotionally in different ways. Just as religions embody complex set of concepts and images which affect people in complex ways, music is a complex phenomenon with the capacity to stimulate us both intellectually and emotionally in ways that are literally indescribable. Hardly an accident that music has been used as a primary medium of religious expression and that so much great music has been written on religious texts or for religious functions; both religion and music affect people in ways which the rational mind has only a limited capacity to comprehend, and can arouse strong emotions which have for us a compelling quality of inevitablity and truth. But the subjective aspect of the experience of both religion and music - the individual variability of it and its compelling power for the individual - should make us very circumspect when we try to say just what the experience of "religious" music means to anyone, religious believer or not.

A Roman Catholic will, very likely, hear a musical setting of the Mass differently than a Buddhist or an atheist will. But that Roman Catholic is in no position to say what the Buddhist or atheist does or can derive from the musical work. He is in fact in no position to say what any other Roman Catholic derives from it. It is perfectly possible for a given piece of "religious" music to affect a given nonbeliever far more powerfully than it affects another listener who fervently believes in the doctrines expressed in the work's text. It is even possible for a nonbeliever to derive meanings from the symbology of a religious work's text which, because of his personal life experience or the context and depth of his thought, are not perceived by a believer, and so contribute to an emotional response to the music which the believer himself may not share.

The unfortunate human tendency to oversimplify and create arbitrary categories is bound to afflict our thinking about phenomena as resistant to easy understanding as music and religion, and easily leads to insupportable assumptions. I'm sure that my emotional/cognitive response to the "Credo" of Bach's _B-minor Mass_ is not identical to that of the Christian sitting beside me in the concert hall. But what the experience of that work is for either of us, in its intensity, depth, or imaginative reach, is not for the other to say.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Right: belief in_ absence _of evidence.
> 
> Well-said, Paul.


Okay, let me just make sure I understand you here. I believe you are saying the following:
Evidence of things not seen = absence of evidence

I just want to be clear here. So . . . I can assume you believe there is an absence of evidence for subatomic particles and evolution.

Subatomic particles - those tiny, tiny things that nobody has seen. All the experiments they run to test for them don't actually show the particles, so much as they show evidence of their presence, such as their interactions in a gas. But that is evidence of a thing that isn't seen, i.e. the subatomic particle itself has not actually been seen, only its interaction with another thing. But since it is evidence of something not seen, by your equivalence, that means there is an absence of evidence.

And with macroevolution, well, nobody has actually seen that occur. We see microevolution, sure. But for macroevolution, we look, rather, for evidence of things that we would predict were macroevolution to have taken place - for example, similarities in genetic material across disparate species, evidence in the fossil record. But macroevolution itself has not been seen, only the effects of it, long after it has taken place. But that evidence of something not seen, by your logic, is an absence of evidence.

Or, maybe . . . just maybe, you are trying to twist Paul's words around to something they don't actually mean to try and score a cheap shot by using sophistry. Or you may not actually believe in Darwinian evolution and the existence of subatomic particles.


----------



## Guest

@woodduck:
I agree - no two people are going to experience things in the same way, even if they share the same level of religious devotion, and we can't know truly how any given person is experiencing a piece of music. But at the level of a religious experience, assume all things being equal and a similar faith experience, a person whose faith coincides with the particular religious work - e.g. a Mass setting for a Roman Catholic - they are going to experience it at a completely different level than an atheist experiencing the same work, sitting right next to that person. Other factors can also have an impact - such as setting. Take it one step further - a Roman Catholic hearing a Mass setting - let's say Palestrina's Missa Papae marcelli - in a setting like the Sistine Chapel, or St. Paul's Cathedral. That would have an even greater impact. And I believe that is simply not something that someone outside of that context of a Roman Catholic could experience in the same way. But an atheist standing right next to that Catholic could certainly still have a moving experience. It is just that, for the Catholic, it is going to be something more.

And yes - not even all religious people will experience what we are talking about. Many don't care for classical music, religious or otherwise, so it is likely they would have less of an experience than an atheist who is enthusiastic for the music.


----------



## aleazk

DrMike said:


> Okay, let me just make sure I understand you here. I believe you are saying the following:
> Evidence of things not seen = absence of evidence
> 
> I just want to be clear here. So . . . I can assume you believe there is an absence of evidence for subatomic particles and evolution.
> 
> Subatomic particles - those tiny, tiny things that nobody has seen. All the experiments they run to test for them don't actually show the particles, so much as they show evidence of their presence, such as their interactions in a gas. But that is evidence of a thing that isn't seen, i.e. the subatomic particle itself has not actually been seen, only its interaction with another thing. But since it is evidence of something not seen, by your equivalence, that means there is an absence of evidence.
> 
> And with macroevolution, well, nobody has actually seen that occur. We see microevolution, sure. But for macroevolution, we look, rather, for evidence of things that we would predict were macroevolution to have taken place - for example, similarities in genetic material across disparate species, evidence in the fossil record. But macroevolution itself has not been seen, only the effects of it, long after it has taken place. But that evidence of something not seen, by your logic, is an absence of evidence.
> 
> Or, maybe . . . just maybe, you are trying to twist Paul's words around to something they don't actually mean to try and score a cheap shot by using sophistry. Or you may not actually believe in Darwinian evolution and the existence of subatomic particles.


LOL but that's actual evidence. Faith is faith, it has nothing to do with evidence.


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> LOL but that's actual evidence. Faith is faith, it has nothing to do with evidence.


I'm just turning MB's argument on its head. I don't claim that faith is going to produce the same kind of faith that science does. Faith produces, and is built, by its own kind of evidence, evidence of things not seen. MB tried to twist that into meaning absence of evidence, which it clearly is not, and if she does believe that evidence of things not seen = absence of evidence, then she clearly can't accept the existence of macroevolution or subatomic particles. Except that you and I both know that it is entirely possible for there to be actual evidence of things that we can't see. The whole field of study of subatomic particles is based on that assumption. That is why they build particle accelerators. That is why we have CERN. Similarly, we can't actually see black holes, but we have evidence of these things that we can't see - their indirect and direct effects on other things due to their gravitational pull - which leads us to believe they exist. Thus, once again, evidence of a thing not seen - but MB, by her logic, is going to have to assume that there is an absence of evidence and reject the whole notion.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Obscurantism at its worst.

These things (subatomic particles) are measured accurately with the most precise and advanced machine, perhaps ever made. It's called the *Large Hadron Collider*. It's fascinating stuff, for anyone interested in how things actually are.
http://home.web.cern.ch/topics/large-hadron-collider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

Planets revolving around stars thousands of light-years away are NOT seen, they are measured accurately nonetheless. Here's a link from NASA explaining how.
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/exoplanet-exploration/

The list goes on and on and on and on..


----------



## Guest

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Obscurantism at its worst.
> 
> These things (subatomic particles) are measured accurately with the most precise and advanced machine, perhaps ever made. It's called the *Large Hadron Collider*. It's fascinating stuff, for anyone interested in how things actually are.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
> 
> Planets revolving around stars thousands of light-years away are NOT seen, they are measured accurately nonetheless. Here's a link from NASA explaining how.
> http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/exoplanet-exploration/
> 
> The list goes on and on and on and on..


Right - evidence of things not actually seen. I'm not arguing that they don't exist. I fully believe in the existence of subatomic particle, of black holes, and of planets thousands of light years away. The fact that we can't actually SEE them does not dissuade me in the least from believing they exist, based on that evidence of things NOT SEEN.

I was merely taking MB's flawed assertion - that evidence of things not seen = absence of evidence - out to some of its logical conclusions with regards to various mainstream scientific findings. She was trying to twist Paul's statement regarding what faith was, by sophistry, and I'm showing how her equivalency is flawed.


----------



## science

Back on topic once again, I've been religious and I've been not religious. 

I doubt I'd have such strong sentimental attachment to the hymns of my youth without having been religious. 

But my appreciation for a lot of other religious music - Bach, etc. - has only deepened as I've lost my faith. I think what is going on is that, while I still sympathize with the words, sometimes very deeply (as with Cantata #82), I understand and enjoy the music itself more. 

So I think we need to make a distinction. Enjoying the lyrics while not religious is probably a little more problematic than enjoying the music. Even the words - if they're good as poetry - could be appreciated, for sure. But probably not felt in the same way. 

I can't imagine how the music itself, however, would be different for a believer or an unbeliever.


----------



## aleazk

DrMike said:


> I was merely taking MB's flawed assertion - that evidence of things not seen = absence of evidence - out to some of its logical conclusions with regards to various mainstream scientific findings. She was trying to twist Paul's statement regarding what faith was, by sophistry, and I'm showing how her equivalency is flawed.


"Faith in God is evidence of its existence".

Well, pardon, but just having faith is a very weak (not to say vacuous) type of 'evidence' when compared to actual observed physical effects like things orbiting around a very compact but massive object that does not emit light (i.e., the current observations for which we believe in the existence of black holes). In fact, the contrast is so sharp that some would even say that just having faith is simply not evidence of anything at all, or, in any case, just evidence of the fact that you have faith...

Of course, you may say I'm adopting a materialist point of view (which is indeed the case). The problem is that if we abandon this, then replace God by Unicorns and Paul becomes the apostle of Unicorns...


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> "Faith in God is evidence of its existence".
> 
> Well, pardon, but just having faith is a very weak (not to say vacuous) type of 'evidence' when compared to actual observed physical effects like things orbiting around a very compact but massive object that does not emit light (i.e., the current observations for which we believe in the existence of black holes). In fact, the contrast is so sharp that some would even say that just having faith is simply not evidence of anything at all, or, in any case, just evidence of the fact that you have faith...
> 
> Of course, you may say I'm adopting a materialist point of view (which is indeed the case). The problem is that if we abandon this, then replace God by Unicorns and Paul becomes the apostle of Unicorns...


So you support Blair's assertion? Or just don't want to admit that, at least in terms of this debate, her assertion of equivalency is flawed?

I have my evidence that drives my faith. You don't believe it. I could honestly not care less. It is real to me. I have had no such similar experiences with unicorns - and Paul was speaking specifically about faith in one specific God. And I already said the evidence is different from scientific evidence. You just choose to not believe there is anything BUT scientific evidence, and thus if there is no scientific evidence for something's existence, you disregard it.

But still - the point I was trying to make was that MB was using sophistry to score a point. Clearly the equivalency she asserted is wrong. Regardless of what argument you apply her assertion to, it is still a false equivalence. Or is it hard to admit that? Aren't we supposed to be governed by truth here?


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Back on topic once again, I've been religious and I've been not religious.
> 
> I doubt I'd have such strong sentimental attachment to the hymns of my youth without having been religious.
> 
> But my appreciation for a lot of other religious music - Bach, etc. - has only deepened as I've lost my faith. I think what is going on is that, while I still sympathize with the words, sometimes very deeply (as with Cantata #82), I understand and enjoy the music itself more.
> 
> So I think we need to make a distinction. Enjoying the lyrics while not religious is probably a little more problematic than enjoying the music. Even the words - if they're good as poetry - could be appreciated, for sure. But probably not felt in the same way.
> 
> I can't imagine how the music itself, however, would be different for a believer or an unbeliever.


You're not getting the same affect because you're not putting vast amounts of energy into particular concepts. As I've said, the brain is powerful. There are energies that magnify certain strains of ideas... we call it 'faith' and 'belief', but they are just energies. The mind is such that if you put in enough energy towards concepts than it will produce certain experiences for the individual... be it sensations or images. It happens all of the time. People have so much faith in a particular groove of life, that they experience things quite differently than what is actually, objectively happening.

I'm sure this will go over most people's heads. But this is the core of the matter. Our mind is the ultimate joker.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

aleazk said:


> "Faith in God is evidence of its existence".
> 
> Well, pardon, but just having faith is a very weak (not to say vacuous) type of 'evidence' when compared to actual observed physical effects like things orbiting around a very compact but massive object that does not emit light (i.e., the current observations for which we believe in the existence of black holes). In fact, the contrast is so sharp that some would even say that just having faith is simply not evidence of anything at all, or, in any case, just evidence of the fact that you have faith...
> 
> Of course, you may say I'm adopting a materialist point of view (which is indeed the case). The problem is that if we abandon this, then replace God by Unicorns and Paul becomes the apostle of Unicorns...












I'll take the _Bach Mass in B Minor_ and the outfit, and Paul can keep his unicorns.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> You're not getting the same affect because you're not putting vast amounts of energy into particular concepts. As I've said, the brain is powerful. There are energies that magnify certain strains of ideas... we call it 'faith' and 'belief', but they are just energies. The mind is such that if you put in enough energy towards concepts than it will produce certain experiences for the individual... be it sensations or images. It happens all of the time. People have so much faith in a particular groove of life, that they experience things quite differently than what is actually, objectively happening.
> 
> I'm sure this will go over most people's heads. But this is the core of the matter. Our mind is the ultimate joker.


I'm sorry, I can't understand what you're saying. First of all, I'm not getting the same effect as what? Also, I can't understand "faith" as an energy. Can you put this more literally?


----------



## Blake

science said:


> I'm sorry, I can't understand what you're saying. First of all, I'm not getting the same effect as what? Also, I can't understand "faith" as an energy. Can you put this more literally?


Well, what is 'faith' but an extreme focus on a particular concept? We keep talking of "faith" and "belief" as some sort of abstract thing, but aren't they just energies of focused attention? As I've said several times now... our minds are ridiculous in it's experiential output. Give enough energy to a particular idea and it will produce certain sensations. Just like we've seen the ancient tribal rituals where people seem to extend to another dimension. Is it not just another dimension of the mind?


----------



## tdc

~Not trying to derail the thread, just answering this question I noticed a few pages back~



samurai said:


> I think that this very erudite and entertaining thread addresses--at its core--the great difficulty of "proving" a negative, be it that God doesn't exist or that there is no"afterlife" all beings experience after their body has died.
> Without trying to further"stir the pot"--really--I would simply ask--as an agnostic--if anybody, anywhere has ever heard of or experienced a person or animal returning to life after they have died. It is the only way I, at least, with my rather simple, uncomplicated brain and belief system, could possibly conceive of *disproving* the aforementioned negatives so many of us adhere to.


Fully dead, I'm not sure - but there are a lot of people who do feel they've actually died and come back, there are loads of different accounts of these kinds of things if you search "near death experiences".

This particular case I found interesting:


----------



## aleazk

Marschallin Blair said:


> and Paul can keep his unicorns.


But they are so lovely! I want one!

I will adopt him and call him God!


----------



## SixFootScowl

DrMike said:


> I'm not sure where that evidence of faith came from. I like Paul's version better, in his Epistle to the Hebrews.
> Hebrews 11:1 (KJV):
> "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."


I like R.C.H. Lenski's translation Hebrews 11,
_"Now faith is firm confidence in things hoped for, conviction regarding things not seen."_
And Lenski really digs into the Greek, spending 4.5 pages discussing this one verse and it's translation.


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> Interesting _non sequitur_.
> 
> Faith is "belief in absence of the evidence," yet at the same time-- to _some_ at any rate-- it is "reasoned" and "intellectually arguable."
> 
> How?
> 
> By means of _non_-proof and_ non_-existence?
> 
> Thank God that Bach's music stands on its _own_ merits.


Saying that faith is "belief in absence of the evidence" shows a complete and utter misunderstanding, at least, of the Christian idea of faith.


----------



## DavidA

aleazk said:


> LOL but that's actual evidence. Faith is faith, it has nothing to do with evidence.


Again, you have a complete misunderstanding of what faith is, as far as Christianity is concerned.


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> Right: belief in_ absence _of evidence.
> 
> Well-said, Paul.


Sorry you are completely misinterpreting what the writer meant. As I have said, your idea of 'faith' is not the Christian one. I know Dawkins and his cronies have our about this idea that faith is the absence of evidence but in this area he is one of the most clueless men in the planet!


----------



## DavidA

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Obscurantism at its worst.
> 
> These things (subatomic particles) are measured accurately with the most precise and advanced machine, perhaps ever made. It's called the *Large Hadron Collider*. It's fascinating stuff, for anyone interested in how things actually are.
> http://home.web.cern.ch/topics/large-hadron-collider
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
> 
> Planets revolving around stars thousands of light-years away are NOT seen, they are measured accurately nonetheless. Here's a link from NASA explaining how.
> http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/exoplanet-exploration/
> 
> The list goes on and on and on and on..


Just what is this argument? You don't actually see the particles just their effects. When I did my project on superconductive electron tunnelling at low temperatures (many years ago now!) at uni I didn't actually see the particles. Just observe the effects. What quantum physics does is to observe the effects and interpret them in the form of mathematics. So we had a very elegant series of graphs which I then discussed with my supervisor.


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> I'll take the _Bach Mass in B Minor_ and the outfit, and Paul can keep his unicorns.


Now we have come full circle in irrationality and evidence lack! St Paul and unicorns! Like Dawkins' imaginary fairies at the bottom of his garden. He gets so hot under the cooler about them I think he secretly believes in them!


----------



## Guest

To add briefly to the 'faith' debate, I thought the whole point of the Thomas story was to illustrate the idea of believing in something without having the evidence?



> _29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed._


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubting_Thomas

Returning to the music, vesuvius makes a good point about the potential impact of the words as expressions of concepts that the theist invests emotional energy in. Woodduck and I both acknowledge as well that response to music is layered, but that doesn't mean that the 'total intensity' felt by the theist listener is larger than that felt by the atheist listener.

As at least three people have explained so far (in recent pages - others doubtless earlier in this thread) the only person who can know what is felt is the one doing the experiencing. The onlooker, or the hearer of the report of experience cannot know, only imagine.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> To add briefly to the 'faith' debate, I thought the whole point of the Thomas story was to illustrate the idea of believing in something without having the evidence?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubting_Thomas
> 
> Returning to the music, vesuvius makes a good point about the potential impact of the words as expressions of concepts that the theist invests emotional energy in. Woodduck and I both acknowledge as well that response to music is layered, but that doesn't mean that the 'total intensity' felt by the theist listener is larger than that felt by the atheist listener.
> 
> As at least three people have explained so far (in recent pages - others doubtless earlier in this thread) the only person who can know what is felt is the one doing the experiencing. The onlooker, or the hearer of the report of experience cannot know, only imagine.


Of course that is absolute nonsense! The point of the Thomas story is that ther is palpable evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus had predicted he would rise from the dead and his disciples had seen him apart from Thomas. They had been as unbelieving as Thomas before. Yet here now is the evidence! This is expounded in the remarkable book, Who moved the Stone, by the (non-Christian at the time) lawyer, Frank Morison, who came to the conclusion that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead, not through faith, but an honest examination of the historical evidence!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Of course that is absolute nonsense!


What? My entire post? It does at least stick to the subject in hand (with a minor digression at the beginning).


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> What? My entire post? It does at least stick to the subject in hand (with a minor digression at the beginning).


No the bit about Thomas. Complete misinterpretation of the meaning of the passage. Sorry! Should have deleted the rest as it is on a different subject. Apologies!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Complete misinterpretation of the meaning of the passage. Sorry! Should have deleted the rest as it is on a different subject. Apologies!


Apologies accepted. However, my 'interpretation' of the Thomas story is not 'absolute rubbish'. It may not tally with yours, or Frank Morison's, but it's no less valid.

However, it's another point to be pursued elsewhere - something you seem reluctant to do.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> Saying that faith is "belief in absence of the evidence" shows a complete and utter misunderstanding, at least, of the Christian idea of faith.


No, the definition is merely how _rational_ people would define faith. You know, as the_ dictionary _defines words and not as a self-interested religious party would.

In Webster's Online Dictionary, definition 2b (1) defines 'faith' as: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

'No proof'-- and not the special-pleading case of "evidence of things not seen."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith . . .

Did I mention how wonderful I think _Bach's B Minor Mass _is?


----------



## Musicforawhile

In Webster's Online Dictionary, definition 2b (1) defines 'faith' as: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

'No proof'-- and not the special-pleading case of "evidence of things not seen."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith . . .

[/QUOTE]

But a religious person would say there is plenty of proof and evidence.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Well, what is 'faith' but an extreme focus on a particular concept? We keep talking of "faith" and "belief" as some sort of abstract thing, but aren't they just energies of focused attention? As I've said several times now... our minds are ridiculous in it's experiential output. Give enough energy to a particular idea and it will produce certain sensations. Just like we've seen the ancient tribal rituals where people seem to extend to another dimension. Is it not just another dimension of the mind?


Ok, I'm beginning to understand. "Energy" here means mental energy, emotional attention, something like that. An example of what you mean would be worrying about something so much that you believe it is actually happening. With respect to faith, you mean that believing in a god and putting a lot of your own psychological energy into that belief does in fact have some effects on the person. And I guess that relates to what I said about my experience because during my own time as a believer my faith ("energy") caused the hymns to feel more meaningful. Or perhaps it relates more broadly to what I said about the lyrics of music meaning more to people of the faith expressed by the lyrics.

Ok, if I've understood you correctly, I agree.

In fact, my religious belief really helped me out when I was a kid. I had some tough family problems and believing that a father-like God would take care of me helped somewhat, or subjectively at least it felt that way. (It's an argument from silence because who knows but that I actually would've coped better somehow in the absence of those beliefs; whatever the truth of the matter, how it felt to me at the time is how it felt to me, and how it feels still. That's not an argument that a god exists, just that a belief in a certain sort of God might've been useful to me at that time.)

What's funny is that now, the lyrics of songs that express an idea of the fatherhood of "God" (a great one is David Meece's _My Father's Chair_) no longer mean as much to me as the hymns I actually heard my father sing. For these songs, it's not the words or the music at all, but the connection to my father. I guess I've got a lot of "energy" on that subject. Let there be a resurrection and a judgment - even if I am damned, let my father see the man I've become! He would, I think, be proud, very proud, and for him to feel that would mean something to me. It means something to me to think so even though I don't believe he will ever have a chance to know. There's something to that. Anyway, I don't know much about him as a man because I never knew him as a man, but one connection I have to him is those hymns, of all the hymns those are the ones he sang around our house, the one's he'd memorized. I think I get to a bit of the man there, I know a bit of what was in his heart.

That gets back to an idea that I've often expressed. I love music regardless of what it has meant to anyone else; if I were the first and only person ever to hear Prokofiev's piano sonatas I would love them anyway. But there is more to it than that. Something romantic, perhaps, but I will dare this once to be romantic, and my feelings toward the cynics will have to be reserved for a board without moderators. Because I am not the first and only person to hear Prokofiev's piano sonatas. While I listen, I tap into a community of people who have experienced and loved them too, a community that includes great sinners in Stalin's administration and saints suffering patiently the horrible banalities of life under that regime, a community that includes great intellectuals and ordinary laborers, men and women who were driven to suicide, men and women who found a way to hope. Here we all are, religious or not, muddling our way through the confusion of our lives, sometimes managing to reach each other just a little through a piano sonata, a painting, a poem, a post on a message board, managing to be a little less alone and a little more human.

In that sense, I hope my "soul" is not too constricted to appreciate the way it feels to be a believer - even in "faiths" that have never been mine, like Buddhism, Judaism, or Islam. But as for the "faith" of most of the European tradition, from which the music we evidently love sprang, if I can't imagine what it is to celebrate the nativity of a God-man come to save us all, or to lament the horror of the punishment he is supposed to have had to endure for our sake, or to cringe in fear of the God whose wrath demanded that punishment laid even on His beloved Son, or to resign my ambitions and accept my humiliations contented with what the Lord in his wisdom has supposedly seen fit to allot me, or to share a hope in a final establishment of justice smashing out all the injustices and wrongs of history.... Well, if I can't identify with those feelings, then I probably wouldn't enjoy any music very much anyway. But if I can, then I am a part of a tradition, a community of sinners like me, something greater than just my pleasure at hearing the pretty sounds recorded on a CD.

Too much wine, man. It does this to me. Blame this on the wine. I'll be my cynical old self again in twelve hours. Well, actually I am my cynical self too, right not, and this romanticism is always there, unexpressed usually because, after all, why cast my pearls before swine? No offense to anyone present here, of course. But I am trampled enough as it is. Smashed. My face crushed under the boots of those who would assert their great superiority - if not to me, for after all I know how to play their game as well as they do, making me more dangerous prey than most predators hunt, then to the more vulnerable, the more naive, who dare to like or not like something they're supposed not to like or to like, who dare to ask ridiculous questions, who make unwarranted assumptions about some aspect of music.... No, it's better ordinarily to build walls and defenses, for the boots will come, for others if not for me, but for me too no doubt, to grind me into the mud and the dust with my forbears, where we belong, scum as we are. Well, that's as may be. I will take my place as I find it. But regardless of those great bearers of some whatever that I'm not supposed to be able to appreciate or whatever, I will enjoy the music I enjoy and participate in whatever other ways I can in the great human community of swine like me, just ordinarily not admitting so much to the pork butchers.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Musicforawhile said:


> In Webster's Online Dictionary, definition 2b (1) defines 'faith' as: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."
> 
> 'No proof'-- and not the special-pleading case of "evidence of things not seen."
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith . . .





> Musicforawhile: But a religious person would say there is plenty of proof and evidence.


-- and there is. . . on _stage_.










Just not in the science classroom.

http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/highlights/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf

Now, back to the Duchess, with her lovely, lovely singing in Bach's _Mass in B-Minor_.


----------



## Guest

'Evidence' is not the same as 'proof'. Can we be careful to distinguish while we're defining our terms?


----------



## science

Hey, it's way the heck off-topic, but the people who are saying that the "Christian" idea of faith is something other than the Reformation / post-Reformation idea of "intellectual adherence to unproven propositions" have a good argument. Not a good argument in terms of actual contemporary Christian practice, as far as I know, but a good argument in terms of the actual, original meanings of New Testament texts. For more on this, look for "the new perspective on Paul." 

But I really recommend ceasing that whole debate or taking it to a religion board. You're gonna get thread locked - that may in fact be your intention, for all I know. But unless you interpret the question itself as a challenge to your own "faith," it's a valid question and an actual issue that comes up sometimes for people listening to the music of people from traditions other than the listeners'. So from my POV, it's a good discussion, and the whole debate about whether God exists and evolution and all that really, really needs to go somewhere else so that the actual discussion that is supposed to be going on in this thread can go on.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

MacLeod said:


> 'Evidence' is not the same as 'proof'. Can we be careful to distinguish while we're defining our terms?


Tell that to the jury.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Apologies accepted. However, my 'interpretation' of the Thomas story is not 'absolute rubbish'. It may not tally with yours, or Frank Morison's, but it's no less valid.
> 
> However, it's another point to be pursued elsewhere - something you seem reluctant to do.


Sorry I was a bit rude but your interpretation of the Thomas story misses the point. People were to believe on the basis of the evidence that Jesus was risen from the dead not some blind faith. Biblical faith is not blind it is based on evidence.


----------



## science

Ok, obviously you all want the thread locked. That's too bad. I'd like to know why. How does it threaten you? How does the original topic offend you?


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> But I thought they were invisible?-- you know: like defunct, Bronze-Age sky gods.
> 
> "_I have an invisible unicorn that lives in my back yard- prove that it doesn't exist."
> 
> "Can you 'see' molecules? No, but you believe that they exist, don't you? Well the same goes for the 'evidence of things not seen.' You just don't know my religion. . . that, or you're an anti-supernaturalist bigot._"
> 
> Okay, now I have to get back to divinity that really_ does _exist with the grown-up world of _Bach's Mass in B Minor_.


Hilarious! Because something was believe in in the Bronze Age it is defunt. What logic! Is bronze defunct then! Should we stop believing in it?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

science said:


> Ok, obviously you all want the thread locked. That's too bad. I'd like to know why. How does it threaten you? How does the original topic offend you?


I think the cat's kind of out of the bag, even though they keep trying to put it back in the sack:

'That which can be asserted witout evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'

Its not even that the Emperor has no clothes in this case.

It'd be more apposite to say that the clothes have no _Emperor_.


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> No, the definition is merely how _rational_ people would define faith. You know, as the_ dictionary _defines words and not as a self-interested religious party would.
> 
> In Webster's Online Dictionary, definition 2b (1) defines 'faith' as: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."
> 
> 'No proof'-- and not the special-pleading case of "evidence of things not seen."
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith . . .
> 
> Did I mention how wonderful I think _Bach's B Minor Mass _is?


But it may not have occurred to you but Christians do not get their definition of faith from a secular dictionary! Nor do we get our definition from people who know absolutely nothing about the subject! This is no argument at all! The problem is you are trying to answer when you don't even understand the question! You need to get Herr Bach out and switch on the Credo!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> Hilarious! Because something was believe in in the Bronze Age it is defunt. What logic! Is bronze defunct then! Should we stop believing in it?


No, just_ rational _minds. . . unless of course one wants to believe in Mithra, and Attis, and Dionysius, and Shiva, and Vishnu, and Osiris, and Ahura Mazda as well. . .

And now, back to vintage fifties Schwarzkopf and Karajan with their_ GAW-GEOUS _Bach's_ Mass in B-Minor_.


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> Tell that to the jury.


A certain unbelieving lawyer looked at the evidence for Christ's resurrection and found it 'proved beyond reasonable doubt!'


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> But it may not have occurred to you but Christians do not get their definition of faith from a secular dictionary! Nor do we get our definition from people who know absolutely nothing about the subject! This is no argument at all! The problem is you are trying to answer when you don't even understand the question! You need to get Herr Bach out and switch on the Credo!


"Words don't mean what the dictionary says they mean, Winston. They mean what the Minsitry of Truth say they mean. . . or the Ministry of Religion, for that matter."

Sure.

And now, back to my beloved Duchess.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> A certain unbelieving lawyer looked at the evidence for Christ's resurrection and found it 'proved beyond reasonable doubt!'


Who? F. Lee Bailey?


----------



## science

DavidA said:


> A certain unbelieving lawyer looked at the evidence for Christ's resurrection and found it 'proved beyond reasonable doubt!'


I guess he sold some books, eh?

In before the lock.


----------



## Blake

How can the resurrection be proved beyond reasonable doubt? I'm not trying to be callus, I'm intrigued.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> How can the resurrection be proved beyond reasonable doubt? I'm not trying to be callus, I'm intrigued.


As was made clear earlier in the thread, my biological father died when I was a child. Let's use his death to pursue the idea of proving the resurrection beyond the shadow of a doubt.

If a guy shows up at my door tomorrow and says, "I am your father, dead these many years, now risen from the dead," what would it take to persuade me? What would the guy have to offer to persuade me?

Honestly, I do not believe he could persuade me. He might be able to persuade me that he really believes he is my father risen from the dead, or that he is my father who believes he has risen from the dead. But that he was dead - even for as much as three days - and rose again? No, nothing would persuade me.

But that is not actually analogous to the situation we have here. Instead, we have a guy showing up at my door saying that he saw my father risen from the dead, but that my father thereupon floated into the sky and disappeared behind some clouds. What kind of evidence do you think it would take to persuade me to believe this guy?

But that is not actually analogous to the situation we have here. Instead, we have a guy showing up at my door with letters from people who say they saw my father risen from the dead, but that my father thereupon floated into the sky and disappeared behind some clouds. What kind of evidence do you think it would take to persuade me to believe this guy?

But that is not actually analogous to the situation we have here. Instead, we have a guy showing up at my door with letters from people who say they saw my father risen from the dead, but that my father thereupon floated into the sky and disappeared behind some clouds - and he says that therefore I should give him 10% of my money to him and surrender my judgment to his teachings. What kind of evidence do you think it would take to persuade me to believe this guy?

Beyond a reasonable doubt? No way.

Edit: In before the lock again!


----------



## DavidA

science said:


> I guess he sold some books, eh?
> 
> In before the lock.


Yes. 'Who moved the stone' by Frank Morison is a best seller ever since it was published.


----------



## DavidA

Vesuvius said:


> How can the resurrection be proved beyond reasonable doubt? I'm not trying to be callus, I'm intrigued.


Yes, if you look logically at the historical evidence. Same as any history.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> Yes. 'Who moved the stone' by Frank Morison is a best seller ever since it was published.


The best-selling _Harry Potter _children books put him to shame. . . 'truth-wise,' that is.


----------



## science

DavidA said:


> Yes. 'Who moved the stone' by Frank Morison is a best seller ever since it was published.


Well, then, I guess he did what he set out to do.

How's Mike Warnke doing, by the way? Any more good books from him lately?


----------



## aleazk

DavidA said:


> 'Who moved the stone'


It has been proved it was just the wind...

Sliding Rocks on Racetrack Playa, Death Valley National
Park: First Observation of Rocks in Motion


----------



## Blake

DavidA said:


> Yes, if you look logically at the historical evidence. Same as any history.


I'm loyal to reasoning before anything, and it would be pretty darn hard to prove this. Virtually impossible as it's all hand-me-downs and hear-says from thousands of years ago.

Again, I'm no saying absolutely not. I don't have enough information for that either, but I really don't think there is any logical way to prove this without having to take some leaps of faith.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> Originally Posted by DavidA
> 
> 'Who moved the stone'





aleazk said:


> It has been proved it was just the wind...
> 
> Sliding Rocks on Racetrack Playa, Death Valley National
> Park: First Observation of Rocks in Motion


Who moved the _stone_?

Who gave Superman _his_ powers? Jorel from Planet _Krypton_?

"Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing."

- H. L. Mencken

And now, back to the lovely, spiritually-profound genius of Bach and his _Mass in B-Minor_.


----------



## aleazk

Marschallin Blair said:


> "Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing."
> 
> - H. L. Mencken


"_He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times_"

Bertrand Russell on Thomas Aquinas.


----------



## DavidA

science said:


> As was made clear earlier in the thread, my biological father died when I was a child. Let's use his death to pursue the idea of proving the resurrection beyond the shadow of a doubt.
> 
> If a guy shows up at my door tomorrow and says, "I am your father, dead these many years, now risen from the dead," what would it take to persuade me? What would the guy have to offer to persuade me?
> 
> Honestly, I do not believe he could persuade me. He might be able to persuade me that he really believes he is my father risen from the dead, or that he is my father who believes he has risen from the dead. But that he was dead - even for as much as three days - and rose again? No, nothing would persuade me.
> 
> But that is not actually analogous to the situation we have here. Instead, we have a guy showing up at my door saying that he saw my father risen from the dead, but that my father thereupon floated into the sky and disappeared behind some clouds. What kind of evidence do you think it would take to persuade me to believe this guy?
> 
> But that is not actually analogous to the situation we have here. Instead, we have a guy showing up at my door with letters from people who say they saw my father risen from the dead, but that my father thereupon floated into the sky and disappeared behind some clouds. What kind of evidence do you think it would take to persuade me to believe this guy?
> 
> But that is not actually analogous to the situation we have here. Instead, we have a guy showing up at my door with letters from people who say they saw my father risen from the dead, but that my father thereupon floated into the sky and disappeared behind some clouds - and he says that therefore I should give him 10% of my money to him and surrender my judgment to his teachings. What kind of evidence do you think it would take to persuade me to believe this guy?
> 
> Beyond a reasonable doubt? No way.
> 
> Edit: In before the lock again!


I think you here have a situation far from the situation of the resurrection of Christ. If you actually look at the accounts in the gospels the situation is very different from that which you describe. jesus' body was actually very different when resurrected. 
One reason people reject the resurrection is because it is unique. Nothing like that happened before or since. But it's uniqueness does not make it untrue. I mean, if you read about the ~Israeli raid on Entebbe in 1976 you'd dismiss it as fictional invention. It seems far fetched even now. But it's uniqueness or unlikeness does not make it untrue.


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> The best-selling _Harry Potter _children books put him to shame. . . 'truth-wise,' that is.


Depends whether our understanding of philosophy/theology goes beyond Harry Potter!


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> Who moved the _stone_?
> 
> Who gave Superman _his_ powers? Jorel from Planet _Krypton_?
> 
> "Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing."
> 
> - H. L. Mencken
> 
> And now, back to the lovely, spiritually-profound genius of Bach and his _Mass in B-Minor_.


Hmmm And they call religious people bigots!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Sorry I was a bit rude but your interpretation of the Thomas story misses the point. People were to believe on the basis of the evidence that Jesus was risen from the dead not some blind faith. Biblical faith is not blind it is based on evidence.


I overstated in my earlier post. I said 'the whole point', when in fact there are several points. I fail to see how Jesus' words, as reported in John, can be taken in any other way than an exhortation to belief without dependence on first hand evidence.


----------



## mmsbls

The thread veered off topic to religious debates without musical accompaniment. Even after a warning, the off topic posts continued so the thread is now closed.

Obviously some of you really enjoy discussing or arguing the topic. You are free to do so in the groups. Why not move the discussion there? If you do, remember that while the groups are not policed in quite the same way, the Terms and Conditions still hold.


----------

