# How could you understand the religious music if you are a atheist?



## C_Bach

This question has troubled me for a long time.When I listened to some cantatas of Bach,I felt that they were so noble and they expressed such great emotions that I even lost myself listening to them.But the question is ,if you don't believe in god,where the greatness lies in?


----------



## C_Bach

I should replace the word "god" with "God".


----------



## Polednice

Just to use words from your post, 'nobility' and the expression of 'great emotions' has nothing to do with the belief in a parochial and rather arbitrary divinity. The music of Bach is as moving as any other glorious piece of music that has no words - I think we can agree that instrumental/orchestral music can be just as noble and emotional as choral music. In which case, all one has to do is listen to the music as though the syllables and vowel sounds are nothing other than a concoction of random noises; after all, their combined meaning to any atheist is just as random and nonsensical. It just so happens that the man's music betrays his erroneous thought that he was helped by the divine hand of the particular sky-tyrant he grew up to be told was real. :/

EDIT --- Alternatively, of course, one can quite easily listen to such words as you would any other musical fiction. For example, we needn't have to (and we don't) believe that the Faust of Goethe's poem was real, but that does not exclude us from the delights of Berlioz's _The Damnation of Faust_.

Asking whether or not an atheist can feel the emotion of a religious text seems to already operate under the assumption that God exists and, therefore, the atheist must be somehow excluded. Rather, any atheist could see quite clearly that Bach was a man operating under the exact same influences of any other man in such a century when religion was unfortunately inescapable. Irrespective of the false ideas that he and all around him believed, what his music - and any other composer's music - shows, is his _humanity_. Any atheist - any person, never mind the labels - can feel that, because we all share such humanity. If you go so far as to suggest that an atheist _cannot_ tap into such feelings because they base their lives on rigid logic, the scientific method, scepticism and evidence, then the argument is already lost.


----------



## C_Bach

I guess I probably don't express myself well.When I mentioned the word "noble" or "great" I mean the awful emotion towards the person who is greater than anybody or anthing else in the world,that is ,The God.I am sure a christian will convince himself of the existence of The God after he listens to the second movement of Brandenburg Concerto No.4.


----------



## C_Bach

Polednice said:


> Irrespective of the false ideas that he and all around him believed, what his music - and any other composer's music - shows, is his _humanity_. Any atheist - any person, never mind the labels - can feel that, because we all share such humanity. If you go so far as to suggest that an atheist _cannot_ tap into such feelings because they base their lives on rigid logic, the scientific method, scepticism and evidence, then the argument is already lost.


I appreciate the word"humanity".There are also such great things like moral ,love that deserve to be worshiped.Perhaps I am just wondering if there is something that can be comparable to The God.


----------



## Polednice

C_Bach said:


> I guess I probably don't express myself well.When I mentioned the word "noble" or "great" I mean the awful emotion towards the person who is greater than anybody or anthing else in the world,that is ,The God.I am sure a christian will convince himself of the existence of The God after he listens to the second movement of Brandenburg Concerto No.4.


I'm sure that any atheist will feel the same sense of tremendous significance in a piece of music such as that. The fundamental difference, however, is that a Christian is all too ready to ascribe any beauty in the world to a greater being - a being greater than any human could ever be - whereas the atheist prefers to acknowledge that such beauty is _within us_. Just as Greek mythology and the story of Prometheus told, _divine fire is within us_. We acknowledge that the beauty of Bach's music is a splendid product of human evolution rather than the 'magical' workings of an incomprehensible 'God'.


----------



## starry

We live in a different time to JS Bach so hard to understand it in exactly the same way he did. Like perhaps all great musicians even though he may have often seen the aim of music as religious, the actually craft of writing of it meant he was also very much interested in music as music. In this way music can cross boundaries from any culture because it's a matter of understand the musical aim as much as any other.


----------



## Stip

Polednice said:


> Just to use words from your post, 'nobility' and the expression of 'great emotions' has nothing to do with the belief in a parochial and rather arbitrary divinity. The music of Bach is as moving as any other glorious piece of music that has no words - I think we can agree that instrumental/orchestral music can be just as noble and emotional as choral music. In which case, all one has to do is listen to the music as though the syllables and vowel sounds are nothing other than a concoction of random noises; after all, their combined meaning to any atheist is just as random and nonsensical. It just so happens that the man's music betrays his erroneous thought that he was helped by the divine hand of the particular sky-tyrant he grew up to be told was real. :/
> 
> EDIT --- Alternatively, of course, one can quite easily listen to such words as you would any other musical fiction. For example, we needn't have to (and we don't) believe that the Faust of Goethe's poem was real, but that does not exclude us from the delights of Berlioz's _The Damnation of Faust_.
> 
> Asking whether or not an atheist can feel the emotion of a religious text seems to already operate under the assumption that God exists and, therefore, the atheist must be somehow excluded. Rather, any atheist could see quite clearly that Bach was a man operating under the exact same influences of any other man in such a century when religion was unfortunately inescapable. Irrespective of the false ideas that he and all around him believed, what his music - and any other composer's music - shows, is his _humanity_. Any atheist - any person, never mind the labels - can feel that, because we all share such humanity. If you go so far as to suggest that an atheist _cannot_ tap into such feelings because they base their lives on rigid logic, the scientific method, scepticism and evidence, then the argument is already lost.


I registered myself just to compliment you on this. An excellent post, couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Listening to the 2nd movement of the 4th Brandeburg concerto I personally feel much admiration for the natural beauty of things and trust the physical laws to which we are bound.


----------



## Aramis

I belive in God while I'm listening to great religious works.

And anyway, do you belive in ancient gods and mythological/legendary creatures? Because a lot of classical music praises them. Do you have to belive in Wotan to be stunned by his glorious arias in _Der Ring..._? Or be an ancient Greek to understand and enjoy LvB's Prometheus? No. So is with christian works. You can understand them without any special circular reasoning. Unless you're pretentious atheist that must ostentatiously reject everything that has something to do with religion.


----------



## Artemis

The suggestion that a typical atheist can enjoy religious music just as fully as a typical practising Christian is not one I can accept. For present purposes I assume that we are taking about Western classical religious music. By practising Christians, I do not necessarily mean members of fundamentalist groups but rather the much larger group of ordinary people (whether regular church-goers or not) who are proud to proclaim their faith and who try to conduct their lives according to Christian ethical values. By religious music I mean the entire range of it, including Masses, hymns, special incantations to the BVM etc, and not just a narrow subsection of the genre such as Bach’s Cantatas as referred to in the OP. 

While they may think otherwise, it would seem obvious to me that a typical atheist (or agnostic for that matter) is much less likely to obtain as much enjoyment of religious music as does a Christian because only the latter enters into it in the manner and spirit that the composers intended it. Obviously an atheist might enjoy some aspects of sacred music but religious believers who share the same beliefs as the composers who wrote that music get to experience it in an even deeper way by virtue of being able to enter into the symbolism and experience of what is being presented in that music.

To argue otherwise seems very peculiar indeed since the music in question was written to worship the Christian concept of the Deity, or to honour the BVM or various Saints. It was not written to glorify any of man’s achievements. How therefore can an atheist claim to enjoy music they do not believe in anything relating to the concept of the Christian God? 

To clarify this point further, the individual words of the best known prayers/hymns, as well as the statements as a whole, mean something specific to a Christian. To Catholics, especially, the special sub-sections of the Mass such as the Credo or Sanctus or Agnus Dei have tremendous significance in their own right as statements of belief and hope in the Almighty, and various important events taking place in the Mass itself. When any of these parts of the Mass is combined with beautiful music written by the great composers, who themselves were mostly strong believers in the Faith, then the overall significance and enjoyment of those prayers can, and often does, increase further. No atheistic can possibly begin to understand any of this. 

Lastly, I would suggest that the cause and effect of one’s religious faith, if any exists, and one's taste in music can be either way round. Some people may start out with a religious faith and later find that sacred music helps deepen it or in various ways helps them to participate in it more easily. Others may start out with no such faith but find that they like some sacred music so much that it leads them to investigate Christianity more fully than they may have done previously, and perhaps rejected at that earlier time. Whichever way round it is, religious music can change our lives, and for the better, if we follow where it leads.


----------



## Aramis

What would you say then about religious music written by unbeliving composers? Berlioz for example, his Requiem and L'enfance Du Christ?


----------



## Polednice

Stip said:


> I registered myself just to compliment you on this. An excellent post, couldn't have said it better myself.


Thank you very much  Although it's most likely not intended by the people who suggest it, I think it can be rather insulting to suggest that I, or any other non-believer, could possibly be incapable of appreciating such art; particularly when my life features music, art and atheism in equal measure.



Artemis said:


> The suggestion that a typical atheist can enjoy religious music just as fully as a typical practising Christian is not one I can accept.


Unsurprisingly, I have to totally disagree with you 



Artemis said:


> a typical atheist (or agnostic for that matter) is much less likely to obtain as much enjoyment of religious music as does a Christian because only the latter enters into it in the manner and spirit that the composers intended it.


I can accept the 'less likely' probability, for the sole fact that an atheist would be less inclined to actively _seek out_ religious music to listen to; however, all listeners of classical music have the _same_ inherent ability to derive enjoyment from such music, religious or not.

Regarding the 'spirit intended by the composers', I would accept that the experience would be quite different if the religious individual took part in such music in a community/church setting, but that is a matter of _circumstance_, not an intrinsic quality of the music, just because the composer happened to believe in one particular nuance of the theory that the universe must have been designed and is presided over by someone who judges our every action.



Artemis said:


> Obviously an atheist might enjoy some aspects of sacred music but religious believers who share the same beliefs as the composers who wrote that music get to experience it in an even deeper way by virtue of being able to enter into the symbolism and experience of what is being presented in that music.


I don't think this point is valid because I see no reason why an atheist could not equally enter into the symbolism and experience of what is being presented in the music. Just as I conjure up an imaginary world inside my mind where Francesca and Paolo are being thrown about by a tempest in the second circle of Hell, so can I - for the time I spend listening to such music - enter into an imaginary world where a God actually exists.

The point is that the intentions and representations in such music are _not_ things that an atheist _cannot_, by definition, possibly understand. They are merely things with which we do not agree. Instead, from our perspective, we consider such music as a creative manifestation of certain psychological traits. If you listen to a Requiem, for example, the hope in the Almighty that is expressed is not solely accessible to the religious; as a human being, I too understand the fear of death - everybody does by virtue of existing, for we all must come to terms with the inevitability of our own mortality. It just so happens that, in the time that Bach lived (and, of course, in some places today), people tried to avoid this fear by believing in a reassuring fiction. Essentially, whether the music is about God or not, it in _some way_ demonstrates immense and deep emotion, to which every person has access.



Artemis said:


> To argue otherwise seems very peculiar indeed since the music in question was written to worship the Christian concept of the Deity, or to honour the BVM or various Saints. It was not written to glorify any of man's achievements. How therefore can an atheist claim to enjoy music they do not believe in anything relating to the concept of the Christian God?


Again, I feel that such arguments tremendously over-inflate the significance of Christianity. You only believe this because Christianity is still present today; Aramis made a perfect point about a belief in various mythologies being totally unnecessary for Wagner, and this situation is not at all different. Whether it's Wagner or Bach, we suspend our disbelief and we view the world through the persona of the music.

The chief point is that an atheist does not believe that a God exists, or _has ever_ existed. Just as there is no God now, so there was no God in Bach's day, and it is almost suggestive of a secret language of a cult to claim that only select individuals may fully understand Bach's music, so long as they buy into a dying myth. Just as the subjects of Dvorak's symphonic poems were developed from folk tales that people used to believe, so will the messages of Bach's music become obsolete legend - a window into the past at how humans falsely conceived themselves - but we can and we will still feel the same fears, passions, grievances, joys and heartbreak.


----------



## Taneyev

I don't believe in God, but I believe in Bach.


----------



## Weston

This entire thread is confusing subject matter with art.

Let me use an example that will be more prosaic to most readers here. There is an early 1980's song called "I Am Your Gun" by one of my favorite progressive rock groups. Some of the lyrics go thus:
_
I take second place to the motor car
In the score of killing kept thus far.
Just remember if you don't mind
It's not the gun that kills, but the man behind._

Now I take extreme exception to these words. Cars were not designed to kill - guns were. I loathe guns and the very idea behind them.

But I love the song. It moves me deeply as a work of art even if I disagree with its politics.

People who have extreme religious beliefs, to the point of excluding others from the ability to feel, are correct in one thing: I definitely don't feel the same things they feel, nor do I want to be part of their exclusive club.


----------



## Polednice

Weston said:


> This entire thread is confusing subject matter with art.
> 
> Let me use an example that will be more prosaic to most readers here. There is an early 1980's song called "I Am Your Gun" by one of my favorite progressive rock groups. Some of the lyrics go thus:
> _
> I take second place to the motor car
> In the core of killing kept thus far.
> Just remember if you don't mind
> It's not the gun that kills, but the man behind._
> 
> Now I take extreme exception to these words. Cars were not designed to kill - guns were. I loathe guns and the very idea behind them.
> 
> But I love the song. It moves me deeply as a work of art even if I disagree with its politics.
> 
> People who have extreme religious beliefs, to the point of excluding others from the ability to feel, are correct in one thing: I definitely don't feel the same things they feel, nor do I want to be part of their exclusive club.


I understand and agree, but I think the discussion goes one step further - at least for me, even if you don't feel the same way. In the example that you cited - although I would never listen to music of any other genre - I wouldn't be able to listen to it if I didn't agree with it's point. For me, I still have to have some sort of attachment or allegiance with what is actually being said. Thus, what I'm suggesting is that, for the sake of the art, I concoct a fictional scenario during the piece for which I empathise with Bach's religious convictions. If, however, the words in such pieces were _explicitly_ evangelical, or tried to perpetuate religious bigotry against women/gay people _etc._, I would never listen to it, even if it was otherwise a complete masterpiece.


----------



## Tapkaara

Taneyev said:


> I don't believe in God, but I believe in Bach.


Amen, brotha!


----------



## starry

Weston said:


> This entire thread is confusing subject matter with art.
> 
> Let me use an example that will be more prosaic to most readers here. There is an early 1980's song called "I Am Your Gun" by one of my favorite progressive rock groups. Some of the lyrics go thus:
> _
> I take second place to the motor car
> In the core of killing kept thus far.
> Just remember if you don't mind
> It's not the gun that kills, but the man behind._
> 
> Now I take extreme exception to these words. Cars were not designed to kill - guns were. I loathe guns and the very idea behind them.
> 
> But I love the song. It moves me deeply as a work of art even if I disagree with its politics.
> 
> People who have extreme religious beliefs, to the point of excluding others from the ability to feel, are correct in one thing: I definitely don't feel the same things they feel, nor do I want to be part of their exclusive club.


My increasing opinion is that very few people can look at art just as art, they seem to have to use it to represent something else, whether that be a people, an ideology or whatever. It's sad but that seems to be how most look at art. The original creation of art though is surely always fundamentally about that, the creation of art. And that is a fundamental human trait through different times and places.


----------



## Polednice

starry said:


> My increasing opinion is that very few people can look at art just as art, they seem to have to use it to represent something else, whether that be a people, an ideology or whatever. It's sad but that seems to be how most look at art. The original creation of art though is surely always fundamentally about that, the creation of art. And that is a fundamental human trait through different times and places.


You might be surprised actually. It was only in 19th Century Victorian London that Walter Pater coined the famous phrase (and radical idea) "art for art's sake", used by the later aesthetes. While music developed as a creative medium for its own sake just a small time before then, for centuries and centuries art has always been secondary to its _utilitarian_ value. The poetry of the Anglo-Saxons was written for the sake of social cohesion and the attempt to teach people about faith; the texts of Middle English are constantly permeated with didactic tales; and anthropological and evolutionary studies seem to demonstrate that - even before recorded history - mankind developed music for its social functions, without even considering the fact that it might have 'artistic value'. To them, 'art' did not exist as we know it.


----------



## Artemis

Polednice said:


> The chief point is that an atheist does not believe that a God exists, or _has ever_ existed. Just as there is no God now, so there was no God in Bach's day, and it is almost suggestive of a secret language of a cult to claim that only select individuals may fully understand Bach's music, so long as they buy into a dying myth. Just as the subjects of Dvorak's symphonic poems were developed from folk tales that people used to believe, so will the messages of Bach's music become obsolete legend - a window into the past at how humans falsely conceived themselves - but we can and we will still feel the same fears, passions, grievances, joys and heartbreak.


That's a shame. I guess we won't be meeting up any time soon in a church service then?

To respond more substantively to your interesting comments, I think that most people are familiar with the fact that atheists don't believe that a God exists. In setting out my opinions on the subject matter of this thread, I drafted them carefully so as not to suggest that I was criticising the beliefs of atheists. Out of respect, I wasn't therefore expecting to see any suggestions that believers in a Christian Divinity are buying into a dying myth, with the clear implication that this is an unintelligent thing to do.

To return the central issue posed by the opening post in this thread, my very simple point is that music written to celebrate/dignify the Christian faith is far more likely to be enjoyed by believers in that faith than by non-Christians, and especially compared to people who repudiate the notion of a God completely. To put it slightly differently, my contention boils down to a statistical matter that I believe there is likely to be a high positive correlation between the degree of liking of Christian sacred music and the extent to which one accepts the tenets of Christian doctrine. I really can't see that is a contentious thing to say, or why some people appear to have got their knickers in a twist over it.

Speaking personally, I cannot imagine that I would enjoy anything like as much as I do the sacred works of Haydn, Mozart or Schubert if I were to change my views and become an agnostic or atheist. I might still like some of the melody and admire the compositional skills etc, but the essence of it would me missing for me. I suppose it might be like the meaning of Buddhist chanting to a non-Buddhist. I would assume that it can't have the same significance, or conjure up the same spiritual connotations, as it does to an adherent of that Eastern culture/religion. To argue otherwise would seem to involve merely playing with words.

 I guess now I'll just tip-toe off into my "mythical" world and enjoy the rest of the evening listening to some of my very favourite Schubert sacred music. His Mass 6 in E flat, D 950, is heavenly. I just love the Credo and especially the divine "Et Incarnatus Est".


----------



## Polednice

Artemis said:


> To respond more substantively to your interesting comments, I think that most people are familiar with the fact that atheists don't believe that a God exists. In setting out my opinions on the subject matter of this thread, I drafted them carefully so as not to suggest that I was criticising the beliefs of atheists. Out of respect, I wasn't therefore expecting to see any suggestions that believers in a Christian Divinity are buying into a dying myth, with the clear implication that this is an unintelligent thing to do.


And, out of fairness and equality, I spoke freely about my viewpoint on organised religion without the use of blunt pejoratives. As has all too often been pointed out, religion is accorded an undeserved right for respect; just as we should be free to criticise (with any weight we so choose) the musical or food tastes of our peers, so should religion be open to the same frank discussion (and vocabulary).

I completely agree with your statistical argument and don't find it contentious in the least, I just got confused when you said:



Artemis said:


> No atheist can possibly begin to understand any of this [music made more significant by religion].


----------



## starry

Polednice said:


> You might be surprised actually. It was only in 19th Century Victorian London that Walter Pater coined the famous phrase (and radical idea) "art for art's sake", used by the later aesthetes. While music developed as a creative medium for its own sake just a small time before then, for centuries and centuries art has always been secondary to its _utilitarian_ value. The poetry of the Anglo-Saxons was written for the sake of social cohesion and the attempt to teach people about faith; the texts of Middle English are constantly permeated with didactic tales; and anthropological and evolutionary studies seem to demonstrate that - even before recorded history - mankind developed music for its social functions, without even considering the fact that it might have 'artistic value'. To them, 'art' did not exist as we know it.


Well of course art has had social function, such as being used in a church service. But it also very much existed as art. The development of the art of music was no doubt something which interested someone like JS Bach, he was a teacher. He studied previous composers, he even reused his own music for different purposes (sacred and secular). Music is a fundamentally practical thing to be wrote and performed whatever ultimate purpose a composer may wish to see in it.


----------



## Polednice

starry said:


> Well of course art has had social function, such as being used in a church service. But it also very much existed as art. The development of the art of music was no doubt something which interested someone like JS Bach, he was a teacher. He studied previous composers, he even reused his own music for different purposes (sacred and secular). Music is a fundamentally practical thing to be wrote and performed whatever ultimate purpose a composer may wish to see in it.


The point I was making was that the social function came before the recognition that music and literature _etc._ could exist solely as art - that aesthetic ideal was a _much_ later development in human history. I have no problem with what you're saying about Bach, but the idea that art could be created for its own sake isn't a "fundamental human trait through different times and places".


----------



## Artemis

Polednice said:


> I completely agree with your statistical argument and don't find it contentious in the least, I just got confused when you said:


That's good. At least we agree on something here. Perhaps it's time for you to branch out a bit musically. I too love Brahms but I love Schubert more. You'll find the latter's music heavenly, I'm sure. You might try his piano sonata No 14, D 784. This is something else. As Beethoven is reputed to have said: "_Truly, the spark of Divine genius resides in this Schubert"_. Beethoven knew a thing or two.


----------



## David58117

I'm an atheist and I have absolutely no problem seeing the beauty of a Bach cantata. While I may not believe the message, the *idea* of it is beautiful (along with the music of course).

The fact that Bach would be that inspired and capable, is absolutely stunning...even to us who don't wind up at the same conclusion.

Personally, I find this question idiotic. If the OP really wants to play this game, I could say - only an Atheist could *truly* appreciate a Bach cantata because we're not seeing it through the rose colored glasses of an emotionally charged believer...that welt of emotions, for us, doesn't come from seeing/hearing the words "praise him," it comes from the magnificent work of a man inspired.


----------



## Polednice

Artemis said:


> That's good. At least we agree on something here. Perhaps it's time for you to branch out a bit musically. I too love Brahms but I love Schubert more. You'll find the latter's music heavenly, I'm sure. You might try his piano sonata No 14, D 784. This is something else. As Beethoven is reputed to have said: "_Truly, the spark of Divine genius resides in this Schubert"_. Beethoven knew a thing or two.


I have been meaning to listen to a lot more of Schubert. I got his _Arpeggione Sonata_ featuring Britten and Rostropovich, and then his late piano sonatas played by Murray Perahia - I particularly love the 19th in C Minor. I shall listen to some more soon.


----------



## andruini

Artemis said:


> That's a shame. I guess we won't be meeting up any time soon in a church service then?
> 
> To respond more substantively to your interesting comments, I think that most people are familiar with the fact that atheists don't believe that a God exists. In setting out my opinions on the subject matter of this thread, I drafted them carefully so as not to suggest that I was criticising the beliefs of atheists. Out of respect, I wasn't therefore expecting to see any suggestions that believers in a Christian Divinity are buying into a dying myth, with the clear implication that this is an unintelligent thing to do.


I'm afraid I agree with Artemis here. I've been following this thread, and up until now, Polednice your comments have been intelligent and respectful. But to take a stand of absolute authority on the matter, stating something like "there is no God, and there wasn't a God in Bach's day" and saying that people who ascribe to any type of faith in God are following a dying myth.. Well, I think that's particularly low for a place like this. Artemis did write his comments carefully as to not disrespect atheists.. Because, at the end of the day, none of us is right just yet, and we won't know who of us _is _right until the day we die (hope it's a long time from now for everyone )
Basically, I agree with Polednice in that the OP was a bit disrespectful and a bit oblivious to the fact that music, by its very nature, is a totally universal thing. Music, no matter what label or what purpose it has, is perfectly capable of reaching to the core of any human being, without first stopping to check their religious beliefs and credentials. 
However, as a believer, I will say that personally, the music of sacred music composers, like Bach, or Tallis, or Schubert, takes a very special and profound meaning to me, when I think of what they were thinking and when I think of how their belief inspired them to write so beautifully. Does this mean an atheist is missing out on any aspect of the music? Probably not, and it shouldn't even be asked, IMO.. Because, if there's anything that has proven to be something that can be shared by _anyone_ regardless of race, belief or sex, it's music. And that's what I think is so beautiful about it, and that's also what I think should motivate us all to keep an open mind about other people's opinions.
Just my two cents...


----------



## Polednice

andruini said:


> I'm afraid I agree with Artemis here. I've been following this thread, and up until now, Polednice your comments have been intelligent and respectful. But to take a stand of absolute authority on the matter, stating something like "there is no God, and there wasn't a God in Bach's day" and saying that people who ascribe to any type of faith in God are following a dying myth.. Well, I think that's particularly low for a place like this.


Well, I'm not going to turn this into a debate about whether or not God exists, but I will say that the matter of a definitive answer practically comes down to whether or not an infinitesimally small chance = 0. Though it can never be _proven_, I think it's a logical conclusion; just as we say 0.9 recurring = 1. It would have been laborious to try to give any greater justification to this, so, for the sake of easy rhetoric, I said 'there is no God', when, in fact, I meant there is a chance so small that it's negligible.

[And I should point out that during this entire discussion, I have been operating under the impression that 'God' has referred to the personal God of any given religion - which is certainly false - as opposed to the general, Deistic God which, while unnecessary, is not quite as irrational.]


----------



## Argus

The original question in the OP can be answered simply by three words:

Music is music.

Why is there even such a label as 'religious' music? Can an atheist write 'religious' music? Does not having read Shakespeare mean I can't enjoy music based on his writings? etc...

I'll add that I consider myself a devout agnostic with an atheist background. That is to say I have accepted the irrefutable fact that it is unprovable that there is a God or not. I side with atheist's only because it takes no effort to be one whereas to be religious means praying/going to Church/circumcision/not eating meat and other stuff I don't want to do.


----------



## Polednice

Argus said:


> Why is there even such a label as 'religious' music? Can an atheist write 'religious' music? Does not having read Shakespeare mean I can't enjoy music based on his writings? etc...
> 
> I'll add that I consider myself a devout agnostic with an atheist background. That is to say I have accepted the irrefutable fact that it is unprovable that there is a God or not. I side with atheist's only because it takes no effort to be one whereas to be religious means praying/going to Church.


 I like that. So I take it that you don't believe in hell


----------



## Artemis

andruini said:


> Artemis did write his comments carefully as to not disrespect atheists..


Sorry for any confusion but my name is Alice. I'm 30 and a G.P. ("general practitioner") in the UK's National Health Service. I get to see all sorts of patients but within my Practice I tend to specialise in _obstetrics_ looking after all the expectant mums and their young offspring. That's why I chose the name "Artemis" who is the Greek Goddess for childbirth, among other things.


----------



## emiellucifuge

None of us is correct right now, indeed Andruini. But there are many more plausible explanations than the one pursued by Religion, and it should not be considered a valid hypothesis.


----------



## andruini

Artemis said:


> Sorry for any confusion but my name is Alice. I'm 30 and a G.P. ("general practitioner") in the UK's National Health Service. I get to see all sorts of patients but within my Practice I tend to specialise in _obstetrics_ looking after all the expectant mums and their young offspring. That's why I chose the name "Artemis" who is the Greek Goddess for childbirth, among other things.


Whoops, my mistake there, I present my sincere apologies .



emiellucifuge said:


> None of us is correct right now, indeed Andruini. But there are many more plausible explanations than the one pursued by Religion, and it should not be considered a valid hypothesis.


I'm not advocating any side of the coin, all I'm saying is that as human beings (cultured human beings, I might add) we should respect the fundamental right of every person to his/her beliefs. I personally think that atheists trying to force atheism on you as the absolute truth and the only intelligent mindset to assume in life are just as bad as Evangelical preachers stuffing the Bible down your throat about every little thing in life and as bad as Muslims forcing Islam on others at gun-point. 
The beauty in humanity is in that we all have our own personal way of thinking, and our own personal way of perceiving things, and the fact that music reaches us all the same, is a testament to this great beauty, regardless of what you percieve to be the origin of it.. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Weston

Weston said:


> _In the *score* of killing kept thus far._


Fixed this so it is correct and makes more sense.

For the record, I am an agnostic who prays. Or rather I don't necessarily believe in the higher power exactly as portrayed by organized religion. One could say this does prime me for appreciating music with a religious theme, but I don't think so. I was raised with religious music all around me, hymns and so forth, and let me tell you they were pretty lame compared to a Bach Cantata. Truly spiritual music may evoke spiritual feelings, whatever the minor details of ideology.


----------



## World Violist

I don't see why atheists shouldn't be able to misunderstand religious music. I have an atheist friend who followed my recommendation to listen to Mahler's 2nd symphony (which is, like it or not, religious music) and he loved it.

Bach wrote religious music, and I know atheists who adore it. What's the problem with atheists understanding and liking religious music?

Frankly I find the fact that this topic exists a bit disturbing.


----------



## andruini

World Violist said:


> Frankly I find the fact that this topic exists a bit disturbing.


Agreed on that count. This discussion is pretty unnecessary for a forum like this.


----------



## Polednice

andruini said:


> I personally think that atheists trying to force atheism on you as the absolute truth and the only intelligent mindset to assume in life are just as bad as Evangelical preachers stuffing the Bible down your throat about every little thing in life and as bad as Muslims forcing Islam on others at gun-point.


I've never seen this as the case with any of the decent atheists I know - in my experience, they tend to be the absolute warmest and most gentle group of people, who care only about rationality and science, not about forcing beliefs on people. The idea that they're evangelists is a popular spin put on the situation by the religious right, and those who believe that the very fact of having faith should be free from criticism (though I don't mean to suggest that's what _you_ think).



andruini said:


> The beauty in humanity is in that we all have our own personal way of thinking, and our own personal way of perceiving things, and the fact that music reaches us all the same, is a testament to this great beauty, regardless of what you percieve to be the origin of it.. That's all I'm saying.


While I largely agree with this sentiment, there are some things that cannot be justified as being examples of humanity's diversity. It doesn't take much to see how such an idea could be misused to justify the most awful things. And, though 'intelligent' is much, much, much too patronising a word, I'm afraid atheism really is "the only intelligent mindset to assume in life", because it is only through scepticism, the scientific method and _the use of evidence_ that mankind has ever made any progress. To paraphrase the wonderful Carl Sagan, science is our candle in a demon-haunted world.


----------



## andruini

Polednice said:


> I've never seen this as the case with any of the decent atheists I know - in my experience, they tend to be the absolute warmest and most gentle group of people, who care only about rationality and science, not about forcing beliefs on people. The idea that they're evangelists is a popular spin put on the situation by the religious right, and those who believe that the very fact of having faith should be free from criticism (though I don't mean to suggest that's what _you_ think).
> 
> While I largely agree with this sentiment, there are some things that cannot be justified as being examples of humanity's diversity. It doesn't take much to see how such an idea could be misused to justify the most awful things. And, though 'intelligent' is much, much, much too patronising a word, I'm afraid atheism really is "the only intelligent mindset to assume in life", because it is only through scepticism, the scientific method and _the use of evidence_ that mankind has ever made any progress. To paraphrase the wonderful Carl Sagan, science is our candle in a demon-haunted world.


Alright, let's agree to disagree . As you said before, this should not be turned into a religious debate.. So what is you guyses' favorite Bach cantata? Hee hee.


----------



## Artemis

Polednice said:


> Well, I'm not going to turn this into a debate about whether or not God exists, but I will say that the matter of a definitive answer practically comes down to whether or not an infinitesimally small chance = 0.


I don't intend to say any more on this specific matter but I can't let this very bold statement go by without registering a strong counter-view that there are very powerful arguments for believing that God does exist. At a purely intellectual level any decent philosophy primer will acknowledge this point, so what you are saying is certainly a gross exaggeration of the real facts here.

Apart from that, it's quite amazing how some peoples' spiritual awareness can change in favour of accepting the existence of a "God" of some sort, and seeking help, when they face very serious difficulties in their lives of one kind or other. I haven't yet come across anyone who has moved the other way, from belief to disbelief at times of personal crisis. On the contrary it is a great comfort to most people to have such a religious belief to help them through.


----------



## Polednice

Artemis said:


> I don't intend to say any more on this specific matter but I can't let this very bold statement go by without registering a strong counter-view that there are very powerful arguments for believing that God does exist. At a purely intellectual level any decent philosophy primer will acknowledge this point, so what you are saying is certainly a gross exaggeration of the real facts here.


So long as my earlier premise is accepted that we are discussing the personal God of a specific organised religion, then my statement is not at all wrong; a simple referral to Bertrand Russell's 'orbiting teapot' allows a central view on the matter, the expansion of which leads to the conclusion that there are an infinite number of exactly comparable 'gods' that anybody could conjure up, of which the Abrahamic God is but one with no evidence, thus it has the same likelihood as any other - 1/infinity.

I can quite easily accept a philosopher's point on God if they are speaking about a Deistic God, rather than a personal one, but that renders it an even more unnecessary discussion due to the attributes of such a God.



Artemis said:


> Apart from that, it's quite amazing how some peoples' spiritual awareness can change in favour of accepting the existence of a "God" of some sort, and seeking help, when they face very serious difficulties in their lives of one kind or other. I haven't yet come across anyone who has moved the other way, from belief to disbelief at times of personal crisis. On the contrary it is a great comfort to most people to have such a religious belief to help them through.


I don't doubt any of that in the least. Of course, it demonstrates nothing other than the things the human mind will do to soften pain.

ANYWAY - I was going to say it in this post before I got sidetracked, but really this time, I'm going to accept a truce! I don't like having these discussions on here, it's just not the right environment when we have so many more spectacular things to talk about (that's why I pop into the Richard Dawkins forum now and then! Although, a lot of the people there are not nearly so sophisticated as this crowd )


----------



## Argus

andruini said:


> I'm not advocating any side of the coin, all I'm saying is that as human beings (cultured human beings, I might add) we should respect the fundamental right of every person to his/her beliefs. I personally think that atheists trying to force atheism on you as the absolute truth and the only intelligent mindset to assume in life are just as bad as Evangelical preachers stuffing the Bible down your throat about every little thing in life and as bad as Muslims forcing Islam on others at gun-point.
> The beauty in humanity is in that we all have our own personal way of thinking, and our own personal way of perceiving things, and the fact that music reaches us all the same, is a testament to this great beauty, regardless of what you percieve to be the origin of it.. That's all I'm saying.


I agree somewhat with your overall sentiment but disagree strongly with some points you made.

Firstly, there is no fundamental right of every person to believe what they want. Often these beliefs come into conflict with others beliefs and lifestyles leading to conflict. Actually, on second thought I kind of agree with you. People can believe what they want as long as they don't act on any belief that could harm others. For example, someone could believe homosexuality is 'bad' or 'wrong' as long as they don't discriminate again homosexuals. However, it's very unlikely that this is going to happen.

Secondly, I don't think atheist's really force anyone to relinquish their religion. They may be condescending or disrespectful to a person based on said person's religion but rarely actively force atheism on them.


----------



## Artemis

Polednice said:


> ANYWAY - I was going to say it in this post before I got sidetracked, but really this time, I'm going to accept a truce! I don't like having these discussions on here, it's just not the right environment when we have so many more spectacular things to talk about (that's why I pop into the Richard Dawkins forum now and then! Although, a lot of the people there are not nearly so sophisticated as this crowd )


You're too nice for words.


----------



## andruini

Argus said:


> I agree somewhat with your overall sentiment but disagree strongly with some points you made.
> 
> Firstly, there is no fundamental right of every person to believe what they want. Often these beliefs come into conflict with others beliefs and lifestyles leading to conflict. Actually, on second thought I kind of agree with you. People can believe what they want as long as they don't act on any belief that could harm others. For example, someone could believe homosexuality is 'bad' or 'wrong' as long as they don't discriminate again homosexuals. However, it's very unlikely that this is going to happen.
> 
> Secondly, I don't think atheist's really force anyone to relinquish their religion. They may be condescending or disrespectful to a person based on said person's religion but rarely actively force atheism on them.


Ok, I agree with you on the first point.. I don't agree with relegious extremists either or people who discriminate others for not having their same beliefs.. I just meant that there is a fundamental right to believe and think what you want.. What you do about it is a whole other moral question altogether..

And, ok, it is true that atheists do not force atheism on you, what I meant is that being "condescending and disrespectful" as you put it and talking about atheism like it's all solid facts is another form of obnoxious preaching.. (Which also applies to any religion, mind you..)


----------



## emiellucifuge

Dont think I was attacking you Andruini.. I think you have a very good point and I was merely elaborating.


----------



## andruini

emiellucifuge said:


> Dont think I was attacking you Andruini.. I think you have a very good point and I was merely elaborating.


Didn't think you were.  I was just explaining myself further.


----------



## Jules141

Saying that religious people "understand religous music more" doesn't make much sence to me, as religious people aren't some sort of collective that neither totally agree/all have exactly the same identical believes/way of listenening to music.

In fact I would argue that no two people could ever possibly derive the same meaning from any one piece of art. It's just a question of what you meaning you attach to that piece of music.

You don't need to be Stalin's biggest fan two adore the delicious opening to Prokofiev's Zdravitsa (Hail to Stalin). Gay people don't have some deeper understanding of Tchaikovsky melodramatic music than straight people. Music is just sound, lyric/words included, the meaning of music only happens in your own head.


----------



## Polednice

Jules141 said:


> In fact I would argue that no two people could ever possibly derive the same meaning from any one piece of art. It's just a question of what you meaning you attach to that piece of music.


That's a very good way of looking at it without us needing to resort to the 'God debate'. I was thinking something along those lines earlier, but I couldn't quite pin it down and articulate it. Thank you


----------



## andruini

Polednice said:


> That's a very good way of looking at it without us needing to resort to the 'God debate'. I was thinking something along those lines earlier, but I couldn't quite pin it down and articulate it. Thank you


Agreed. That was very well put.


----------



## Tapkaara

Jules141 said:


> Saying that religious people "understand religous music more" doesn't make much sence to me, as religious people aren't some sort of collective that neither totally agree/all have exactly the same identical believes/way of listenening to music.


Religious people understand EVERYTHING more than people who are not religious. Kind of pompous, isn't it?


----------



## Jules141

Tapkaara said:


> Religious people understand EVERYTHING more than people who are not religious. Kind of pompous, isn't it?


To some extent subscribing yourself to any group will always encourage this kind-of subconcous pompousness or arrogance. Like how everyone considers _their_ accent to be more "normal" than the next. It's what humans do I'm afraid.


----------



## Polednice

Jules141 said:


> To some extent subscribing yourself to any group will always encourage this kind-of subconcous pompousness or arrogance. Like how everyone considers _their_ accent to be more "normal" than the next. It's what humans do I'm afraid.


But my accent is standard British English! It _has_ to be the right one!


----------



## Jules141

Polednice said:


> But my accent is standard British English! It _has_ to be the right one!


Same!! I once argued this to a brummie, he just wouldn't believe me!


----------



## Air

I will keep my rant short.

It is already obvious that many members have a condescending attitude towards religion and is using this thread as an opportunity to strike another blow at the Christian (my) faith. I think the OP should have noted this beforehand, as this is most certainly not what we need on a classical music forum.

It should be noted that there is absolutely no reason why nonbelievers cannot experience the same type of religious feelings that Christians feel when they listen to _Mass in b minor_ or _Mahler's 2nd Symphony_, because they most certainly can. If God is truly universal, shouldn't every human being be able to experience religion, even if only a few will accept it as true? If God created everything, including music, then music _is_ a religious experience. I don't want to argue over the probability of these statements; I just wanted to answer the question of the OP, which is what this thread should be about in the first place.

Not to say that acceptance of religion cannot lead to new insights. This is not pomposity. It is a matter of perspective. You cannot say such a thing is false unless you've been through the same experience yourself. Trying to mock Christianity in this manner just shows one's own disrespect for the beliefs of others.

BTW, I'm still working through Bach's Cantatas, so I can't give you an answer for that one yet, andruini. Maybe in a few years...


----------



## Tapkaara

Let it be noted that I have nothing against Christianity or religion in general. Some of my best friends happen to be VERY devoutly religious. A friend of mine is even married to a pastor, himself I am proud to call a friend.

But I find that sometimes the faithful are the ones with the condescending attitudes.

I once mentioned in this forum (I think it was this forum) that, though I was not religious, that listening to good music was like a religious experience for me. In other words, it's like a rush where one feels that they are in touch with something greater than themselves. To which someone came back to me and said "If you are not religious, how can you even begin to know what a religious experience is?" This type of statement is what drives me nuts. It is representative of the know-it-all, clannish attitude many of the gnostic out there seem to have. How dare someone claim to know about the cosmos than I do?

But the same can be said of a lot of atheist and agnostic types as well. Any of the above who are blatantly and in an outright way rude/condescending to someone because of their religious beliefs is equally offensive to me.

So, please let the record show, I am in no way mocking or putting down anyone's religion or lack there of.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I must say that I agree with the notion that someone who is deeply religious in the faith of any given work of art will perhaps perceive the work in a way that outsiders cannot. Surely the Indian temples at Khajuraho or the poetry of the Qur'an do not hold the same meaning for me as they do for the practicing Hindu or Muslim. This is not to say that their experience is inferior. We can only appreciate all art through our own perceptions and experiences. I can never experience the Pyramids as the ancient Egyptian might have. We can try to close the gap... and come to understand the artist and the culture in which he or she created a given work... but ultimately I will always hear Bach through the ears of a 21st century American. This does not mean to suggest we cannot fully appreciate the spirituality in a work of art simply because we do not follow a given religious view. I cannot help but be enthralled and even overwhelmed by certain Islamic mosques, the very Catholic _Last Judgment_ by Michelangelo, the Shinto temples of Japan, Dante's _Divine Comedy_, etc... in spite of the fact that I am something of an agnostic of Lutheran upbringing. I would assume that even the militant atheist is not devoid of the ability to grasp the spiritual.


----------



## Polednice

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I must say that I agree with the notion that someone who is deeply religious in the faith of any given work of art will perhaps perceive the work in a way that outsiders cannot. Surely the Indian temples at Khajuraho or the poetry of the Qur'an do not hold the same meaning for me as they do for the practicing Hindu or Muslim. This is not to say that their experience is inferior. We can only appreciate all art through our own perceptions and experiences. I can never experience the Pyramids as the ancient Egyptian might have. We can try to close the gap... and come to understand the artist and the culture in which he or she created a given work... but ultimately I will always hear Bach through the ears of a 21st century American. This does not mean to suggest we cannot fully appreciate the spirituality in a work of art simply because we do not follow a given religious view. I cannot help but be enthralled and even overwhelmed by certain Islamic mosques, the very Catholic _Last Judgment_ by Michelangelo, the Shinto temples of Japan, Dante's _Divine Comedy_, etc... in spite of the fact that I am something of an agnostic of Lutheran upbringing. I would assume that even the militant atheist is not devoid of the ability to grasp the spiritual.


Exactly; and, from this perspective, it goes to show that there is no special difference to be had in religious subjects - it concerns cultural and social differences too, demonstrating that a person's reaction to a piece can only ever be a highly individual experience, but one that is not constrained by any nuances of belief.


----------



## Artemis

Looking back over this thread I would suggest that several people may have got the wrong end of the stick on this issue, or have been pursuing issues or an agenda other than the intended purpose of this thread in order to vent their anti-religious views. 

Before saying any more on that, it is fairly clear that this thread has brought out a greater number of atheists than is probably typical of the population at large. I have noticed that the same thing has tended to occur on several other forums where the atheistic element is more dominant and more vociferous on matters of this nature than people of a more religious persuasion. I suspect that the latter group tend to keep relatively quiet either because many find it difficult to express what they feel, or because they don’t like discussing their religious views publicly, or out of fear of having their beliefs and feelings being trampled upon by others. Whatever the reason, I'm pretty sure that the several negative replies on the subject matter of this thread are not typical of a wider selection of the community.

On the matter of misunderstanding the main issue, I don’t know for sure what question some people have been trying to answer but it doesn’t appear to be the same one that I have been trying to deal with as posed in the opening post. As far as I am concerned the issue that has been raised is nothing as simple as whether or not one has to be believer in a Deity in order to comprehend/enjoy Bach’s religious cantatas. It is most certainly not about the same issue raised in the context of far more quasi-religious material such as Mahler’s second symphony, or anything of that nature. I really can’t understand why reference to the latter kind of material ever got dragged into this thread at all, as it is totally irrelevant. 

The question raised by reference to Bach’s cantatas (although I would assume not confined to that specific religious material) was how a non-believer sees any greatness in works of that nature. There was no suggestion that non-believers cannot possibly see any greatness at all but was asking in what respects any greatness is perceived if one is not religiously inclined. Polednice answered this it along the lines that a typical atheist (who likes classical music) would see the beauty just as well as a believer but as the product of the fruits of mankind’s evolution rather than as a dedication/offering to a divine being which is greater than anything mankind could ever possibly hope to emulate. 

In my first set of comments (post 11) I did not pick up specifically on Polednice’s comments. That was because I didn’t see how the answer he gave was relevant to the issue. I don’t doubt that the human mind has evolved considerably over the millennia, and some examples of it have been capable of producing some splendid artistic results, but I can’t see what this has to do with seeing greatness in works created by a musical genius inspired by a devotion to, and dedicated to the celebration of, the Christian perception of God.

Rather I tried to make the simple, and I thought fairly uncontentious, point that a typical atheist is much less likely to obtain as much enjoyment of religious music as does a Christian because only the latter enters into it in the manner and spirit that the composers intended it. This is no different from saying, for example, that a typical Western tourist to, say, a Buddhist shrine in Thailand, Japan or China is unlikely to attach the same degree of reverence and lasting enjoyment or sense fulfilment that a typical Buddhist would obtain. 

Many other alternative examples could be given to illustrate the same point. How about something outside the world of religion and music? Off the top of my head, what about the attitudes of visitors to say the Lincoln Memorial or Arlington National Cemetery in Washington? Does anyone seriously believe that a typical group of European or Japanese or Chinese tourist visitors to those sites would have the same degree of pride (enjoyment, perception of historical significance) as a typical group of visiting American citizens? Or what about a typical group of people who are especially interested in Renaissance art in all of its forms? Compared with a typical bunch of tourists to the Museums and Galleries of Florence (who more than likely may have simply stepped off a Med Cruise for a quick day trip, and some of whom may not be too sure, or care about, what City they’re actually in), would the former group not be more likely to obtain greater enjoyment from that experience than the others? 

Please notice that I frequently used the word “typical” in the above. This is important as I am not talking about individual people but broad trends among a typical sample of people in each of the defined groups. Returning to religious music, again I stress that I wasn’t talking about very loosely defined quasi-"religious" works such as compositions like Mahler’s second symphony or anything of that nature, but specifically to sacred music which were designed purposefully for liturgical purposes like Masses and incantations to the BVM. To suggest that a typical group of atheists would like such works as these as much as a typical group of Christians is ludicrous. Rather I would strongly suspect that a majority of atheists would steer well clear of these works like the plague. 

In exactly the same manner, it was very clear to me from my observations of various threads on another classical music forum (a well-known one) that when topics concerning Christian sacred music came up there was virtually no input from the quite large Jewish group of members on that Board. For obvious reasons they don't listen to it, let alone listen to it. So I conclude that for atheists to come on here bleating and moaning that they feel insulted by suggestions that they don’t appreciate Christian sacred music to the same extent as do groups of people who are religiously inclined is primarily a lot sanctimonious rot. In saying this, I mean no disrespect to any individual contributor to this thread.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Artemis said:


> I'm 30 and a G.P. ("general practitioner") in the UK's National Health Service


I might guess that this would give you some insights, unique in our community, on the 'teleological argument.'


Tapkaara said:


> Religious people understand EVERYTHING more than people who are not religious. Kind of pompous, isn't it?


NO... not really. Religious people conclude that their religious understanding helps them to a better understanding of the truth, in the same manner that atheists and agnostics believe that _they_ have a keener recognition of the True Nature of Things. To conclude otherwise is to go down the philosophical journey that leads to the cul-de-sac of Positivism-- and it would be a grand digression from this thread to articulate what a dead-end that could be...

To relate this back to music- I remember engaging in a discussion here not long ago- I got the impression (perhaps accentuated by a certain hypersensitivity on my part) that Gershwin was being shrugged off as little more than a jazz composer. Now, that framing of Gershwin was done by a non-American- and I'm an American. At that time, I thought (but didn't say) _I'm an American- you can't possibly know what the music of Gershwin means to me!_ That's a selfish perspective, surely... but when I viewed the point in a more exoteric manner, I made further important discoveries. Can I understand Smetana's _Má Vlast_ with the same degree of refinement as an equally perceptive denizen of the Czech Republic? Prokofiev's _Alexander Nevsky_ with the same resonance as an intellectually and emotionally aware Russian?? No- I can't-- and I wouldn't have felt insulted by anyone who made me aware of this truth.


----------



## Argus

Chi_townPhilly said:


> To relate this back to music- I remember engaging in a discussion here not long ago- I got the impression (perhaps accentuated by a certain hypersensitivity on my part) that Gershwin was being shrugged off as little more than a jazz composer.


The phrase 'little more than a jazz composer' is quite an elitist thing to say. That implies you (or whoever started said discussion) view the classical label as being greater than the jazz label. Gershwin can be labelled as a 'smooth' jazz artist for all I care. Of course, it would be quite incorrect to say he was, but it doesn't change the quality of his music.

Back to the original topic. The question in the OP was 'How could you _understand_ (the) religious music if you are a atheist?'. Not enjoy or like, but understand religious music, and to that my answer is that I don't understand _any_ music. I can understand it scientifically, that music is my ear's picking up different frequencies of vibrations caused by moving objects, or using principles learned through music theory, but to truly understand music is as futile as trying to understand the universe as a whole or the human mind. Music is music.


----------



## Polednice

I think the ideas that have been mentioned on this page are taking the discussion into a rather difficult area. First off though, I can understand that it would appear that people have been answering at cross-purposes, but, given the short and vague nature of the original question, neither approach has been 'right' or 'wrong'.

Anybody who has given the opinion that the original question set up a potential insult is not just airing vacuous anti-religious nonsense, but is perfectly justified given that the question has been answered in two ways. It would seem that, to summarise, it _is_ wrong or 'insulting' to suggest that an atheist is inherently incapable of appreciating Christian music, but it is also the case that atheists are less likely to actively want to listen to such music for the sake of enjoyment. Those two points are perfectly fine; not mutually exclusive; and I imagine everyone would agree - it's just because of crossed wires that the debate got slightly messed up.

Now, the problem I have with the most recent comments is a third idea that lies somewhere awkwardly between the two I mentioned above. It's the notion that a Christian _can_ appreciate such music more _because_ they actively want to listen to it _and understand it more_.

At first, this might seem like a logical thing to suggest, but where does it take us - especially once we leave specifics like 'religion' behind? It means that _everybody_ can rank themselves as to how much they enjoy or understand a piece compared to someone else. "I like and understand this piece more than you because of my nationality"; "I like and understand this piece more than you because of my religion"; "I like and understand this piece more than you because my cousin's mother was friends with a person whose grandfather's accountant knew a man who spoke to Mahler"... oh really?

I had been toying with this idea before, but hadn't said anything because I couldn't make sense of it. But an example from my own perspective would be this: I am an undergraduate student of English, and not only have I read and studied Byron's drama _Manfred_, but it also happens to be one of the most moving pieces of literature I have ever read because of a deep connection I feel with it. _Therefore_, I like and understand and appreciate and am moved more by Tchaikovsky's _Manfred Symphony_ than by anybody who hasn't read the drama, and anybody who has read it but doesn't like it as much as me.

Is that really a fair conclusion? If I'm deeply honest, I have to say that my gut feeling really is to say - "You know what, I think I actually do like it more than you. I understand _Manfred_. It's given me unique feelings that it hasn't given you. I _must_ be more in touch with the music than you are." It's so tempting to feel that response, but it simply must be false! To suggest that some kind of arbitrary hierarchy exists where people's response to and enjoyment of music can be ranked in order with how close in knowledge and experience they are to the subject matter is just preposterous. Not only would it be impossibly difficult to compare people in this way, but we could never really be sure anyway. How am I supposed to know what a piece of music makes another person feel? I cannot step inside their consciousness and feel their reaction to it. How do I even know that my reaction to _Manfred_ is significant? Maybe this is just what everyone feels.

The point - and this will seem like a terrible and oversimplified cliche, although it's the easiest way of putting it - is that _art is just too subjective for discussions like this_. It might appear that some groups of people would enjoy certain music more than others, but you cannot even begin to suggest that this might be true - it's enticing, but false.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Ha! I've just found this thread and have found it quite amusing!

Drawing on my own experience, let me tell you what I thought of Wagner's Ring cycle. I found the music enjoyable because it told a story.

I don't believe Wotan, Fricka, Freia, Donner, Froh, Erda and Loge are real beings in a spiritual dimension who are looking down on us and plotting to steal our gold. There may be a few deluded individuals who have deeply held beliefs in the existance of Wotan and pray to him and sacrifice animals to him in temples. 

Does this mean these people understand Wagner's Ring better than I do? No! It's the same thing with religious music. The music tells a story, whether you believe it is fact or fiction is irrelevent. The oratorios of Handel and Haydn are masterpieces, but it takes a musicological education to understand them. You arn't automatically blessed with insight into these great works if you believe you have an invisible friend!


----------



## Artemis

Edward Elgar said:


> Ha! I've just found this thread and have found it quite amusing!
> 
> Drawing on my own experience, let me tell you what I thought of Wagner's Ring cycle. I found the music enjoyable because it told a story.
> 
> I don't believe Wotan, Fricka, Freia, Donner, Froh, Erda and Loge are real beings in a spiritual dimension who are looking down on us and plotting to steal our gold. There may be a few deluded individuals who have deeply held beliefs in the existance of Wotan and pray to him and sacrifice animals to him in temples.
> 
> Does this mean these people understand Wagner's Ring better than I do? No! It's the same thing with religious music. The music tells a story, whether you believe it is fact or fiction is irrelevent. The oratorios of Handel and Haydn are masterpieces, but it takes a musicological education to understand them. You arn't automatically blessed with insight into these great works if you believe you have an invisible friend!


Is that it? Well, I can tell you what I think of that.

 Your whole argument is hopelessly invalid because the music we are talking about (sacred music) doesn't "tell a story", as you allege, but is the musical version of liturgy that would otherwise be spoken (Masses and church cantatas, for example). Oratorios do tell stories and are not liturgically based, but no-one is making any claims about certain groups of people having special insights into oratorios. 

It is obviously true that Christians have a general belief in the validity of the message underlying the sacred music they are listening to, whereas atheists won't. This assumes, of course, that many atheists actually bother to listen to this kind of music, which is debateable anyway. Granted a few may do so, but I hardly think that Masses and other material such as incantations to the BVM are at the top of most atheists' listening agendas, which adds another nail to the coffin of your argument. 

Because Christians know what the sacred music means and accept it as part of their belief system, it must follow that they benefit from it over and above the mere enjoyment of a few musical notes attached to those words that could be about anything or nothing. It's astonishing that this simple point isn't easily understood, and instead we get all these weird counter-arguments that some people are apparently hell-bent on putting out.


----------



## Polednice

I understand your frustration at the repetition of an apparently simple point, but I still think a further _very_ important distinction has to be made. Talking about liturgical music, the sharers of such a faith _will_ have a better understanding of the inspiration behind the music, its meaning and its purpose, but this does _not_ extend to the actual music itself. They may very well derive more enjoyment from the music because they have a greater insight into its inspiration _et. al._, but that says nothing about the actual, artistic, subjective, pure music in and of itself.


----------



## David58117

Artemis - I really don't understand why you think the beauty of the *idea* of faith eludes an Atheist. As I said before, I'm an Atheist, yet I find the *idea* of religion beautiful. It's sort of like watching a movie...the writing, message, claims may be beautiful, but I certainly don't have to believe they actually occurred to see/understand/enjoy it.

Simply put, the thought that I may be reunited with my loved ones in another place after we die is incredible. It's a beautiful idea, even an Atheist recognizes it.


----------



## Edward Elgar

My dear Artemis! I enjoy all types of religious works. What enhances my pleasure when listening to a religious piece is the notion that Bach and Haydn had flawed characters in that they firmly believed in something that can't be proven. This is the same pleasure I get when considering Beethoven had terrible mood swings and then listening to the 9th. Religious music tells me how religious people feel about religious music if you get my meaning. The veneration of mythological characters shines from the music, and this is a satisfying experience.


----------



## Edward Elgar

David58117 said:


> Artemis - I really don't understand why you think the beauty of the *idea* of faith eludes an Atheist. As I said before, I'm an Atheist, yet I find the *idea* of religion beautiful. It's sort of like watching a movie...the writing, message, claims may be beautiful, but I certainly don't have to believe they actually occurred to see/understand/enjoy it.
> 
> Simply put, the thought that I may be reunited with my loved ones in another place after we die is incredible. It's a beautiful idea, even an Atheist recognizes it.


Exactly! Religion has been the basis of humanity's infancy and it would be foolish to deny the profound impact it has had on the great composers. Just because we are improving our understanding of the world doesn't mean those with no belief in myth can't appreciate it's beauty. That is the beauty that manifests itself in "The Creation" and "St. Matthew Passion".


----------



## Artemis

Polednice said:


> I understand your frustration at the repetition of an apparently simple point, but I still think a further _very_ important distinction has to be made. Talking about liturgical music, the sharers of such a faith _will_ have a better understanding of the inspiration behind the music, its meaning and its purpose, but this does _not_ extend to the actual music itself. They may very well derive more enjoyment from the music because they have a greater insight into its inspiration _et. al._, but that says nothing about the actual, artistic, subjective, pure music in and of itself.


I am indeed only referring to liturgical music, not to oratorios and most certainly not to material like Mahler's Resurrection Symphony. I do not believe it makes any sense to split the type of music I am referring to into theoretical "pure music" and some kind of peculiar residual that makes up the total music as normally understood. The two components together form a package, and on that premise I stick with my argument that for a typical consumer of this music there is a greater potential for enjoyment if they happen to be sympathetic to the underlying message of that music than someone who isn't. It's a very simple point, as I trust you can now see.


----------



## Artemis

David58117 said:


> Artemis - I really don't understand why you think the beauty of the *idea* of faith eludes an Atheist. As I said before, I'm an Atheist, yet I find the *idea* of religion beautiful. It's sort of like watching a movie...the writing, message, claims may be beautiful, but I certainly don't have to believe they actually occurred to see/understand/enjoy it.
> 
> Simply put, the thought that I may be reunited with my loved ones in another place after we die is incredible. It's a beautiful idea, even an Atheist recognizes it.


Perhaps my concept of an atheist is rather different from yours. If I may say so your version seems to be a rather cheeky one in that you appear to have opted for an each-way bet when you die in terms of there possibly being a hereafter. Isn't that more the agnostic viewpoint? A typical atheist in my book is someone who believes that once you're dead you're dead and that's it, finito!. If you are saying that there are lots of others like you who have this kind of quasi-atheist status (not really sure what you believe) then you wouldn't fit into my definition of "typical atheist". On that basis I would possibly make an exception in your situation.


----------



## Artemis

Edward Elgar said:


> Exactly! Religion has been the basis of humanity's infancy and it would be foolish to deny the profound impact it has had on the great composers. Just because we are improving our understanding of the world doesn't mean those with no belief in myth can't appreciate it's beauty. That is the beauty that manifests itself in "The Creation" and "St. Matthew Passion".


My dear Edward

I should be grateful if you would kindly stop attempting to dodge the issue by raising yet more dubious arguments, and instead attempt to answer the queries I raised previously about your variously flawed post concerning Wotan and such other irrelevancies. Thank you so much.


----------



## Polednice

Artemis said:


> I am indeed only referring to liturgical music, not to oratorios and most certainly not to material like Mahler's Resurrection Symphony. I do not believe it makes any sense to split the type of music I am referring to into theoretical "pure music" and some kind of peculiar residual that makes up the total music as normally understood. The two components together form a package, and on that premise I stick with my argument that for a typical consumer of this music there is a greater potential for enjoyment if they happen to be sympathetic to the underlying message of that music than someone who isn't. It's a very simple point, as I trust you can now see.


I know; believe me, I have understood your point every time you have said, but, even though you think it isn't contentious, I just think it's wrong, and we'll have to leave it at that!


----------



## World Violist

This argument is itself flawed. How can "understanding" be exclusive to believers of what is to be understood? I am not Christian; why should I not be able to understand it anyway? So why should people who don't believe in the religion certain pieces of music "advocate" or whatever not be able to understand it? That was, after all, the original question, was it not?

And religious music is still music. What kind of person would degrade an atheist musicologist, or something like that, by saying "No, you don't fully understand this piece of music because you don't believe in the message it sends."? It makes no sense to me whatsoever! Obviously one can "understand" anything one wants to if one keeps an open enough mind (which anyone can do), whether one believes it or not. It isn't about getting a reaction from the music, it's about understanding, which is obviously severely lacking in this thread.

Again I have pose my previous question: Why on earth does this thread exist anymore? There's no longer a point.


----------



## Jules141

Artemis said:


> So I conclude that for atheists to come on here bleating and moaning that they feel insulted by suggestions that they don't appreciate Christian sacred music to the same extent as do *groups of people* who are religiously inclined is primarily a lot sanctimonious rot. In saying this, I mean no disrespect to any individual contributor to this thread.


The problem with this whole thread is that there is the idea of some getting a *better* responce out of the music. As oppose to a _*different*_ responce. Again, no two people could ever have the same appreciation/understanding of a piece of music, because the appreciation/understanding is something you apply to the music. Music is just sound.

An educated/religious *individual* could get a *different* experience from a piece of music, probably closer to what Bach intended; but not a _*better*_ one, that is shared by a _*group*_ of religious people.


----------



## xuantu

_StlukesguildOhio_, _Chi_townPhilly_, and _David58117_, your thoughts were most eloquently put! I now agree with you wholeheartedly even if I didn't think of it as you do before.

_Artemis_, I think many of your ideas are valid too and your intentions, I believe, is entirely noble.

_Polednice_, there is just so much to learn from you in terms of debating and writing! You almost brought tears to my eyes in your first few posts in this thread (I myself can be very severe about facts, impatient and short-tempered sometimes; I hope those whom I've offended on the forum will forgive me), and _andruini_, you are witty, impartial and perfectly happy in your posts! I must express my thanks and congratulations to you all.

------

I have this friend in maths major, an atheist, who's also interested in music. He told me once that he didn't like Bach's music because it's "all too religious". I immediately introduced him to one of Bach's most famous cantatas, "_Ich habe genug_", BWV 82. I said there is great humanity in this music. He was unmoved. Then I let him listen to the first few preludes and fugues from the _Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I_, hoping he could recognize the sheer beauty (and the sense of order) in Bach's music, but in vain. Finally, we listened to the very secular and emotional _Sarabande_ and _Chaconne_ from _Partita No.2_ for solo violin together. It was the first time he could concentrate on Bach's music! He agreed that this was a "different" Bach, but guess what, he did not like it and said that he heard "devil" in this music.

When a person has determined not to like a certain type of music, it's probably impossible (or at least very difficult) to talk him/her into it, don't you think? 

I haven't heard from this friend for a long time. Perhaps he rediscovered Bach himself.


----------



## kmisho

Some of the best church music of our time was written by an atheist named Ned Rorem.

http://www.albanyrecords.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=AR&Product_Code=TROY307

Not only do you not need to be a Christian to enjoy Bach. You don't even need to be a Christian to write great worship music.


----------



## kmisho

This occurs to me. Do you have to believe in ghosts to enjoy a horror movie? If not, why would you have to be religious to enjoy religious music?


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Artemis said:


> Perhaps my concept of an atheist is rather different from yours. If I may say so your version seems to be a rather cheeky one in that you appear to have opted for an each-way bet when you die in terms of there possibly being a hereafter. Isn't that more the agnostic viewpoint? A typical atheist in my book is someone who believes that once you're dead you're dead and that's it, finito!. If you are saying that there are lots of others like you who have this kind of quasi-atheist status (not really sure what you believe) then you wouldn't fit into my definition of "typical atheist". On that basis I would possibly make an exception in your situation.


I think you have not fully grasped the terminology that is being employed in here. Agnosticism, despite what most may think, is not the middle ground between theism and atheism. There is no such middle ground just as there is no middle ground between being pregnant and not being pregnant. You cannot possibly be half-pregnant, can you?

The same goes for theism and atheism. Either you actively believe [in the existence of God/gods] or you do not. Now, there is yet another dipole - gnosticism and agnosticism that lay on two opposite ends of it. Gnosticism implies certanity, while agnosticism asserts uncertanity. I have yet to find a true agnostic atheist (most people are atheists because they have come to the conclusion that existence of any specific god is highly unlikely, and that deistic god is unneeded - Ockham's Razor).

Some may claim to be a weak atheist but deep in their hearts they are what one would call a hard atheist - or a gnostic atheist. Why? - you ask. Because whether the chance of a specific god existing is 1/infinity or 0/infinity doesn't change things even the slightest.


----------



## Polednice

xuantu said:


> _Polednice_, there is just so much to learn from you in terms of debating and writing! You almost brought tears to my eyes in your first few posts in this thread (I myself can be very severe about facts, impatient and short-tempered sometimes; I hope those whom I've offended on the forum will forgive me)


So long as I am not the victim of bitter sarcasm, thank you very much 

I agree with World Violist that this thread serves no purpose any more :/ Looking back over my other posts, I've certainly said everything that I can say (as has everyone else), but perhaps we just didn't say them well enough, which is why there is still this rather awkward discussion going on. Still, I'm not in the mood for constantly reframing my already-stated ideas, so I'll lay a figurative bunch of flowers on this thread and say R. I. P.


----------



## Polednice

KaerbEmEvig said:


> I think you have no fully grasped the terminology that is being employed in here. Agnosticism, despite what most may think, is not the middle ground between theism and atheism. There is no such middle ground just as there is no middle ground between being pregnant and not being pregnant. You cannot possibly be half-pregnant, can you?
> 
> The same goes for theism and atheism. Either you actively believe [in the existence of God/gods] or you do not. Now, there is yet another dipole - gnosticism and agnosticism that lay on two opposite ends of it. Gnosticism implies certanity, while agnosticism asserts uncertanity. I have yet to find a true agnostic atheist (most people are atheists because they have come to the conclusion that existence of any specific god is highly unlikely, and that deistic god is unneeded - Ockham's Razor).
> 
> Some may claim to be a weak atheist but deep in their hearts they are what one would call a hard atheist - or a gnostic atheist. Why you ask? Because whether the chance of a specific god existing is 1/infinity or 0/infinity doesn't change things even the slightest.


Just before I leave this grave, I just have to congratulate you! Though it may just be because I haven't been debating religion lately, it's not often I come across someone else who actually recognises the distinction between (a)theism and (a)gnosticism. Most atheists (for the sake of not appearing arrogant) would call themselves agnostic atheists, but I suppose we're really gnostic atheists and agnostic a-deists at the same time (because of all those stupid 'fine-tuning' arguments that Steven Weinberg can lay to rest!).


----------



## Edward Elgar

Artemis said:


> I should be grateful if you would kindly stop attempting to dodge the issue by raising yet more dubious arguments, and instead attempt to answer the queries I raised previously about your variously flawed post concerning Wotan and such other irrelevancies. Thank you so much.


The title of this thread is "How could you understand the religious music if you are a atheist?"

My answer to this question begins with a statement. This is that mythology is a rich source of inspiration for artists. This is something I think we can all agree on.

Now just imagine if you can, a norse warrior or viking engaging you in a conversation about Wagner's Ring.

Because of his deeply held convictions about the existance of Wotan, he claims to understand Wagner's Ring better than you.

I would hope, given that you are both a sane and a musically-literate person, that you would not give any validity to what this viking is saying.

Now imagine a thread like this one asking me "How could you understand the religious music if you are a atheist?" I am simply making the connection between the lunacy of both notions.

Norse mythology and monotheism is the same thing, it is essentially the worship of beings that can't be seen, heard or be proven to exist.

Therefore my answer is that I understand religious music as a method of worship. The only spirituality that comes from this music comes from the music alone, not from some mythological character.

If a christian were to tell me I am ignorant of the message in the St. Matthew Passion, they would have to acknowledge their ignorance of Wagner's Ring or other mythologically inspired music.

I don't know how to be any clearer, but if you want to hear more of my views which remain elusive to you, please point me in the right direction and I will be happy to oblige.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Polednice said:


> Just before I leave this grave, I just have to congratulate you! Though it may just be because I haven't been debating religion lately, it's not often I come across someone else who actually recognises the distinction between (a)theism and (a)gnosticism. Most atheists (for the sake of not appearing arrogant) would call themselves agnostic atheists, but I suppose we're really gnostic atheists and agnostic a-deists at the same time (because of all those stupid 'fine-tuning' arguments that Steven Weinberg can lay to rest!).


To be perfectly honest, I've been raised in the Catholic Christian denomination (as most people in Poland) and have become an atheist after having investigated my religion thoroughly (read the Bible twice - not many [devout] Christians can say that they have read it even once, to be frank).

I even tried to read the Koran, as I happen to have it at home, but if the Bible is written poorly (I don't think anyone expects a book written by dozens of different writers to be coherent) - the Koran is utterly terrible in that aspect. I've stopped after the chapter named "The Cow".

A single glimpse behind the curtains has made me aware of how shallow religion actually is when you pay closer attention to it and investigate a little further. In my opinion, anything that feeds on negative emotions and sentiments is shallow and hurtful (longing for an afterlife is one, since people content with their here-and-now do not need an afterlife; some people may seek refuge in the afterlife-to-come [terrorists, to name one group] instead of chaning their actual life).


----------



## Artemis

KaerbEmEvig said:


> I think you have not fully grasped the terminology that is being employed in here. Agnosticism, despite what most may think, is not the middle ground between theism and atheism. There is no such middle ground just as there is no middle ground between being pregnant and not being pregnant. You cannot possibly be half-pregnant, can you?
> 
> The same goes for theism and atheism. Either you actively believe [in the existence of God/gods] or you do not. Now, there is yet another dipole - gnosticism and agnosticism that lay on two opposite ends of it. Gnosticism implies certanity, while agnosticism asserts uncertanity. I have yet to find a true agnostic atheist (most people are atheists because they have come to the conclusion that existence of any specific god is highly unlikely, and that deistic god is unneeded - Ockham's Razor).
> 
> Some may claim to be a weak atheist but deep in their hearts they are what one would call a hard atheist - or a gnostic atheist. Why? - you ask. Because whether the chance of a specific god existing is 1/infinity or 0/infinity doesn't change things even the slightest.


Oh really? As I suspected, having checked up on all this I find that what I said earlier is sufficiently valid for my purposes.

If you care to glance at the main distinctions used currently in the description of various types of  "Agnosticsm"  as set out in this Wikipedia article, you will see that the interpretation I placed on the term is perfectly consistest with one of main forms of agnosticism, namely "weak agnosticsm" (also known as "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism").

Do please have a look at it. You will probably learn something. In any event, I rather suspect that you are making unnecessary complications, for reasons which I can only surmise at.


----------



## Artemis

Polednice said:


> I know; believe me, I have understood your point every time you have said, but, even though you think it isn't contentious, I just think it's wrong, and we'll have to leave it at that!


You say you have always understood what I meant, but that you find it lacking. I am not sure that I trust this. I think rather that you may have lately seen what I am really saying and have concocted an artificial distinction about pure music and its wider context in order to justify an invalid argument. However, like you I am sick to death with this whole discussion and see no point in continuing, especially since it is bringing in all manner of useless extraneous information. Personally, I haven't found any of this discussion remotely interesting. On the contrary I have found it tedious and have only stayed in the game because of a sense of duty, but I wish I hadn't started.


----------



## Artemis

World Violist said:


> This argument is itself flawed. How can "understanding" be exclusive to believers of what is to be understood? I am not Christian; why should I not be able to understand it anyway? So why should people who don't believe in the religion certain pieces of music "advocate" or whatever not be able to understand it? That was, after all, the original question, was it not?
> 
> And religious music is still music. What kind of person would degrade an atheist musicologist, or something like that, by saying "No, you don't fully understand this piece of music because you don't believe in the message it sends."? It makes no sense to me whatsoever! Obviously one can "understand" anything one wants to if one keeps an open enough mind (which anyone can do), whether one believes it or not. It isn't about getting a reaction from the music, it's about understanding, which is obviously severely lacking in this thread.
> 
> Again I have pose my previous question: Why on earth does this thread exist anymore? There's no longer a point.


With respect you seem to be stuck at base 1 on all this. Thiings have moved on considerably. Why don't you try to read and digest some of the material that has flowed over this area rather than keep on harping on about the same point you made a long time ago.


----------



## Polednice

Artemis said:


> You say you have always understood what I meant, but that you find it lacking. I am not sure that I trust this. I think rather that you may have lately seen what I am really saying and have concocted an artificial distinction about pure music and its wider context in order to justify an invalid argument.


I don't know how to reply to such an accusation! Well, first, you're wrong. I have known what you've been saying all along and I am convinced that it's wrong. The ideas you have presented haven't been exactly hard to grasp, and when I was deciding on whether to refute them again, I realised that I'd already pre-emptively done so _on the first page_. I'm not sure quite whether your accusation is intended as an insult to my consistency, or as a self-awarded compliment to your own argument.

Please let this madness end!


----------



## Artemis

kmisho said:


> Some of the best church music of our time was written by an atheist named Ned Rorem.
> 
> http://www.albanyrecords.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=AR&Product_Code=TROY307
> 
> Not only do you not need to be a Christian to enjoy Bach. You don't even need to be a Christian to write great worship music.


Agreed, there's obviously plenty of Bach that can be enjoyed without the need for being a Christian, like for example all of his non-church music.

Nor has anyone argued that you need to be a Christian to enjoy any of his church music. If that's what you think has been said you are mistaken. The argument is that a typical bunch of Christians would probably find certain types of religious music (in my case I have referred to liturgical music only) more enjoyable/rewarding than would a typical bunch of atheists.

This is partly because a typical bunch of atheists would in all likelihood be less interested in liturgical music than would Christians, so that the "hit rate" would be lower; and secondly any atheists who may be interested in liturgical music would probably, on average, find it less rewarding than would a typical Christian because of the importance of the liturgical aspects which come bundled in with the music and which would presumably not interest most typical atheists so they are left only with the music itself which is rather like Hamlet without the Prince.

I trust this helps.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Artemis said:


> Oh really? As I suspected, having checked up on all this I find that what I said earlier is sufficiently valid for my purposes.
> 
> If you care to glance at the main distinctions used currently in the description of various types of  "Agnosticsm"  as set out in this Wikipedia article, you will see that the interpretation I placed on the term is perfectly consistest with one of main forms of agnosticism, namely "weak agnosticsm" (also known as "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism").
> 
> Do please have a look at it. *You will probably learn something*. In any event, I rather suspect that you are making unnecessary complications, for reasons which I can only surmise at.


I assume the condescending tone comes from the fact you are unable to accept you were corrected (and rightly so at that). You have placed agnosticism between theism and atheism. The Wikipedia article does not support that claim - quite the opposite actually. It is quite clear already after reading the first two paragraphs of said article:



> In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.


Not even the fragment you have mentioned in your post does that:



> the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out."


You see, we still don't know whether the person described above is a believer or isn't one.


----------



## Artemis

KaerbEmEvig said:


> I assume the condescending tone comes from the fact you are unable to accept you were corrected (and rightly so at that).


I don't accept your correction, even remotely. It's completely wrong. I invite anyone to go back to the relevant post and consider what I wrote which was a perfectly justifiable use of the word "agnostic" to refer to the situation that was loosely presented to me.

I have now demonstrated by way of reference to the Wikipedia article a sub-category of Agnostism which neatly summarises the position as I saw it, or as near as makes no difference. Only a pedant or somebody with possibly mischievous intentions to stir unnecessary side issues would make an issue out of it.


----------



## Polednice

...

I don't think you have it in you to believe anything I say, but the correction really was unquestionably valid. You haven't demonstrated anything other than a convoluted attempt to look as though you were right all along :/

Please stop tempting me to comment on this laborious discussion!


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Artemis said:


> I don't accept your correction, even remotely. It's completely wrong. I invite anyone to go back to the relevant post and consider what I wrote which was a perfectly justifiable use of the word "agnostic" to refer to the situation that was loosely presented to me.
> 
> I have now demonstrated by way of reference to the Wikipedia article a sub-category of Agnostism which neatly summarises the position as I saw it, or as near as makes no difference. Only a pedant or somebody with possibly mischievous intentions to stir unnecessary side issues would make an issue out of it.


You see, one cannot partake in a debate when one does not accept the generally recognised definitions of words/terms.

Back to your post:



> Perhaps my concept of an atheist is rather different from yours. If I may say so your version seems to be a rather cheeky one in that you appear to have opted for an each-way bet when you die in terms of there possibly being a hereafter. Isn't that more the agnostic viewpoint? A typical atheist in my book is someone who believes that once you're dead you're dead and that's it, finito!. If you are saying that there are lots of others like you who have this kind of quasi-atheist status (not really sure what you believe) then you wouldn't fit into my definition of "typical atheist". On that basis I would possibly make an exception in your situation.


You clearly state that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive - they are not, as has been proved by me - twice already. The Wikipedia article does not support your stance. Yes, it does state that agnosticism stands for uncertanity (which I never denied), but nowhere does it say that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive (which you implied).


----------



## Argus

Artemis said:


> Agreed, there's obviously plenty of Bach that can be enjoyed without the need for being a Christian, like for example all of his non-church music.
> 
> Nor has anyone argued that you need to be a Christian to enjoy any of his church music. If that's what you think has been said you are mistaken. The argument is that a typical bunch of Christians would probably find certain types of religious music (in my case I have referred to liturgical music only) more enjoyable/rewarding than would a typical bunch of atheists.
> 
> This is partly because a typical bunch of atheists would in all likelihood be less interested in liturgical music than would Christians, so that the "hit rate" would be lower; and secondly any atheists who may be interested in liturgical music would probably, on average, find it less rewarding than would a typical Christian because of the importance of the liturgical aspects which come bundled in with the music and which would presumably not interest most typical atheists so they are left only with the music itself which is rather like Hamlet without the Prince.
> 
> I trust this helps.


You're answering a question that no one has posed.

On a sidenote, isn't a lot of Christian liturgical music in Latin? If so must a Christian have to understand Latin to understand the music? What about if the words were sung in Greek? Would a non-Greek speaking Christian still feel the religious importance of the music?

Just some more pointless questions for a ludicrous thread.


----------



## Polednice

Argus said:


> Just some more pointless questions for a ludicrous thread.


lol, I still want this one to be answered (courtesy of kmisho ): "Do you have to believe in ghosts to enjoy a horror movie?"


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Polednice said:


> lol, I still want this one to be answered (courtesy of kmisho ): "Do you have to believe in ghosts to enjoy a horror movie?"


Of course not - the best horror movies are about vampires, and everyone knows they are real. Although avampirists can't fully appreciate the beauty of horror movies.


----------



## Polednice

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Of course not - the best horror movies are about vampires, and everyone knows they are real. Although avampirists can't fully appreciate the beauty of horror movies.


I always wondered why I never liked scary films - it's because I'm an avampirist! Damn, I've just destroyed every argument I put on this thread


----------



## Artemis

KaerbEmEvig said:


> You *clearly state* that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive - they are not, as has been proved by me - twice already. The Wikipedia article does not support your stance. Yes, it does state that agnosticism stands for uncertanity (which I never denied), but nowhere does it say that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive (*which you implied*).


Did I? What I wrote was:_.. If I may say so your version seems to be a rather cheeky one in that you appear to have opted for an each-way bet when you die in terms of there possibly being a hereafter. Isn't that more the agnostic viewpoint? A typical atheist in my book is someone who believes that once you're dead you're dead and that's it, finito!.

_​Where do I state in the above that "_atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive_", as per your first line, which I see that you qualify as "_which you implied"_ in your last line?

Can you please make up your mind as to whether you consider I stated this or implied it, and whichever you choose can you please identify the relevant text in my quote that supports your contention that it amounts to a view that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.

As is perfectly clear, I was merely saying that the situation appears to be one in which the guy wasn't sure whether or not there is a hereafter when he dies? Why is that inconsistent with agnosticism? Please clarify this in the light of the Wikipedia reference I gave.

I maintain that your comments seem to involve excessive nit-picking, which are clearly unjustified, over a very minor side issue at best.


----------



## Polednice

lol, just to arbitrate here, I have to admit that KaerbEmEvig made a minor error in actually saying that you both 'stated' it and 'implied' it, which really are mutually exclusive 

You did certainly imply it though, with these words:

"Isn't that more the agnostic viewpoint? A typical atheist in my book is ..." If that doesn't demonstrate an extremely clear thought that they are mutually exclusive, then I don't know what else could. Reading that again, actually, it kind of blurs the boundaries between stating and implying because it's so obvious!


----------



## Artemis

Argus said:


> You're answering a question that no one has posed.
> 
> On a sidenote, isn't a lot of Christian liturgical music in *Latin*? If so must a Christian have to understand Latin to understand the music? What about if the words were sung in Greek? Would a non-Greek speaking Christian still feel the religious importance of the music?
> 
> Just some more pointless questions for a ludicrous thread.


Not since about 1970 I would guess. And I gather that when Latin was used most of the congregations understood it pretty well, probably better than some of the individuals on here understand English by the look of things.


----------



## Artemis

Polednice said:


> lol, just to arbitrate here, I have to admit that KaerbEmEvig made a minor error in actually saying that you both 'stated' it and 'implied' it, which really are mutually exclusive
> 
> You did certainly imply it though, with these words:
> 
> "Isn't that more the agnostic viewpoint? A typical atheist in my book is ..." If that doesn't demonstrate an extremely clear thought that they are mutually exclusive, then I don't know what else could. Reading that again, actually, it kind of blurs the boundaries between stating and implying because it's so obvious!


Dear Polednice

I trust that you and others fully realise that I'm treating this as a bit of fun, and just trying to give you all a run for your money.

Goodnight, and dare I say "god bless". I'm off.


----------



## kmisho

Artemis said:


> Agreed, there's obviously plenty of Bach that can be enjoyed without the need for being a Christian, like for example all of his non-church music.
> 
> Nor has anyone argued that you need to be a Christian to enjoy any of his church music. If that's what you think has been said you are mistaken.


Actually I think what I said is close to what you were saying and that you are committing the crime you impute of inventing a distinction to bolster your invalid argument.


> The argument is that a typical bunch of Christians would probably find certain types of religious music (in my case I have referred to liturgical music only) more enjoyable/rewarding than would a typical bunch of atheists.


If so, it's an artificial sort of enjoyment/prejudice born of clubbing with one's own kind and utterly irrespective of any musical merit.



> This is partly because a typical bunch of atheists would in all likelihood be less interested in liturgical music than would Christians, so that the "hit rate" would be lower; and secondly any atheists who may be interested in liturgical music would probably, on average, find it less rewarding than would a typical Christian because of the importance of the liturgical aspects which come bundled in with the music and which would presumably not interest most typical atheists so they are left only with the music itself which is rather like Hamlet without the Prince.


Statistical guesses aside, all that needs to be done is to find a counter-example to your claim to show the hole in your argument and reveal your weasel-words for what they are...and you so happen to be speaking to that person right now.

I have never in my life been particularly religious. Nevertheless, when I took up an instrument it was the pipe organ. When I selected a major, it was liturgical music. When I graduated and went to work, it was for the methodist church. Regardless of "in all likelihood" I, my life, stands in stark contrast to any claims regarding the artistic interests of the non-religious.


----------



## Argus

KaerbEmEvig said:


> I have yet to find a true agnostic atheist (most people are atheists because they have come to the conclusion that existence of any specific god is highly unlikely, and that deistic god is unneeded - Ockham's Razor).


For me agnostic atheism is the only sensible position on the matter. Existence of God(s) is unprovable. And just like in sciencific method, a hypothesis has to be conclusively proven through experiments before it is taken as fact. Since this means the hypothesis in question (whatever religion that is) cannot be proven it can't be accepted as the truth but also can't be entirely discredited. I'd also say agnostic atheists or weak atheists are quite common.

Anyway, lots of religious activities are bloody boring. I'd rather have a lie-in on a Sunday morning. I get tired staying up late on a Saturday night making all them sacrifices to Baphomet and other assorted evil doings.


----------



## David58117

Artemis said:


> As is perfectly clear, I was merely saying that the situation appears to be one in which the guy wasn't sure whether or not there is a hereafter when he dies? Why is that inconsistent with agnosticism? Please clarify this in the light of the Wikipedia reference I gave.


Just to be clear, since the original comment was directed at me - you'll have to trust me when I say I *am* a "when you're dead, you're dead" Atheist. That doesn't preclude me from finding the idea of religion beautiful, though. The disconnect comes when you ask me to pray/believe in/or somehow decide that *your* particular faith is more "correct" than any other group of people.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Argus said:


> For me agnostic atheism is the only sensible position on the matter. Existence of God(s) is unprovable. And just like in sciencific method, a hypothesis has to be conclusively proven through experiments before it is taken as fact. Since this means the hypothesis in question (whatever religion that is) cannot be proven it can't be accepted as the truth but also can't be entirely discredited. I'd also say agnostic atheists or weak atheists are quite common.


Are you an agnostic atheist towards gnomes? Maybe towards pink unicorns? How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Russle's Teapot? Maybe the Loch Ness Monster? Dwarves? Elves? The Tooth Fairy?

Why should one treat religion differently than the rest of the superstition? I haven't met a single person who would say they are an weak atheist or an agnostic atheist towards any of the things I've just mentioned. How is the Christian God any different to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

When paired up with these, the notion of God's existence becomes just as ridiculous. It only gets special treatment because many people believe in the existence of one.


----------



## David58117

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Are you an agnostic atheist towards gnomes? Maybe towards pink unicorns? How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Russle's Teapot? Maybe the Loch Ness Monster? Dwarves? Elves? The Tooth Fairy?
> 
> Why should one treat religion differently than the rest of the superstition? I haven't met a single person who would say they are an weak atheist or an agnostic atheist towards any of the things I've just mentioned. How is the Christian God any different to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
> 
> When paired up with these, the notion of God's existence becomes just as ridiculous. It only gets special treatment because many people believe in the existence of one.


Kaerb - I think you'll learn that religion is an emotional need for some people. Just as strongly as you feel about your views, *they* feel about theirs. It's utterly pointless and a waste of time arguing from a logical/scientific position, when religion is an emotional experience.

I had an acquaintance once who made the same argument you do, tirelessly thinking it's making a difference to someone. It wasn't. Or actually, my wife and I (she's not an Atheist, but not religious either) got bored of it and decided to draw distance between ourselves and him. Pretty sad that someone who ranted constantly against one belief became a dedicated preacher for the other, at least in my opinion. Atheism is about living your life completely, enjoying what's *here and now,* because you're not going to get another chance to.

Anyway, I'm only saying this because of the off topic discussion this has become, repeated use of the tired old flying spaghetti monster (let him rest in piece already!), and well...I've been there done that, realized what a waste of time it was and already apologized to my wife for getting so bogged down with it (debates), and here I am now!

So that's my advice, take it or leave it.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

David58117 said:


> Kaerb - I think you'll learn that religion is an emotional need for some people. Just as strongly as you feel about your views, *they* feel about theirs. It's utterly pointless and a waste of time arguing from a logical/scientific position, when religion is an emotional experience.
> 
> I had an acquaintance once who made the same argument you do, tirelessly thinking it's making a difference to someone. It wasn't. Or actually, my wife and I (she's not an Atheist, but not religious either) got bored of it and decided to draw distance between ourselves and him. Pretty sad that someone who ranted constantly against one belief became a dedicated preacher for the other, at least in my opinion. Atheism is about living your life completely, enjoying what's *here and now,* because you're not going to get another chance to.
> 
> Anyway, I'm only saying this because of the off topic discussion this has become, repeated use of the tired old flying spaghetti monster (let him rest in piece already!), and well...I've been there done that, realized what a waste of time it was and already apologized to my wife for getting so bogged down with it (debates), and here I am now!
> 
> So that's my advice, take it or leave it.


You completely misunderstood me, I wasn't trying to "prove" there's no God - just that most atheist call themselves agnostic atheists in order to not sound arrogant when speaking to theists.

That deep in their hearts they know that there is no difference between God, FSM or the Tooth Fairy and yet they wouldn't call themselves agnostic atheists towards the last two.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

KaerbEmEvig- ...if the Bible is written poorly (I don't think anyone expects a book written by dozens of different writers to be coherent) - the Koran is utterly terrible in that aspect. I've stopped after the chapter named "The Cow".

While this is a bit of a digression from the question at hand I must say that as someone perhaps even more obsessed with books than with music (I literally live in a library) I must challenge your assessment of both the _Bible_ and the _Qur'an_ in literary terms. The _Bible_ is unquestionably one of the greatest works of literature ever created. It is, however, most certainly not the most consistent. The great Argentine writer and critic, J.L. Borges, however, suggested quite persuasively that many of the greatest works of literature are erratic and far from "perfect". He drew special attention to _Don Quixote_ and the egregious inclusion of Cervantes' bad (not merely "mediocre"... but truly "bad") poetry. In spite of this, he argued, the book has so many merits in its favor that it far towers over many "perfect" novels. The same is true of the _Bible_. The _Bible_, first and foremost, should be recognized for what it is... not a single unified book... but a collection of books. The vast majority of these books are brilliant literary inventions: _Genesis_ and _Exodus, Job_, the _Psalms_, the _Song of Solomon_, the _Gospel of Matthew, Revelations, Lamentations_, etc... Unfortunately, there are difficulties... many of which resulted from poor editing and the inclusion of non-literary commentary by early Hebrew scholars. These certainly create a challenge for the reader, demanding an intelligent guide or commentary... but surely Dante's_ Comedia_ or any of Blake's epic poems are no less challenging... to say nothing of Joyce's _Finnegan's Wake_.

Personally, I have found (from what I have read) that the _Qur'an_ is far more consistent that the_ Bible_... as might be expected of a work by a single author. Again, there are difficulties, as one might find in any "visionary" work from the _Book of Revelations_, to the _Tao Te Ching_, to the _Bhagavad Gita_, to the epic poems of William Blake, San Juan de la Cruz, or even Whitman's _Leaves of Grass_. Certainly, there is much that I may find questionable... but then there is much that is questionable in a great many of my most beloved authors. I personally do not turn to art (in any of its myriad forms) to reinforce my own beliefs, thoughts, experiences... or even prejudices. I turn to art to engage in a dialog with other persons... other places... other times... Through art we manage to become much more than our own selves... to step outside our own lives and into those of others.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

StlukesguildOhio said:


> KaerbEmEvig- ...if the Bible is written poorly (I don't think anyone expects a book written by dozens of different writers to be coherent) - the Koran is utterly terrible in that aspect. I've stopped after the chapter named "The Cow".
> 
> While this is a bit of a digression from the question at hand I must say that as someone perhaps even more obsessed with books than with music (I literally live in a library) I must challenge your assessment of both the _Bible_ and the _Qur'an_ in literary terms. The _Bible_ is unquestionably one of the greatest works of literature ever created. It is, however, most certainly not the most consistent. The great Argentine writer and critic, J.L. Borges, however, suggested quite persuasively that many of the greatest works of literature are erratic and far from "perfect". He drew special attention to _Don Quixote_ and the egregious inclusion of Cervantes' bad (not merely "mediocre"... but truly "bad") poetry. In spite of this, he argued, the book has so many merits in its favor that it far towers over many "perfect" novels. The same is true of the _Bible_. The _Bible_, first and foremost, should be recognized for what it is... not a single unified book... but a collection of books. The vast majority of these books are brilliant literary inventions: _Genesis_ and _Exodus, Job_, the _Psalms_, the _Song of Solomon_, the _Gospel of Matthew, Revelations, Lamentations_, etc... Unfortunately, there are difficulties... many of which resulted from poor editing and the inclusion of non-literary commentary by early Hebrew scholars. These certainly create a challenge for the reader, demanding an intelligent guide or commentary... but surely Dante's_ Comedia_ or any of Blake's epic poems are no less challenging... to say nothing of Joyce's _Finnegan's Wake_.
> 
> Personally, I have found (from what I have read) that the _Qur'an_ is far more consistent that the_ Bible_... as might be expected of a work by a single author. Again, there are difficulties, as one might find in any "visionary" work from the _Book of Revelations_, to the _Tao Te Ching_, to the _Bhagavad Gita_, to the epic poems of William Blake, San Juan de la Cruz, or even Whitman's _Leaves of Grass_. Certainly, there is much that I may find questionable... but then there is much that is questionable in a great many of my most beloved authors. I personally do not turn to art (in any of its myriad forms) to reinforce my own beliefs, thoughts, experiences... or even prejudices. I turn to art to engage in a dialog with other persons... other places... other times... Through art we manage to become much more than our own selves... to step outside our own lives and into those of others.


I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I find Crime and Punishment a much better piece of literature even though it promotes a world view that I do not agree with. I've read two books by Paulo Coelho ("Veronika decides to die" and "Devil and Miss Prym"), he too is a devout Christian. What I'm saying is that I dislike the Bible and the Koran for how it is written, not what ideas it promotes.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Artemis said:


> ...a typical atheist is much less likely to obtain as much enjoyment of religious music as does a Christian because only the latter enters into it in the manner and spirit that the composers intended it.


Seemed like a simple enough point, and yet this thread travels in tangential arcs completely alien to the important artist-intent issue. In too many places, artist-intent is ignored, misapprehended or possibly even mischaracterized (intentionally or otherwise). No better example of the aforementioned is this:


Edward Elgar said:


> Drawing on my own experience, let me tell you what I thought of Wagner's Ring cycle. I found the music enjoyable because it told a story. I don't believe Wotan, Fricka, Freia, Donner, Froh, Erda and Loge are real beings in a spiritual dimension who are looking down on us and plotting to steal our gold. There may be a few deluded individuals who have deeply held beliefs in the existance of Wotan and pray to him and sacrifice animals to him in temples. Does this mean these people understand Wagner's Ring better than I do? No!


How does this analogy attempt fail? Let me count the ways--
a) Wagner did not mean for the _Ring Cycle_ to be part of a Norse religious ceremony.
b) Wagner himself was not a practitioner of 'Asatru.'
c) Even if the _Ring Cycle_ *was* a commentary on 'Asatru,' it would still be closer to a "counter-missionary" statement on that belief-structure than a reinforcement of the practice. [*_:thinks:... Wotan and all his homies are all in a very literal sense toast... I better find another wagon upon which to hitch my star!*_].

A better analog for the absurd proposition that a Norse polytheist could understand Wagner's _Ring Cycle_ with special insight would NOT be that of a Christian taking in liturgical music, it would be a devil-worshipper arguing a case for special insight on Milton's _Paradise Lost_, or (if you prefer) Ralph Vaughan-Williams' 'Job- a Masque for Dancing.'

In the same manner, the following rhetorical query:


kmisho said:


> This occurs to me. Do have have to believe in ghosts to enjoy a horror movie? If not, why would you have to be religious to enjoy religious music?


is another straw-man worthy of incineration... also on multiple levels--
a) The seminal issue of artist-intent is completely sidestepped (or ignored). In the vast preponderence of cases, (not invariable, but nearly so) the composer of religious music has as his specific intent the enhancement of the worship experience. To make one feel closer to the Almighty, as it were. Contrarily, one cannot say that most creators of horror-movies have as their expressed goal a proselytization of the paranormal. [O.K.: 'Blair Witch' is an exception, but] people usually don't come back from 'Elm Street' feeling like they have to watch out for Freddie, any more that "Star Wars" fans dread the coming of the Emperor, or "Lord of the Rings" enthusiasts feel a need to be vigilant concerning Sauron.
b) The "why would you have to be religious to enjoy religious music?" portion of the post is false dichotomy in action. No-one said that non-religious people were _incapable_ of enjoying religious music. (Oh, perhaps the Original Poster _hinted_ in that direction- but I think we have to keep in mind that I suspect that English is not the first, nor probably even the second, but at best the _third_ language of the member- so we should keep that in mind before passing judgements in that direction.) Before leaving this portion of the topic- at the risk of repeating what's been said before- at the very minimum, one has to concede that religious people, generally speaking, would be _more likely_ to have had multiple hearings of liturgical music, with the obvious increase in appreciation of detail brought about by said multiple hearings. [And this is before even discussing the role of emotion in aesthetic appreciation, one heck of a dialectical briar-patch, but one which I as a Wagnerian am definitely inclined to entertain, all the same!]


----------



## Polednice

I'm not going to regurgitate any points that I've already made, but I'll just say that one should always be wary of mentioning the importance of an artist's _intention_ in the creation and appreciation of their art. From my unhappy encounters with a dull mass of literary criticism, I can all too easily recall the somewhat convoluted and confusing arguments about the 'death of the author' so far as art-appreciation is concerned. And, concerning art in general, this is perfectly applicable as the 'death of the composer' (this is a figurative death, by the way) - the point about Wagner, though it does break down like all analogies, does still stand for the atheist in that Bach just didn't know at the time that what he was writing about was fictional 

EDIT --- I think that people looking at this from a religious viewpoint also need to consider it properly from an atheist viewpoint. By that, I mean that you should just take a moment to humour atheism even if you don't agree with it - just for a moment, entertain the idea that God simply does not exist. From this stance, the content of Bach's liturgical music is equally as fictional as the content of Wagner's _Ring_.

The problem is that Christians draw a distinction between the two things because Christianity still exists today, whereas Norse mythology is (mostly) obsolete. But an atheist draws no such distinction; it doesn't matter whether any of these mythologies exist or not - the content of the music is seen as being equally fictional, thus an atheist who thinks like this is _just as likely_ to draw the same enjoyment from liturgical music as a Christian is to experience the same from Wagner.


----------



## Artemis

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Seemed like a simple enough point, and yet this thread travels in tangential arcs completely alien to the important artist-intent issue. In too many places, artist-intent is ignored, misapprehended or possibly even mischaracterized (intentionally or otherwise).
> 
> etc]


 Chi, thanks for your comments. Obviously I agree with all you say.

I admit that I got very close to my tolerance limits at times yesterday. I also admit that, since I haven't got time to deal first-hand with nonsense of the type being spun on here yesterday, I was largely signing off comments put together by my 15 year old nephew who was following developments with one his friends.

A further confession: in case you are wondering, my brother and his wife sometimes help me out too, _Topaz_ and _Mango_ respectively, both of whom you will be aware were quite prominent former members of this Forum a couple of years or so ago. Hence you may occasionally detect a certain style of comment from me which is reflective of theirs. But I guess you already knew that, clever man that you are!


----------



## Argus

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Are you an agnostic atheist towards gnomes? Maybe towards pink unicorns? How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Russle's Teapot? Maybe the Loch Ness Monster? Dwarves? Elves? The Tooth Fairy?
> 
> Why should one treat religion differently than the rest of the superstition? I haven't met a single person who would say they are an weak atheist or an agnostic atheist towards any of the things I've just mentioned. How is the Christian God any different to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
> 
> When paired up with these, the notion of God's existence becomes just as ridiculous. It only gets special treatment because many people believe in the existence of one.


I see gnomes occasionally fishing or baring their arses in peoples front gardens. Dwarves I see very rarely but I am sure they exist, and anyway there are specialist sites on the web for that sort of thing. Russell was an English gent born in the late 19th century. I can safely assume he owned many teapots during his life.

To be serious, though I am equally agnostic towards all those things apart from the Loch Ness Monster which could easily be found by draining the loch as portrayed in The Simpsons, and dwarves. Are there no dwarves in Poland?



> I admit that I got very close to my tolerance limits at times yesterday. I also admit that, since I haven't got time to deal first-hand with nonsense of the type being spun on here yesterday, I was largely signing off comments put together by my 15 year old nephew who was following developments with one his friends.


I didn't notice any difference in your posts. Take from that what you will.


----------



## Guest

My comments here are probably not going to add significantly to the discussion, but here I go anyway, because what are online forums for?

I believe we all experience music at different levels. I don't have an education in music; I simply enjoy listening to classical music, and I know what sounds good to me, what doesn't, and I can't give an educated explanation for the difference. I can't speak on the subject of chord progressions, or ways that various composers revolutionized the field. I just know what I like. Someone with extensive training will no doubt have a different, more than likely deeper appreciation for the music than I. Similarly, in the case of operas in particular, your level of understanding will no doubt influence how deeply you appreciate it. Whether it is listening for the music only, or being able to understand the language it is written in, or knowing the background of the story upon which the libretto is based. Take Wagner's Ring for example. Simply listening to it is one level of experiencing it. Knowing the plotline will increase the enjoyment. Being able to understand German will allow you to follow the plot better. And finally, having some understanding of Norse/Germanic mythology will further increase the experience. Lacking any of those does not exclude a person from enjoying this opera cycle, but they will certainly not experience them on the same level as one who can appreciate the music in its entirety.

So with religious music. Anybody can appreciate the music at whatever level they are on. However, to truly "understand" the music at the level it was written requires an understanding of all the levels of the music. There is another level to religious music - it was written as a means to express worship to God. Rejecting the existence of the God, as understood by the composer, does not exclude one from enjoying or appreciating the music, but they probably will not understand it in the same light. 

Finally, a few points. I noticed it being mentioned that atheists believe that there is no God. That seems an odd definition. If one is wedded to science and reason, then it is not possible to believe there is no God. You seek to prove a negative - let me know how that works out for you. That would require faith, which, by definition, is not reason. A true atheist who lives by science and reason would hold that there is no reason to accept that there is a God, as no verifiable proof has been provided for the existence of one. One who lives by science and reason should not deny the existence of anything for which there is no proof, unless there exists sufficient proof to the contrary (and again, proving a negative is extremely difficult - a single, reproducible instance of proof can overthrow a mountain-sized collection of negative results).


----------



## Artemis

DrMike said:


> ...
> 
> So with religious music. Anybody can appreciate the music at whatever level they are on. However, to truly "understand" the music at the level it was written requires an understanding of all the levels of the music. There is another level to religious music - it was written as a means to express worship to God. Rejecting the existence of the God, as understood by the composer, does not exclude one from enjoying or appreciating the music, but they probably will not understand it in the same light.
> 
> Finally, a few points. I noticed it being mentioned that atheists believe that there is no God. That seems an odd definition. If one is wedded to science and reason, then it is not possible to believe there is no God. You seek to prove a negative - let me know how that works out for you. That would require faith, which, by definition, is not reason. A true atheist who lives by science and reason would hold that there is no reason to accept that there is a God, as no verifiable proof has been provided for the existence of one. One who lives by science and reason should not deny the existence of anything for which there is no proof, unless there exists sufficient proof to the contrary (and again, proving a negative is extremely difficult - a single, reproducible instance of proof can overthrow a mountain-sized collection of negative results).


In your first paragraph above you conclude by making much the same point that I have been attempting to make, although I would be rather more emphatic than you in suggesting that religiously inclined people will typically (not universally) obtain greater enjoyment because they perceive and accept the message of the music on a broader plain than merely as a bunch of pleasant sounding notes. The musical aspects per se are often seen as important accompaniment to their prayerful thoughts, which aspect is presumably missing from the enjoyment perceived by atheists and those of similar ilk however they are defined (about which I couldn't care less over the pathetically silly details).

Regards your second paragraph, I would add that that all this agnostic and atheistic claptrap we've heard on this thread from a small group of quite young students - who are probably still miles off maturing in their thoughts on these matters and yet who speak so assuredly that they have already reached the truth - is by no means the dominant intellectual position on this subject, despite what has been suggested by some of them.

On the contrary, it has been estimated that there are some 20 respectable arguments for God's existence based on various philosophical positions. A particular point to be stressed against all the agnostic and atheistic bunkum we've heard about the so-called lack of scientific proof of God's existence is that making demands for such evidence is a waste of time because it will never succeed as it involves requiring that God should become Man's servant in obeying the latter's tests, and this God need not do and may well not do.


----------



## Polednice

Artemis said:


> Regards your second paragraph, I would add that that all this agnostic and atheistic claptrap we've heard on this thread from a small group of quite young students - who are probably still miles off maturing in their thoughts on these matters and yet who speak so assuredly that they have already reached the truth - is by no means the dominant intellectual position on this subject, despite what has been suggested by some of them.


Needless to say that the age argument is utterly invalid, but I also find this point simply hilarious. Twenty respectable philosophical arguments? Utter tripe! As for being a 'mere' student, that I may be, but if I really must flaunt my credentials then I'll have you know that I'm a student at one of the most prestigious institutions in the world and, on a matter so important as this, I have immersed myself in the literature of philosophers, polemicists, politicians, evolutionary biologists, evolutionary psychologists and astrophysicists, so don't imply that my entirely rational conclusion about our place in this universe is ill-informed and juvenile compared to the crackpot notion invented by science-less humans when they had no other way of understanding a complex world


----------



## Artemis

Argus said:


> I didn't notice any difference in your posts. Take from that what you will.


 [FONT=&quot]Ah, well thank you for that. I'm sure you meant it kindly, as you do in all your replies to me.

To elaborate, age 15 seems about par for the course on this Forum, so why should I waste my time answering a lot of silly posts when I'm otherwise busy, when I have a keen nephew (Simon) of this age to do it.

In fact, as regards some of my later posts yesterday, all I had to do was make a few stylistic amendments and cut out anything that might have got me banned like the odd expletive, (kids ay?), and it was effectively all done for me.

This post, however, (like the previous one) is all my own work, just for you! 
 
[/FONT]


----------



## Artemis

Polednice said:


> ... As for being a 'mere' student, that I may be, but if I really must flaunt my credentials then I'll have you know that I'm a student at one of the most prestigious institutions in the world and, on a matter so important as this, I have immersed myself in the literature of philosophers, polemicists, politicians, evolutionary biologists, evolutionary psychologists and astrophysicists, so don't imply that my entirely rational conclusion about our place in this universe is ill-informed and juvenile compared to the crackpot notion invented by science-less humans when they had no other way of understanding a complex world


Wow really? All by the age of 19. Incredible. You'll have to get some brass images of yourself and sell them to your all your gawking fans.


----------



## Polednice

Artemis said:


> Wow really? All by the age of 19. Incredible. You'll have to get some brass images of yourself and sell them to your all your gawking fans.


So what? I've read lots more about important subjects than most people of my age, so you're condemning me for my academic interests? That's rather high-school-playground; I thought I'd left all that behind.


----------



## Artemis

Polednice said:


> So what? I've read lots more about important subjects than most people of my age, so you're condemning me for my academic interests? That's rather high-school-playground; I thought I'd left all that behind.


You are so funny, and take things so seriously. Relax a bit, try to box clever, otherwise you'll be a cardiac arrest case if you carry on like this.

Can't you see that if you try play "clever", ever-so-sophisticated, highly knowledgeable and so certain you know it all on various complex issues, even though you are only 19, then others will be tempted to take pot shots at you. You've been asking for it ever since you came here, and you are geting more and more cocky. I can tell you that your supposed, self-proclaimed intellectual prowess doesn't worry me in the slightest. So come off it please.


----------



## Polednice

Artemis said:


> You are so funny, and take things so seriously. Relax a bit, try to box clever, otherwise you'll be a cardiac arrest case if you carry on like this.
> 
> Can't you see that if you try play "clever", ever-so-sophisticated, highly knowledgeable and so certain you know it all on various complex issues, even though you are only 19, then others will be tempted to take pot shots at you. You've been asking for it ever since you came here, and you are geting more and more cocky. I can tell you that your supposed, self-proclaimed intellectual prowess doesn't worry me in the slightest. So come off it please.


Sorry, am I supposed to take juvenile insults with a pinch of salt? I don't know what your purpose is for being here, especially if you think our collective mental age is 15, but I come here for discussions and debates, not to mess about with people, insult them and then tell them it was all tongue in cheek. All I've seen from you in this thread is, 'You're all stupid - Oh, I didn't mean it like that - No, actually, you're all stupid - It wasn't me that said that! - NO, _really_ I hate all of you, you suck - I was only playing!' Why can't you take some responsibility for the things you say instead of flipping backwards and forwards between utter nonsense and then implying that it's everyone else's fault.

I haven't at all been playing 'clever'. The _only_ time I have brought up anything to do with my knowledge was when you were low enough to suggest that young people have less-informed opinions. What would you expect me to say? 'Yeah, you're right, I need to grow up'? No, actually, I'll go ahead and tell you exactly what I've read and exactly what I know so that you can learn to stop being so condescending.


----------



## Lukecash12

Artemis said:


> You are so funny, and take things so seriously. Relax a bit, try to box clever, otherwise you'll be a cardiac arrest case if you carry on like this.
> 
> Can't you see that if you try play "clever", ever-so-sophisticated, highly knowledgeable and so certain you know it all on various complex issues, even though you are only 19, then others will be tempted to take pot shots at you. You've been asking for it ever since you came here, and you are geting more and more cocky. I can tell you that your supposed, self-proclaimed intellectual prowess doesn't worry me in the slightest. So come off it please.


Hmmm... let's have a rain check. What's the most beneficial response? You can either say, "You don't know what you're talking about, and you're a little jackass." Or you can say, "I'm not so sure about that conclusion but of such and such, etc." Time, of all the things we can think about and observe, is really just as relative as energy and mass.


----------



## Scott Good

Artemis said:


> In your first paragraph above you conclude by making much the same point that I have been attempting to make, although I would be rather more emphatic than you in suggesting that religiously inclined people will typically (not universally) obtain greater enjoyment because they perceive and accept the message of the music on a broader plain than merely as a bunch of pleasant sounding notes. The musical aspects per se are often seen as important accompaniment to their prayerful thoughts, which aspect is presumably missing from the enjoyment perceived by atheists and those of similar ilk however they are defined (about which I couldn't care less over the pathetically silly details).


Artimis, I very much agree with you.

It can be taken further. The deeper the fundamental belief in a religious text, the deeper the emotional engagement. I have witnessed first hand some very intense religious ceremonies, and have read about many more. I have seen the tears, the wailing, the speaking in tongues, the ecstatic gyrating and convulsing - it is awesome. People are not that good at acting.

I have also discussed with many religious moderate people the effect of community and ritual that the religious life offers them - and it is honest and real - as real as anything an atheist can come up with - and music plays a strong role in nurturing these bonds, and therefor has a strong effect that is not felt by people outside of that community. I do not believe atheists, in general, respect this gift of religious life enough.

However, the atheist also has community. Like all of us here, we belong to a community of people who for the most part, gain tremendous pleasure from Bach's music. In this, we are all together. And in this, we share a common emotional and intellectual experience. (although, I believe you already understand this, I'm just saying it for clarity). We are not here because we all love "This little light of mine" or the Muslim call to prayer, or enjoy attending a pow wow (even though we might). Rather, that the music of Bach does transcend it's religious context, and appeals very strongly to a humanist/secular view of life - and that Bach's achievements as a member of our species is frankly astounding (IMHO) in it's ability to rouse emotions and intellect. Also, the poetry his music sets has qualities that transcend, for the most part, considerations of literal truth to poetic truth - something an atheist can understand, and have an emotional experience contemplating. Something so powerful that even an atheist such as myself is drawn strongly to spend literally hundreds of hours listening, studying, practicing it.

The opening subject of this thread challenges the validity of an atheist to belong to this community. It should be understood that tremendous bias exists towards the atheist, still. You can be killed in places for accepting this belief (or simply being born with it as I was), or, even in the US, be told you are not a proper citizen, and do not have the right to be a part of higher offices of government. So, atheists tend to get very defensive. I must remark that I think Polednice's comments have been for the most part fair, except that he seems to not want to accept the simple truths you have added to the discussion (that religious people will be more frequently and deeply moved by religious music - how can that be denied?) All I can say to him is watch the movie "Jesus Camp", and see these kids having incredibly intense emotional experiences around religious activities, including music. Powerful concepts like "hell/heaven" and "eternity" - and to be blatant, to worship someone as they are being executed by being nailed to a piece of wood (this one really got me when I was young - terrified that is) can certainly drive the emotions into a fervor.

I just wanted to add one more side bit: There is a great part in Umberto Eco's book "Foucault's Pendulum" where the main character is living in Brazil (I think, it has been many years). He witnesses a religious event in which several women, dancing with feverish intensity to loud drumming music and chanting, immersed in clouds of incense, bringing themselves to a transcended state, with their eyes rolling back in their heads and that sort of thing. However one women cannot make the leap - she dances and dances, but the eyes never role back. He notes that she is of Germanic heritage, and postulates that the reason she cannot transcend is that she has had "too many well tempered claviers"!



Artemis said:


> particular point to be stressed against all the agnostic and atheistic bunkum we've heard about the so-called lack of scientific proof of God's existence is that making demands for such evidence is a waste of time because it will never succeed as it involves requiring that God should become Man's servant in obeying the latter's tests, and this God need not do and may well not do.


Well, the idea of Spinoza's God is widely accepted as a possible truth or way of using the word God (a God concept that is not in the form of a human, nor does it interact in human affairs with any kind of conscious effort). Where the scientific evidence lines up absolutely massive evidence against is a belief in the gods of Abraham, and Vishnu, and others, and the miracles and stories of how we all came to be according to their scripture (if taken literally). I don't think any 20 philosophical points are going to do anything to alter this mountain of evidence to the contrary, although they might promote Spinoza's concept very effectively.

This is not to say these texts can't relate significant insight into the human condition. I'm still amazed and inspired in particular by what Greek Mythology and Native American Spirituality says about the human condition, morality, and responsibility to/of society and the world. There is much to be gained by "believing" there is an essential spirit force living inside tress (for instance) that should be respected. Indeed, this is becoming more and more true as we continue to hack them down, and build more smoke stacks. There is much to be gained from respectful study of these texts - they are great gifts from our ancestors. And several Christian Psalms have moved me tremendously because of their poetic messages of love and hope - loneliness and separation - awe and reverence. Even the Kyrie (for instance), in it's very simple text (Lord have mercy), is not beyond the atheist to understand in their hearts, and can be profoundly moved by what the composer does to relate this message of spiritual longing and empathy for those who are suffering.


----------



## rojo

Thread closed for cleaning.


----------

