# Great Musicians... God's voice?



## michael walsh

There's a common thread running through the biographies of truly great musicians; their belief that it is not they who are responsible for their work; they are merely the instruments of God. 

Just as in as seance the medium has the sensitivity to tune in to those in the afterlife (unless they are charlatans), is it possible that composers of wonderful music are simply used by God to give His music to the world?


----------



## Weston

I don't think it far fetched at all to believe great musicians (or artists or writers, etc.) somehow tap into a greater consciousness. Whether you call that God or a collective subconscious (as proposed by Carl Jung), the result is the same. For me, there must be some degree of mysticism or it isn't art.


----------



## chillowack

This is quite an interesting topic. Particularly intriguing is the idea--espoused by a number of legendary composers--that atheism and artistic inspiration are fundamentally at odds.

Although I don't subscribe to the traditional Judeo-Christian idea of "God," I do believe there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy; and the philosophy of the atheist, in particular, shuts out many important possibilities. Atheism is basically the flip-side of theism, ostensibly opposite but with corresponding flaws, as might be expected from a polemic point of view.

The idea of a source of inspiration beyond our own minds goes back at least as far as ancient Greece, when the 8th century BCE poet Hesiod began his tales by invoking the nine Muses: "Sing, O Heliconian Muses..." he commenced, claiming that the daughters of Zeus had thus instructed him to begin all his works, that mankind would know their divine source.

Though some may scoff at such "quaint" tales, the notion of supernormal inspiration runs down through human history in many forms, a consistent throughline, and many (if not most) of the great composers imputed their gifts to powers beyond their own intrinsic skill.

For this reason alone, if for no other, the idea of extranormal inspiration should not be lightly thrown aside. If the most brilliant stars in the musical firmament believed that something beyond themselves inspired them, who are we to dismiss it out of hand?

Simply saying "I don't believe in god" is not really a complete answer to the question, it's more of a cop-out to avoid really considering the question. It's easy to say "I don't believe in god": it's less easy to consider that there might be more to the infinite universe than those five words can contain.


----------



## mjlang

When I was young I thought that Mozart took dictation from the Angels. I am a Christian and do believe that music is one medium inspired by God, at least the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Not all music is from God. One-third of the angels followed after Lucifer, or Satan, and some music is inspired by the devil. Those angels who followed after Lucifer are in reality demons. On the other hand, Christians partake of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and one is discernment of spirits. This comes in handy when playing or listening to music of all types, also, in interpersonal relationships. I have discovered that unless an acquaintance is also a Christian in the true sense, having a personal relationship with Jesus, the Holy Annoited Son of God, they are not to be trusted and it is impossible to form a genuine friendships with such a person. Music, as a distinct medium of expression, follows these principles and one can quickly discern what is genuine and what is not.

With best regards, Mary Jane Lang


----------



## danae

chillowack said:


> Simply saying "I don't believe in god" is not really a complete answer to the question, it's more of a cop-out to avoid really considering the question. It's easy to say "I don't believe in god": it's less easy to consider that there might be more to the infinite universe than those five words can contain.


1. I wasn't answering a question.

2. I don't believe in god. It's not difficult or easy, it's just the truth. Belief -or faith- is based on emotion rather than logic. I don't think it's possible to persuade yourself to *feel* the existence of god, that is, to feel something that's just not there.


----------



## chillowack

danae said:


> 1. I wasn't answering a question.
> 
> 2. I don't believe in god. It's not difficult or easy, it's just the truth. Belief -or faith- is based on emotion rather than logic. I don't think it's possible to persuade yourself to *feel* the existence of god, that is, to feel something that's just not there.


Hi danae,

1. I apologize for assuming you were answering the question. When a question is presented, and a response immediately follows, it _seems_ like an answer; but I acknowledge that your comment could have been just a random, out-of-context announcement of your particular religious view, with no relation to the topic.

2. Thank you for repeating your religious view. However, with all due respect, the question here is not whether you (or I) "believe in god"; nor is the question whether belief in god is based on emotion or logic. The question is: "Is it possible the great composers were inspired?"

It seems to me the statement "I don't believe in god" doesn't really address that--unless you mean to say that because _you_ don't believe in god, then therefore Brahms and Wagner and all the other immortal geniuses were simply "wrong"?

Such a view, it seems to me, does nothing more than sweep a very complex and important issue under the rug, and is therefore no more helpful than the overly simplistic theistic view, which does the same thing in a different way.


----------



## chillowack

mjlang said:


> When I was young I thought that Mozart took dictation from the Angels. I am a Christian and do believe that music is one medium inspired by God, at least the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Not all music is from God. One-third of the angels followed after Lucifer, or Satan, and some music is inspired by the devil. Those angels who followed after Lucifer are in reality demons. On the other hand, Christians partake of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and one is discernment of spirits. This comes in handy when playing or listening to music of all types, also, in interpersonal relationships. I have discovered that unless an acquaintance is also a Christian in the true sense, having a personal relationship with Jesus, the Holy Annoited Son of God, they are not to be trusted and it is impossible to form a genuine friendships with such a person. Music, as a distinct medium of expression, follows these principles and one can quickly discern what is genuine and what is not.
> 
> With best regards, Mary Jane Lang


Hi Mary Jane,

I used to believe these same things, so I know exactly where you're coming from.

Life experience, however, has led me to see that the scenario presented here is only one _version_ of reality, and not the version agreed upon by everyone. So while you have every right to believe in this particular religious story, it is worth bearing in mind that other people in the world believe very differently from you, and that no one is "right" or "wrong."

That said: I'm open to the possibility that something--call it "god," "angels," "muses," "the ether," "the collective unconscious," or what you will--can and does affect the creative thought processes of artists. Most of the artists I know believe this to be the case in one form or another.

What exactly the nature of that _something_ is, can be, and has been, debated; and of course you can disagree altogether if you like. But it seems to me a great deal of evidence exists that something more than a squishy three-pound lump of gray tissue in our skull exists behind the immortal works of art and beauty that make up humanity's artistic legacy.


----------



## Efraim

Everyone has the right to believe in God or to believe in No-God. Belief gives strength. Once in a meeting of famous physicists it turned out that only one of them, Dirac, didn’t reckon with God in his thoughts. Dirac, who believed in another god, called communism, argued vehemently against the god of his collegues. At the end one of the big ones, I forgot which one, perhaps Heisenberg, concluded: “God is inexistent and Dirac is His prophet.”


----------



## danae

chillowack said:


> Hi danae,
> 
> 1. I apologize for assuming you were answering the question. When a question is presented, and a response immediately follows, it _seems_ like an answer; but I acknowledge that your comment could have been just a random, out-of-context announcement of your particular religious view, with no relation to the topic.
> 
> 2. Thank you for repeating your religious view. However, with all due respect, the question here is not whether you (or I) "believe in god"; nor is the question whether belief in god is based on emotion or logic. The question is: "Is it possible the great composers were inspired?"
> 
> It seems to me the statement "I don't believe in god" doesn't really address that--unless you mean to say that because _you_ don't believe in god, then therefore Brahms and Wagner and all the other immortal geniuses were simply "wrong"?
> 
> Such a view, it seems to me, does nothing more than sweep a very complex and important issue under the rug, and is therefore no more helpful than the overly simplistic theistic view, which does the same thing in a different way.


It's not a matter of being right or wrong. Brahms is one of my favourite composers (I will refrain from using phrases like "immortal genius") and I believe most of his work consists of masterpieces. But whether or not he believed that his inspiration came from god doesn't really change what I think about him and his music. That's what "I don't believe in god" means: that I really don't care all that much about the religious beliefs of composers, all I care about is the music itself.


----------



## chillowack

danae said:


> It's not a matter of being right or wrong. Brahms is one of my favourite composers (I will refrain from using phrases like "immortal genius") and I believe most of his work consists of masterpieces. But whether or not he believed that his inspiration came from god doesn't really change what I think about him and his music. That's what "I don't believe in god" means: that I really don't care all that much about the religious beliefs of composers, all I care about is the music itself.


Okay, thanks for clarifying that.

May I ask if you compose music yourself, danae? Or if you engage in any kind of creative/artistic activity?


----------



## Guest

If an artist or composer feels the need to be inspired what does it matter where the inspiration comes from "God, Tree, Fish, The UV etc" 
Saying I do not believe in god is fine but to say there is no such thing as God is mindless it boils down to definitions once again and brains much smarter than ours are still debating this.


----------



## Cortision

I firmly believe in God, but I have a very different take on the question to Mary Jane:

The universe exists as a result of God's creative genius. Everything, from galaxies down to subatomic particles, shows the mark of his mind. A part of this creation, called the human being, has been gifted with a creative intellect, capable of either searching for or rejecting the creator. This creative mind of the human is also capable of discovering and manipulating what God put there in the first place - including music. I do not think that the great musicians were directly inspired by God, in any way comparable to taking dictation from an angel. But I do think that music can come from a divine gift - a unique mind capable of discerning in some way some of the order, pattern and beauty of the universe. Music is a physical thing, however abstract, and I believe it was first conceived by the mind of God, as was language, mathematics, moral imperatives, in short the things that can raise the human from the level of the ape. But the human mind nonetheless cabable of independant thought.


----------



## michael walsh

As for morality or lack of it between believers and non-believers this is a separate issue altogether. Those who believe in God are not necessarily any more moral or conscience-led than those who profess to be atheists. Both can be the utmost rogues. 

The difference is that those who believe in a higher deity have a clearer idea of what is right and what is wrong. Theirs is a discipline. It is a belief that inspires creativity. It is up to the deity believers to then practice or not. 

The atheist's lines in the sand are much less clear and shift with the times. They can draw inspiration only from less fertile soil. As Wagner surmised: 'Nothing great or lasting has been achieved by atheists.' Atheism is the true immorality. As the saying goes: "God doesn't believe in atheists."


----------



## nickgray

michael walsh said:


> The atheist's lines in the sand are much less clear and shift with the times. They can draw inspiration only from less fertile soil. As Wagner surmised: 'Nothing great or lasting has been achieved by atheists.' Atheism is the true immorality. As the saying goes: "God doesn't believe in atheists."


Huh? Say that to Einstein and Shostakovich. Or countless scientists advancing the technological and theoretical progress. The whole notion of superiority of one that has some sort of belief in invisible omniscient beings over one who doesn't even bother himself with such things is absolutely ridiculous.

As for the composers who advertised or believed in their Christian ideas - Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, etc., etc., all those guys lived in Europe well before or near the 20th century. It would be strange if they didn't.


----------



## jhar26

michael walsh said:


> The difference is that those who believe in a higher deity have a clearer idea of what is right and what is wrong.


Everybody knows what is right and wrong. You don't need religion for that, all you need is a conscience.


----------



## Weston

Cortision said:


> The universe exists as a result of God's creative genius. Everything, from galaxies down to subatomic particles, shows the mark of his mind. A part of this creation, called the human being, has been gifted with a creative intellect, capable of either searching for or rejecting the creator. This creative mind of the human is also capable of discovering and manipulating what God put there in the first place - including music.


Though I am not a firm believer in the God most organized religions portray, your thoughts remind me of statements I have made elsewhere. That is, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, creativity may be the sincerest form of worship. This holds true even if there is only an attempt at creativity, since we cannot just sit down and decide to be creative.


----------



## chillowack

jhar26 said:


> Everybody knows what is right and wrong. You don't need religion for that, all you need is a conscience.


Well said, jhar26! 

However, for purposes of the subject at hand (which has now deviated from its original purpose into a marginally-related discussion about god and religion), I think a line should be drawn between "religion" and "inspiration."

Religion is a man-made institution, a limited attempt by limited beings to comprehend and define limitless concepts.

Inspiration, on the other hand, is an undefined and mysterious thing. No one knows for sure where it comes from (though everyone has their theory).

Inspiration therefore has nothing to do with "religion"; and I would even go as far as to say that religion has often been the bane of inspiration through the ages, dividing and controlling humanity rather than freeing it.

But there have always been the exceptions, bright spirits in every religion that take it and make of it something beautiful. To this category belong most of the great composers.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Hail Satan


----------



## Efraim

It is interesting that everybody discusses here God and similar topics far more passionately than music…

"_If God didn't exist it would be necessary to invent him_" (Voltaire). In the same vein, "_If invention didn't exist it would be necessary to invent it_." Logic says: This sentence is self-contradictory: nothing can be invented without the capacity for inventing things that don't exist yet. But we see that the world snaps finger to logic. Aristotle, founder of logic as a science, held that a five lb stone falls five times faster than a one lb stone. Actually they fall with the same speed, against the most flawless logic. Man did invent invention without being capable of doing so. Prior to that he was created by God from earth or evolved alone from lifeless molecules into a kind of still earthbound monkey; this second hypothesis is even more fantastic and illogical and if it is true, it should inspire us even more religious feelings than the first one. Now all of a sudden this poor earthbound being starts to create - himself doesn't know how - not earthbound gods, heavens, spiritual worlds, divine music, without which he can not live any more…


----------



## danae

I don't understand one thing: the title of the thread (Are great musicians God's voice?) is basically a "yes" or "no" or "maybe" or "to some extent" or "I don't know" kind of question. All of these answers to the question are valid. But the question itself contain one very important element: it might very well look like a question, but it's also a definite statement: the statement that god exists. So, how could an atheist respond to such a question? 

How is it then that the discussion has been hi-jacked?


----------



## chillowack

danae said:


> So, how could an atheist respond to such a question?


He would probably say something like: "I don't believe in god."

Oops, sorry...I forgot, that's not an answer to the question.


----------



## danae

chillowack said:


> He would probably say something like: "I don't believe in god."
> 
> Oops, sorry...I forgot, that's not an answer to the question.


Exactly: it's not.


----------



## Aramis

Even if there is no god the answer could be "yes". If I would strongly belive that there is a magical elephant called Ezehiel who rules the rabbits, masters of music, and when I will look into a rabbit's eyes I will be inspired and compose a piece, and if I would do so, and then write a piece of music - wouldn't I became this elephant's voice? I would. If someone belives in God, he can be inspired by him and be his voice, no matter if this God exists or not. Because even if he doesn't exist in general, he may exist in composer's brain and affect him. So, if there is no God in general, he lives in pieces of faithful composers. So there is a god. God exists. Hallelujah!


----------



## danae

You lost me there Aramis.


----------



## chillowack

Aramis said:


> If someone belives in God, he can be inspired by him and be his voice, no matter if this God exists or not. Because even if he doesn't exist in general, he may exist in composer's brain and affect him.


I think Aramis (though perhaps half-jokingly) makes a very profound point: that the mere _act_ of believing, alone--regardless of whether the object of that belief is real or not--confers inspiration on the believer. How many stories have we heard of people achieving things against incredible odds, because they _believed_ they could? Faith alone can move mountains--even if there's no "god" working miracles behind the faith.

So even if there's no god, the _belief_ in one can elevate the human spirit--and from that elevated height what works of art might spring? Perhaps it is in this principle that Wagner's dictum finds its truth: that it's not so much the _existence_ of god that inspires the artist, but the _belief_ in the existence of god.


----------



## danae

chillowack said:


> So even if there's no god, the _belief_ in one can elevate the human spirit--and from that elevated height what works of art might spring? Perhaps it is in this principle that Wagner's dictum finds its truth: that it's not so much the _existence_ of god that inspires the artist, but the _belief_ in the existence of god.


That goes without saying, especially for us non-believers. But the question on the title of thread is concerned with _belief_ but with _fact_.


----------



## chillowack

danae said:


> That goes without saying, especially for us non-believers. But the question on the title of thread is concerned with _belief_ but with _fact_.


Is it not ironic that you, to whom god is a fiction, should be the one to insist that a title which names him concerns _fact_? 

I don't see the title of the thread as necessarily "declaring" anything, but maybe you're right, maybe the OP has an agenda. To me it's more of a question than a statement.


----------



## Efraim

Even the existence of the material world has been questioned by philosophers, and not by the least famous of them. That did not prevent them from talking of it a lot.

One of them replied to the objection that what he just said was disproved by the facts: "Too bad for the facts."

I don't understand why those who deny God's existence participate in this thread at all: for them the question whether "Great musicians are the voice of God" must be devoid of sense, just as would be a question like, say, "Why is the elephant the most beautiful bird?"

I must correct myself. It was not entirely true that I don't understand why. I think I do. In my opinion just as we believers _*want*_ God to exist, by the same token atheists _*want*_ God not to exist (or rather want Ungod to exist). If He doesn't, too bad for us. If He does, too bad for Him.


----------



## Scott Good

Efraim said:


> I must correct myself. It was not entirely true that I don't understand why. I think I do. In my opinion just as we believers _*want*_ God to exist, by the same token atheists _*want*_ God not to exist (or rather want Ungod to exist). If He doesn't, too bad for us. If He does, too bad for Him.


I don't think this is true, at least not always. Belief for me has never been a question - I simply never have believed in a god - never. I realized I was an atheist as soon as understood what that meant. I don't think this is desire, but something to do with how my brain works.

I have witnessed some quite extraordinary religious evocations - speaking in tongues - fainting - streams of tears. I can see how a belief system, and what it implies (that a god is out there, and you are made in his image, that you can be taken in or thrown out of paradise etc etc) could have a profound effect on ones creativity. Good and bad.


----------



## Mirror Image

I don't subscribe to a religious affiliation by any means. I'm more of an Agnostic than anything. I believe there's a higer power out there, but I'm just not sure how this Earth got here. I don't go for the religious establishments at all. I also don't believe everything that's in The Bible, because The Bible was written by man and man has great tendency to exaggerate. I do feel there's something behind all of this, nobody knows what it is or what it isn't, but there's got to be reason why we're all here.

To Scott Good, how can you believe that something beyond yourself doesn't exist? How do you think the Earth and everything this world entails got here?


----------



## Guest

I was raised in a church going family I belonged to the choir not questioning, then in my 40-50s when I started to think it all seemed so far fetched and improbable so I called myself an Atheist, now I realise that even that is a cop out, so I seem to be agnostic, a belief in a close, personal God that is concerned with us mortals does not make sense to me, but a basic question that probably will never be answered is whether the UV or Uvs just happened or were created, now if you say they were created you just start the whole thing over again.


----------



## Scott Good

Mirror Image said:


> To Scott Good, how can you believe that something beyond yourself doesn't exist? How do you think the Earth and everything this world entails got here?


Beyond myself?

I don't believe in god(s) - entities - but, I believe in other things - energy and it's conservation for instance - and love - and evolution.

I also believe in non belief - nothingness. I think it an unanswerable question to ask where it all comes from. A human made paradox - an affliction of consciousness. Like Douglas Adams said, "maybe we aren't asking the right questions."

For instance, if there is a god, where did it/they/he/she come from? Never ending. So, I just follow what scientists are doing with great fascination and hope for more insight, and don't worry about the very beginning. It is not for me to know.

But, I'm not anti-theist. If it works for you, your system, agnostic and that, great.


----------



## Mirror Image

Andante said:


> I was raised in a church going family I belonged to the choir not questioning, then in my 40-50s when I started to think it all seemed so far fetched and improbable so I called myself an Atheist, now I realise that even that is a cop out, so I seem to be agnostic, a belief in a close, personal God that is concerned with us mortals does not make sense to me, but a basic question that probably will never be answered is whether the UV or Uvs just happened or were created, now if you say they were created you just start the whole thing over again.


We have a lot in common, Andante. I, too, was raised in a church going household. I stopped going when I was around 16, because I just didn't like the people that went there...still don't. Some of the most judgemental people you'll ever meet go to churches. Not too many years ago, I joined a "30s Something" group at a church just to meet some new people and maybe even make some new friends and not even one person spoke to me or even noticed I was there. Not even the group leader talked to me. Needless to say, I've had my fair share of the "plastic people." But a person never stops meeting plastic people. It's a vicious never-ending cycle.


----------



## Mirror Image

Scott Good said:


> Beyond myself?
> 
> I don't believe in god(s) - entities - but, I believe in other things - energy and it's conservation for instance - and love - and evolution.
> 
> I also believe in non belief - nothingness. I think it an unanswerable question to ask where it all comes from. A human made paradox - an affliction of consciousness. Like Douglas Adams said, "maybe we aren't asking the right questions."
> 
> For instance, if there is a god, where did it/they/he/she come from? Never ending. So, I just follow what scientists are doing with great fascination and hope for more insight, and don't worry about the very beginning. It is not for me to know.
> 
> But, I'm not anti-theist. If it works for you, your system, agnostic and that, great.


Then please explain why we feel different emotions. Why do we cry? Why do we laugh? I mean where does all of this tie into your theory of energy or science?

Beyond science, how do you explain all the feelings human beings experience?


----------



## Guest

Scott Good said:


> Like Douglas Adams said, "maybe we aren't asking the right questions."
> 
> So, I just follow what scientists are doing with great fascination and hope for more insight, and don't worry about the very beginning. It is not for me to know.
> 
> .


But the beginning, if there was one, is important eliminate a creator ie, it just happened 
You are then left with the vexing question where did the first particle come from!


----------



## Scott Good

Andante said:


> You are then left with the vexing question where did the first particle come from!


Or, you can ignore the subject and go on your merry way!

Most science has absolutely nothing to do with this question, but still provides many fascinating and useful insights into the nature of our environment, without concerning it'self about where it started.

I don't know. Maybe it will be known some day. But, for some reason, I kinda doubt it. Science has a strange tendency of getting smaller and smaller (quarks), and bigger and bigger (multiple universes), with no end in sight. But the ride is great, even if no conclusion.


----------



## Guest

That is the whole point of life, get to the end and say *wow what a ride*


----------



## danae

Efraim said:


> I don't understand why those who deny God's existence participate in this thread at all: for them the question whether "Great musicians are the voice of God" must be devoid of sense, just as would be a question like, say, "Why is the elephant the most beautiful bird?"


That was exactly my point from the beginning: the title of the thread immediately forces out of the discussion all those who don't believe in god. All non believers have to be excluded from this particular conversation. But isn't that a little discriminating?


----------



## Jaime77

This is about religious belief more than music. I believe that Music is God.


----------



## Efraim

danae said:


> That was exactly my point from the beginning: the title of the thread immediately forces out of the discussion all those who don't believe in god. All non believers have to be excluded from this particular conversation. But isn't that a little discriminating?


It is not. I am also excluded from most of the threads because I never heard the works, often even the name, of a lot of composers talked of there.

I invite you, indeed I ask you to kindly participate in the String Quartet Performances discussion which I recently started; it goes very badly. Nobody pulled in God through the faintest hint there: this is meant to be pure musical talk with no one possibly discriminated against!


----------



## Efraim

Scott Good said:


> I don't think this is true, at least not always.


In your case this is not true since you are not an atheist, or as you said, an anti-theist. I was speaking of believers and atheists.


----------



## Scott Good

Efraim said:


> In your case this is not true since you are not an atheist, or as you said, an anti-theist. I was speaking of believers and atheists.


please read my message again. this is a false interpretation. respond privately if you would like to continue, as a damning verdict has been decreed by the thread's creator.

danae, you are a trickster, aren't you?!


----------



## danae

Scott Good said:


> danae, you are a trickster, aren't you?!


Whatever do you mean?


----------



## danae

Artemis said:


> I agree that the the thread title is provocative. However, I assume that in cases like this, where the subject matter is potentially sensitive, people don't just read the thread title but will also read the opening post to find out exactly what information is being sought.
> 
> In this case there was no question asking what members' views are on religion. It is abundantly clear that that no belief in God is necessary to answer the only question posed which is this: _"I am pulling an article together on this subject and wonder if any posters have come across similar quotations? _[similar to the quotation relating to Gounod].
> 
> For this reason, all discussion relating to one's belief in God or otherwise is irrelevant. For example, I have answered the question in the manner requested (with my quotations relating to Schubert), and in doing so it has not been necessary for me to disclose what my religious beliefs are.
> 
> I conclude that in the context of religion some people are only too ready to read what's not there, either to rubbish it or to promote their view of it.


I agree that what the OP intended is exactly what you suggested, and it's fairly easy to answer, given the fact that, at least until the turn of the century (19th to 20th I mean), many composers and artists in general felt that way about inspiration (that it comes from god). So yes, one could simply make a reference to all known quotes regarding art and divine inspiration.

However -and I'm glad you agree on this one-, the title is, as you say, provocative. That's why I got stuck on the title rather than the intensions of the poster.

As for "reading what's not there", I can only say that one my faults is being a fan of precision in the use of language. I don't need to say more on that, I think.

As for the other thing you suggested: I don't think any of my posts "rubbished" the intentions of the OP, or the religious aspect of the thread.


----------



## Simen Kjaersdalen

*Inspired?*

What is that, to be inspired by God or the angels? Well, if the composers said that they were inspired, we can not deny that. Of course we can question that God exists, and then we can ask what this "divine inspiration" really is. A deep subconscious contact of some kind?

In the early days it was of course "comme il faut" to be inspired to God. Nobody questioned "his" existence. Today that would be much more controversial. I think composers today has much the same feeling when they are inspired, but they name the experience differently. The times has changed, and so has the names.

I am of course no Bach or Mozart, but still a composer. I would not dare to say that I've been inspired by God or his angels, and I don't feel too sure that such spirits exists. But I would still call my experiences with music "religious" of some kind.

The feeling is, that the best of my music is not "my own". When I play through it, I hear beautiful music, but don't think: "Wow, what fine music I've made. Oh boy, am I really gifted!" It's the same feeling that with children: We don't really make children, do we? Compose them? That is done for us. We just "plant" the seeds. I think that is the feeling with great composers as well. They feel that the music just grow within them, like the child grows within the mother. To say: "This is mine and only mine" would feel like blasphemy of some kind...

So - that is the view on the topic by one modern composer...

www.myspace.com/kjaersdalen


----------



## chillowack

Artemis said:


> I agree that the the thread title is provocative. However, I assume that in cases like this, where the subject matter is potentially sensitive, people don't just read the thread title but will also read the opening post to find out exactly what information is being sought.
> 
> In this case there was no question asking what members' views are on religion. It is abundantly clear that that no belief in God is necessary to answer the only question posed which is this: _"I am pulling an article together on this subject and wonder if any posters have come across similar quotations? _[similar to the quotation relating to Gounod].
> 
> For this reason, all discussion relating to one's belief in God or otherwise is irrelevant. For example, I have answered the question in the manner requested (with my quotations relating to Schubert), and in doing so it has not been necessary for me to disclose what my religious beliefs are.
> 
> I conclude that in the context of religion some people are only too ready to read what's not there, either to rubbish it or to promote their view of it.


Well spoken, sir!

And I don't want to name any names--*_cough_**DANAE!!!**_cough_*--but it's possible some in this thread have been doing this very thing. 

I think it would be interesting to compile a list of atheist composers. To try and discover, once and for all, whether or not the apparent correlation between spirituality and inspiration is in fact real.

Can atheists create inspiring art? Or do their contributions lie mainly in the scientific realm?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*Off-topic, but worth pointing out*



chillowack said:


> Well spoken, sir!


*Artemis* is the name of a Greek _goddess_(!)

AND (although one can't always draw gender-specific conclusions from a poster's screen-name)... 
in this case, it won't steer you wrong.

Rather than speculate about Ma'am or Miss, I sometimes just say "goddess."

O.K.: returning to the topic- quotation from *Haydn*: 
"It seems as though God gave me a cheerful heart, so I'm sure He'll forgive me if I serve Him cheerfully."


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

Interesting thread, sorry I joined late.

I don't see why music would divinely inspire while carpentry isn't. Or is it? If everything creative action is divinely inspired, that kind of removes the musical focus of this thread.


----------



## chillowack

Ignis Fatuus said:


> Interesting thread, sorry I joined late.
> 
> I don't see why music would divinely inspire while carpentry isn't. Or is it? If everything creative action is divinely inspired, that kind of removes the musical focus of this thread.


I think you make a good point; and if you were to launch a discussion of inspired carpentry on some carpentry forum somewhere, I'm sure the carpenters who take pride in their work might welcome it.

I do agree that the spirit of creativity can be invoked in many different kinds of creations: from art to architecture, inventions to the remodeling of a bathroom. Anything that is "made" can be imbued with creative energy or "flow."

There is something lofty about the fine arts though, because they ennoble the human spirit like nothing else; and perhaps for this reason, classical music (which one might say resides at or near the pinnacle of the fine arts) seems an ideal milieu to discuss this topic.


----------



## Polednice

First of all, I must say that, however much these individuals believe themselves to receive inspiration from God, it is a psychological delusion due to the fact that God (most likely) does not exist. It was an excusable thought in past ages, but I find it dreadfully annoying that so many artists espouse theism in the 21st century.

Secondly, I would very strongly refute the notion that atheism and artistic inspiration are at odds. People who believe this don't truly understand how atheism allows the human mind to open up and perceive the grandeur of the universe, and our blissful insignificance within it. Realising this is the key to the ultimate artistic temperament and, more than that, it's a hundred times more humble than a theist's stance! As Christopher Hitchens said of a certain born-again Christian: "I woke up one day and suddenly realised that the entire universe is all about me."


----------



## Elgarian

Polednice said:


> First of all, I must say that, however much these individuals believe themselves to receive inspiration from God, it is a psychological delusion due to the fact that God (most likely) does not exist.


The difficulty with such dogmatic statements is that they leave themselves open to exactly the same criticism as religious fundamentalism. Atheism simply becomes a new One True Way, and quite apart from the philosophical difficulties involved, merely in practical terms it leads to all the usual problems that arise from intolerance of other world views. (Indeed, I'd suggest that to believe one can possess such security of knowledge about _anything_ is a psychological delusion.)

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, it really doesn't matter what our personal beliefs are, here. Artists are inspired by a wide range of insights and beliefs, and theism has inspired some of the most breathtakingly fine art down through the ages. We interfere with the belief systems of others at our peril, I think - particularly when considering those who are responsible for enriching our lives so deeply.


----------



## chillowack

Polednice said:


> the fact that God (most likely) does not exist.


1. You can't say "fact" and then say "most likely." If it's a fact, it's 100%. If it's "most likely," then it's not yet a fact.

2. In order for something to be a fact, it must be provable. Can you prove the non-existence of God?

These are elementary errors of logic, yet I see atheists making them as often as theists. This is why I say atheists and theists are essentially the same: they're both making the same errors, just on different sides of the issue.

The truth always lies in the middle: we simply don't know whether there's a god or not. There are no "facts" on either side: only beliefs and opinions.

Humans are afraid to say "I don't know." We'd rather claim to be certain about something we aren't certain of, than do the honest thing and say "I don't know." We need to get over that.


----------



## Polednice

chillowack said:


> 1. You can't say "fact" and then say "most likely." If it's a fact, it's 100%. If it's "most likely," then it's not yet a fact.
> 
> 2. In order for something to be a fact, it must be provable. Can you prove the non-existence of God?
> 
> These are elementary errors of logic, yet I see atheists making them as often as theists. This is why I say atheists and theists are essentially the same: they're both making the same errors, just on different sides of the issue.
> 
> The truth always lies in the middle: we simply don't know whether there's a god or not. There are no "facts" on either side: only beliefs and opinions.
> 
> Humans are afraid to say "I don't know." We'd rather claim to be certain about something we aren't certain of, than do the honest thing and say "I don't know." We need to get over that.


In actual _fact_, what I said is not contradictory, for one may state that a certain probability is a fact.

For example: 'It is a fact that there is 70% chance of rain tomorrow'.

In the same manner, this is why I can state that the _very slim probability_ of God's existence is a fact. And this is why it is wrong to view atheists as illogical as theists; if you actually submerge yourself - intensively, as I have done - in _all_ logical arguments - philosophical and scientific - you will come to the conclusion that _while we do not and can never know, the likelihood of God's existence, which actually causes more problems than it solves, is smaller than the likelihood of his inexistence_.

However, I hereby withdraw from this discussion! While I find it immensely interesting and could debate with people about this until the end of time, I came to this forum for discussion on classical music. If you want my opinion on God, find me (same username) at richarddawkins.net/forum


----------



## chillowack

Polednice said:


> we do not and can never know, the likelihood of God's existence


My apologies: had I known you were an agnostic, I would not have accused you of being an atheist.

I, too, withdraw from this discussion: it started out a valid and interesting classical music topic, but it has deviated into more of an argument about god's existence--and I am beginning to contribute to the latter myself, which I didn't really want to do.

Thanks for the interesting discussion though!


----------



## danae

michael walsh said:


> How about ... another thread perhaps? Can anyone recall any great musician saying he or she owed ( some of ) his inspiration to the Almighty?


Well, if that were the initial title of your thread then 1) I would 've understood it much better, and 2) I would have realized that the only _on_ topic kind answer would to be to find and list quotes from great composers, rather than embark on a discussion of religious or spiritual beliefs.


----------



## Lukecash12

I think that just about sums it up. I'm not going to argue semantics, but I'd like to point that a different kind of logic needs to be used in reference to religion. What we call "science" is simply a method of logic. And also, if you were to use even the Scientific Method, you could legitimately (and justifiably on a logical standpoint) come to a conclusion that people are, in fact, a sentimental design. Take careful heed of the fact that consciousness seems almost as if it inhabits a different realm than we can physically predict. It feels as if it is a central awareness, but apparently activity is going on throughout our brains to interpret what we are consciously musing upon. Furthermore, there is no definite measurement of emotion, and we can only observe the trail it leaves behind. It has literally no physical manifestation, yet it is very much our keenest human perception, and magnified in us to an extent that is unique in the animal kingdom.

Now if that is just natural evolutionary progress (cognitive perception), than how is it that in the 20k-30k years we've been around (mind you I don't believe there is any precise time line in the bible. They say it took seven days, and then in another passage they state that to God a day is as to one thousand of ours, which is obviously a symbolic reference to the fact that they had no idea due to a lack of scientific achievements yet had), that no other animal hasn't developed similar attributes of cognition (not a single one on even a remotely close magnitude)? One might argue that that is because the hominids died out, and other species were left in the gap so far behind, but also it is theorized from the large variety of different peoples that is so well built in that it obviously would have taken a rather long evolutionary chain to develop such distinct differences, and that our current Homosapien species probably has to be a crossbreed of several different strains of our predecessors: the hominids. Which means that we are a unique strain that has developed capabilities that the other species simply can't replicate (honestly, from an atheist's standpoint, they probably should have by now). There has been ample time: somewhere in the neighborhood of 50k years, which is more time than it took for the ecosystem to entirely change each other time an useful ability presented itself. For proof of such a statement, I would like to relate to you that the eyesight of most species on the planet developed at mostly the same rate (due to competition). Why isn't it that another species didn't rise to the occasion at the same time as us and develop cognitive abilities comparable to ours, so that they fit into a new niche in the food chain?

Now tell me, if things were perfectly definable from a scientific, mainly evolutionary standpoint, than why is it that we trivialize our thoughts with things that are often detrimental to our survival? Why was this very site made if we were designed to be efficient only at living, and reproducing to pass on our genes?

And most importantly, why is that the Bible conveniently seems to solve all of our problems if we listen to it? Just by reading one scripture, I am forever invulnerable. Any guesses as to which passage? I'll oblige you: "As long as I keep my eyes fixed upon the glory of the heavens, all of the treasures of this world seem as rubbish." Bulletproof armor that saves me from shame, contempt, grief of any kind. 

Now enough digressing into our own logical shortcomings as humans.


----------



## Polednice

I'm sorry if you feel that most of us have digressed, but if you _had_ reworded your question to your recently stated alternative, then I believe the response wouldn't have been as it has been.

However, you must admit that your thread title is: _Are great musicians God's voice?_, and such a question is going to attract great controversy in the 21st century.

As for some of the responses on here, I won't deride my adversaries by saying that I have found them 'amusing'. However, I would draw attention to the comments of Lukecash12 on the previous page and say that, while your rationale is _understandable_ and I credit you with a good 'attempt', I'm afraid your conclusions are drawn from a woeful misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. Too many people feel as though they can argue about the theory without actually knowing it properly. I am not here to teach such matters, but I suggest that, if people want to think on their own two feet with _actual_ logic, then you take as a starting point some of Steven Pinker's work on evolutionary psychology, Dawkins' recent book _The Greatest Show on Earth_ and, you never know, even Darwin might help you out.

If that's too much, then I'd highly recommend Dawkins' internet forum, as I have been there often myself, with my _own_ questions, and the community is largely made of up intelligent individuals with insightful knowledge about these issues, who are very much open to strong debate on these matters with rigid logic (hence my forceful tone on this subject; it's a matter of habit).

This time I'm really not going to look at this thread again or my blood will boil!


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

Sorry for my part in pushing your thread the wrong way, but they are interesting tangents.

I'm afraid I don't know enough biographical details to really help you but I find belief in God and more importantly, belief in "music as a God-given gift" most evident in the music rather than quotes. Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms is dedicated to 1) The Boston Philharmonic, and 2) The Glory of God, and many find the latter's influence evident in the work.

Religion aside, I keepo hearing musicians refering to themselves as conduits for music to flow through. It's interesting they don't seem to claim the credit for their work. I'm trying to remember specific examples ... Thom York (singer of Radiohead) is one, in reference to Street Spirit (Fade Out):
"I wish that song hadn't picked us as its catalysts, and so I don't claim it. It asks too much. I didn't write that song."

Also, polednice, your logic is consistantly awful. Sorry.


----------



## Polednice

Well that's interesting considering the fact that I didn't demonstrate any use (good or bad) of logic in my most recent post. Evidently, when I leave the realms of a serious debating forum like that of Richard Dawkins, and enter the world of art - particularly classical music, where atheists are lamentably under-represented - I must not expect anywhere near the same level of intellectual rigour. Hopefully time and education will change this sad fact.


----------



## dmg

I do think that great musicians have a deep emotional connection to their music, and it's an emotion that's on the same level and very similar to that of a deeply spiritual or religiously devout person; I can see how one can make the connection between the two, particularly if one experiences both. However, I do not think that one has to believe in any particular divinity, or divinity in general, to experience such emotion.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

Please do not mention intellectual rigour.



Polednice said:


> First of all, I must say that, however much these individuals believe themselves to receive inspiration from God, it is a psychological delusion due to the fact that God (most likely) does not exist.


Infact, I am an atheist and a dyed-in-the-wool materialist, passionate about neurosciences and annoyed at the lack of public recognition of recent discoveries in this area.

HOWEVER.

I have yet to discover the study that proves the divine inspiration is a "psychological delusion". Indeed, what is such a thing - and what is a non-psychology delusion? Smells a little of unthinking recycling of a certain Dawkins title...?

Also, I have never found proof that "God (most likely) does not exist". As a holder of a degree in Mathematics and Statistics I'm led to wonder how probability works in relation to a deity.

It is troubling to see you take on ideas (albeit very intersting ones) as though they were proven facts - an act of faith, you might say - and then acuse others of a lack of intellectual rigour.

EDIT: it's an interesting topic, I'd be happy to continue in private messages, or I think there is a facebook-style wall, on this forum.

FURTHER EDIT: Perhaps this will cool things:


----------



## Polednice

Indeed, there is no discovery that proves divine inspiration is a psychological delusion, nor is there a study that proves the existence of God is a psychological delusion. However, my statements are not regurgitations of ideas I take on as though they were facts. It is demonstrable that God 'most likely' does not exist due to the impossibility of proving negatives. I.e., take Russell's teapot; we cannot prove that there is not a flying teapot orbiting Mars. Nor can we disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor unicorns, nor fairies, nor leprechauns etc. etc. There are an _infinite_ number of speculative entities that we _cannot_ prove for certain do not exist. God is one of these. The evidence for the existence of God is comparable to the evidence in favour of the teapot and the FSM etc. We are, however, largely unaware of this fact because the notion of God - unlike all the others - bears _immense_ personal attachment and comfort, as well as overwhelming (but nonetheless _useless_) anecdotal evidence. But, if we ignore the baggage that the notion of God has attached to it, then we can say that the existence of such a being is as likely as the other infinite number of objects we cannot disprove: that is, a negligible chance.

Of course, this only holds up for the idea of a _personal_ God (the God espoused by almost all of the major religions). One could have a more interesting argument from the viewpoint of theoretical physics on the idea of a Deistic God (one who starts the Universe going and has no interference from there) based on whether or not our universe has certain 'settings' that _have_ to be such as they are in order for life to form, which may suggest that they are 'designed'. However, an alternative suggestion is one based on the multi-verse theory, which would mean that there are a sufficiently numerous amount of _failed_ universes (if success is achieving life-forms) in order to make it a matter of course - not design - that _some_ universes will form life.

Those are more complex discussions on which I certainly do not feel qualified but which nonetheless intrigue me. Importantly, regardless of the outcome of such a debate, the answer is really of no great concern as a Deistic God does not interact with us (unless people would go so far as to suggest that a Deistic God would still 'build a heaven for us', which I think is too far). Thus, I become frustrated when I see that people subscribe to the notion of a personal God, as it is irrational, unnecessary, damaging to society and, frankly, a much less beautiful idea than the one that suggests we are entirely insignificant.

My comments on this thread no doubt suggest that I am recycling misunderstood quotations, as I never intended to engage in a discussion of any depth, but I do try to make myself well-informed on such matters from the basis of first principles, as it is such an important issue.

And with that, I think I have calmed down


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

If anyone is wierd enough to be following this tangent, I've moved it to the 'profile wall things'.


----------



## Elgarian

I'm not sure I know what the 'profile wall things are', but certainly I do feel that what should have been a very interesting thread has been ruined by too many 'theism v atheism' interventions, which simply don't belong here. If some passing moderator were kind enough to separate out those posts and put them in a thread of their own somewhere, it would be very helpful. I am, for example, tempted to offer counterarguments to Polednice's statements, but won't do so here because I'd merely mess up the thread further.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Elgarian said:


> I'm not sure I know what the 'profile wall things are',


I believe this poster is referring to a dialog of Visitor Messages in their respective User-Profiles.


Elgarian said:


> I am, for example, tempted to offer counterarguments to Polednice's statements, but won't do so here because I'd merely mess up the thread further.


we have "morphed" this portion of the topic, so that it may have a life of its own.

You now have the option of addressing temptation in the Oscar Wilde manner.


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> Well that's interesting considering the fact that I didn't demonstrate any use (good or bad) of logic in my most recent post. Evidently, when I leave the realms of a serious debating forum like that of Richard Dawkins, and enter the world of art - particularly classical music, where atheists are lamentably under-represented - I must not expect anywhere near the same level of intellectual rigour. Hopefully time and education will change this sad fact.


That's quite possibly the most insulting thing I think I may have ever seen you say.

Forgive me if I misquote it, but here's a little bit of old wisdom for you (interesting enough, it was an Amish proverb): "The one who expresses him/her self most vehemently is normally in the wrong."

Emotions cloud opinions, and yours have obviously gotten the best of you. However much you want to insult my 'intellectual rigour' or somesuch (which I can tolerate unto the end of time), why don't we have a civilized discourse?

If you honestly think you have so much of a better understanding of evolution (heavily subject to assumption; as is the rest of theoretical science), than try to educate me. However much such and such has an ego that gets in the way, however much it should hurt some sort of silly thing folks think I have to have (let's call it the sin of pride), I'm doing this for your own benefit.


----------



## Elgarian

Chi_town/Philly said:


> You now have the option of addressing temptation in the Oscar Wilde manner.


CTP, you're a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you.


----------



## Polednice

I'm sorry if you think that my message was offensive, but it wasn't intended in that manner. I indeed intended at the time to use harsh words because my emotions were racing, as you noted, but if I had intended to offend anybody I would have stooped lower than that, which I very rarely do - and which I _never_ do on the internet with people I don't know. Still, I do regret what I said.

I was frustrated because, in my experience on other internet fora discussing issues of religion (which is something I never intended to do here of all places!), the same tired, worn out arguments constantly reappear, always with the same flaws. It gets to a point where you lack the patience to respond calmly. Really, I should not have responded at all, for it is not your fault - nor anybody else's - that you happen to not be the _first_ person I've seen make the same understandable mistakes. The thing that frustrates me most is that I am accused of making regurgitated statements without backing, and then I am refuted by people using half-baked notions of evolution.

No doubt, it's not anybody's fault that their ideas are not fully formed; the things they say are advertised and explained in such a way because only when constructed incompletely can they support religious motives. If people were to raise such issues as questions - 'is it not the case that evolution means this, or am I wrong?' - then, indeed, I would _teach_. There are few things I like to do more than teach on matters such as these, if I am aware that I have a fuller knowledge (for I am well aware that there are many people who could teach me). But, instead, people who do need their knowledge to be filled just present their gap-ridden logic and expect to show that I am utterly wrong. And I am well aware that this is because such deep emotion is attached to religious ideals.

However, I make a point of thoroughly researching the consequences of things such as the theory of evolution, and, if you immerse yourself in its logic enough, you come to the insight that the _only_ rational conclusion for mankind to take at this point in his existence is one of agnostic atheism.

Still, all that being said, I didn't come to this forum to continue a debate on the irrationality of religious belief. I do that often enough over on RD.net, and, if people would like a proper discourse and learn certain things, then you're more than welcome to join - I have the same username on those boards! Here, I will withdraw from the discussion, and I apologise for my outburst because I know that I went a little too far.


----------



## Elgarian

Lukecash12 said:


> Emotions cloud opinions, and yours have obviously gotten the best of you. However much you want to insult my 'intellectual rigour' or somesuch (which I can tolerate unto the end of time), why don't we have a civilized discourse?


I'm afraid self-awareness often isn't greatly in evidence in exchanges like these; those who claim most fiercely to be guided by reason are often completely unaware of how the 'reasoning' has been manipulated to confirm what they have already decided to believe. I agree completely, however, that a civilised discourse is the only one worth having; and that means understanding that if someone else reaches, after serious inquiry, a different conclusion to me, that doesn't imply that they're somehow less intelligent, or less well-educated than I am.

There are two kinds of fundamentalist in debates of this sort, one at each end of the human spectrum: 
(1) Those who construct a world view which is designed to exclude any possibility that their belief in God can be effectively challenged.
(2) Those who construct a world view which is designed to exclude any possibility that their *dis*belief in God can be effectively challenged.

To both parties, I would recommend the words of Karl Popper: "Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was designed to solve." The statement is equally true when applied to philosophical, atheistic, or religious systems. And again, continuing to quote Popper: "If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories." Again, we can extend this to include systems other than the merely scientific.

The attempts to prove the non-existence of God by the modern evangelical atheists such as Polednice (or Dawkins) are as philosophically flawed as the attempts to prove his existence (eg by St Thomas Aquinas). What is basically put forward is something not far removed from the Logical Positivism of the first half of the 20th century, which declared that since science was being extremely successful at answering certain kinds of questions, wouldn't it be a good idea to declare that these kinds of questions were the only ones that have meaning. The only questions that can then be acknowledged are the ones to which science can (potentially) provide answers. But this kind of thinking was dismissed long ago by Alfred North Whitehead, who observed, with penetrating clarity:

"Much philosophic thought is based upon the faked adequacy of some account of various modes of human experience. ... The final outcome of philosophic thought cannot be based upon the exact statements which form the basis of special sciences. The exactness is a fake."

I have yet to encounter a single evangelical atheist of the Dawkins school of thinking who has understood this statement, and its implications. Neither do they appear to understand the implications of Wittgenstein's distinction between the things that can only be _said_, and the things that can only be _shown_.

All these systems - science, logic, philosophy, religion, the arts, and so on - these have been, and are, invaluable to us in our attempts to make sense of the world. They're like committees. When we need to make an important decision, we can ask these committees to report, and very helpful they are too (though not all equally helpful for all issues, of course). The problems arise when we start to insist that only the findings of one particular committee are valid. That's fundamentalism, and that's where tolerance (and any hope of real understanding) ends. I find it just as impossible to have any real discussion with a fundamentalist evangelical atheist as I do with a fundamentalist evangelical Christian.

There are no certainties in any of this. How can there be? And those uncertainties can make us uncomfortable. Extremism is one way of coping with the discomfort, but it does lead to terrible discord. The expression of the kind of certainties that we see coming from both camps - extremist believers and extremist non-believers - invariably seem to me to be be driven by neurotic obsession, rather than by the rigid belief system claimed on the one hand, or by the so-called reasoning claimed on the other.

For the record, I'm not advocating any particular belief (or disbelief) system. But I am against the Thought Police, be they atheistic, or religious.


----------



## Polednice

It's quite evident that I am going to continue to be misrepresented in these matters (as is Richard Dawkins!). The problem is that you completely misunderstand the atheism espoused by Dawkins, me and others who use _reason_. We do _not_ attempt to prove the non-existence of God - _we are fully aware that proving negatives is an impossibility and we would equally deride atheists who attempt to do so as much as we chastise religious belief_.

Of course there are no certainties in any of this, and that is exactly what Dawkins and people who understand him try to put forth. We are trying to suggest that one of the most glorious things about the universe is our uncertainty - our _lack of any knowledge_ - about where it came from. Atheism is not mutually exclusive from this idea. Rational atheism - agnostic atheism - is the lack of a belief in a Deity because there is as much evidence for its existence as there is for Russell's teapot. We do not utterly deny the possibility, however we recognise that the probability of a personal God is so small as to be negligible. What we _can_ say for certainty is that, if there is a God, it is not one that interferes with human affairs, so its existence is of no true concern to us - certainly not in our day to day lives.

Followers of Dawkins and other _rational_ atheists put forth their agnostic atheism because it is based on a system of logic that _works_. Only the empiricism of the scientific method has provided progress for mankind, and it is only the scientific method that allows me to sit at a computer screen desperately trying to explain myself; it is the only thing that allows people to drive cars _etc_. _etc_. And yet, when it comes to matters of _personal comfort_, people will all-too-easily dismiss the scientific method because reason demonstrates that we are alone as far as a supernatural entity is concerned. To say that there are 'other kinds of knowledge', to suggest that science can only answer certain questions, is nothing more than a cloudy use of words that demeans the issue by hiding behind a veil of pseudo-philosophy, which makes people shut up in case they don't understand. It doesn't help. It doesn't further our understanding of the world. It doesn't further our understanding of ourselves.

Religion has _no_ place in helping mankind understand the world. Agnostic atheists - exactly like Dawkins, who is in no way strident, and who does not believe that God certainly does not exist - attempt to demonstrate that there _is_ comfort to be found in empiricism, science and scepticism; there _is_ purpose to be found in our lives without a God or an afterlife. Theists are the closest thing you can find to the Thought Police because they censor opposing viewpoints, they hinder social progress, _and they espouse ideas for which there is no evidence. Revealed truth is no truth at all_. Science has the humility to say _we just don't know_ when that is the case and, by its very nature, _it never lies because it cannot lie_. Science is our best and only tool to advance our knowledge of the universe, because it is the only thing that works. Humans unfortunately don't like to not have answers to certain questions, and so our evolutionary history has given us a predisposition to constructing supernatural Deities in order to fill this gap. _That doesn't make it any more valid_.


----------



## Lukecash12

Let's make this short and simple (I hope you could stomach that sarcasm right there). I don't hardly have the notion of believing in some sort of deity. More realistically, I believe that the design itself has a design for us. A very interesting notion really.

You might call it more of a transcendent interpretation. The lord isn't some figure from a different dimension that manipulates everything according to his own musings. The universe seems to be as it is regardless of what our ideas of it may be. It does what it does, and changes what it does according to it's own patterns. You can even change the physics of the universe with such and such of an amazing procedure, and the rate, conditions, and effects of the changes will still be under the jurisdiction of what just naturally "is" (tell me if I'm not making any sense).

I'd like to relate the previous comment on the fact that emotions have no actual presence, just a trace of it's effects, and the peculiar (and rather obvious) fact that each consciousness is very much a central entity, yet our minds are governed by several different simultaneous chemical reactions.

This leads me to the belief that the human consciousness simply isn't physical. It's as if we were observing something we were never completely a part of.

Now as for my ideals (albeit probably not as elegant as 'I Am' would explain it. Sadly I am more of a humble conduit than a precise translator) of the identity of the lord: Energy is a scientific phenom that has several different categories, effects, traits, and manifestations. Yet it has no elegantly complex central definition, you can only trace it by it's effects (just like the consciousness). The only definition we can come up with is that things just seem to "happen", and where things happen we just dub it the effect of "energy".

Are not energy and "I Am" the same difference. He tells us time and again that to us the true nature of things would be incomprehensible in our current state, and reassures us by telling to lean not unto our own understanding. And as I lean unto his/her/whatever's understanding I realize more and more throughout my life that I can paraphrase the bible into an explanation of everything I must do.

After thinking upon this so much I feel removed, as if all of this time the things I saw and the physical notions and entities I "interacted" with are little more than a delusion. Social interactions based upon cold physical interactions that have no more purpose than symbolism. What is a conflict? Nothing more than an expression of anger, frustration, and pride that aren't directed at anything but how futile life can seem. What is sex? A silly interaction in which two individuals often pick each other as preferable and than cleave themselves into one flesh. There is no life changing relief at the end of it (although in the state of mind during intercourse you very much invest your faith in the idea), you simply exchange fluids and then look at the person in an empty sort of way, only going through the motions and wondering what exactly it is that is so great for a few moments after the intercourse. And then you think of something else, for it is too incomprehensible for you to really want to read into it at all.

And after all of this careful thought, everything starts to feel like just a ritual with symbolism attached to it. Isn't that the very proof itself that we aren't anything in this realm but observers, watching and feeling what plays itself out? Trying to manipulate it, get something different out of it, and still feeling empty after everything is said and done?

What do you feel when you see a corpse? Nothing. It's just there. You only receive an emotional response once you read into it, and discern from instinct and culture that death is a bad thing.

And why would the Lord set in place such a delusion to get past? For us to overcome ourselves. We are neither part of something or alone. We just need to experience it all. Do physical things for nothing more than just to please people. To understand that marriage was only set in place as an example of how faithfully we all should love each other. To comprehend that everything was set in place so that we can learn exactly how to treat our relationships with one another (tell me if you want me to be more specific and paraphrase the bible more on the idea of relationships).

The fact that people naturally gravitate towards religion is a testament that they feel just and coldly removed from this physicality as I do, they just don't really read into it at all. They instinctively know that they are a part of something, that there is indeed a universal relationship, and conscious stream if you will.

What makes them so wrong is the fact that they rely almost entirely on assumption for everything they think (the one thing that every good doctor of psychiatric analysis can agree upon). So, the most fundamental basis of sin is assumption. It accounts for: hate, religiosity (a good term for the use of tradition to replace faith), frustration, and every way in which we "miss the mark", ignore the reason for everything (the term sin was actually originally used to express an archer missing the mark in a competition).

You wanted a more elegant way to put it all together in your head, and god told me to oblige you. Hopefully, it does a thing or two to point out how futile and sinful the "ego" (a controversial term with several different interpretations) is. Are you satisfied, or has your ego prevailed over your natural human urge for the security of faith yet again?

We were built to be with god, and appreciate him and one another. And that is precisely what scares so many people away from him. They don't understand just how elegant and simple it is that he tells us only to make a blind leap because all of the understanding isn't under our jurisdiction. And we like to over-complicate things and procrastinate rather than just leap.

And why, might you ask, is the point in anything than? It must seem like everything just "is" and we have to just go along with it, which scares us the most. But what are the two most wonderful things one could imagine? The One who was righteous from the start, and _those_ who are made righteous *in* spite of it all.

I don't want to damage some sort of pride you folks hold on to, but as a shameless believer I naturally just can't get you out of my mind. Now have a good one, and god bless.

Edit: Forgive me if I don't have the best control of the English language. As a result of my physical detachment, the communication system I _really_ mastered was that of understanding people by what they don't say, and what they instinctively hide.


----------



## Polednice

Your perspective is interesting, but nevertheless unnecessary 



> And after all of this careful thought, everything starts to feel like just a ritual with symbolism attached to it. Isn't that the very proof itself that we aren't anything in this realm but observers, watching and feeling what plays itself out? Trying to manipulate it, get something different out of it, and still feeling empty after everything is said and done?


I know _exactly_ what you mean. I'm sure a lot of people do. I know that I, more than most people around me, can (and sometimes involuntarily do) detach myself from 'reality'. You can look upon the world as nothing more than description. Its actions and inactions meaning nothing.

However, this is proof of nothing. At least, nothing other than the fact that we _don't understand consciousness_. Our ability to detach ourselves from daily 'rituals' and just observe life is a curious by-product (or exaptation) of how our brains evolved, along with our capacity for language. This doesn't mean anything other than we just don't understand what consciousness is - yet. And that's what science is for. It has the humility to say _we don't know and we won't make any assumptions_. Thus, we have to go about life with this curious 'consciousness thing', but we are in no position to draw supernatural conclusions from it.

Just as religion can be shown to be an evolutionary predisposition, you are just finding _another_ way to find ultimate purpose, because this 'consciousness thing' feels unsatisfying. Well, I'm afraid, what if this really is just all there is? You're destined to be tormented by your consciousness because we are the unfortunate products of our own evolutionary history. This doesn't point to anything. We should accept that we just don't get it. Don't invest your time in beliefs that are essentially _useless_, albeit comforting.

I would suggest you read the works of Daniel Dennett on consciousness.


----------



## Elgarian

Polednice said:


> IWe are trying to suggest that one of the most glorious things about the universe is our uncertainty - our _lack of any knowledge_ - about where it came from.


Well, that's something we can agree on.



> We do not utterly deny the possibility, however we recognise that the probability of a personal God is so small as to be negligible. What we _can_ say for certainty is that, if there is a God, it is not one that interferes with human affairs, so its existence is of no true concern to us - certainly not in our day to day lives.


The reason you can say this with certainty is because your system excludes any possibility of detecting any such 'interventions'. And the notion that somehow the probability of the existence of God can be estimated is as misguided as Aquinas's attempts to prove that God exists. The introduction of the word 'probability' doesn't change that.



> Only the empiricism of the scientific method has provided progress for mankind


This is the kind of absurd, ahistorical statement that devalues the system you advocate. At the risk of being tedious, again I recommend a study of the philosophy of Whitehead (as suggested in my earlier post).



> And yet, when it comes to matters of _personal comfort_, people will all-too-easily dismiss the scientific method


Well, no. I'm a scientist. I think the scientific method is one of the great achievements of mankind. Personal comfort isn't the issue.



> To say that there are 'other kinds of knowledge', to suggest that science can only answer certain questions, is nothing more than a cloudy use of words that demeans the issue by hiding behind a veil of pseudo-philosophy, which makes people shut up in case they don't understand. It doesn't help. It doesn't further our understanding of the world. It doesn't further our understanding of ourselves.


To misrepresent the work of Popper, Whitehead, and Wittgenstein (to name only the three philosophers whose words I quoted) as 'pseudo-philosophy' is a brave, if ill-advised, assertion. You state earlier on that I misrepresent and misunderstand the Dawkins approach to these things. That would be regrettable, but is certainly possible. May I in turn suggest that there are aspects of the philosophical objections to your proposed system that _you_ have not properly understood? And that what you describe as a 'cloudy use of words' only appears so because you're not familiar enough with the work of those philosophers?



> Agnostic atheists - exactly like Dawkins, who is in no way strident, and who does not believe that God certainly does not exist - attempt to demonstrate that there _is_ comfort to be found in empiricism, science and scepticism


There is indeed comfort to be found in atheism, as there is (of a different kind perhaps) in theism. But I say again: I'm not concerned with what might or might not be _comfortable_, but about what we might be able to accept as in some way _true_.



> Theists are the closest thing you can find to the Thought Police ...


I encounter both theistic and atheistic Thought Police. And your demonising of all theists is seriously regrettable - it sounds like a witch hunt. Some of the finest, most sensitive, most understanding people I know believe in a God of some kind. (I know some really nice atheists, too).



> ... because they censor opposing viewpoints, they hinder social progress, _and they espouse ideas for which there is no evidence._


You're speaking here merely of certain kinds of human beings. Theists don't have a monopoly of such behaviour. Doesn't Dawkins himself suggest that opposing viewpoints to his own should be ridiculed? And these 'ideas for which there is no evidence' are only without evidence in your eyes because your system excludes the possibility of detecting any. (Again, this is an area where an understanding of Whitehead's philosophy is helpful.)



> Science has the humility to say _we just don't know_ when that is the case and, by its very nature, _it never lies because it cannot lie_.


Science is a system for acquiring knowledge of a certain kind, following a strict procedure of experimentation, and hypothesis testing. These qualities you attribute to it, such as humility, or 'not lying', suggest to me an emotional dependence on it as if it were a belief system. The scientific method has nothing to do with humility or 'not lying', or indeed of 'belief'. It's a strictly defined process for answering certain types of question through model-building and testing. Therein lies its strength, and, indeed, its limitation.



> Science is our best and only tool to advance our knowledge of the universe, because it is the only thing that works.


This is the kind of fundamentalism that I objected to in my first post, and again, I draw your attention to the quotations by Popper, Whitehead, and Wittegenstein that I gave there. But one really can't get to the bottom of all this through soundbites. The concepts involved need to be addressed seriously and in depth, not merely through the exchange of a few words in an internet forum.

I don't propose to continue this discussion any further, but I should make clear that it doesn't trouble me that you, for a variety of reasons, choose to pursue this particular Dawkinsian road to truth. I'd find it inadequate myself, but I wish you luck with it. What I object to is the derision and contempt that you (and Dawkins) tend to display for the opinions of those who disagree with you. I'm thinking, for example, of Dawkins's need to _ridicule_ those who sincerely hold religious belief, which smacks to me of neurosis, not reason. Or of your accusation in an earlier post that we here at Talk Classical must be ignorant and ill-educated if we disagree with you. Consider, please, that your own education may still have some way to go. Mine does.


----------



## Polednice

Indeed, I will actually end my part in this discussion now, even though I have said such a thing multiple times! You have every right to object to the derision and contempt that Dawkins and similarly rational people display for people who demean the power of logic available to the human mind, and who bring inequality to society owing to their complete inability to think rationally, sceptically, and fairly.

I am fully aware that my education has a long way to go; no one's education is ever truly complete. I would never suggest that a person's lack of knowledge displays their ignorance and ill-education, however I am well aware of what _kinds_ of knowledge are appropriate and I will continue to deride people who espouse damaging modes of thought. I will also not delude myself with what is, frankly, a smoke-and-mirrors use of words to falsely suggest that there are multiple kinds of truths in this world, and that some are beyond reason. A good hour or so seriously considering what that means - and how it utterly collapses in on itself - will show how ridiculous it is, but also how it is futile for me to try to convince someone who believes this otherwise. It is circular reasoning, and I can't stop you from being satisfied with it if it makes you feel better.

As for my description of science apparently showing my use of it as a belief system, all I can do is point you in the direction of 'metaphor'. The description of science that _you_ then continued to demonstrate is _exactly_ what I was saying, though by 'literary' means. This is like completely misunderstanding what 'The Selfish Gene' was supposed to mean 

I am tired of atheists being tarred with the same brush as though we just stand in awe at Dawkins and regurgitate what he says. What few people seem to realise is that most atheists are intelligent individuals who have the capacity to come to their conclusions _against_ the odds; we don't just listen without understanding - that is exactly what theism is! Daily, we exercise our ability to rationalise. Our lives are centred around the notion that we must examine evidence _for ourselves_. It just so happens that not all of us are in the same position as Dawkins to be able to publicise this way of critical thinking.

This conversation is truly pointless.


----------



## Lukecash12

I find it ironic that you call other's descriptions of their own opinion "cloudy". You don't seem to have offered in any way this seemingly secret knowledge of Dawkin's and the scientists thereafter. You tell us there is something we aren't aware of and in no way attempt to detail it.

Talk about some of the most condescending behavior a person can possibly observe. But thank you for doing nothing but saying I'm wrong because I have formulated a different opinion from you. Apparently, even though there can be just as must justification and peculiarly convenient circumstances to lead us to believe in God, it must be assumed prematurely that a God can not exist simply because the knowledge that would make us faithful without a doubt is not under our jurisdiction. Both our lives and our history can scream implications at us, but we are too pigheaded to be faithful until we get every bit of information that God has.

But I digress. My real question for you is: I'm curious as to whether or not you understand what the Bible is actually saying to you. If it isn't too much of a trouble (please don't infer from our previous discourses that I dislike you), can you at least give me a play by play summary of the book of Malachi (under the table of contents you will see that it is the last book of the Old Testament, and only a few pages)? It seems as if you haven't studied enough about the Hebrews to take historical context and discern the symbolism apparent in the scriptures (Also, please don't take this as if I have been condescending at any point to you; I have already detailed to you that this kind of verbal communication is very much inaccurate for me).


----------



## Cortision

Lukecash12 said:


> My real question for you is: I'm curious as to whether or not you understand what the Bible is actually saying to you. If it isn't too much of a trouble (please don't infer from our previous discourses that I dislike you), can you at least give me a play by play summary of the book of Malachi (under the table of contents you will see that it is the last book of the Old Testament, and only a few pages)? It seems as if you haven't studied enough about the Hebrews to take historical context and discern the symbolism apparent in the scriptures (Also, please don't take this as if I have been condescending at any point to you; I have already detailed to you that this kind of verbal communication is very much inaccurate for me).


Sadly, atheists of Polednice's ilk (shall I call him a Dawkinsian?) seem to consider it beneath them to give the Bible a fair appraisal. This is made clear by Dawkin's book "The God Delusion", which dismisses the historical case for the Old and New Testaments in just a page or two, using questionable and hackneyed arguments - he (Dawkins) clearly has other things that are more worthy to take up his time.

I respect Polednice when it comes to his opinions about music, but it seems the theism/atheism debate is one where his his opinions are so strong that he cannot hold back. Maybe the conversation on this forum should stick to music.


----------



## Lukecash12

It's sad, really, that folks get their egos inflated in front of the most important topic in existence. I guess we can only wish him well. Fantastic person, really...


----------



## michael walsh

I wish some of you would just answer the original b***** question. Hijacking a thread is hardly high minded but that irony seems to have past our great thinkers by.


----------



## bdelykleon

Well, I'm a churchgoing Catholic, but my answer to the question is no. I think, indeed, that there is a divine component in everything beautiful, and that music talent is something given by God, but I don't consider composers any sacred or more connected to God than anyone. This is a very Romantic assertion and utterly unreligious in the traditional sense, it has more to do with 19th century deism than with any form of serious religion.


----------



## The Cosmos

I like to keep it simple and say that it's the BELIEFS that made all these things possible. To me, believing is seeing, and not the other way around. When these guys started to believe so damn strongly that there's some sort of voice coming from top (apparently god's) giving them a helping hand, they actually felt the urge to take action! And of course, if no action was taken, a lot of the music wouldn't have been written in the first place. Inspired action is what I'd call it. Beliefs can be connected to some god, or it doesn't need to be. Making the experience inside of you so real, that you actually start to take action is the key. And to me, this concept of beliefs extends to just about every other area. 

Einstein IMAGINED himself riding on a photon, and seeing all kinds of particles moving around him and he made the experience so vividly real, that he manufactured all kinds of equations from it. I know that many great mathematicians of the past hardly even tried to 'prove' their work and just made claims. And yet they turned out to be right. So, to me, it's the beliefs and inside experiences that matter the most. Doesn't matter whether it's by god or not, as long as it felt real.


----------



## Very Senior Member

michael walsh said:


> I wish some of you would just answer the original b***** question. Hijacking a thread is hardly high minded but that irony seems to have past our great thinkers by.


You overlook that the original thread was split. This is the thread where people can write about their religious beliefs, or lack of them, whilst using their best English and correct spelling in the belief that other people may be interested in their views, which most certainly doesn't apply to me.


----------



## crazzycat

I think there is some kind of truth in that meaning, but it's very important what for they are going to use it


----------



## MusicAdvocate

I must say that most of these wonderful musicians believed that _God is the Creator of the Universe_, man and all things. The so called science of evolution to this day cannot prove (with absolute certainty) anything about the origin of life. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than the Bible, that is why I believe that Atheism is a religion (it needs LOTS AND LOTS of faith apart from GOD). Several top education officials as well scientists have come the conclusion that evolution is completely illogical and imposible at its core belief (that all things evolved from a blob) Shortly after they were fired from their jobs for not agreeing with evolution (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - 



 ). Evolution is part of a philosophical belief that you are god and nobody or no one should design or tell you how to live your own life. It changes absolute moral truth for relativity and its the way most of our society nowadays lives from politicians to musicians. How can one say that these beautiful works of music can have evolved so inteligently from a blob. Down out ridiculous!!! Let all things that have life praise the Lord God Creator of the Universe! Psalm 150 Do you agree?


----------



## Guest

Atheism is a belief as is religion but evolution makes a lot more sense than a religion invented god.
Do not confuse a god thought up by our ancestors with a UV that has a purpose! that is perhaps the question you may consider (I am not trying to attack your faith)


----------



## demiangel

From a mystical or transcendental perspective reality is actually full of contradictions that resolve themselves. People are intent when caught in the coincidence of opposites to think that things are one way and not the other, when they may in fact be both ways, the tension between the two sides creating the actual situation. This is why I believe in both evolution and the traditional catholic view of creation, though they contradict each other, I think that reality is full of contradiction, and it is only a product of Greek-style thinking that tries to say "it is this, and nothing else". I believe in the harmony of opposites. Idealism versus materialism? No, idealism AND materialism.


----------



## Guest

crazzycat said:


> but it's very important what for they are going to use it


A mouthfull said you there puddy kat


----------



## Jules141

I do not believe great musicians music is God's voice for a few reasons...

*1)* I love Led Zeppelin, The Beatles and if I'm in the right mood I might enjoy Lady Gaga. Whats constitutes as "great music" is subjective so either all music is god's voice or none of it is.

If we were to be elitist (which I have no problem with) and say that ... within the realms of classical music practice the - by definition - most innovative/technically complex classical is God's voice (Beethoven compaired to Schnittke) it still doesn't hold up because is Mozart better than Beethoven? Bach better than Handel? I love pieces of classical music for many varied reasons "innovation" rarely being one of them. I like them if I like the way they sound.

What if we were to say what if religous composer's music is God's voice and secularists arn't it then poses the question, but what if they believed in different Gods/religouns? Which brings me nicely onto my next point ...

*2)* No two people can believe in the same thing. Even if two people read the same scripture/attend the same services/absorb the same culture; their personal interpretation will still differ greatly. There is only so much scripture can tell a believer about their religoun, after that they have to "fill in the blanks", so to speak. Everyone believes in a different God because our personal interpretation (how God occupies space and time or his personality for instance) cannot be the same.

*3)* I think saying that a God wrote the music detracts from the artists it came from. If Shostakovich was a non-believer does that mean that he was by definition better than Bruckner because God wrote Bruckner's music? Are Bach, Bruckner and Mahler nothing but empty vessels or messengers for God to spread his... word (?)

It was human research, innovation, effort and work that got us to the Moon, not God.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

*Is it possible that composers of wonderful music are simply used by God to give His music to the world? *

God has way more beautiful music and he doesn't need humans to give his music to the world.

In fact within nature and the vast space of the cosmos music exists. Jewish Sources teach that the entire galaxies and stars ride on waves of music, and that the Stars and the planets sing such beautiful music, that if us humans could have the ability to listen we would be enthralled by its amazing and astonishing beauty. Also remember that the sounds of nature, the waves, the wind, and everything that produces sound within nature, is in fact music.

But I think that God gives certain individuals certain talents that others don't posses, and these individuals Choose from within their human abilities to produce their own unique music. In fact the music that composers compose is entirely human, and has nothing Godly or divine about it.

No composer has ever written a perfect music, and no composer has been able to unite all of humanity for a single purpose to know the Creator of the Universe, the God of Israel. Therefore their music lacks perfection, and that's what makes it human, but the music of God is pure perfection, and if revealed to the ears and minds of the people it can do wonders. Human music is not divine, only God's music is, to attribute divinity to a human being, is a form of idol worship when it comes to Judaism.

It is sad to see sometimes people attribute divinity to people like Beethoven. This composer was in fact the most imperfect subject to human limitations, then any other composer. He suffered from many things, like hearing loss, depression, and he had wild outbursts of anger, pain and other physical problems. His music was just that, not particularly beautiful, but full of his hardships. But God's music is pure, without any blemishes or hardships, his music is not based on personal difficulties in life, sadness, pain, or salvation. His music is the most perfect, divine, and Godly music in the universe, absolute pureness and perfection.

Regards,

Saul


----------



## Norse

Andante said:


> Atheism is a belief as is religion


Not necessarily. Atheism is basically just the lack of a belief in a god/gods. The classic analogy is that atheism is a belief in the same way "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.


----------



## Vintage_Rocker

*Gift from God*

I'm a musician from South Africa and I can say from experience, yes God plays a huge role in how we play!

I have been playing guitar for about 4 years now and only recently started playing in a band. Two months ago we had a show and as we played I had the most wonderful anointing from God.

For those who aren't Christians this might sound weird, but at one stage in the song "How he loves us" we randomly started playing an instrumental worship. The next thing I knew I was playing a solo that was making the hair on my neck stand up, but the weird thing is that it felt like it wasn't me playing. I watched my fingers moving over the notes without me playing it, like something (or somebody) was taking over my body!

I had some people, even some of the other musicians coming to me and asking me what was i playing and where did it come from!

For those who believe in "outer body experiences" you might believe it is something like that, but i know it was a n anointing from God and the Holy Spirit that took over.

So in my opinion: yes, we don't become great musicians by just practicing and practicing, we become great musicians by feeling music and that is a gift from God to show His glory and for Him to speak to people through us.


----------



## Michael K

I've come to this discussion very, VERY late, but in response to a question posed here a few years ago, over the past few years have discovered many quotations by current day musicians - as well as great classical composers - which express their feeling that their music has come from sources outside the mind. If these are of interest, I'll be happy to pick out a few.


----------



## atsizat

I've seen the title as great muslims. I dont know why.


----------



## Strange Magic

Norse said:


> Atheism is basically just the lack of a belief in a god/gods. The classic analogy is that atheism is a belief in the same way "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.


This post made my day :tiphat:.


----------

