T W A U ... The Chase....today's...
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
What Do The Faithful Have That The Rest Of Us Don’T?
375 Answers
With no explanation, Goodlife is constantly telling the ‘poor’ atheists here that they have nothing – and today Khandro said exactly the same. I'm curious. Just what is it that these chaps think they have that the rest of us lack?
Answers
@Khandro "Do you really expect a serious answer?
jim, I agree with almost everything you say, and that is why on science threads I only ever ask questions and don't make assertions ( the flag was said lightheartedly, thought there is a point there ) and it is really proven by the fact that most detractors of religion are theologically the least qualified to do so, eg. R.Dawkins"
Yes, I do expect a serious answer - but you cannot provide anything remotely close to one.
jim, I agree with almost everything you say, and that is why on science threads I only ever ask questions and don't make assertions ( the flag was said lightheartedly, thought there is a point there ) and it is really proven by the fact that most detractors of religion are theologically the least qualified to do so, eg. R.Dawkins"
Yes, I do expect a serious answer - but you cannot provide anything remotely close to one.
LG; After your extraordinary statement that Daniel Barenboim's response to music is not greater than a "clod around the corner", you now continue to ask, //who cares about the theological qualifications of those criticising religion anyway?// and then, because of my justifiable questioning of Dawkins' knowledge of theology, you say I have a pole up my arse! Are you not concerned that you are not only loosing the argument and the plot, but you are also, as some may perceive; looking a bit of a Charlie?
No, I am not. You made the analogy between an appreciation of music and spirituality.
And I am more than happy to concede that Barenboim knows more about music, knows more about orchestration,will be able to decipher a musical score,can understand the message that the composer was attempting to convey, can appreciate the musicality and the technical virtuosity of a piece of music better than your average "clod on the street" - but as to the visceral, emotional response to the profundity of the music itself? That's an utterly different thing.
It's completely unquantifiable, for a start, so there is no way of measuring just how profoundly affected someone is by the music, and attaching a comparable quantity to it. You on the other hand are so arrantly elitist that you dismiss the experience of your average joe in favour of the musical expert.
The same with religion - its you theists that offer us this notion of a compartmentalised response to something - you know, academic/intellectual, rational/logical, emotional/visceral - but it is theists like you that insist that there is an additional component - this spiritual/religious component that somehow gives theists a more intense life experience.
And again, you have no way of quantitatively measuring it or even qualitatively comparing it between people - So who experiences this separate religious/spiritual component more profoundly? A priest, zealot someone who is otherwise average and uneducated but a resolute believer?
As for "justified complaint" about Dawkins credentials?! Don't make me laugh.It should be the message, not the messenger that is relevant - but one thing that Dawkins is is a researcher and academic, someone perfectly able to construct an argument. What religion absolutely does not need is some apologist for religion offering some defensive platitudes about the subject. Dawkins is your constant, returning refrain, a pliant whine that you continually introduce - anyone would think you have a chip on your shoulder roughly the size of Everest about him.
And I am more than happy to concede that Barenboim knows more about music, knows more about orchestration,will be able to decipher a musical score,can understand the message that the composer was attempting to convey, can appreciate the musicality and the technical virtuosity of a piece of music better than your average "clod on the street" - but as to the visceral, emotional response to the profundity of the music itself? That's an utterly different thing.
It's completely unquantifiable, for a start, so there is no way of measuring just how profoundly affected someone is by the music, and attaching a comparable quantity to it. You on the other hand are so arrantly elitist that you dismiss the experience of your average joe in favour of the musical expert.
The same with religion - its you theists that offer us this notion of a compartmentalised response to something - you know, academic/intellectual, rational/logical, emotional/visceral - but it is theists like you that insist that there is an additional component - this spiritual/religious component that somehow gives theists a more intense life experience.
And again, you have no way of quantitatively measuring it or even qualitatively comparing it between people - So who experiences this separate religious/spiritual component more profoundly? A priest, zealot someone who is otherwise average and uneducated but a resolute believer?
As for "justified complaint" about Dawkins credentials?! Don't make me laugh.It should be the message, not the messenger that is relevant - but one thing that Dawkins is is a researcher and academic, someone perfectly able to construct an argument. What religion absolutely does not need is some apologist for religion offering some defensive platitudes about the subject. Dawkins is your constant, returning refrain, a pliant whine that you continually introduce - anyone would think you have a chip on your shoulder roughly the size of Everest about him.
Naomi - It seems Khandro has given you a text book answer to your question.
He feels an unjustified superiority based on his "belief" that he knows more about the subject than any theist.
Unjustified because, as LG has so eloquently pointed out, his "feelings" or "faith" cannot be measured and therefore cannot be compared with some "clod around the corner" but Khandro "feels" that this must be the case.
If wishes were fishes.
He feels an unjustified superiority based on his "belief" that he knows more about the subject than any theist.
Unjustified because, as LG has so eloquently pointed out, his "feelings" or "faith" cannot be measured and therefore cannot be compared with some "clod around the corner" but Khandro "feels" that this must be the case.
If wishes were fishes.
LG; The irrationality of your argument is; if your "clod on the street" had such a "visceral, emotional response to the profundity of the music", he wouldn't be a clod on the street! he would be a music aficionado, get off the street, and be attending concerts, recitals, and most probably becoming a performer himself.
naomi; Scared of Dawkins,- moi? - don't make me laugh.
chrisgel; To which text-book do you refer?
naomi; Scared of Dawkins,- moi? - don't make me laugh.
chrisgel; To which text-book do you refer?
That's far more irrational and total nonsense. What if he likes the music but just is never bothered to attend and pay for the concerts? Or what if he likes the music but finds practice a drain on his time and money, or a commitment that he feels unwilling to make, given that in order to play the brilliant concerti you have to trawl through years of dross beforehand? Perhaps he has another love of his life and decides that that should take priority?
No, there is no reason to assume that your "clod in the street" cannot possibly understand music. Granted it's likely that Barenboim has a greater appreciation, and I wouldn't dispute that -- but equally the idea that only he can have any is utter nonsense. And, moreover, it's a red herring anyway -- because you've assumed a parallel between music and spirituality and haven't shown that this parallel exists or provided any reason to assume it.
No, there is no reason to assume that your "clod in the street" cannot possibly understand music. Granted it's likely that Barenboim has a greater appreciation, and I wouldn't dispute that -- but equally the idea that only he can have any is utter nonsense. And, moreover, it's a red herring anyway -- because you've assumed a parallel between music and spirituality and haven't shown that this parallel exists or provided any reason to assume it.
Khandr - Any of the many books that profess to know something which is unknowable.
//After your extraordinary statement that Daniel Barenboim's response to music is not greater than a "clod around the corner"//
Explain why this is an extraordinary statement. How do you know Barenboim's mind ? You are projecting.
Perhaps he thinks “Oh no! not this again I’m sick of hearing it”
//After your extraordinary statement that Daniel Barenboim's response to music is not greater than a "clod around the corner"//
Explain why this is an extraordinary statement. How do you know Barenboim's mind ? You are projecting.
Perhaps he thinks “Oh no! not this again I’m sick of hearing it”
There needs perhaps to be a definition of what "clod on the street" in a musical context means. I'm taking it to mean someone who listens to music but does not study it. After all, for someone who has never even heard any particular piece the question is essentially meaningless until you play it to them, so naturally the "clod" must have at least been given the opportunity to hear the piece.
Then, after that, it's really not the case that you need to be a musicologist to appreciate the music. There are a number of reasons for this: some pieces were written for popular appeal anyway, so shouldn't need specialist knowledge to appreciate; and also mere experience can sometimes allow you to recognise one composer from another with no ability to explain why the two are different. They just are. Presumably at a deep level Haydn has his signature style, phrasing, choice of key and chordal sequences, whereas Mozart tends to emphasise the strings more heavily; and Beethoven's dynamical variations are more subtle than Tchaikovsky's, and Stravinsky manages to create a melody in the discord while Schoenberg is just rubbish. But you don't need to know any of this to enjoy it.
And again it remains the case that you've provided no reason to compare music to spirituality anyway.
Then, after that, it's really not the case that you need to be a musicologist to appreciate the music. There are a number of reasons for this: some pieces were written for popular appeal anyway, so shouldn't need specialist knowledge to appreciate; and also mere experience can sometimes allow you to recognise one composer from another with no ability to explain why the two are different. They just are. Presumably at a deep level Haydn has his signature style, phrasing, choice of key and chordal sequences, whereas Mozart tends to emphasise the strings more heavily; and Beethoven's dynamical variations are more subtle than Tchaikovsky's, and Stravinsky manages to create a melody in the discord while Schoenberg is just rubbish. But you don't need to know any of this to enjoy it.
And again it remains the case that you've provided no reason to compare music to spirituality anyway.
clod
n.
1. A lump or chunk, especially of earth or clay.
2. Earth or soil.
3. A dull, stupid person; a dolt.
^ from my online dictionary
-------------------------------------------------------
jim; //And again it remains the case that you've provided no reason to compare music to spirituality anyway.//
You would have to go back in the thread and you would see that was a metaphor (and a very apt one), not a direct association.
n.
1. A lump or chunk, especially of earth or clay.
2. Earth or soil.
3. A dull, stupid person; a dolt.
^ from my online dictionary
-------------------------------------------------------
jim; //And again it remains the case that you've provided no reason to compare music to spirituality anyway.//
You would have to go back in the thread and you would see that was a metaphor (and a very apt one), not a direct association.
