Is that God I hear?

[EmpNapoleon]

That's the position of true humility.

That's a decent boast.

[Kullervo]

     The arrogant know-everythings are not the intellectuals who won't compromise their integrity in these matters. That description more correctly applies to those who claim to know transcendental truths beyond explanation which they then proceed to explain.

     Wittgenstein was correct on this point. About unknowable things remain silent. Or, I would add, be taken for an arrogant fool.

     Those of us who limit ourselves to the knowable need not take instruction from those who don't. We don't write our personal preferences into the architecture of the Universe, but instead seek evidence for our limited knowledge. That's the position of true humility.

Well stated.

[drogulus]

     Back to the topic, I'd say Bruckners experience was in his music, and to the extent that he was deeply religious it must have had an effect. I don't know what I would say if I didn't know about Bruckners religiosity. Since many atheist/agnostic composers have written explicitly religious music, it's hard to disentangle effects and intentions. Ultimately I think what matters is that Bruckner was a great composer.

[EmpNapoleon]

Ultimately I think what matters is that Bruckner was a great composer.

Consummate.

[Bonehelm]

Bruckner was such a master of building and holding back tension...if he lived in the modern days I think he would have became a great strip teaser. 

[Renfield]

Good point. If x is omnipresent, why would Bruckner's music be an exception? Now all we have to do is establish the omnipresence of x and we're home free! 

Musical compositions are abstract entities, however, so the omnipresence of say, mayonnaise may not apply. Or gravitational fields. Does it make sense to say that there are such things in music? On the other hand, a gravitational field might share abstract entity-hood with the composition and you could say they interpenetrate each other in our minds. But to what effect? That's a difficult question.

I could offer a possible answer; in fact, Plato already did, and Wittgenstein alluded to one (even the same one, in my opinion) as well. However, this is not relevant to this thread.

     Wittgenstein was correct on this point. About unknowable things remain silent. Or, I would add, be taken for an arrogant fool.

You misread him, I think. Wittgenstein demonstrated that, should his postulate about the nature of reality (a totality of facts) being concurrent with the nature of language (a totality of words) hold, then the latter cannot be used to explain the basic elements of (or atomic facts of which consists) the former.

And it's a brilliant idea, even supported to an extent by Kurt Godel's proof of the incompleteness theorem, if one assumes a Platonic-form sort of connection between reality and logic, the latter being a language, and thus likely in line with Wittgenstein's opinions.

However, the fact that Wittgenstein was thus led to perceive reality as bounded, outside which boundary there are things inherent to reality which cannot ever be discussed, due to their being the "words" themselves, the basis on which reality exists to begin with, does not mean they are beyond our perception entirely: only directly.

It only necessarily means that we cannot describe, or (if you add Godel to the mix) demonstrate them. So you might not be able to prove God exists, in that reasoning, but that does not mean you must shut up about the issue, or fail to explore the implications of either case.

Quantum Physics itself is based on a similar "trust" that implications are related to the phenomena that "imply" them, as most of the things it deals with (and observes) are directly unobservable. So please, if you are going to discuss this issue in the present context (this thread), even though that discussion seems to have now been stalled, do it with respect to your sources, if possible.



And this is likely as far as I'm going to contribute to religion/God/truth/understanding-related discussions, in this forum, which is not the place for them. Take it or leave it.

(Also: good point, Bonehelm. )

[Norbeone]

Yes, I hear God, or at least reverance of some kind, in his music.  Also other elements that might figure into to it all, but the Good Lord is definitely there.

I'm not trying to refute your comment when I say the following:

People accuse me of being arrogant when I say there is no God, but the above quote is claiming (in not so obvious a way) that there IS a God. Surely this is just as arrogant and presumtuous?

Anyway, noone can really know, so i'm just gonna shutup and go have some tea and apple crumble.

[Don]

I'm not trying to refute your comment when I say the following:

People accuse me of being arrogant when I say there is no God, but the above quote is claiming (in not so obvious a way) that there IS a God. Surely this is just as arrogant and presumtuous?

Sure is, but that's usually the way it goes in conversation with religious folks.

[drogulus]

It only necessarily means that we cannot describe, or (if you add Godel to the mix) demonstrate them. So you might not be able to prove God exists, in that reasoning, but that does not mean you must shut up about the issue, or fail to explore the implications of either case.

What I said was not in contradiction to your point. He was talking about describing what is not known as though it could be. Another way of putting it is that metaphysical propositions have no truth value. I don't think Wittgenstein should be interpreted as being against freedom of speech, though.

I don't oppose speculation about God or quantum mechanics, if it's labeled as such. Religionists rarely say that God is an interesting hypothesis that should be explored. That is exactly what they oppose.

Edit: I shouldn't have said "what is not known" but rather "what is not knowable". It doesn't make sense otherwise.

[Shrunk]

I'm not trying to refute your comment when I say the following:

People accuse me of being arrogant when I say there is no God, but the above quote is claiming (in not so obvious a way) that there IS a God. Surely this is just as arrogant and presumtuous?

Anyway, noone can really know, so i'm just gonna shutup and go have some tea and apple crumble.

To my (biased) mind the arrogance comes in, not so much in claiming to know for certain that God exists, but to claim to know him so well that you know what method he would use to create life, who he wants you to sleep with, what day he wants you to take off work, what he wants you to eat, etc., etc.

But to more important matters: do you have cheddar cheese or ice cream with your apple crumble?

[longears]

Oh you kidders!  Ernie and Don: you guys troll threads for mention of God or religion or other related issues, then leap out with glee to bash posters for any profession of faith, claiming with astonishingly short-sighted arrogance that you know there is no God, that this special knowledge is vouchsafed to you because of your intellectual superiority, and that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is an ignorant, brainwashed fool.

You're mirror images of 71dB!  (He even calls himself a "free-thinker!")

Cheddar!  Heavenly!

[Don]

Oh you kidders!  Ernie and Don: you guys troll threads for mention of God or religion or other related issues, then leap out with glee to bash posters for any profession of faith, claiming with astonishingly short-sighted arrogance that you know there is no God, that this special knowledge is vouchsafed to you because of your intellectual superiority, and that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is an ignorant, brainwashed fool.

You're mirror images of 71dB!  (He even calls himself a "free-thinker!")

Cheddar!  Heavenly!

You're sounding a bit irrational, creating claims made by myself and others.  Don't take yourself so seriously.

[Sungam]

"I'm not trying to refute your comment when I say the following:

People accuse me of being arrogant when I say there is no God, but the above quote is claiming (in not so obvious a way) that there IS a God. Surely this is just as arrogant and presumtuous?"

Sure is, but that's usually the way it goes in conversation with religious folks.

I see no reason why anyone should call anyone "arrogant" for believing that there is a God, or for believing that there is no God.  If you look at the history of atheism Vs theism debate, it seems as if confidence in either worldview can be the basis for rational, intelligent thinking.  I think the real problem comes from the people that expect everyone to find the logic, facts, and truths to point toward, and only toward, their worldview.

[EmpNapoleon]

I wasn't expecting this to be a continuation of topics about whether or not God exists.  I thought that believers, there are many in this forum, would talk about how they experience God in great music.

Religionists rarely say that God is an interesting hypothesis that should be explored. That is exactly what they oppose.

That's a shame.  That's why they're not cool.

[BachQ]

You're mirror images of 71dB! 

You forgot to use this: 

[drogulus]

Oh you kidders!  Ernie and Don: you guys troll threads for mention of God or religion or other related issues, then leap out with glee to bash posters for any profession of faith, claiming with astonishingly short-sighted arrogance that you know there is no God, that this special knowledge is vouchsafed to you because of your intellectual superiority, and that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is an ignorant, brainwashed fool.

You're mirror images of 71dB!  (He even calls himself a "free-thinker!")

Cheddar!  Heavenly!

     I prefer my version of what I say to your reinterpretation, which suffers from the very biases I point out. Is it possible that you're so blinded by prejudice that you can't even read my posts without distorting them beyond recognition?

      I've consistently been opposed to assertions of knowledge where no knowledge can be had (which is why your charge against me is not just false, but stupidly and carelessly so). My response to those who assert they know the unknowable is that they are arrogant and that they are fools, and it compounds their arrogance and foolishness that they make nonsensical claims and then call others arrogant for pointing this out.

     

   
     

[Norbeone]

I see no reason why anyone should call anyone "arrogant" for believing that there is a God, or for believing that there is no God. 

That's not what I was saying. Saying you BELIEVE or DON'T BELIEVE in God isn't arrogant. But saying there IS a God or ISN'T a God (which is the same as saying I KNOW there IS a God or I KNOW there ISN'T a God) is arrogant. Honestly, I don't claim that there isn't a God, I just say it is very very very unlikely that there is one, based on all the evidence (or lack of) I can find. Therefore I don't believe.

Shrunk: "But to more important matters: do you have cheddar cheese or ice cream with your apple crumble?"

Cheddar cheese?!?!? You must be joking. I usually have custard, but ice-cream would do.   

[drogulus]

      I don't think atheism is the private preseve of lofty intellectuals. It's a rather routine stage of personal development in young people, when they discover that not everything they're taught is true. Either they escaped the usual conditioning through some good fortune, or the hold was broken somehow. High school students of average intelligence have no trouble understanding the philosophical arguments, which is fortunate since there would be no point to education if they couldn't.

     The barrier to acceptance of materialism is not intellectual, since everyone is functionally materialist. It's more that an overriding cultural imperative states that we don't need to have good reasons for what we believe, an imperative largely designed to protect certain beliefs from scrutiny. It's therefore permissible to hold beliefs on emotive grounds without regard to objective claims of merit. If you question these beliefs or the grounds for holding them you're likely to be called arrogant or worse.

      I may be an arrogant jerk, but if so that's a personal description. There are arrogant jerks on all sides in my experience, but it doesn't decide issues.

[Don]

I wasn't expecting this to be a continuation of topics about whether or not God exists.  I though that believers, there are many in this forum, would talk about how they experience God in great music.

But your expectations don't allow for alternative views or the simple rejection of the main theme?

[drogulus]

I wasn't expecting this to be a continuation of topics about whether or not God exists.  I though that believers, there are many in this forum, would talk about how they experience God in great music.

         That's what I was doing. How I experience these things is not less important than how others do.

         It's just as provocative to say God exists as to say there's no reason to believe it. That realization is all you need to explain the recurring nature of the debate, not some "hoodlums are spoiling my nice little party" scenario. The believers are in a fight because they're spoiling for it just as much as I am.