Wednesday, 15 October 2008

"my heart writhes in its own blood", was a lyric i heard and read tonight. i thought it was one of the best things i've heard since i came here and i've heard a lot of things since i came here.

its from some bach piece, about jesus.

-----------------

talking about classical music about jesus, richard dawkins writes in somethingorother about how good it would have been if scientists had commissioned the classical composers, not the church, so you would get mozarts 'symphony of a supernova' and such like instead of just focusing on nativity plays. an interesting idea.
Posted by at

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

bBut scientists wouldn't (and perhaps shouldn't) patronise the arts in this manner. a scientist sees the world and the universe in objective terms, music, conversely, is about subjectivity. Thus a symphony of a supernova would make for a terrible piece of music. Scientific and mathematical equations and discoveries do not lend themselves to the arts in the same way as religion (as merely one example) does. Music is not wholly descriptive it is about how one reacts to that which is around oneself not just how that which is around oneself is composed and works (the remit of science). The church sponsored composers to express (albeit in orthodox terms strictly defined by the institution) their feelings and experiences about their Creator, Creation, their Saviour and Salvation. Scientist might be moved by the enormity or uniformity of the universe but this would itself be a spiritual not a scientific experience, surely? In this case the symphony would once more not be about the ‘supernova’ but their own subjective experiences – which would have only tenuous links to science.

(If nothing else – and this is an incredibly judgemental and generalised statement – I have not found scientists to be particularly artistic people at least to the extent to which they would be able to form and structure artistic music)

I find Dawkin’s continual insistence that EVERYTHING in the world would be/would have been better were religion removed from it not only ignorant but particularly irritating. Yes evils have been committed in the name of religion (or theism) but so have they too in atheism’s name (the French ‘Reign of Terror’ and the Chinese Cultural Revolution to name but two). Dawkin’s has even argued in the past that charitable acts inspired by religious sentiment are wrong as they are essentially selfish, performed, so Dawkin’s claims, merely to ensure one’s entrance into heaven after death. The fact that this radically misinterprets (particularly Christian) theology notwithstanding is it not better that such acts are performed for whatever reasons? The homeless, unfortunate, ill and destitute are offered help they may not have received without such religious impetus. Religion thus has over the centuries performed an important function and I cannot see why he takes such objection to it as in his mind surely these people are merely deluded and won’t reap the rewards they believe they will. So what is his problem? I can only think (as I do incidentally of the religious fundamentalists who cling to literalism) that he is not secure enough in his own beliefs that he feels the need to constantly lambast those of others.

You probably won’t read this rant but it made me feel better

Mike

(also I hope you’re enjoying Aberdeen, I enjoyed your pictures on facebook as well and was very intrigued by that little snippet about the imperial crown that adorned the top of that building – yes I still manage to blend eloquence with a shocking lack of specificity and loads of colloquialism in my prose lol!)

24 October 2008 at 00:20

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)