Prairie Home Companion at Morris

Obligatory:

The Dugout featuring special guest Garrison Keiller.

Hilarious. Word up Thome!

Not faulting you on not liking Gospel, PZ, as it's not everyone's cup of tea. And you know, to a first approximation, where I stand on atheism, namely that I'm as close to being an atheist as a person who sincerely believes Coyote is trying to ruin his life can be.

But, well, I guess I'm glad that good music is one area where the god crap doesn't bother me. Because I'd hate to flinch every time I put on a Bob Marley tape by reminding myself that Haile Selassie was only a man and not a very good one at that, or find myself yelling at Yungchen Llamo that the jewel is not actually in the lotus.

In much the same way, I can admire the artistry of the mockingbird's attack on the drivr's side-view mirror on my pickup, even though it's motivated by an animistic, mockingbirdocentric misapprehension of empirically explainable physical events.

Yup, without religion, those songs would have been different.

Different as in "nonexistent."

Now, I'm not a believer and religion bugs me at least as much as it does you, but when's the last time a university science department commissioned a choral work?

I can think of maybe two anti-religious gospel-style tracks: The Persuasions' version of Zappa's "The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing," and I-forget-who's a capella version of Negativland's "Christianity is Stupid."

I listened to the show. UMM has an excellent choir and Morris sounds like a very nice place to live. The show seemed to run smoothly and by the loud applause I assume it was well-received by the audience. I must admit that the show was very heavy on the religious music which isn't to my taste, but I can see why a religious audience would enjoy it. I thought it was noteworthy that Keillor educated the listeners on how American Indian chldren were in the past forced to leave their homes, give up their language and become trained in a Western style education.

Keillor makes the fundies liars by seriously discussing religion and boldly featuring religious music, even as he points up the faults of fundyism. Keillor is a man of reason, mostly, who happens to be religious.

Does Bach make you nervous? Get over it.

Garrison Keillor is a very interesting person. He has a wonderful imagination - Lake Woebegone. He is a devout, very liberal (apparently) Democrat. He does a daily five minute show about writers and poets. And he writes very liberal editorials. The latest of his editorials that I've seen was a scathing attack on GWB. And yet he also seems to enjoy country (what I would call low-brow) humor and music.

"Yup, without religion, those songs would have been different.

"Different as in "nonexistent.""

Acceptable loss. Next, please. If religion would magically disappear from humanity if we bulldozed St. Peters, I'd do it myself.

Oh, I quite like a lot of gospel. I've got some Blind Boys of Alabama here on iTunes that I think is wonderful.

I just think the people who made that music would have been just as creative and brilliant, if not more so, if religion were nonexistent. I also hate to see something beautiful being used as propaganda for an evil.

Acceptable loss. Next, please. If religion would magically disappear from humanity if we bulldozed St. Peters, I'd do it myself.

So you've burned all of your Bach, Mozart, and Handel records? In fact, you pretty much have to wipe out all of Western music, literature, and art to get rid of the religious influence.

Oh, and don't forget to add your Steinbeck books to the fire. What did you think East of Eden was about?

And you must have stood up and cheered when the Taliban blew up those millenia-old Buddhas in Afghanistan, Samnell:

http://tinyurl.com/d2v36

Not to mention all of the priceless artifacts looted in Iraq, many of which were religious items. Don't forget to explode the Acropolis in Athens and the Colisseum in Rome while you're at it.

Destroy all art and artifacts that reference religion, no matter what their historical significance!

It's unfortunate, but unbelief hasn't inspired much music (or architecture, sculpture, or painting) even remotely comparable in quality to the best work inspired by religion. I suspect it is exactly to the "rot" of religion that one has to look for an explanation. The common desire to transcend our limited state draws no nourishment from unbelief. I don't think there's any transcendence to be had; but if I started thinking that Bach's chorales or Donne's Holy Sonnets would have been as good or better had they just "gotten" atheism, I hope my relatives would commit me. You're yielding to an uncharacteristic wishful thinking, P.Z.

It's unfortunate, but unbelief hasn't inspired much music (or architecture, sculpture, or painting) even remotely comparable in quality to the best work inspired by religion.

Er, I think we're forgetting about sex here folks. Franz Liszt comes to mind. (A nineteenth century rock star, and boy he sure did like the ladies.)

The common desire to transcend our limited state draws no nourishment from unbelief.

Not this old chestnut again. Shostakovich, anyone?

"So you've burned all of your Bach, Mozart, and Handel records?"

I've never owned a record. I generally find classical music tedious. But you seem to be reading whole libraries into my comment that isn't there.

I posited that were the elimination of religious artifacts some sort of magical cure that would eliminate religion itself (something we can presumably agree is not true...at least I can, perhaps you've completely taken leave of your senses) then it would be an acceptable solution. Furthermore, had religion never existed, and thus not inspired church music, there's no reason to think that music would have never developed. It isn't as though one needs three-day-dead zombie Jesus to have artistic expression of any kind.

"Oh, and don't forget to add your Steinbeck books to the fire. What did you think East of Eden was about?"

I'm against burning books in general, but honestly I've never seen the appeal of Steinbeck.

"And you must have stood up and cheered when the Taliban blew up those millenia-old Buddhas in Afghanistan, Samnell:"

No, but I saw it as entirely in keeping with the logic of monotheistic salvation religions.

"Not to mention all of the priceless artifacts looted in Iraq, many of which were religious items. Don't forget to explode the Acropolis in Athens and the Colisseum in Rome while you're at it."

Prattle, prattle, prattle. Did you actually read what I said, or just pick out random key words? Once more, with feeling: since the destruction of these artifacts is not going to bring about the end of religion, there's not really much in the way of my post that could be construed as a call for their destruction.

"Destroy all art and artifacts that reference religion, no matter what their historical significance!"

Historical significance is in my book a wonderful reason to keep something around. Not reason enough to allow untold human suffering, but certainly reason enough not to dispose of and destroy lightly. I actually rather like St. Peters'. It's a wonderful building. It's a terrible shame that it's the headquarters of a religion. I've no idea where Voltaire is buried, but it would make a marvelous place to put his body. Or Clarence Darrow's. Tom Paine's too, but that has gone missing.

But in my post-religion utopia, the average corner church has been demolished in favor of something useful, like a parking lot, a park, a clinic, an adult bookstore. Actual historic landmarks remain, complete with explanatory plaques and brochures to explain the species of madness that afflicted the builders. This would of course make the point that crazy people can make beautiful things...and still be crazy, even dangerously so.

I've no idea where Voltaire is buried, but [St Peter's] would make a marvelous place to put his body.

Don't worry; if I'm not very much mistaken Voltaire's mortal remains are already in a church. To be specific, in the church he had built at Verney, over whose door he had carved Deo Voltaire erexit ('Volatire has built this unto God'). His views on religion, you see, were a mite more nuanced than your own.

386sx and C. Schuyler: Wynton Marsalis has you both covered: in a televised interview with NPR's Robert Siegel, he said, "If you ain't singin' about God or a man and a woman, you in a whole heap-a trouble."

Jesus, Samnell, you made a delibeately provocative statement, and now you're grumbling because people were provoked.

I'm an atheist an proud, but I don't think that the elimination of religion would actually improve things much. Religion is hardly even a variable in history, since it's almost everywhere. And the most famous anti-religious regimes (the USSR and Revolutionary France for awhile) had many of the same kinds of problems that other regimes have.

To me religion is more a symptom than a cause, and the things of which it's a symptom are pretty deep-rooted.

And the proportion of music which is religious is amazingly high. Liszt and Shostakovich ain't much.

Calling it a "chestnut" doesn't make it false.

I would respond that I was venturing the opinion that religious inspiration was causally related to the high quality of much of our best music (and other art). Just listing fine composers who were unbelievers isn't going to cut it as a refutation (btw, why not mention Brahms while you're at it?) On the available evidence, do we have any reason to think that unbelief provides a comparably fruitful inspiration? Was Brahms (an agnostic, I gather) inspired by unbelief in the way that Bach was inspired by Protestant Christianity? I'm inclined to doubt it.

In trying to work out in my head why the above might be the case, I concluded (perhaps not tentatively enough) that it was religion's promise of transcendence that did the trick. Spirituals, for example, provide a simple and emotionally powerful answer to suffering people longing to be delivered. Unbelief says (as it should): sorry, the evidence doesn't give us warrant to think this answer works. Well, that's inspiring as all get out! Unbelief is a bit of a wet blanket, and I'd say it's hard put to compete in this regard with emotionally satisfying myths.

"I would respond that I was venturing the opinion that religious inspiration was causally related to the high quality of much of our best music (and other art). Just listing fine composers who were unbelievers isn't going to cut it as a refutation ...."

How about just citing the renaissance?

After all, for very long periods of time in Europe the church was the only structure within which significant artistic expression could happen (or at least happen and be preserved). If most people in a society are religious, and most music is music played at church then most great pieces will be masses by religious people. That's fairly straightforward, but has absolutely no bearing on whether or not religion had anything to do with the fact that those pieces were great. Saying pretty things about "religion's promise of transcendence" - which, I should point out, is something it cannot itself fulfill but which art is very good at providing - has no bearing on the question at all.

The Renaissance disproves my case? I'd call on Jesus if I thought it would do any good.

I'll put things a little bit differently, in the probably unfounded hope that someone will actually address my principal point: can the ideology of unbelief (not the mere fact that a given artist is an unbeliever) INSPIRE artistic achievement comparable to the best work that is clearly INSPIRED by the ideology of religion? Maybe it can, but it sure hasn't happened yet. (Sorry about the capitals; I don't know how to do italics with this thing.)

Many artists throughout history seem to have needed tools for accessing, or at least articulating, sublime and visionary sentiments; and (like some liberatory political movements) they found the tools closest to hand in religion. Others used a quasi-religious reverence for Great Men or Great Actions, which ended up giving their art something of a fascist flavor. The fact that religion, at least since the Enlightenment, is not indispensable for creating visionary art is evident from the work of Walt Whitman, Monique Wittig, Terry Gilliam . . . there is a humanist sublime out there.

Heck, even authors who believe in sin and co-opt their tone and terms from Scripture can be doing so to make nontheistic points about human ethics: John Steinbeck (and James Baldwin, and heck, sometimes Oscar Wilde) were prophesying about sin, redemption, and love in the same mode as T.H. Huxley's "Kicked into the world a boy without guide or training, or with worse than none, I confess to my shame that few men have drunk deeper of all kinds of sin than I. Happily, my course was arrested in time�before I had earned absolute destruction �and for long years I have been slowly and painfully climbing, with many a fall, towards better things. And when I look back, what do I find to have been the agents of my redemption? The hope of immortality or of future reward? I can honestly say that for these fourteen years such a consideration has not entered my head. No, I can tell you exactly what has been at work. Sartor Resartus led me to know that a deep sense of religion was compatible with the entire absence of theology. Secondly, science and her methods gave me a resting-place independent of authority and tradition. Thirdly, love opened up to me a view of the sanctity of human nature, and impressed me with a deep sense of responsibility."

Religion can actually be a deleterious influence on your art if you're Minnesotan.

Furthermore, had religion never existed, and thus not inspired church music, there's no reason to think that music would have never developed.

You may need to talk to an anthropologist to understand human history. Evidence is that art developed from religion, not the other way around. Even cave paintings came from a religious impulse. So to try and eliminate religion from human achievement is a futile task. Even Persian rugs developed out of Islamic restrictions on the portrayal of nature.

But, then, it seems you automatically think of Christianity when you think "religion," despite the fact that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of belief systems that have existed or will exist. Why the ethnocentrism?

And if I may throw a little more red meat into the crowd:

Fred Clark over at Slacktivist has had some really interesting things to say about the tension between art and religion. Good art transcends its boundaries, including religious ones, and becomes accessible to everyone. Maybe it's because I don't dislike classical music like our friend Samnell, but I think it's difficult to hear Bach's "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" or Handel's "Messiah" and not feel that the composers were able to take their faith and make something so transcendent that it actually breaks free of the specific religion they were expressing.

So my guess is that PZ doesn't dislike gospel music per se. It's more that he dislikes mediocre gospel music that stays earthbound instead of soaring out into the unknown.

(Though, from what I've heard on "Prairie Home Companion," there's a very good showbiz reason they rely heavily on gospel and folk music: it's easy to get the audience to clap along to it and participate for the microphones. That's a little harder to do with other types of music.)

The show was fun and had some good music, although, I really liked the bit last week about the people with Broadway Tourette's.

It's strange but I never understood why people thought Garrison Keillor was funny until after I left Minnesota. He just reminded me of my relatives and I never knew why anyone would find that funny. Growing up in Minnesota, I thought everyone was like the people in his skits.

"The fact that religion, at least since the Enlightenment, is not indispensable for creating visionary art is evident from the work of Walt Whitman, Monique Wittig, Terry Gilliam . . . there is a humanist sublime out there."

I'm not so sure about that. I don't know anything about Monique Wittig, so it would be impertinent for me to say anything about her, and I'm not sure I'd give Terry Gilliam the status you wish to. Whitman seems an especially bad example to me, because he so clearly has a religion; it's just not Christianity. Since the Enlightenment (a much better benchmark for our purposes than the Renaissance), with a bewildering variety of ideologies to choose from, it's noteworthy to me how much great music and literature have been produced under the prodding of a private, idiosyncratic religiosity. I'm thinking of Beethoven, Blake, Wordsworth, Yeats, and Whitman, among others. (Whitman and Beethoven were both pantheists of a sort, I would say.)

Another observation: when I think of literature produced since the Enlightenment that expresses unbelief, I'm struck that much of the best of it seems to me to derive a good deal of its power from a poignant meditation on the loss of belief. "Dover Beach" and Wallace Stevens's "Sunday Morning" come to mind. Religious "contamination," if you will.

Mind you, I'm happy that non-fanatical atheism (atheism with a small a) doesn't inspire trembling devotion. Hymns to atheism would have a Stalinesque creepiness in my view that might make me renew my passport.

"I'll put things a little bit differently, in the probably unfounded hope that someone will actually address my principal point: can the ideology of unbelief (not the mere fact that a given artist is an unbeliever) INSPIRE artistic achievement comparable to the best work that is clearly INSPIRED by the ideology of religion?"

Ok, I'll address your principal point: your principal point is gibberish. There is no "ideology of unbelief", in fact such a thing is automatically somewhat senseless, and so little chance that such a thing could INSPIRE artistic achievement comparable to the best work that is clearly INSPIRED by the ideology of religion (like, say, Candide).

Also, if you reflected for a second on the renaissance (you know, the flowering of artistic (and I suppose intellectual, kinda) achievement in Italy way back when which developed from (1) the rediscovery of the greek literature and (2) the relaxation of certain religious strictures you'd see a clear case where great art resulted from, in fact, nonreligious roots. (Were the greek stories religious? Some, though nowhere near all, and in either case they were not used as such by the artists of the renaissance.) So there's a counter case for you where religion wasn't at all necessary (and in fact the appearance of another avenue was good).

Now, do you have a point that bears on this discussion?

Also, Mnemosyne, "You may need to talk to an anthropologist to understand human history. Evidence is that art developed from religion, not the other way around."

Do you have some sort of citation here for this?

The notion that religion could have developed from art is, of course, silly - but this hardly bears on whether art developed from religion. Of course, religions (all? or just tend to?) incorporate art in various ways and in ways often central to their practice. This does not entail anything significant about the origins of art, though, any more than the fact that funerals tend to be religious ceremonies demonstrates that death is the result of religion.

And since comments were posted while I was writing...
"Another observation: when I think of literature produced since the Enlightenment that expresses unbelief, I'm struck that much of the best of it seems to me to derive a good deal of its power from a poignant meditation on the loss of belief. "Dover Beach" and Wallace Stevens's "Sunday Morning" come to mind. Religious "contamination," if you will."

Your observation reveals a really, really odd sort of thinking here. "Unbelief" is just that - not believing in something. There are only two ways to write something that expresses the fact that one doesn't believe something - to write about how it feels not to believe something (that, presumeably, you either want to believe or that other people believe and you'd prefer they didn't), or just not to mention it in the first place. You seem to think that not believing something is an ideology, which means that you are looking only at the first catagory and noting that it deals with religion. This is hardly a surprise, and certain doesn't reveal anything.

Re the comments about Liszt & Shostakovich ...

Including Liszt among those for whom religion was not a key element is not correct. To give just two quotes ...

"...I did not compose my work as one might put on a church vestment... rather it sprung from the truly fervent faith of my heart, such as I have felt it since my childhood ... and therefore I can truly say that my mass has been more prayed than composed. - Franz Liszt on his Missa Solemnis

"In spite of transgressions and errors I have committed, and for which I feel sincere repentance and contrition, the holy light of the Cross has never been entirely withdrawn from me. - Franz Liszt in 1860

And he did take religious orders in (I think) 1854.

With regard to "Liszt and Shostakovich ain't much." Well, I'll give you Liszt, but would disagree on Shostakovich.

It seems to me that to liszt ... sorry, to list the undoubted evils that have flowed from religion wthout being willing to admit that there's another side to the coin is being historically blinkered.

...Scott

Well, yes, in looking at unbelief as an ideology, I was looking at the (your term) first category, to wit:

"to write about how it feels not to believe something (that, presumeably, you either want to believe or that other people believe and you'd prefer they didn't)"

You subdivide your first category into 2 separate things: 1) writing about something that you want to believe; and
2) writing about something other people believe and that you'd prefer they didn't.

I was making the observation that I was more aware (and maybe it's the limits of my education here) of fine writing in the first subcategory ("It's not true, but by God I wish it were"). There doesn't seem to me to be a lot of good stuff just sounding the trumpet on behalf of atheism.

It's an inferential leap on my part here, but I think you're implying that unbelief either isn't really an ideology or doesn't work so well as an ideology (being simply an absence of belief). If you're implying the latter, I say "exactly"! It can't utter the full-throated fantasies of other ideologies, so it's just not that inspiring. It's nice to realize that we actually agree.

Dr. Pretorius:

When I last wrote, I had missed your earlier, snottier posting.

So you DEFINITELY don't think unbelief is an ideology. Fine. That would help to explain (to my thinking) why it might not compete well with religion as a goad to great art. Actually, I think there IS an ideology of unbelief, but that it would, by its nature, be less conducive to the "flights of fancy" that are intrinsic to religion.

And I still find it eye-rubbingly strange that you would pick the Renaissance on which to rest your case.

One more thing: I might be wrong, but there's nothing incoherent or confused about the point I was making. Kindly take your word "gibberish" and shove it.

can the ideology of unbelief

Would that be the systematic set of beliefs about not believing? When you put it that way, it probably doesn't inspire much, because I don't recall too many people (aside from mathematicians and logicians) being inspired by inherently self-contradictory things.

(not the mere fact that a given artist is an unbeliever) INSPIRE artistic achievement comparable to the best work that is clearly INSPIRED by the ideology of religion? Maybe it can, but it sure hasn't happened yet.

When I've listened to the works of people who are inspired to compose for the sake of religion, the results are absolute shit, because the music becomes secondary the message. Just look at Ray Repp, for example--a name I'm only familiar with because he sued Andrew Lloyd Webber. At the time I thought that it was remarkable that the least two talented composers could have found each other through litigation. So, I'd have to say that Delius' Requiem and Mass of Life, for example, both thoroughly atheist pieces based settings of the works of Nietzsche, are far superior to the music produced for the sake of religion.

By the way, I've written a set of variations on a freethought anthem, "Die Gedanken sind frei," for a friend's 30th birthday. Only time will tell if they become famous, but I'd have to say they're certainly better than the Christian propaganda music out there.

Christian Rock. Case closed.

I think the argument that unbelief would not or would inspire art is wrong. It's not about the inspirational quality of religion vs. atheism: it's about religion vs. the real world. I think the real world -- love, little fluffy clouds, the play of light on water, a '57 Chevy -- are greater sources of art than weird culty nonsense.

Tried to think of some cases that fit.. But couldn't, until I started thinking about some of my favorites:

From the old world:

Stone of Destiny (Steve Mcdonald): Track 2 - Fallen Flowers
http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1284847/a/Stone+Of+Destin…

Newer stuff:

Duran Duran "Greates"t album:
Track 4 - Ordinary World
Track 19 - Come Undone

Sting "Ten Summoner's Tales":
Track 3 - Fields of Gold

Elton John "The One":
Track 2 - The One

Heck, even TLC's "Waterfalls".

All of these produce a reaction in me and not one of them had to resort to repeatingly mentioning God, or even mentioning such a myth *at all*. Sure, its not Gospel, but then Gospel is literally: godspel "good news," from god "good" + spel "story, message,". I would hardly expect the style to be applied for most of history to non-theological purposes. The lack of any non-theological ones in most of old world music is simply because the church didn't like thing that didn't promote "them" and would have likely blown a gasket. The modern reason for so few moving ones, isn't lack of non-theological reasons, but too many people picking a styles to mock the originals, instead of making something truely moving. People can and do make such, but many go unnoticed by the massive number of mediocre works they drown in today, and in the past, the people with the money didn't want popular entertainment about how moving love could be or how magnificent a bridge was, etc. They wanted, "How great and magnificent God is." Just like now, the few works that didn't fit the expectations of the people with the money fell through the cracks or got obscured by the amount of general mono-themed mass marketting being done. Though, I suppose if by inspiring, you mean sappy false hope ladden emotionally charged stuff, then I would have to look a bit harder.. Maybe:

Quarks & Quests sample CD:
Track 10 - Phoenix – (Cynthia McQuillin, from “Time Winds Tavern“)
Track 13- Give My Children Wings – ( Kathy Mar, from “Songbird“)

Ok, still not "quite" as moving, but a few could have been more more depth and complexity to the musical score, a lot of the emotion *requires* that the music itself have a certain feel, without which the lyrics fall a bit flat. I am sure there where 1-2 on the Challenge Memorial CD from the same Filk crowd that might fit too, though since it was taped live, the quality suffered in both depth of melodies *and* sound quality.

Point being, if you don't see them, you are not looking hard enough, nor is it a given that music, like any other art, had to arise from religious convictions.

PZ:

As usual, the gospel music gives me the heebie-jeebies, but I just content myself with the knowledge that I was listening to a pleasant shadow of the richness the composers and musicians would have produced, if only their talent hadn't been tainted with the rot of religiosity.

This is where atheism meets priggishness. Whatever happened to "if it feels good do it"? Some people enjoy gospel music and are good at it. Why would you deny them the harmless pleasure? Yes, you could argue that it really is harmful, but in my experience, that kind of argument is usually a post hoc rationalization for priggishness. Are you going to claim that joining a church choir is a gateway drug to holy war?

I was having similar thoughts recently re-watching A Charlie Brown Christmas. There is the scene where Linus quotes the gospel: for unto you this day a Savior is born. Am I allowed to like that? Do I have to believe it to like it? I think it's a compelling verse because it captures the universal human desire for a messiah. It's not just in the Bible; it's all over human mythology. Life is full of suffering, and sometimes you just want a savior. What's wrong with that? You can counter that you shouldn't wait for a savior; you have to help yourself. And I agree... but there's still poetry there. It's still about a universal longing.

Unless you want to marginalize every output of the human mind that is not fully rational, I'm not sure why you have to hate religion as an expression of the human experience. In many cases, it's about the only link we have to our ancestors thousands of years ago.

"When I've listened to the works of people who are inspired to compose for the sake of religion, the results are absolute shit,..."

Well, this certainly betrays a very limited knowledge of (to mention one) the western classical tradition.

Bach, anyone?

...Scott

After Death, nothing is, and nothing Death,
The utmost Limit of a gaspe of Breath;
Let the Ambitious Zealot lay aside
His hopes of Heav'n, (whose faith is but his Pride)
Let Slavish Soules lay by their feare;
Nor be concern'd which way, nor where,
After this Life they shall be hurl'd;
Dead, wee become the Lumber of the World,
And to that Masse of matter shall be swept
Where things destroy'd, with things unborne, are kept.
Devouring tyme swallows us whole
Impartiall Death confounds Body and Soule.
For Hell, and the foule Fiend that Rules
Gods everlasting fiery Jayles
(Devis'd by Rogues, dreaded by Fooles)
With his grim griezly Dogg that keepes the Doore,
Are senselesse Storyes, idle Tales
Dreames, Whimseys, and noe more.

- Atheist poet John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, translating Stoic tragedian Seneca

"Jesus, Samnell, you made a delibeately provocative statement, and now you're grumbling because people were provoked."

I don't see my statement as deliberately provocative.

"To me religion is more a symptom than a cause, and the things of which it's a symptom are pretty deep-rooted."

Well, crime can be a symptom of poverty. Going on a murderous rampage might be a symptom of mental instability. I see religion as in itself an evil. We'd be better off without ever form of it ever conceived. At its absolutely most benign, it's still a distractor and confuser on a great many important issues. Even if nothing else at all improved, it would be a better world without religion.

But to be clear on my motivations here, I'm not surprised people are provoked. I'm surprised (though not much, I'm well-acquainted with the oft-murderous hysteria that arises when even the most timid and mild criticism of anything religious is offered) that I'm being called out for a statement that I didn't make.

Well, this certainly betrays a very limited knowledge of (to mention one) the western classical tradition.

Bach, anyone?

Okay, can you demonstrate that Bach chose to compose because of his religion, rather than choosing to compose in a context steeped in Christianity? It's my position that most music, good and bad, is produced by people who feel a psychological need to compose. The minority who produce music in order to further some sort of dogma, including Christianity, Socialist Realism, etc., generally write very bad music.

Calling a composer and classically-trained singer ignorant of the Western classical tradition in lieu of supporting your claim merely looks ridiculous.

I think it's a little bizarre the way people attribute the greatness of some religous music to religion. Of course, in an overwhelmingly religous culture, much of the music will be religious. And if one of the major avenues of funding is through the Church, because it gobbles up a big fraction of the GDP... well, not much follows.

We might as well attribute the greatness of European Christian classical music to the slave trade, aristocracy, the Divine Right of Kings, and other forms of exploitation---there'd be at least as much truth to it. The great composers could specialize in music largely because rich people paid them to, on the backs of poor people at home and abroad.

Not much follows from that.

Similarly, Cathedrals were largely exercises in conspicuous consumption on the part of powerful people who drained the resources of an area for over a hundred years at a time to build them. Many people were significantly impoverished by the Cathedral fad, for hundreds of years.

They look cool, but that doesn't mean they aren't also monuments to (and demonstrations of) an evil system built on falsehoods.

And BTW, I listen to Bach, and to some black Gospel music that I also like a lot. That doesn't keep me from seeing the ironies---e.g., black people quoting a pro-slavery Bible in songs lamenting black slavery, while still being still stuck in the same religion that helped keep them down for so long. That's profoundly creepy to me; most of the time I can ignore it and enjoy the music anyway.

Does that make me "priggish"? I don't think so; just observant.

"Calling a composer and classically-trained singer ignorant of the Western classical tradition in lieu of supporting your claim merely looks ridiculous."

No, commenting on this statement ...

"When I've listened to the works of people who are inspired to compose for the sake of religion, the results are absolute shit,..."

... is simply fair comment. It's a silly statement (in my opinion) regardless of who makes it.

"Okay, can you demonstrate that Bach chose to compose because of his religion, rather than choosing to compose in a context steeped in Christianity? "

No interest in doing so; I doubt I could convince you.

"It's my position that most music, good and bad, is produced by people who feel a psychological need to compose. The minority who produce music in order to further some sort of dogma, including Christianity, Socialist Realism, etc., generally write very bad music."

Well, I'm tempted to ask, ""Okay, can you demonstrate that most music, good or bad etc. etc. ...?"

Look, our views differ. They're opinions, OK? I have no interest in trying to "demonstrate" the validity of my opinions, nor in aggressively asking you to "demonstrate" anything.

...Scott

"I was having similar thoughts recently re-watching A Charlie Brown Christmas. There is the scene where Linus quotes the gospel: for unto you this day a Savior is born. Am I allowed to like that? Do I have to believe it to like it?"

I don't think PZ or I, or anybody else here, is arguing that you ought agree with something to like it. But it's not crazy talk to suggest that disagreeing powerfully with the message can make something much less appealing to you. I personally think Amazing Grace and its sort are about as abominable as the Horst Wessel Song, but if it and tunes like it do it for you, whatever.

Look, our views differ. They're opinions, OK? I have no interest in trying to "demonstrate" the validity of my opinions, nor in aggressively asking you to "demonstrate" anything.

Then stop pretending as if failure to unswervingly accept your opinion is prima facie evidence of a lack of knowledge of music history, otherwise you'll be called on the carpet to demonstrate the truth of your opinion based on the evidence.

It's a silly statement (in my opinion) regardless of who makes it.

Look at it this way: if you've decided ahead of time that your message is more important than the music, then you're not going to take care with your music because it's secondary in the hierarchy of considerations. All that is required is that it fit the message well enough to be recorded, and that's the end of it.

Your position that Bach was writing to further Christianity doesn't explain why so much of Bach's oeuvre consists of secular music--indeed very great secular music. How can one explain the care he lavished on Die Kunst der Fuge without at least a corollary hypothesis that Bach was interested in the mechanics of polyphony and how music works in general? And if that's to be one's corollary hypothesis, then why not make it the main hypothesis if it's consistent with one's experience of most composers?

The claim that the great works of Western Classical music were inspired of religion strikes me as postmodernism improbably melded with Christian apologetics--that it's not enough to want to compose; one's compositions have to be driven by a cultural narrative. Maybe they are, but laying claim to know that with a certainty which warrants disparaging the knowledge of people who disagree is simply unjustified.

"...failure to unswervingly accept your opinion is prima facie evidence of a lack of knowledge of music history"

"Your position that Bach was writing to further Christianity ..."

I said neither ... neither is even close to what I think. I expressed opinions (much as you did). That's all ...

..Scott

Including Liszt among those for whom religion was not a key element is not correct.

Well surely he was inspired by religion sometimes but he mostly was a romantic, I think.

With regard to "Liszt and Shostakovich ain't much." Well, I'll give you Liszt, but would disagree on Shostakovich.

Yes Liszt does get a bad rap in some circles but honestly I can't imagine why. He wrote stuff like the Hungarian Rhapsody and Liebestraume #3 for crying out loud. Heck everybody knows those tunes.

Anyways, I haven't seen anyone mention Paganini, and he's about as secular as they get. (The heavy metal virtuoso rock star type for the nineteenth century.)

I think most people taking affront at the rejection of the religious messages in music aren't realizing how pervasive those messages are -- you simply take them for granted, and further, assume that they are an essential part of the music, and that it wouldn't exist without them.

Here's an example with a slight twist so maybe you'll be able to see it. Ever see the musical Cabaret? There's a scene where a young man rises and sings "Tomorrow belongs to me." It's really a lovely tune, and the lyrics are affirming and inspirational. Of course, he's also a young Aryan in pre-war Germany, looking forward to the future of his nation.

I hear religious music the same way. It can be beautiful, I can enjoy it, I can appreciate the skill and deep fervor of the composer, but I can't set aside the meaning of the words, and I regret them.

For another example more people might be familiar with, listen to "Dixie". Great song, light-hearted and happy. Imagine being black and hearing it.

Or "Battle Hymn of the Republic." That's an incredibly powerful piece of music, both in its rhythms and the terrible majesty of the words…and it's all about divine vengeance. You shouldn't listen to it without considering that some people did think they were the avenging hand of the Lord, destined to wreak retribution on others.

386sx ...

Yes, I was a bit hard on Franz L. :-)

If you don't know his tone poems, I'd suggest trying them. Underplayed and underrated.

"Paganini, and he's about as secular as they get. (The heavy metal virtuoso rock star type for the nineteenth century.)"

"...heavy metal virtuoso rock star type" I buy, but "about as secular as they get"? Given all the hype at the time and the ongoing association between Liszt and the devil ... surely the devil is every bit as much a religious figure as is Christ.

Religion is everywhere, you know! :-)

...Scott

You might not have said it, but in the first case you you started calling my knowledge of music into question then saying it was just your opinion. If you weren't trying to imply your opinions are so precious that anyone whose opinions fail to mesh warrants a personal attack on their knowledge, then what were you trying to imply?

And in the second case, let's go back to what I said:

"When I've listened to the works of people who are inspired to compose for the sake of religion, the results are absolute shit,..." (emphasis added)

Then what you said:

"Well, this certainly betrays a very limited knowledge of (to mention one) the western classical tradition.

"Bach, anyone?"

Then what I said again: "Your position that Bach was writing to further Christianity ..."

Then what you said:

"I said neither ... neither is even close to what I think."

If you are arguing that Bach refutes my point, and simultaneously that Bach wasn't composing to further religion, then obviously you didn't read clearly enough in the first case to know what my position was. My example of Ray Repp, the highly untalented composer of "Catholic folk" music, should have been clear: I'm talking about people who write propaganda music. I don't think Bach did that. In fact, I have serious doubts that Christianity is responsible for the quality of his music. I think the reason for the quality of his music is the care he took in crafting it for its own sake. If it furthered religion, as his liturgical music did, that was well and good--he was a devout Christian--but he also toiled to the exact same degree on music with no religious content whatsoever. What drove him in those cases? I think it's the same thing that drove him to write his liturgical music: the desire to compose.

At this point, I doubt I can divine what it is you thought I was talking about in the first case, and I must confess my interest in doing so is rather minimal. I just hope that my explanation suffices to get straight what should have never been misunderstood in the first place.

PZ Myers ...

"I think most people taking affront at the rejection of the religious messages in music aren't realizing how pervasive those messages are -- you simply take them for granted, and further, assume that they are an essential part of the music, and that it wouldn't exist without them."

Well, I suspect you're projecting here. "Taking affront" .... who?

Also, "Cabaret" ... " Dixie" ... "Battle Hymn" as examples of your point? Well, if you want US-centric and fairly trivial examples, I suppose. But even if we stick just with the western tradition, surely the 1000-year tradition of "religious music" covering many more countries than just the US can provide some richer examples ...

..Scott

"At this point, I doubt I can divine what it is you thought I was talking about in the first case, and I must confess my interest in doing so is rather minimal. I just hope that my explanation suffices to get straight what should have never been misunderstood in the first place."

Fair enough. I've lost interest too. If you're satisfied that you've "won", enjoy ...

...Scott

I'm not projecting at all. It's fairly clear here that some people are arguing that religious inspiration bears some significant responsibility for great music. I agree, but my point is that that doesn't make it acceptable, nor is it any indication that religion is necessary to produce great music.

I gave familiar examples that also bear some overt cargo that maybe someone would recognize, and appreciate as instances outside the usual religious stuff. What people don't seem to see is that the overtones of religious music to the non-religious are just like the overtones of nazism or slavery or fanaticism in the songs I mentioned.

"What people don't seem to see is that the overtones of religious music to the non-religious are just like the overtones of nazism or slavery or fanaticism in the songs I mentioned."

In my opinion, this is nonsense. I'm about as non-religious as they come (a state of some 30 years standing), and this strikes me as really silly. What you don't seem to see is that not everyone buys your broadbrush, non-nuanced statements.

Now there are some fighting words, right?? :-)

...Scott

Sigh. Reviewing my comments here has reminded me that arguing online is (as the saying goes) retarded. I apologize to anyone, even Dr. Pretorius, put off by my tone.

PZM -- No, what I was attempting to point out was that you were ignoring the way churches have subsidized music, both formally and incidentally.

I'm not talking about inspiration; I'm talking about facilities for the production of music. The various people responsible for writing, arranging and performing music (and within the past century recording and broadcasting it) have to run into each other somehow, and religious institutions have been classic places to do this. So no, much of those people wouldn't have gotten published, if not for church influence.

Most of us out here don't have access to academic music programs, so do you have any other notions for how non-pros can congregate and teach each other music that works as well (in terms of volume and quality of output) as modern religious institutions?

I'd love a secular version. I miss singing in choir, but am kept away by my disbelief of their cosmology. And I don't see any secular (albeit church-like) choruses around. Do you?

Oh, I completely agree with that. Religion has been a force behind music not because of its wonderful message, but because they've had the money.

(argh: revise to "... many of those people ..." I'd shortened it from "peoples' stuff" or something like that)

Time for a sit down with some gospel-influenced Johnny Cash, ya'll. "One on the Right is on the Left" seems appropriate. ;)

Scott: In my opinion, this is nonsense. I'm about as non-religious as they come (a state of some 30 years standing), and this strikes me as really silly. What you don't seem to see is that not everyone buys your broadbrush, non-nuanced statements.

But a lot of people do, or should.

Oddly enough, last time I saw A Charlie Brown Christmas, and the scene with Linus sweetly reciting the "universal" story with "a Savior is born unto you," I was reminded of the exact scene from Cabaret that PZ mentioned.

In both cases, it was jarring and creepy, and the parallels should be obvious. Given Christian doctrine about salvation and damnation, the last 2000 years of Christian history, and the treatment of non-Christians by Christians... well, it's a lot like the nice young Aryan man's "positive" message about his future, following his leader. Sweet little Linus has poison in his head.

Keep in mind that the Christian Savior is supposed to save Christians; others are damned. Sure, I know the offer's supposedly open to everybody, but the flip side of the salvation story is the damnation story---just as the flip side of "the future belongs to me" is "you other people, unlike me, are seriously fucked."

At least in Cabaret, you were supposed to infer that that song was beautiful and had an appealing theme, but was prettying up some pretty sick stuff. There's bitter irony there, and it's intentional. That's art. But in the Charlie Brown movie, you're supposed to not notice the horrendous evil that's so sweetly glossed over with the "positive" message of Salvation. You're supposed to just ignore 2000 years of apalling history, and some profoundly sick theology. That's crap.

That is rightly offensive to non-Christians. It's seriously fucked up, and it's bad art.

Speaking as one of "the damned," who do not follow that Leader, I gotta say to any Christian who finds this Salvation/damnation stuff innocuous and unobjectionable:, "Well, same to you. I wish you and your Savior an eternity of torture. Fuck you, and and fuck your Savior---twice on Sundays."

I don't mean to offend anybody by saying that, of course. It's just "my religious view," and I mean it in a good way, so nobody should take the least bit of offense.

At least in my case, you know I don't think it's a serious threat, and I hope it's hard to believe I could be serious in wishing somebody such evil. (Clue: I couldn't. I'm just making a point.)

But Christians? That's different. They do worship a God like that. They may not notice it's as evil as anything could be, but some people do notice, and have every right to find it offensive.

Sure, most of us don't get worked up about it most of the time. I myself listen to music with Christian themes, sometimes. (Sonia Dada's "A Day at the Beach" album is one of my favorites.)

But if sometimes it bugs me, I don't think I'm oversensitive. I personally know too many people whose families were murdered at the hands of "good Christians," partly for being adamantly non-Christian. This is serious stuff. I try not to let it get in the way of enjoying music with some Christian themes, but nobody should think that's obligatory. If people are offended, they have every right to be.

Today I was listening to NPR and they had a run of Christian songs. One was about The Flood. Cute song with banjos and whatnot about the destruction of not just a race, but of almost everything on the planet.

If people don't see why anybody might object to that, they really need to wake up and smell the genocide.

"But a lot of people do, or should."

Once again, fair enough. All I said was "not everyone."

"...you were supposed to infer..."

Ah. I've apparently failed in my duty here. :-)

I won't quote any other bits.

Look, I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should view anything. I've simply expressed a few opinions.

I'm not trying to say "should" or "supposed to" ... I'm just expressing my own opinions.

...Scott

"What people don't seem to see is that the overtones of religious music to the non-religious are just like the overtones of nazism or slavery or fanaticism in the songs I mentioned."

In my opinion, this is nonsense. I'm about as non-religious as they come (a state of some 30 years standing), and this strikes me as really silly.

Silly? I happen to like One Last Breath from Creed, despite its basic religious bent. You can sort of interpret it other ways. But get me within 100 feet of someone singing Amazing Grace and my reaction, despite my general liking of the rythmn and melody, is not dissimilar to what I experience when confronted with Neo-nazis propoganda. Maybe just slightly less severe, but not by much. Basically, I don't mind ones that you can think of in a secular way, I just get seriously annoyed by ones that slap you with their God. Is that enough of a nuance, or am I being silly too?

"...you were supposed to infer..."

Ah. I've apparently failed in my duty here. :-)

You mean you saw Cabaret and didn't get that irony? (If so, I'd think that yes, there was clearly a failure somewhere.)

And whether or not you saw Cabaret, or understood that point, I'd say that if you don't see a similar irony in sweet Linus's quoting of that particular bit scripture, yes, you're missing something when you say

in my opinion, this is nonsense. I'm about as non-religious as they come (a state of some 30 years standing), and this strikes me as really silly.

You may be non-religious, but you're apparently deaf to some religious and historical messages---and call it "nonsense" and "really silly" when other people do notice what is there.

Look, I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should view anything. I've simply expressed a few opinions.

That's just false. you've expressed opinions and value judgements of other people's opinions. They have the right to justify those opinions in response.

Which doesn't mean I entirely disagree with you---I don't. I understand accepting a certain amount of this ambient crap as "going with the territory," so that you can appreciate what's good about mixed stuff. I do that most of the time.

Now there are some fighting words, right?? :-)

You got that right. :-)

Scott Belyea wrote:

"...heavy metal virtuoso rock star type" I buy, but "about as secular as they get"?

Well I think there was some rumor going around at the time that Paganini had made a deal with the devil, but I don't know that Paganini himself had ever admitted as much. (Wink, wink.)

"...apparently deaf ..."

Eh??

"You may be non-religious, but you're apparently deaf to some religious and historical messages---and call it "nonsense" and "really silly" when other people do notice what is there."

OK. I think we're past the point of diminishing returns here, given the difficulties of debate via blog.

..Scott

"...don't know that Paganini himself had ever admitted as much. (Wink, wink.)"

Yes, that's my understanding. Good PR. And see https://www.cedillerecords.org/041.html ...

...Scott

Yes, that's my understanding. Good PR.

Looks like you might be right about that. He's a fascinating character for sure. (But I don't think he actually believed that stuff, though.)

Christian Rock. Case closed.

Check out Buddy and/or Julie Miller. Husband-wife team, have recorded a bunch of stuff, much of which is sold under the "Contemporary Christian" CDDB genre tag, and they just rock. I suspect, PZ, that you would especially like Julie Miller. The religious content is metaphorical enough to not be annoying, and Julie's got a sort of smoky Pops Staples quality to her voice that's wonderful.

I was thinking about these exact same issues during the show. The truth is that fantastic beleifs lead people to do great things, whether those fantasies are religious or secular. Mundane beleifs just aren't very inspiring. The beauty of religion is its ability to bind a people together and do great things. Sure some secular beleifs have managed this as well, communism, national socialism, etc, but they hardly compare to religion for historical significance. Pointing to inspired individual atheist artists doesn't help much, no one can build the pyramids by themselves! Only the most powerful ideas can bind people together.

The fact remains that no one composes great art in the praise of a materialistic, mechanistic, and scientific worldview. In fact these ideas, when taken to their logical endpoint, result in a very unhealthy personality.

Another thing, its a mistake to think that just because someone doesnt adhere to some organized religion, that he or she is not properly termed "religious" from a psychological standpoint. Religious thought is about the idea of something greater than oneself, and the feeling of awe it inspires, whether that is god (christianity), the state (communism), the land (native americans), nature (Thoreau), or the universe. Psychologically I don't think these things are really that different. They tap into the same emotions. Thats why I used the term "fantastic beleifs" in my post above.

If Dr. Myers or any of the rest of you hard-core atheists suddenly renounced all earthly possesions and devoted the rest of your life to wandering around the world denouncing religion in all its forms, you would be acting no less religious than Mother Theresa.

You guys are never going to understand religious people if you keep looking at it from an outsiders perspective, you have to see it from the inside, see what people get out of religion. For most people the benefits of being religious VASTLY outweigh the costs.

The fact remains that no one composes great art in the praise of a materialistic, mechanistic, and scientific worldview. In fact these ideas, when taken to their logical endpoint, result in a very unhealthy personality.

How utterly naively reductionist of you, if I catch your drift. (Which I may not.)

You seem to think that somebody who is philosophically a "materialist" or "mechanist" is somehow emotionally a dried-up "soulless," stunted person with a dry, value-neutral worldview.

Not true. "Materialists" in that sense are not generally especially "materialistic" in the popular sense---or particularly robotic automata, for that matter. They're people with hopes, desires, commitment, and all that other stuff that gets expressed in art. The fact that I think my emotions are a manifestation of mechanistic underlying processes doesn't mean that they're not emotions like anybody else's, or that they don't matter just as much, in every real way.

Also, you seem to think that people create art to praise a worldview. I don't think that's generally true.

That's not what art is about; art is about human experiences, and secular folks are as human as anybody else. They hope, plan, love, strive, achieve, lose, regret, and all of that.

I disagree that religious experiences are especially good fodder for art.

Consider Shakespeare, for example. How much of Shakespeare is "boy meets girl..." vs., say "Man seeks god..."?

Generally, theology is a lousy subject for art, compared to worldly longing, striving, loss, etc.

Religious music is the big exception, because it's not really about the theology. Music isn't mostly about anything; it may evoke a "transcendental" mood, but the nature of that transcendence is unspecified and not committed to religious interpretation.

(It's more like tripping on acid. Not interpreting the experience religiously doesn't make it not tripping.)

"I think the argument that unbelief would not or would inspire art is wrong. It's not about the inspirational quality of religion vs. atheism: it's about religion vs. the real world. I think the real world -- love, little fluffy clouds, the play of light on water, a '57 Chevy -- are greater sources of art than weird culty nonsense."

Dr. Myers, with all due respect, God is just as much a part of the "real world" as "love". He's what philosophers call a "secondary quality".

Religious thought is about the idea of something greater than oneself, and the feeling of awe it inspires, whether that is god (christianity), the state (communism), the land (native americans), nature (Thoreau), or the universe. Psychologically I don't think these things are really that different.

I think you're substantially wrong.

Religion isn't an emotion. You can't equate having an emotion with being religious.

That's like saying if there's a lot of pink light around, it must be "not really that different" from being a sunset.

And please be careful tossing around stereotypes, like Native Americans being pretty much the same, and especially spiritually in tune with "the land."

"If Dr. Myers or any of the rest of you hard-core atheists suddenly renounced all earthly possesions and devoted the rest of your life to wandering around the world denouncing religion in all its forms, you would be acting no less religious than Mother Theresa."

We're not evil enough to be like her. Check it out:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=hitchens_…

I don't know how wise it is to argue whether or not music and art would or wouldn't have developed in some familiar way without the influence of religion/spirituality/mythology simply because, as far as I know, there's never been a society that didn't have some sort of that hoo-hah going on at some point. I could, of course, be wrong, but is there? Maybe I'm being too thick-headed on this, but it seems to me that religion/spirituality/mythology is so intertwined in history and society and all the other various aspects of mankind's ride on this planet we really have no other frame of reference. It's like asking what aviation would be like if the sky was a light shade of pink all the time.

Beyond that and from purely Western Christian sources - because that's all I feel qualified to talk about - American music would be entirely different had there never been any gospel music. No Sam Cooke. No Elvis. No Hank Williams. No Ray Charles. No Roy Acuff. No Robert Johnson. No Bill Monroe. No Son House.

Maybe. Granted, all these people may have made music otherwise (Ray Charles particularly), but it would have been very, very different. It's not just the "power of religion" - whatever that means - that the musicians say fuel their music, it's also been valuble as a concept. Country music and the blues ain't nothin' but tales of various stages of sin and/or redemption, one way or another.

Considering that most folk ballads grew out of sacred sources - if not in theme then usually in style - the only pop music I can think of off the top of my head that might be purely secular is jazz and its various derivatives (including vocalists like Sinatra or Bessie Smith, as well as Western Swing and Big Joe Turner-style jump blues). I'm probably wrong on that, though, but I just don't know where.

In any event, a piece from the "Onion" comes to mind. To wit, something about a local man hearing music from a black church and saying he almost wished he believed in all that "Jesus crap". I wouldn't go quite that far, but I do dig a good gospel quartet.

Great music is great art, regardless its inspiration. Great art often troubles. Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

Heck, that's a good goal even with religion.

The Mormons have an article of their faith that they will seek out all things that are "praiseworthy or of good report." Bluegrass is that. Yes, it has religious themes. Often the themes are troubling. As the late Dick Dabny once wrote in an essay, one thing that is generally consistent in Bluegrass is that there are consequences. People who do bad or stupid things pay consequences.

Good music can inspire anyone with an open mind, regardless its original inspiration.