05 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobI never claimed to be an expert on Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis, but i dont need
In other words, you've just laid bare you measly understanding of Darwinian theory.
to be in this instant, for mere logic can be applied. Music is superfluous to our survival,
it cannot be accounted for in evolutionary terms, yet it is deeply entrenched within the
human psyche to enjoy and be elevated by the experience. Why should this be?
Simply because it is spiritual.
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatSorry,my general statement was an angry response to shaviximir' personal attack! I thank you for your kind opinion of my posts.I am classifying all those who remain unmoved after listening to great music as either deaf or tone deaf or animals on the lower rungs of evolution.
This is the first time I have ever felt moved to voice my disagreement at one of your posts rvsakhadeo! I know of at least one person who I think might cause you to reconsider your cla ...[text shortened]... at least as high on the evolutionary ladder as I am (dunno if that's saying much though!).
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo* BUMP *
Sorry,my general statement was an angry response to shaviximir' personal attack! I thank you for your kind opinion of my posts.
The fact that atheists and non-religionists can make and consume sublime music without the need for a religionist creed or belief in God, if anything, undermines your suggestion that the said sublime music proves the existence of God.
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoSo you never heard great music as a young man?
Yes I will certainly clarify my position. I value your posts,although your views are diametrically opposite. My belief in God is an acquired one. I was an agnostic for most of my adult life.
Gradually I have come to believe in God after much deliberation.
But later you say it was after an emotional experience. Which was it?
Once when on a pilgrimage to the Himalayan shrine of Kedarnath along with wife, I felt a rush of emotion of love for God never before felt by me whem the temple located on a peak 3700 m high came into view. Not high altitude sickness, I assure you. The grandeur of the scene and the holy atmosphere was the inmediate cause of my conversion. So why great music will not cause this change?
I too feel emotional about certain things, from great music, scenes, love, movies, excited crouds etc. But I do not interpret that emotion as evidence of the existence of God. I do think that for many, religion does come (or is confirmed) as a result of an emotional experience, and I notice that evangelists are aware of this and try very hard to induce an emotional experience in potential followers. But what should make you stop and think, is the fact that people end up believing in whatever religion they were most familiar with at the time, or whatever religion is tied to the emotional experience. Clearly, not all religions can be valid, so it is an error to take emotional experience as evidence for the validity of your religion.
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by FMFMy OP stated" Music has the power to turn an atheist into a believer.". I also stated that" Great Music should be enough to convince a person about the existence of God". These are my beliefs. They do not have meet the rigorous requirements that a statement has to meet before it can be termed as a fact. It is also true that there could be atheist musicians who will stay as atheists,whether their music is appreciated as sublime by their audience or not.
[b]* BUMP *
The fact that atheists and non-religionists can make and consume sublime music without the need for a religionist creed or belief in God, if anything, undermines your suggestion that the said sublime music proves the existence of God.[/b]
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut your lack of knowledge of Darwinian theory leads you straight to your biased answer of 'spirituality'.
I never claimed to be an expert on Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis, but i dont need
to be in this instant, for mere logic can be applied. Music is superfluous to our survival,
it cannot be accounted for in evolutionary terms, yet it is deeply entrenched within the
human psyche to enjoy and be elevated by the experience. Why should this be?
Simply because it is spiritual.
How genes work is a very complicated process. It's not just a case of gene x does this y does this. They may very well work together to provide a different function. The function of gene x in survival terms maybe negligible or could even be slightly detrimental but it's cooperation with gene y could produce a behavior that is of enormous survival advantage to the organism. So gene x gets 'pulled through' the gene pool not because it may be any good on it's own but because of it's ability to work with other genes.
Just found this interesting article on possibilities for musical evolution, have a gander -
http://www.economist.com/node/12795510
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by Proper Knobok, ill have a gander later, its my wedding anniversary today, 12 years of marital bliss! If music be the food of love, then play on!
But your lack of knowledge of Darwinian theory leads you straight to your biased answer of 'spirituality'.
How genes work is a very complicated process. It's not just a case of gene x does this y does this. They may very well work together to provide a different function. The function of gene x in survival terms maybe negligible o ...[text shortened]... lities for musical evolution, have a gander -
http://www.economist.com/node/12795510
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes,I did not hear' great music ' as a young man. All that I was exposed to right upto age 40 or so was film music. It was good and at times very good. But not soul stirring/evocative/bringing a lump to your throat/bringing a tear to your eye.
So you never heard great music as a young man?
[b]Gradually I have come to believe in God after much deliberation.
But later you say it was after an emotional experience. Which was it?
Once when on a pilgrimage to the Himalayan shrine of Kedarnath along with wife, I felt a rush of emotion of love for God never before felt by me whem the temp ...[text shortened]... d, so it is an error to take emotional experience as evidence for the validity of your religion.
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoSo what does rvsakhadeo classify as 'great music'?
Yes,I did not hear' great music ' as a young man. All that I was exposed to right upto age 40 or so was film music. It was good and at times very good. But not soul stirring/evocative/bringing a lump to your throat/bringing a tear to your eye.
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoBollocks. people cry at the lamest songs... 🙂
Yes,I did not hear' great music ' as a young man. All that I was exposed to right upto age 40 or so was film music. It was good and at times very good. But not soul stirring/evocative/bringing a lump to your throat/bringing a tear to your eye.
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am sorry that my post came to a tame end,yesterday. That was because it was 11 pm when I had to end typing. I had the emotional experience of the surge of love for God,first. Belief followed afterwards. As soon as I had the experience, I thought that it may be because of my Hindu genes of hundreds of generations which reacted,as primed,due to the grand scenery etc. The reaction,although genuine,did not convince me about existence of God. It was on subsequent readings of Adya Shankaracharya,Vivekanand,Ramakrishna, Ramatirtha and last but not the least my Guru Kalavati books and pondering over that I have come to believe in God.
So you never heard great music as a young man?
[b]Gradually I have come to believe in God after much deliberation.
But later you say it was after an emotional experience. Which was it?
Once when on a pilgrimage to the Himalayan shrine of Kedarnath along with wife, I felt a rush of emotion of love for God never before felt by me whem the temp ...[text shortened]... d, so it is an error to take emotional experience as evidence for the validity of your religion.