The Holy Trinity

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

No, but the Greek pantheon is a very different sort of thing from the Christian God.

But the original statement was that it was somehow puzzling that there are some atheists who, whilst keen to point out the contradictions in Theistic belief systems, also take delight in the Music and Art that originates from those traditions. The parallel I drew was that enjoyment of such cultural artefacts in no way forbids/excludes/contradicts rejection of the belief systems themselves - however "different" from each other they may be. (And the Rutter comment was added to demonstrate that it is precisely the Art to which some atheists respond; a Rutter setting of the Mass would not create the enthusiastic response that one by Bach, Machaut, Haydn, Stravinsky or Ferneyhough [for examples] would - even though the words [and the religious sentiments] are exactly the same.)

[Magnificat]

I’m not aware of any scientist who argues that nothing caused the Big Bang. Just what it might have been is still a matter for research. No doubt the answer will be “the laws of physics” or something very like it, though the interest will be in ‘how’ and not ‘what’.
Of course it’s perfectly possible that time was created at the moment of the Big Bang and that any talk of what preceded it is as meaningless as what is north of the North Pole QUOTE.

The scientists always say that it is meaningless to talk about what preceded the Big Bang but if time was created at the moment it happened then it is our time not the creator's time. Who/what created the laws of physics?

QUOTE: It may well be that ‘nothing’ as we have understood it previously does not exist. QUOTE.

Surely you are really saying that we can never fully understand the existence we experience which is exactly what I said.

QUOTE There are things that we can’t understand yet – It does seem arrogant or pessimistic to say we never can understand.QUOTE

It is just as arrogant, surely, to think that we can know the mind of God without His choosing to reveal it to us. The Christian,of course, would say that He has already done so, in part, through Jesus Christ and if we follow his teachings we will ultimately discover the whole truth.

QUOTE as science provides ever more answers, the space left for a creator gets smaller and smaller.

Didn't Einstein say that the most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible? In my opinion it is comprehensible to the human mind, at least in part, because it was designed by an intelligent being with a mind similar to our own ( we having been created in God's image ) but which will always remain superior to it.

VCC

[Pabmusic]

Didn't Einstein say that the most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible? In my opinion it is comprehensible to the human mind, at least in part, because it was designed by an intelligent being with a mind similar to our own ( we having been created in God's image ) but which will always remain superior to it.

VCC

Your argument assumes so much. Firstly, that the universe is comprehensible (I agree that it probably is - as did Einstein - because we've done a good job so far of comprehending it).

Secondly, that the reason it is comprehensible to us is that a creator has equipped us to comprehend it. This itself assumes (1) there is a creator in the first place and (2) there is no other explanation for our comprehension but that a creator did it.

Yet there is at least one explanation for the latter that does not involve a creator, namely that we have evolved very large brains and can use those brains to investigate our own origins. And this was done by natural laws operating on us (natural selection, mainly) over a fairly short time - say 2 million years or so - and mainly in changing climates on the African savannah. This explanation is well backed by the evidence of our own DNA and by a very full fossil record, and it does not require a creator.

Now, that is not to say that a creator cannot exist, merely that one is not necessary to the explanation.

And as for the origin of a creator...

[jean]

But the original statement was that it was somehow puzzling that there are some atheists who, whilst keen to point out the contradictions in Theistic belief systems, also take delight in the Music and Art that originates from those traditions...

But, to put my point in a different way, the engagement of Christian art with the God it worships is of a different order from (say) Euripides' engagement with the somewhat problematic hotchpotch of gods his 'tradition' supplied him with.

[Pabmusic]

But, to put my point in a different way, the engagement of Christian art with the God it worships is of a different order from (say) Euripides' engagement with the somewhat problematic hotchpotch of gods his 'tradition' supplied him with.

Can this be true? You compare a belief-system to which you belong with one to which you don't and say "They're not the same!". The Greek gods were a somewhat 'problematic hotchpotch', but is that because we no longer understand their interconectedness? Maybe a Greek from 500 BCE would not agree.

No doubt a Hindu might regard the Christian gods (yes, all of them) as 'a hotchpotch".

[jean]

Put it another way again, then: my response to a Greek tragedy may focus on the understanding of human psychology which the dramatist manifests. The gods can be seen as more or less irrelevant.

If I try to remove God from a setting of the Mass, what is left?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But, to put my point in a different way, the engagement of Christian art with the God it worships is of a different order from (say) Euripides' engagement with the somewhat problematic hotchpotch of gods his 'tradition' supplied him with.

Yes; I agree. I'm not sure how this supports Alison's comment that there is something puzzling about atheists being commited to religious Art, nor how it refutes my own suggestion that it is the Art that attracts such commitment (if either was your intention - and I think I may have missed your point, for which I apologize). The "different order" of engagement with religious beliefs between Euripides and his contemporaries and Bach and his acknowledged, it is nevertheless the work of Euripides and Bach that is important to such atheists; the religious beliefs taken for granted in that art by the artists and the audiences for whom they wrote (and the vast differences between the ways that they engaged with their beliefs) is merely subsidiary background "colour". I am completely commited to the "B minor Mass" - that it arose from beliefs and values for which I have no sympathy is irrelevant: the timing, pacing and placing of D major against B minor, the instrumentation, the economy, the sheer glorious sound - it would surely be more puzzling for an atheist to reject the art because of its religious origins. (In fact, if a mere human being can think up something so astonishing and perfect, it becomes an argument against the idea of a "superior creative intelligence" who made such a comparitively ham-fisted job of His/Her/Its own creative endeavours.)

I brought in the Greeks because I thought that Alison might recognize from works that she may herself find glorious the key to the atheist who has a career in religious art. There are many scholars and performers who devote themselves to this body of art: none of whom share the religious engagement of the creators of that work - no matter how different that engagement is from those of more recent religions.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

If I try to remove God from a setting of the Mass, what is left?

B minor verses D major. Tutti against Solo. Voices and instruments. Threes and Twos. Control and Improvization. Structure and sensuousness. Opulence and Economy. Time. Sound.


(In other words, "the understanding of the psychology" as manifest in the Tonal events of the piece. If it's a good piece, it's the "God" bit that's the weakest element in a Mass. Nobody is going to devote a career - whether they are "religious" or not - to a weak setting of a Mass.)

[jean]

I tend to think that by the time we got to instruments and tutti and solo sections there wasn't so much room for God. By Mozart's time he's entirely absent.

(What kind of a mess am I getting myself into here?)

[doversoul1]

I think, to listeners (and maybe to singers) in non-Christian cultures, which is not the same as being atheist, the Mass can be understood and appreciated as music that expresses one of the many ways in which human mind works. God is not exactly irrelevant but little more than an element of the narrative in the same way as the gods in Greek tragedies.

I’ve lust realised that I am repeating what ferneyhoughgeliebte said in #46 (and in #52)
but I am adding a voice of a listener from a non-Christian culture, as (maybe) an equivalent to a modern reader of Greek tragedies.

You could argue that I am not ‘really’ understanding the works but that is probably a different argument.

[Miles Coverdale]

Didn't Einstein say that the most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible? In my opinion it is comprehensible to the human mind, at least in part, because it was designed by an intelligent being with a mind similar to our own ( we having been created in God's image ) but which will always remain superior to it.

VCC

If it was designed by an intelligent being, and we have been created in God's image, why are the Earth and all its inhabitants going to be annihilated when its star goes extinct? Some design - or is that part of the all-loving God's plan?

[Magnificat]

If it was designed by an intelligent being, and we have been created in God's image, why are the Earth and all its inhabitants going to be annihilated when its star goes extinct? Some design - or is that part of the all-loving God's plan?

MC

If this should ever be in danger of happening ( the scientists again) I believe that an omnipotent God would re-boot his computer in time!

Seriously though, it is legitimate to question why an all- loving God should allow disasters to occur.

The best I can do on this is to reiterate what I have been discussing with Pabmusic i.e. that we have to understand the existence we experience.

If an aeroplane develops a structural fault in its wing we would expect it to crash and people to be killed. Similarly, if there is a terrible earthquake buildings collapse and falling masonry will crush people to death. If these things did not happen it would be a perfect world which we would not understand.

Why does an omnipotent God not intervene? We can request Him to through prayer but it is entirely His choice. He may choose not to do so.

However, the Christian would say that God has experienced human suffering Himself and will be with His people in their times of trial and at their deaths.

VCC.

[Magnificat]

Your argument assumes so much. Firstly, that the universe is comprehensible (I agree that it probably is - as did Einstein - because we've done a good job so far of comprehending it).

Secondly, that the reason it is comprehensible to us is that a creator has equipped us to comprehend it. This itself assumes (1) there is a creator in the first place and (2) there is no other explanation for our comprehension but that a creator did it.

Yet there is at least one explanation for the latter that does not involve a creator, namely that we have evolved very large brains and can use those brains to investigate our own origins. And this was done by natural laws operating on us (natural selection, mainly) over a fairly short time - say 2 million years or so - and mainly in changing climates on the African savannah. This explanation is well backed by the evidence of our own DNA and by a very full fossil record, and it does not require a creator.

Now, that is not to say that a creator cannot exist, merely that one is not necessary to the explanation.

And as for the origin of a creator...

Pabmusic

I thought I had stated quite clearly that I don't just assume there is a creator, on the contrary, I firmly believe that there is and until you and the scientists can offer an alternative plausible scenario for the initial cause of The Big Bang, which you seem unable to do, I shall continue to believe that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth His handywork ( Psalm 19 ).

I did say above that I believe our existence is evolved. I believe that natural laws, natural selection, DNA etc is part of the creator's design.( for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Psalm 139 )

The real question is: have we stopped evolving? I believe we probably have but it will probably be another million years of our time before we can be sure. ( A thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday Psalm 90 )

No doubt we will both know all the answers by then but although I'm certain that Choral Evensong will still be broadcast in a million years time unfortunately we will not be around to impart our wisdom on this message board!!

VCC

[Pabmusic]

MC

If this should ever be in danger of happening ( the scientists again) I believe that an omnipotent God would re-boot his computer in time!...

An interesting tongue-in-cheek hope. We know that stars constantly die all around us. Their fuel becomes exhausted and they collapse because there is no longer the energy from nuclear fusion to counteract the gravity acting on them. Medium-sized stars end their existences with a whimper, large stars with a tremendous explosion – a supernova. This is an important thing for our existence, since almost all elements (except hydrogen, helium and some lithium) were formed during these processes and not at the Big Bang itself.

Presumably, no god reboots a computer in the case of these myriad dying stars, or we wouldn’t see them dying (and indeed wouldn’t be here to see them since no carbon, nitrogen and oxygen – and the rest - would exist in the universe).

Our sun is a medium-sized star that’s about halfway through its hydrogen (which it converts to helium by nuclear fusion (at 400 million tonnes a second!), giving off tremendous energy – as we all know). That means that it’s got about another 5 billion years till it starts to burn the helium. At that point, there may be no life left on Earth anyway, since it will have been getting much hotter as the hydrogen runs out, but even if life remains it is unlikely to survive this stage, since the sun will grow very large indeed (becoming very red in the process – a ‘red giant’) and will almost certainly engulf the Earth.

As I say, there is absolutely nothing unusual about this process, which is easily observable (with the right equipment) somewhere in the universe at any time.

A crumb of comfort lies in the fact that no complex organism has yet existed on Earth for longer than about half a billion years (ie: 500 million years); Homo sapiens (modern humans) for not quite 200,000 years and even earlier ‘human’ types for no longer than six million years tops. And it is the lot of species to go extinct in droves, so it’s probably unlikely that humans will be around in five billion years anyway.

Seriously though, it is legitimate to question why an all-loving God should allow disasters to occur.

Yes. I suspect this is a profoundly difficult issue for believers. Especially so for those who subscribe to the ‘standard’ Christian view that the god is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing) and good.

The fact is, however, that an all-knowing god would appreciate the source of suffering or evil, have the tools to end it (that’s the omnipotence), and would want to do so (that’s the goodness). The only way round this, I suggest, is to argue that ‘goodness’ means something rather different to a god than it does to humans.

The best I can do on this is to reiterate what I have been discussing with Pabmusic i.e. that we have to understand the existence we experience.

If an aeroplane develops a structural fault in its wing we would expect it to crash and people to be killed. Similarly, if there is a terrible earthquake buildings collapse and falling masonry will crush people to death. If these things did not happen it would be a perfect world which we would not understand.

I agree that it is desirable to understand the existence we experience. But I’m not sure I agree that we would not be able to understand perfection.

The fact is that unpleasant things happen constantly. Gods or other supernatural beings have no explanatory power if we can explain an event ourselves. And even if we can’t, that does not mean that we will never be able to. It is not so long ago that illnesses were caused by demons (Jesus is said to have cast out demons into a herd of pigs) or by bad smells, but we now know that illnesses are the result of very down-to-earth things such as microbes and misfirings of the brain, and we have ways of treating many of them. Demons are no longer necessary, having no explanatory power.

Why does an omnipotent God not intervene? We can request Him to through prayer but it is entirely His choice. He may choose not to do so.

However, the Christian would say that God has experienced human suffering Himself and will be with His people in their times of trial and at their deaths.

Some of this I addressed earlier, but I do find it difficult to regard the Christian god as ‘good’ or (in your words) ‘all-loving’ without having to perform mental gymnastics. And that raises the question of why a god might expect his creations to go through such tortuous reasoning, rather than simply tell it as it is.

As for the Christian god having experienced suffering…why? He or she is all-knowing, surely, and would not need to experience it. Maybe it was to demonstrate to those on Earth that the god understood their suffering. Well, perhaps, but it was all rather disingenuous, wasn’t it? God did not come down in person, but as his son. The crucifiction happened in the full knowledge that Jesus would not ‘die’ in human terms, but would rise again.

(By the way, if Jesus was god in human form, then why Mark’s “`My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” – Mark’s only record of anything Jesus said at the crucifiction? Or was that actually ‘spin’ for the masses? Luke makes it clear that Jesus fully understood what was happening, and why, and is quite calm throughout.)

Can I say, Magnificat, that I’ve thoroughly enjoyed our wholly civilised exchanges.

[Pabmusic]

Pabmusic

I thought I had stated quite clearly that I don't just assume there is a creator, on the contrary, I firmly believe that there is and until you and the scientists can offer an alternative plausible scenario for the initial cause of The Big Bang, which you seem unable to do, I shall continue to believe that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth His handywork ( Psalm 19 )...

I don't doubt it for a minute, Magnificat. But I don't accept an argument that says "Science has not come up with an explanation, or an explanation that I believe or can understand. Therefore the supernatural is true". What you do there is to dismiss all possibilities except the one you prefer.

That's perfectly OK as a matter of belief, but not as truth.