I love all kinds of music, but whatever the style, a piece has to speak to me emotionally. We can admire the complexity of Bach or Beethoven or the genius of Mozart or the perfect execution, interpretation and tempo of a great pianist, but actually liking a piece is almost purely subjective...emotional. Music that some people love may leave me cold, and vice versa.
Absolutely 🙌 - In the way that a western (usually, because- European Christendom) person from a very privileged background who takes his his position totally for granted is very uniquely privileged to do so.. he argues from his own particular situation/ set of circumstances, & seems to think this is being ‘objective’. Unconscious bias is something we all have in a certain measure but it leaps out at me (at least..;) particularly strongly from him 😅 He also showcases the weakness in a certain way of the privileged (usually) western .. person.. (usually male) .. which makes you quite like him.. but then sometimes I wonder if it’s all just an act, & that he is being ‘used’ in some way, perhaps…
Wow I love that Outro (great video too of course) I used that same sound (The reese base-ish component of the outro) in a song I made. Very interesting to hear it elsewhere!
Atheist here, sang in choir for a decade. Back in the day everyone was paid for by the church. Don't confuse the brilliant output be dissected by the source of the funding.
Yeah I was joking, but anyway, I was surprised he picked this. I mean, if you pick Matthew's Passion you'd expect it to be last chorus, at least that's what I'd pick :)
By being a very traditional english academic. Didn't you see his discussion with Neil Tyson? He clearly doesn't know much about modern films either. These are just signs of a particular generation. It seems crazy to the internet generation, who instantly know about everything that happens in the world, but it's completely normal for plenty of people his age, especially the upper class.
Maybe that news lady had seen some of your other videos where you basically hate anything Christian or religious, and so that's why she doubted you would appreciate a religious musical piece. Not too far-fetched.
I agree. The UK would be far, far worse without its Christian-driven and influenced buildings and architecture and I've walked round them many times. I even think they they serve a great purpose for the non-believer as somewhere to contemplate & gather one's thoughts. Better than, say, Elland Road.
similarly l occasionally do like to take a stroll into old churches just to view the architecture and serenity of its space, but respectfully don't give a shit what they, the believers, used it for. i treat them as museum artifacts the way greeks view their ancient mythical gods.
He named composers from all of the same genre of music when talking about the spirit of the music. Judging by the way Dawkins is as a person, I don't think he's come into contact with many different types of spirit through music.
What a clown you are. He named composers from completely different musical currents/periods. Bach - baroque, Mozart - classic, Beethoven - classic/early romantic, Schubert - romantic. He's come into contact with the entire range of great music that actually contains "spirit", because classical music was and always will be the music that describes the values of humanity best.
All great works of art, music and architecture like Cathedrals were inspired either by the natural world, human relationships or the notion of a divine creator. In religious music, religious art and the architecture of a cathedral such things could never have come about if you weren't divinely inspired. So even though Richard appreciates these great works of art he sees them as fiction. Believe me if the creators of these great works believed it was fiction they would never have been created. They genuinely believed they were doing the work of God or to praise God by creating these masterpieces. That's what drove them to create them in the first place.
That is exactly correct. And in fact, we wouldn't even have established the modern university system as we know it if it weren't for the Church and divinely inspired people seeking to study and understand this world we live in which they believed God created.
Without knowing all Dawkins' specific picks, I disagree with him generally. Instrumental music is great. But if there are lyrics, then it matters to me what they say. They are part of the song. Most people don't even listen (probably the only sane action some times). But to love it, I have to love the words, and their meaning. If you give me lyrics of "World depart, let Jesus in!" like Dawkins' choice, you'll never convince me that's good music. Same music with other lyrics? Sure.
I'm a bit disappointed too. In a talk-show someone once made a Bob Marley reference and Dawkins said "who's Bob Marley?" I respect him for having good taste in classical music, but seriously. Whether you like Bob Marley or not, how can you NOT know who Bob Marley is?
"Supreme achievements of the human spirit." If we are are only the grand composite of evolution through natural selection, Bach's music is a supreme achievement of evolution. He uses words like "spirit" in a flowery way that is void of meaning in the lens of his naturalistic assumptions. The human spirit is capable of such beauty because God placed His spirit in man. The atheist can enjoy the beauty but refuses to acknowledge the origin of this beauty.
Although he says he appreciates it as a fiction, there's plenty of indications he doesn't appreciate the idea of that fiction. He seems to be against the philosophy of christianity and not just its factual claims.
True, but what he meant to say that he is capable of appreciating works of art about a work of fiction even if he doesn't like that work of fiction itself. It's like someone enjoying a painting based on a book that you hated.
@@speedy3702 The awe inspired from the music is not very remote from the religious experience I think. Art embodies the philosophy behind it. Therefore I wonder if he could be more charitable to Christianity by applying the lens with which he saw the beauty in the music.
@@revermightstar8004 I disagree. At least that's not the case for everyone. I am perfectecly able to enjoy a painting or a piece of music based on a book that I hated. Atheists look at christian art the same way as Christians look at art from Acient Greece or the Roman Impire. Just because nobody today believes in what the ancient Greeks and Roman believed and we find a lot of it just ridiculous doesn't stop people of being in awe that was created in the name of what they believed at the time.
@@speedy3702 Do you think art embodies the philosophy behind it at all? If it does, how can the appreciation of art entirely separate from the appreciation of its philsophy? I agree that there can be some discrepancy between the two, but if they are entirely separate, that means one isn't fully aware of the different shades of meaning of either the art or the philosophy, but only superficial aspects of either. If one is in awe of the greek roman art, then one is in awe of the greek roman spirit, no matter to how much degree. One appreciates the spirit of human intellect and pursuit of ideals represented by greek roman art. The work mentioned by Dawkins has in it the attitude of humbling oneself before the most powerful and benevolent which is Christian religiousity at its core. All these intentions in art are manifested as a result of the creator of an art exploring in what way one feels with certain artistic expressions.
@@revermightstar8004 Of course it emobies and for some people it's appreciation depends on it. But not for everyone. I think the most important aspect of a piece of art is always the talent & skill of the artist himself. JS Bach produced great secular music that were just intended for entertainment without any special meaning and then he of course also produced a lot of religious works for the church. It's perfectly possible to enjoy the later works with the same mentality as you enjoy the former.
I bet none of Dawkins choices were by people who expressed his own philosophy in music before he wrote "the God delusion" - like: XTC - Dear God watch?v=IHmTqoLjlXo Tool - Opiate watch?v=xt0Zqo-vOFM A Perfect Circle - Judith watch?v=xTgKRCXybSM Solitude Aeturnus - Days Of Prayer watch?v=gvAWVkxgysw
The way he says "supreme achievements of the human spirit" is really lovely.
Pure intelligence, now he is 81 years old.
I love all kinds of music, but whatever the style, a piece has to speak to me emotionally. We can admire the complexity of Bach or Beethoven or the genius of Mozart or the perfect execution, interpretation and tempo of a great pianist, but actually liking a piece is almost purely subjective...emotional. Music that some people love may leave me cold, and vice versa.
I am only pointing out that on some level, Dawkins seems to acknowledge the transcendent without believing in the transcendent.
I agree, esspically as from materlisist perspective there is no such thing as “spirit” or a “soul”
Dawkins is an excellent biologist and an awful philosopher. He understands very little about Bach, for example.
Absolutely 🙌 - In the way that a western (usually, because- European Christendom) person from a very privileged background who takes his his position totally for granted is very uniquely privileged to do so.. he argues from his own particular situation/ set of circumstances, & seems to think this is being ‘objective’. Unconscious bias is something we all have in a certain measure but it leaps out at me (at least..;) particularly strongly from him 😅 He also showcases the weakness in a certain way of the privileged (usually) western .. person.. (usually male) .. which makes you quite like him.. but then sometimes I wonder if it’s all just an act, & that he is being ‘used’ in some way, perhaps…
Wow I love that Outro (great video too of course) I used that same sound (The reese base-ish component of the outro) in a song I made. Very interesting to hear it elsewhere!
Atheist here, sang in choir for a decade. Back in the day everyone was paid for by the church. Don't confuse the brilliant output be dissected by the source of the funding.
which indeed is a beautiful piece of music :)
AMEN profesor!
Thank your for your most insightful and witty contribution to the debate. Which debate anyways?
Consciousness cannot be measured and seen but you believe in that!
Yeah I was joking, but anyway, I was surprised he picked this. I mean, if you pick Matthew's Passion you'd expect it to be last chorus, at least that's what I'd pick :)
Smart people like music, and Dawkins is smart.
You can oppose religion and at the same time find religious art and music very beautiful. There is no contradiction.
By being a very traditional english academic. Didn't you see his discussion with Neil Tyson? He clearly doesn't know much about modern films either. These are just signs of a particular generation. It seems crazy to the internet generation, who instantly know about everything that happens in the world, but it's completely normal for plenty of people his age, especially the upper class.
Great!!!
Maybe that news lady had seen some of your other videos where you basically hate anything Christian or religious, and so that's why she doubted you would appreciate a religious musical piece. Not too far-fetched.
I agree. The UK would be far, far worse without its Christian-driven and influenced buildings and architecture and I've walked round them many times. I even think they they serve a great purpose for the non-believer as somewhere to contemplate & gather one's thoughts.
Better than, say, Elland Road.
I don't speak German, so could someone tell me how to spell the name of the piece he's speaking about?
Nate L its called "Mache dich mein Herze rein"
similarly l occasionally do like to take a stroll into old churches just to view the architecture and serenity of its space, but respectfully don't give a shit what they, the believers, used it for. i treat them as museum artifacts the way greeks view their ancient mythical gods.
He named composers from all of the same genre of music when talking about the spirit of the music. Judging by the way Dawkins is as a person, I don't think he's come into contact with many different types of spirit through music.
Well... Dawkins was on stage with Nightwish.
What a clown you are. He named composers from completely different musical currents/periods. Bach - baroque, Mozart - classic, Beethoven - classic/early romantic, Schubert - romantic. He's come into contact with the entire range of great music that actually contains "spirit", because classical music was and always will be the music that describes the values of humanity best.
Saint Matthew what?
All great works of art, music and architecture like Cathedrals were inspired either by the natural world, human relationships or the notion of a divine creator. In religious music, religious art and the architecture of a cathedral such things could never have come about if you weren't divinely inspired.
So even though Richard appreciates these great works of art he sees them as fiction. Believe me if the creators of these great works believed it was fiction they would never have been created. They genuinely believed they were doing the work of God or to praise God by creating these masterpieces. That's what drove them to create them in the first place.
That is exactly correct. And in fact, we wouldn't even have established the modern university system as we know it if it weren't for the Church and divinely inspired people seeking to study and understand this world we live in which they believed God created.
Without knowing all Dawkins' specific picks, I disagree with him generally.
Instrumental music is great. But if there are lyrics, then it matters to me what they say. They are part of the song. Most people don't even listen (probably the only sane action some times). But to love it, I have to love the words, and their meaning.
If you give me lyrics of "World depart, let Jesus in!" like Dawkins' choice, you'll never convince me that's good music. Same music with other lyrics? Sure.
Oh but how much MORE would you enjoy it if you believed… 🎊
the god concept is just another human achievement
I'm a bit disappointed too. In a talk-show someone once made a Bob Marley reference and Dawkins said "who's Bob Marley?"
I respect him for having good taste in classical music, but seriously. Whether you like Bob Marley or not, how can you NOT know who Bob Marley is?
I don't like any of Bob Marley's music. Do you have any problems with that?
"Supreme achievements of the human spirit."
If we are are only the grand composite of evolution through natural selection, Bach's music is a supreme achievement of evolution.
He uses words like "spirit" in a flowery way that is void of meaning in the lens of his naturalistic assumptions. The human spirit is capable of such beauty because God placed His spirit in man. The atheist can enjoy the beauty but refuses to acknowledge the origin of this beauty.
which god?
But what if you know German? Anyways, the lyrics are mostly boring but I love the sound of German.
Although he says he appreciates it as a fiction, there's plenty of indications he doesn't appreciate the idea of that fiction. He seems to be against the philosophy of christianity and not just its factual claims.
True, but what he meant to say that he is capable of appreciating works of art about a work of fiction even if he doesn't like that work of fiction itself. It's like someone enjoying a painting based on a book that you hated.
@@speedy3702 The awe inspired from the music is not very remote from the religious experience I think. Art embodies the philosophy behind it. Therefore I wonder if he could be more charitable to Christianity by applying the lens with which he saw the beauty in the music.
@@revermightstar8004 I disagree. At least that's not the case for everyone. I am perfectecly able to enjoy a painting or a piece of music based on a book that I hated.
Atheists look at christian art the same way as Christians look at art from Acient Greece or the Roman Impire. Just because nobody today believes in what the ancient Greeks and Roman believed and we find a lot of it just ridiculous doesn't stop people of being in awe that was created in the name of what they believed at the time.
@@speedy3702 Do you think art embodies the philosophy behind it at all? If it does, how can the appreciation of art entirely separate from the appreciation of its philsophy? I agree that there can be some discrepancy between the two, but if they are entirely separate, that means one isn't fully aware of the different shades of meaning of either the art or the philosophy, but only superficial aspects of either. If one is in awe of the greek roman art, then one is in awe of the greek roman spirit, no matter to how much degree. One appreciates the spirit of human intellect and pursuit of ideals represented by greek roman art. The work mentioned by Dawkins has in it the attitude of humbling oneself before the most powerful and benevolent which is Christian religiousity at its core. All these intentions in art are manifested as a result of the creator of an art exploring in what way one feels with certain artistic expressions.
@@revermightstar8004 Of course it emobies and for some people it's appreciation depends on it. But not for everyone.
I think the most important aspect of a piece of art is always the talent & skill of the artist himself. JS Bach produced great secular music that were just intended for entertainment without any special meaning and then he of course also produced a lot of religious works for the church. It's perfectly possible to enjoy the later works with the same mentality as you enjoy the former.
there at a high level of evolution
I bet none of Dawkins choices were by people who expressed his own philosophy in music before he wrote "the God delusion" - like:
XTC - Dear God
watch?v=IHmTqoLjlXo
Tool - Opiate
watch?v=xt0Zqo-vOFM
A Perfect Circle - Judith
watch?v=xTgKRCXybSM
Solitude Aeturnus - Days Of Prayer
watch?v=gvAWVkxgysw
dawkins rules
"...refuses to acknowledge"
Just stop. All don't share your belief. That's not refusing to acknowledge something. That's a shallow point of view.
It's in German anyway, dont worry ;)
Well, I guess I ruined your 666 subscribership base.
Jesus is real and our savior
Do not be deceived! Only those touched by His Noodly Appendage will attain salvation!
Kunrakudi Murugan is our Saviour more than 7 million people worhsip him (get lost bitch)
The way he says "supreme achievements of the human spirit" is really lovely.