Friday, 08 February 2008
-
Currently Listening
A State of Wonder: The Complete Goldberg Variations (1955 & 1981)
By Johann Sebastian Bach, Glenn Gould, Tim Page
see relatedUnsystematic Theology, vol. BWV 232: The Bachological Argument
By Eric M. PazdzioraI’ve already presented my Xangalogical Argument for the existence of God, to what seemed the general fuddlement of my readers. Now I think it’s time to trot out my very favorite of all: The Bachological Argument.
In the midst of a rather technical presentation of the arguments for the existence of God, the catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft suddenly springs one of my favorite lines of all time:
17: The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.
Therefore there must be a God.
You either see this one or you don't.[David Hume is dead, but philosophical dialogue is not. On the whole, this seems to be the most comfortable arrangement for all concerned, possibly excepting Hume.]
“I don’t see it.”
“I was afraid of that.”
“No seriously, I don’t understand. How do you get from the premise ‘J. S. Bach’ to the conclusion ‘There is a God’?”
“Have you listened to any Bach lately?”
“No.”
“Here, put this CD on and we’ll talk in a few minutes.”
“OK.”
(The strains of the Credo from the B Minor Mass fill the room.)
“Ohhhh….. Now I see it. Thank you.”
“Not a problem.”
“But wait, I don’t get it.”
“When did you get here?”
“I heard the music and had to see who was playing it. That’s the B Minor Mass, right?”
“Good ear.”
“Aren’t you the guy who always says that the music of Bach proves the existence of God?”
“Well, that was Peter Kreeft, but I’m a fan.”
“So how do you get from one to the other?—logically, I mean.”
“Who says everything has to be about logic?”
“Isn’t that the only rational way to think?”
“Hardly. You can’t even logically prove the existence of minds other than your own. In fact, Alvin Plantinga has said that the evidence for the existence of other minds is pretty much the same in quality and kind as the evidence for the existence of God.”
“Okay… but just suppose we wanted to use logic. Can’t we?”
“Well. If we must. I suspect it would go something like this. Listening to that music, what can you tell me about how it came into existence?”
“Come on, that’s obvious. Bach had to be the greatest musical genius of all time.”
“So you think it came from a very intelligent person? What if I told you that the ‘St. Matthew Passion’ started out as ‘Chopsticks’ and went through a long process of random errors in transcribing until it reached the form we have today?”
“I’d say you were pulling my leg.”
“And you’d be right. It’s obvious just listening to it that it’s the work of someone who really knew what he was doing.”
“Everybody knows that. What’s your point?”
“Well, here’s some logic for you: ‘The effect cannot be greater than the cause.’”
“Of course, that’s the causality principle. I remember that from physics class.”
“So if the effect is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach, we know that the cause had to be something greater.”
“Sure—the mind of Johann Sebastian Bach.”
“Exactly. The human brain is infinitely more complex than the most complex fugue and variations. So: what caused the human brain?”
“Come again?”
“Somehow, the mind of Johann Sebastian Bach came into being. You rejected the idea of random unintelligent causes when I applied it to the music of Johann Sebastian Bach; surely the same should apply even more strongly to something that is vastly more complex. So whatever caused that, logically, had to be greater than that was. What’s greater than the human brain?”
“…I suppose you want me to say God.”
“The possibility does present itself.”
“But then, couldn’t I just ask what’s greater than God?”
“You could. But look at it this way. If you keep on asking ‘what’s greater than X,’ you’ll have an infinite regress, right?”
“Yes.”
“Which is logically impossible, or at least completely impractical. There can’t be a never-ending chain of causes stretching forever, each one greater than the last. But it does make sense if you have, at some point, an Ultimate Cause. It would have to be Infinite (since it is greater than all the things it caused), and Uncaused (since there is nothing greater to cause it.)”
“And that’s God?”
“He certainly fits the description.”
“So you’ve gone from Bach to the Cosmological argument.”
“Well, in a manner of speaking, yes.”
“Suppose I don’t buy that.”
“In that case we could debate the logic of Intelligent Design all evening and not get anywhere. Let’s go back to Bach. Why do you suppose it is that so many people, even non-religious people, love his music so much?”
“Have you listened to any Bach lately?”
“We’ve still got the B Minor Mass playing in the background.”
“Oh yeah. Well then, isn’t it obvious?”
“Of course, but explain it for us.”
“Well. It’s immensely complex and orderly, but it’s still beautiful. You can’t help marveling at the way everything fits together and sounds so harmonious. It makes me think about love and goodness.”
“I think most music-lovers would agree with you. But that’s kind of odd, because if you don’t believe in God, then you believe that everything came about by sheer chance, without any higher purpose, so it’s all ultimately meaningless, correct?”
“Yes.”
“Now let me play you some music that came about by sheer chance.”
(There is a moment’s pause as the CD player switches discs. Then sounds of a different kind fill the room.)
“Ooh—aggh—aaaack— What is that?”
“It’s called Atlas Eclipticalis by John Cage. He composed it by tossing coins to determine which instruments would play which notes. The notes themselves were determined by superimposing a notation staff over a star chart. Do you like it?”
“It’s… (aagh)… well, it’s very interesting.”
“That’s a more favorable review than it got at its premiere. Everyone was booing and hissing and shouting in protest—and that was just the orchestra.”
“I can’t say that I blame them.”
“You prefer Bach?”
“Of course.”
“So then, let’s reason this through. On the atheist view, there’s no God. The universe is completely random and meaningless. Yet somehow, this random and meaningless universe managed to produce creatures who are able to distinguish between order and chaos, meaning and meaninglessness, discord and harmony—and who go so far as to prefer the one that, on this view, is at odds with the universe. It’s as though a universe without light produced creatures who could see that it was dark, and didn’t like it. How on earth did that come about?”
“Go on.”
“Now if the universe really was meaningless, the music of John Cage would be neither more nor less meaningful than the music of J. S. Bach. We wouldn’t see any difference between the two. Music that was produced by ordered thought would sound no different than music that was produced by random chance. Yet most people prefer Bach to Cage. So there is a difference, and people have this odd preference for the meaningful one. Why do the products of a meaningless universe revolt so strongly against meaninglessness? Unless, of course, that’s not where we came from at all.”
“So why didn’t someone like John Cage see that?”
“Funny thing was, he did. He wasn’t just a composer; he was an avid mycologist.”
“A what?”
“A person who studies mushrooms. But he said, ‘I became aware that if I approached mushrooms in the spirit of my chance operations, I would die shortly.’ In other words, he realized that you can pick musical notes at random to make a philosophical point, but if you pick mushrooms at random, you’ll probably poison yourself. The philosophy doesn’t work when you take it out into real life.”
“I’ll have to think about that one for a while.”
“It’s really simple: if we have the capacity to perceive and appreciate meaning, order, harmony, beauty, love, and goodness, then we must have come from some greater source that also has the capacity to perceive and appreciate meaning, order, harmony, beauty, love, and goodness. There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach: Therefore there must be a God.”
(The CD player switches back to the Credo. Everyone listens in silence. There is nothing more to say.)
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to Pass_the_Aura's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in Pass_the_Aura's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (22)
I'd love to see you actually strike up that conversation. I'm not sure it would go as you have it rendered here, but it would be interesting none the less. The thinking is certainly correct. I think getting people to look at the bigger picture is very important. It's very difficult to get people who are intellectually dishonest to see truth. I've not met an intellectually honest atheist. I'm certain they exist, but I've yet to meet one. Then again intellectual honesty isn't always in great supply among us Christians either.
Lonnie
Kind of reminiscent of a conversation between "Bones and Spock" on StarTrek.
P.S. I responded to your comment over on my side.
(it helps with context)
Bee
@BPsAlwaysTurnUp -
@Evowookiee -
-- Sadly, very true. Just the other day I tried to strike up a dialogue on an atheist blog by pointing out (it only took two lines) that they were very obviously taking the Bible out of context. In response I got called half a dozen junior-high level epithets, received not one logical argument, but the winner--I kid you not--was the one who said, "Blah, blah, blah, you can talk all you want about context but it doesn't change what the Bible says!" I gave up in disgust.Frankly, for most of them I doubt the issue is one of reason at all.
RYC: "Frankly, for most of them I doubt the issue is one of reason at all." Well said, and how kind of "ZombieCoffeeBlues" to point out the veracity of that statement. Atheist and writer, Aldous Huxley once, in a moment of candor, acknowledged that his atheism probably had something to with not wanting there to be a god to whom he had to answer. Reason finds reason enough when our desires dictate our reality. Romans 1 is a picture of societies which have reasoned God into myth. What is now considered reasonable was, in days past, thought to be insanity. Ah, progress!
Lonnie
Tragically, I'm afraid with many people today, this argument would break down before it even got started, because beautiful music like Bach's isn't universally appreciated.
@ZombieCoffeeBlues -
Thanks; you're too kind.@Pass_the_Aura -
I try my best@ZombieCoffeeBlues -
Yes, I could tell right away that you were trying.@Pass_the_Aura -
I guess the power of christ compelled me.@ZombieCoffeeBlues -
That might be truer than you know.Pass_the_Aura is referring to a debate which is the second to last entry on my page. I've responded to him fairly thoroughly and have tried to be as mature as possible. I certainly can't speak for the other Atheists that were on there, however, but if you include me in this camp of "half a dozen junior-high level epithets" then you're way off.
As for this entry, I don't think that it really proves a thing. It just seems like mere circular reasoning to me. I can expand on this later if you so desire, but right now I don't have the time.
Fun read.
I take it that there was a disagreement somewhere?
The "effect is greater than the cause" part was perhaps the biggest misuse of a scientific theory I have ever seen. It would be like saying that because for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction every time you hurt somebody's feelings you would have a sense of euphoria equal to their sense of pain.
As for your debate with the atheist, you're arguments are much worse than his, although I would have done things differently if I were in his position. In fact, after I'm done with this, I'm going to give my thoughts on the subject.
Tony
Hahahaha...love this...
And as to my previous post: Emotionally needy..yeah, that's a good description--and, you're also quite right, about the bad experiences with Christianity (or at least "Christians")--I've encountered many...but I've also encountered many who have no bad experiences with it...but, still are emotionally needy. And so true--only the GENUINE love and compassion of Christ stands a chance...none of this condemning, rioting, picketing stuff...especially not in times of sorrow or loss (did you hear about the church in NYC that picketed Heath Ledger's funeral because he was in "Brokeback Mountain" [and was NOT gay]? DESPICABLE!!! CHRIST WOULD NOT HAVE DONE THIS!!! He would have gone to the funeral and WEPT with those who had lost such a loved one!!!)
And, yes, to your aside...homosexuality is equal in weight to all other sins...the consequences may be more severe, but telling a white lie is JUST as much of a sin as homosexuality...
Reading this has been a great encouragement to me--God has truly blessed you with great thinking & writing talents! Keep using them to His glory!
As for evolution, what we are after is not the mechanism that makes corn or bananas bigger or smaller, but the mechanism that gives corn and bananas a previously non-existent appreciation for aesthetic beauty. If there's an evolutionary theory that even attempts to explain this, I've never heard of it. So how do we explain Bach?
I would like to say that this is a very well written dialog. It reminds me a lot of the dialog I read in Arthur Schopenhauer’s book of essays and aphorisms. But although it was well written out, there are still parts that are blank.
For example, you are trying to prove the existence of god in general. But you still do not have any proof of your god in particular. You just try to prove the existence of a god in general.
In addition, you place the theory that because what made the mind, must have more of an intellect than what we have, means that there must be a god? That doesn’t explain anything. To me it seems as just an excuse to explain the unknown, by placing a “face on the maker.”
I understand what you mean by the fact that the chain all has to be narrowed down into one. But at the same time, where did the one come from? Always there? Highly unlikely. Because you do not know the answer to the question (no one truly does) your guessing that it must be god. But that is only a theology, that is not fact…… only a theory.
In addition, you did not elaborate on the theory as to why the theory of intelligent design wouldn’t bring you anywhere (an argument going on in circles). I do realize that you stated also in the dialog that it would all have to be narrowed down into one. And I can see that, but that is a logical theory, but not a factual one.
Your statement of “You can’t even logically prove the existence of minds other than your own” just proves that we have not progressed enough to figure that out. Hopefully eventually we will understand more as to why and what. But without our brain, there is no mind. Although this has hardly anything to do with this….. I am personally a fan of astrology. I have yet to meet one that doesn’t match up with their sun and moon sign. For example I am a Pisces sun and a Scorpio moon. I fit both descriptions to a T. Not because I want to, (God knows I would much rather be a Leo or a Sagittarius) but because it is my personality. I am overly sensitive, insecure, and have jealousy issues (God help any woman I get with ha ha). In addition my Numerological number describes me and my natal describes me. If you look up a sign of a person, you will be able to match up their major personality traits with it. The point of me going on this random tangent is to explain that although there is no explanation to the mind, we are able to at least tap into parts of others thought process, through their Natal charts and numerological charts. (Don’t get me wrong, daily horoscopes are the dumbest thing I have ever come across and is just a way for the newspapers to take up space.) That of course doesn’t explain the mind, but at least is the tip of the iceberg (although in all reality it technically isn’t scientific). We just need more logic and science to give us more hardcore facts. Ok my conversation with myself is going in circles…. I have a tendency to do that…..
The only thing that I am truly trying to point out, is that you are just merely stating a theology and basing the examples on music. I do understand where you are coming from, and it does seem to be a logical one, but like all theologies, (and the difference of opinion on the music), it is merely an opinion and nothing more. We can go in circles trying to prove the existence or lack there of, of god, but we will never be able to prove it, because of our limited knowledge and minds.
I am sorry that it has taken me so long to read more of your writings. It truly reminds me of Kierkegaard’s and in all honesty I enjoy reading them. But I am in the process of packing and moving to another state, and it is hard for me to find the time to read your essays. I will try to read more tomorrow, because, like I said, I thoroughly enjoy reading your opinions. I do wish though, you would be able to give me facts. I see that you are a creationist. But prove that your god in particular is true and why.
As far as the spiritual experience goes (in our last conversation)…. I am an occultist and do in fact understand what it is like. I also am a lover of music and compose piano pieces in my spare time. So as far as going into that spiritual trance, I understand that also. Art is also a HUGE part of my life, and I find that also to be spiritual…. But that’s besides the point. Point being I just wanted to know what you personally feel when you state “spiritual experience.” I love hearing other people’s opinions and questioning their thoughts to further “look” into their minds. Not that I am questioning my own beliefs, but that I challenge myself and others. We all must be questioned in our beliefs to grow.
@morbidxshadows - Actually I more or less agree with your assessment of this one (although I'm quite flattered to be compared to Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer!). I wrote it as a fun exercise to see if I could get by logic from the premise "music" to the conclusion "God exists" though, as stated at the beginning, it's an area where logic isn't usually required. So you're mostly right when you say I started with the theology and found examples in music. The weakness of the logic, as you point out, is like the Cosmological argument: it may show that a Designer exists, but doesn't show whether the Designer is God or Allah or Vishnu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a committee of seven superintelligent shades of the color blue. (By the way, "Creationist" is probably not the best label for me-- I do believe in a Creator, but I think the whole creation / evolution debate has devolved into almost total comic absurdity.) The reference to "minds other than our own" was to Alvin Plantinga's God and Other Minds, which you may like as well since you read so much philosophy.
So, while I adore music (My degree is in composition, in fact-- always nice to meet a fellow composer!), it's not foundational to my faith in this logical sense. I think you'll find me on firmer footing when you come to the posts about Jesus.
(I totally understand if it takes you a while to read all these; I wrote them over several years, so no pressure.
)