The Johan Sebastian Bach Argument

[greylorn]

Ad hominims out of place. Of course the " proof " doesn’t satisfy everyone. However I think it is pretty darn good. The point is that in a world without God, which just always existed without a cause, and just evolved by chance, there really is no place for a creature capable of aesthetic appreciation. That would be sort of unnecessary. But since there is a creature capable of appreciating the endless kinds of beauty in the universe, including Bach, the sunrise, the sunset, mountain vistas, a silent misy mornint beside the farm pond watching the bass rise, etc. just steaks to a loving creator, endlessly beautiful in Himself. It is a proof that speaks to the soul.

No proofs are absolute, God wants us use our minds and wills to respond to the signs. He always " speaks " to the humble, we are free to accept or reject, He wants a free choice. If the " proofs " were irrefutable were would be the merit?

In the interest of clear thinking, elusive on this thread so far, a refutable proof is not a proof. Why not buy a dictionary and look up “proof?” Armed with that useful linguistic information, you might be able to make clear, thoughtful, intelligent statements about the nature of proofs. Or, you may care more about reinforcing your mistaken opinions and being right.

BTW there is an implicit assumption in your argument which mirrors that which is built into the phony “proof.” You assume that God created the component of man which appreciates music, art, and more pertinent to this conversation, intelligence.

Elsewhere I propose, and submit genuinely logical arguments for the proposition that the human soul is a non-created entity for which God cannot be blamed.

That aside, the existence of a mechanism that is capable of generating or admiring beauty does not prove that the mechanism is created.

Your thinking blindly follows the “proof” in attributing the appreciation of music only to humans. Experiments show that plants in the vicinity of loudspeakers will grow toward the speaker if it transmits classical music, but away if it is playing rap noise, discordant rock, etc. Nature provides plenty of evidence that critters appreciate beauty in one another. Birds are singing to one another— not to us.

Finally, it may be worth noting that my complaint about the OP’s “proof” has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality or not of a Creator. Nothing!

Many of my reasons for belief in a Creator come from the beauty in nature— birds, flowers, and beasties. The generally low intelligence and wretched personal standards of most humans presents strong arguments against the possibility that any of us were created by a Super-Being.

My complaint has been entered solely for the point of instruction, to protect the value of genuine logic. To call the OP’s statement a "proof, " when it is not even close to meeting the standards of proof, is inexcusably stupid.

 

[greylorn]

who else is in the Nancy Pelosi Hall of Fame? Sounds like proof of evil or stupidity.
JS Bach was a very devote Christian who aim was to write every piece of music to the glory of God. Maybe it is better to view this a proof of what one person can do who dedicates their life and talent to the Glory of God.

Oh, pooh! Do you suppose that Bach’s need to support two wives and twenty children had anything to do with his music? Churches wanted religious music and owned the good organs. They also supported choirs and collected money. Another source of money for serious musicians was the nobility, who were well-integrated with religions. Do you suppose that these economic factors, and perhaps even his appreciation for the comforts associated with frequent exercises in procreation, might have had anything to do with JSB’s “dedication?”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In the interest of clear thinking, elusive on this thread so far, a refutable proof is not a proof. Why not buy a dictionary and look up “proof?” Armed with that useful linguistic information, you might be able to make clear, thoughtful, intelligent statements about the nature of proofs. Or, you may care more about reinforcing your mistaken opinions and being right.

BTW there is an implicit assumption in your argument which mirrors that which is built into the phony “proof.” You assume that God created the component of man which appreciates music, art, and more pertinent to this conversation, intelligence.

Elsewhere I propose, and submit genuinely logical arguments for the proposition that the human soul is a non-created entity for which God cannot be blamed.

That aside, the existence of a mechanism that is capable of generating or admiring beauty does not prove that the mechanism is created.

Your thinking blindly follows the “proof” in attributing the appreciation of music only to humans. Experiments show that plants in the vicinity of loudspeakers will grow toward the speaker if it transmits classical music, but away if it is playing rap noise, discordant rock, etc. Nature provides plenty of evidence that critters appreciate beauty in one another. Birds are singing to one another— not to us.

Finally, it may be worth noting that my complaint about the OP’s “proof” has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality or not of a Creator. Nothing!

Many of my reasons for belief in a Creator come from the beauty in nature— birds, flowers, and beasties. The generally low intelligence and wretched personal standards of most humans presents strong arguments against the possibility that any of us were created by a Super-Being.

My complaint has been entered solely for the point of instruction, to protect the value of genuine logic. To call the OP’s statement a "proof, " when it is not even close to meeting the standards of proof, is inexcusably stupid.

“…I thank thee Father for having revealed these things to the little ones…”
“…suffer the little ones to come unto me…unless you become like these…”

 

[DeepBlueSea]

He should know that Mozart, not Bach, is a far better proof for God!

4 1/2 minutes. Turn up the volume.

youtube.com/watch?v=6KUDs8KJc_c

I’m surprise no one has raised up Franz Liszt. Pieces like Piano Sonata B Minor etc are composed with a sacramental and meditative undertone. Others such as Liebestraum and Benediction of God in Solitude are just pure humanist joy.

He was like a less emo version of Chopin crossing with a less flamboyant version of Mozart. All three of them were Catholic.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I’m surprise no one has raised up Franz Liszt. Pieces like Piano Sonata B Minor is composed with a sacramental and meditative undertone. Others such as Liebestraum and Benediction of God in Solitude are just pure humanist joy.

He was like a less emo version of Chopin crossing with a less flamboyant version of Mozart. All three of them were Catholic.

I actually did link to Liebestraum

 

[DeepBlueSea]

I actually did link to Liebestraum

Oops, didn’t see that but thanks!

Here is Liszt and the Cross.

 

[JDaniel]

“You either see this or you don’t” IS the commentary I was referring to.

IMO Dr. Kreeft is going for a “degrees of perfection” argument, sort of like what Aquinas used in the -]Second/-] Fourth Way. The theory being that Johann Sebastian Bach’s music is as close to perfect as music is going to get. If you concede that you concede that there are degrees of perfection, and after going through a few more steps you’d have to conclude there’s a God.

I’ve read that section of the book for my Apologetics class and it’s clear from the questions at the end of the chapter that he intends for us to take the “proof” seriously. For my part, I felt embarrassed that it was in there; I felt like it made the book lose credibility because the argument was so ridiculous.

But I suppose reformulated a certain way it sort of kind of has merit if you squint at it in the right light.

MA:

I agree with you. The Fourth Way is not literally an argument from “perfection” to God. The Fourth Way is much more than that. It entails that, in the categorical sense, but in Aquinas’ proof, it should expose to us the Cause of everything else below it, in the specific category. Fire is, to Aquinas, the cause of any and all other heats under the category of “heat,” with fire being the perfection of heat. (Granted, the fire analogy is not compelling these days.)

However, in the category of Being, God is the penultimate Being and the cause of all being(s) below Him in the category. At the time, fire was a good analogy though - as it was the source, i.e., cause, of all other heats and was considered the penultimate category identifier. In that sense, it’s still a good analogy, just doesn’t seem to add anything to the proof.

I wonder what other categories we could surmise that would serve the purpose better? This question would certainly be meaningful to ask - and get answered! IMO. I don’t think we’ll ever get more than a “fire” analogy for this. Why: precisely because it is supposed to be an analogy. God is the penultimate and cause of all beings. Period, end of sentence. We’re not going to find a category that fulfills a purpose that can only be proper to God, in the long run. IOW, all other categories lead back to God - the penultimate identifier of whatever category you want to reference.

The JSB does not meet the criteria, as it is not per se causative of other music. It may be instigative of other music, in the sense that it is inspirational, but not causative of them.

God bless,
jd

 

[Qoeleth]

I’m surprise no one has raised up Franz Liszt. Pieces like Piano Sonata B Minor etc are composed with a sacramental and meditative undertone. Others such as Liebestraum and Benediction of God in Solitude are just pure humanist joy.

He was like a less emo version of Chopin crossing with a less flamboyant version of Mozart. All three of them were Catholic.

Liszt springs to mind immediately. He was received into the minor orders of the Church, and also wrote pieces on St. Francis of Asissi, St. Anthony of Padua, arrangement of Palestrina, etc. Of course, a devout Catholic.

The problem is, in my opinion, there is always an element of ‘insincerity’ in his music- he could never entirley stop being a poser, or a ‘superman’. It was impossible for him to stop being a showman, even in his most intimate expressions.

Of course, there is also the issue of his famous sexual voracity. But he was also famous for his benevolence and generosity. When he paid Chopin a compliment, Chopin- “I am granted a kingdom- within his Empire!”.

Actually, Liszt was one of the few leading piano masters of the 19th Century who did not require his pupils to study Bach systematically.

 

[Qoeleth]

MA:

I agree with you. The Fourth Way is not literally an argument from “perfection” to God. The Fourth Way is much more than that. It entails that, in the categorical sense, but in Aquinas’ proof, it should expose to us the Cause of everything else below it, in the specific category. Fire is, to Aquinas, the cause of any and all other heats under the category of “heat,” with fire being the perfection of heat. (Granted, the fire analogy is not compelling these days.)

However, in the category of Being, God is the penultimate Being and the cause of all being(s) below Him in the category. At the time, fire was a good analogy though - as it was the source, i.e., cause, of all other heats and was considered the penultimate category identifier. In that sense, it’s still a good analogy, just doesn’t seem to add anything to the proof.

I wonder what other categories we could surmise that would serve the purpose better? This question would certainly be meaningful to ask - and get answered! IMO. I don’t think we’ll ever get more than a “fire” analogy for this. Why: precisely because it is supposed to be an analogy. God is the penultimate and cause of all beings. Period, end of sentence. We’re not going to find a category that fulfills a purpose that can only be proper to God, in the long run. IOW, all other categories lead back to God - the penultimate identifier of whatever category you want to reference.

The JSB does not meet the criteria, as it is not per se causative of other music. It may be instigative of other music, in the sense that it is inspirational, but not causative of them.

God bless,
jd

Do you mean ‘penultimate’ or ‘ultimate’?

 

[greylorn]

A glut of philosophically irrelevant nits posting to this thread have taken it off topic, and morphed it into a trivial show of favorite classic composers.

We are all glad that you can show off your recall of famous composer’s names. What a fine demonstration of “intelligence,” nevermind that any computer can do the same or better. Good for you nonetheless!

Read the OP and reply in context, or go away.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

Aesthetic appeal of sacred geometry in musical arrangement or architectural design leads to Godly experience.

I was watching a recording of King’s College Choir singing Bach’s & etc and wondered why they sounded so heavenly transcendent, unlike other choirs from other places. I recalled someone told me that the architect of that old cathedral allows for great acoustic echo. So I looked into the history of King’s College architectural design. Apparently King Henry VI who commissioned it, instructed that every dimension of the cathedral must have a spiritual and mystical meaning. Therefore, the cathedral was built according to sacred geometry. The cathedral was dedicated to God as some sort of sacred vessel. This, I believe, explains why this particular choir singing is so out-of-this-world.
:harp:
So my conjectures are these:

(1) it is human nature to derive aesthetic pleasure from sacramental representation of God.
(2) such aesthetic appeal has stood the test of time, manifesting the enduring & eternal nature of God.

:harp:

 

[roveau]

You can’t prove God exists, you would need proof that can not be refuted. The wise men of our Church know this and that’s why we have faith. Jesus required faith of us. He said we should have faith, pray for faith. He didn’t say we should strive to find proof of the existence of God. However, in the Scriptures it does say that only a fool would say in his heart, ‘There is no God’.

Bach is no proof because his music relates only to those who are familiar with Western music. For those unfamiliar with Western music Bach does not have the same effect as it might on us. When that music was written it was very culturally specific. I heard that they played Bach to a group of indigenous men of New Guinea, many years ago, who had never heard Western music and to them Bach chorales etc., sounded like ghosts from the world of the dead. Just saying that Bach is not universally recognized as a beautiful and perfect sound.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

I heard that they played Bach to a group of indigenous men of New Guinea, many years ago, who had never heard Western music and to them Bach chorales etc., sounded like ghosts from the world of the dead. Just saying that Bach is not universally recognized as a beautiful and perfect sound.

By any chance they listened to Requiem which certain parts sound like tormented soul of the dead to me too.

But, yea, I agree with you that certain cultural context of music does restrict its universal appreciation.

On the other hand, human response in anticipating changes in musical notes regardless of cultural background has been shown to be uncannily universal. The aborigines in Papua New Guinea probably are not that different from me in responding to the pentatonic scale.

 

[ProLepanto]

By any chance they listened to Requiem which certain parts sound like tormented soul of the dead to me too.

But, yea, I agree with you that certain cultural context of music does restrict its universal appreciation.

On the other hand, human response in anticipating changes in musical notes regardless of cultural background has been shown to be uncannily universal. The aborigines in Papua New Guinea probably are not that different from me in responding to the pentatonic scale.

But bare in mind that this is a group of people who, when left to their own predilections, engaged in cannibalism and other equally barbaric pastimes. So if they had found Bach attractive in the same manner, I would be both surprised and worried.

 

[roveau]

The Requiem, that is funny… I don’t think so though. I think they would have been obliged to mention that little detail.

The aborigines of New Guinea are also beloved of God, despite some of their (former) curious habits. If Bach was played to the pre-European contact Chinese Imperial Court, they would not have been able to make any sense of it. The Western (relatively late) harmonic scales were not shared by most other cultures of the time.

In my mind though (in the context that I belong to this Western culture) Bach is the composer of the most sublime music ever…but that doesn’t make it a proof of the existence of God. He did create us with pretty clever brains and we know as Christians that God does give some of us some extraordinary gifts… but that still isn’t a proof…

It’s all about faith, a gift from God to us. If it were so easy to prove the existence of God, we wouldn’t need faith.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Ok, here is a logical formulation of the argument.

• The music of Bach communicates [to some people] a sense of the transcendent.
• Therefore a sense of the transcendent must exist.
• Therefore the transcendent must exist.

Needs more work. “Sense of transcendence” could be taken as a mental state. You might be reifying in a jumping from that state of mind to talking about something outside the mind.

Another, simpler form.

• People encounter something they call ‘God’ in the music of Bach.
• Therefore, this ‘thing’ which they call ‘God’ must exist.

Also doesn’t work. As an ecagerated example, children often have the perception of monsters under there bed. Therefore this thing the call monsters must exist.

 

[JDaniel]

Do you mean ‘penultimate’ or ‘ultimate’?

OK, nitpicker! “Ultimate.”

God bless,
jd

 

[Qoeleth]

Needs more work. “Sense of transcendence” could be taken as a mental state. You might be reifying in a jumping from that state of mind to talking about something outside the mind.

Also doesn’t work. As an ecagerated example, children often have the perception of monsters under there bed. Therefore this thing the call monsters must exist.

Ah, but this is argument has its subtle element. If a person has “a sense of being in love”, then love exists. If a person has “a sense of feeling hot”, then heat exists. If a child has “a sense of fear” , then the fear exists, and a source of the fear exists. Whether these are monsters (as the child pictures it), or something else doesn’t really matter. In all humility, God is probably not the same as our “image of God”.

A “sense of the transcendent” is sufficient, IMO, to establish that “the transcendent” exists. Because what is “the transcendent” apart from “a sense of the transcendent”?

If a child has “a sense of fear” , then the fear exists.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Ah, but this is argument has its subtle element. If a person has “a sense of being in love”, then love exists. If a person has “a sense of feeling hot”, then heat exists. If a child has “a sense of fear” ,

Here a muddling issue is the meaning of the word “exists.” In these examples you seem to be using exists to label a possible perception, feeling, or emotion without showing that these mental states have incarnations beyond the individual minds that hold them. But this isn’t sufficient for showing that something exists (as in is part of reality).

then the fear exists, and a source of the fear exists.

Only the source of fear can be a fabrication of the child’s mind (imaginary)whose “existence” is limited and confined to their mental state. The child’s feelings about a fabrication isn’t sufficient for showing that the source of fear “exists” in any other sense. But your argument isn’t trying to show that something “exists” in an imaginary sense.

A “sense of the transcendent” is sufficient, IMO, to establish that “the transcendent” exists. Because what is “the transcendent” apart from “a sense of the transcendent”?

When talking about an emotion or perception it is generally talking about grand notions of beauty (or something similar). Though the item that is still addressed is how do you demonstrate isomorphism (for want of a better word) between this mental state and the phenomenon in reality that you wish to demonstrate?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

FWIW, in all seriousness, while I very much enjoy classical music at times , I do agree with those who think this is a bad argument. I think the best way to look at this argument is a sort of reformulation of the Fourth Way as JDaniel said (thank you for correcting me on the number, I get them confused a lot ), and I think that even then it fails. I think that other attempts to reformulate the argument make it fail even more obviously.

Ultimately if Kreeft is saying, “You either see it or you don’t” and trying to convince people that it’s the feeling of transcendence that the music creates that points to God then that’s an argument from emotion and the only people it will convince are those who are already believers.

As I said earlier, if we use that form of the argument it would look something like this:

1. Bach’s music is really beautiful
2. A human creature could not create something so beautiful
3. The reason he can’t create something so beautiful is ???
4. Therefore God must have created a creature that could make such beauty

I see no way to get past the hole in three and as JDaniel pointed out I think the best chance this argument has of working out, as a sort of bridge to the Fourth Way, fails too.

I can’t see any way this can be seen as a good argument. If neither of these proofs work we’re stuck with an appeal to emotion, an obvious logical fallacy.