The Johan Sebastian Bach Argument

[Qoeleth]

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).

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.

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?

But is such an isomorphism necessary (or even possible)? The ideatum of God is not an isomorph of the idea of God. This alterity (and indeed, infinite alterity) is the experience of transcendence.

To give an analogy- we are in a closed room, and open a door, and catch a glimpse of something amazing outside. Such an experience is like listening to Bach. The glimpse is not distinct or consistent, and there is no way of knowing whether it is ‘real’ or an hallucination. But at a certain level, it doesn’t matter. It is an experiential proof. The only proof of an experience is the experience itself. Granted, it is non-transitive, which the original argument acknowledges. We know ‘something’ happenned which somehow enriched us, and in that sense it is real. And why not call it God- since it has no other name?

 

[Qoeleth]

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.

Regarding the ‘hole’ in Point Three- we can only make judgments of what human are capable of on the basis of our experience (there is no LOGICAL necessity why a human can’t run 100m in 5 second!). So, Point 2 is really a premise. Like Point 1, it doesn’t need to be demonstrated- it either accords with experience and observation, or it doesn’t.

If we require all our premises to be demonstrated, then we fall into infinite regress.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

To give an analogy- we are in a closed room, and open a door, and catch a glimpse of something amazing outside. Such an experience is like listening to Bach. The glimpse is not distinct or consistent, and there is no way of knowing whether it is ‘real’ or an hallucination. But at a certain level, it doesn’t matter. It is an experiential proof. The only proof of an experience is the experience itself.

What I’m bringing into question is not the experience. What I am bringing into question is what can be inferred from the experience. Many people have experiences every night while laying unconscious in bed. I once had an experience of taking a flying horse to school one morning. But I don’t conclude from that experience that I was on a flying horse. As you’ve pointed out there are people that have such experiences while awake (hallucinations). Then there are also experiences that are brought about by external stimuli. Part of ones experiences may also be coloured by their previous experiences or some one’s current mood. So the same stimuli may not result in the same experience for different people (one person may find something terrifying, while the same experience may bring joy to some one else). In the case of J.S. Bach, not every one likes his music. There’s music that I like that my friends don’t. We are all hearing the same music, but not having the same experience. But we can’t show that this difference in reaction to music is due to an interaction with a third party super natural entity.

We know ‘something’ happenned which somehow enriched us, and in that sense it is real. And why not call it God- since it has no other name?

Why not call it “Fred” for that matter?

Be the definitions ever so fluid calling it “God” for the sake of it only stretches an already elastic word. I’m not saying that Yahweh plays no role in this interaction but the argument as presented doesn’t demonstrate interaction from Yahweh.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

I think the JS Bach argument is more a tongue-in-cheek statement rather than an argument. Nevertheless, there is still some truth in Kreeft’s assertion.

The bottom line is, I think, that music is valued here because of its ability to communicate understanding and to evoke emotion, imagination where words fail. May be because the concept of God is so mystical that it can’t be contained in human language, so the attempt to express such ineffable understanding is turned to music.

A parallel example is like understanding quantum physics. It is logically incompatible and irreconcilable with classical Newtonian physicals and Einstein’s relativism. The whole idea is so bizarre to put it in words but people are still intrigued about the idea to want to express that cognitive dissonant experience mathematically by hypothesizing additional dimensions and then suddenly it all seems to make sense.

So, yea, Kreeft’s Bach-assertion can be deduced as that the existence of a mystical power that words are insufficient to convey but the perception of such existence can be enriched musically. It is not just that there is a God, but there is a God that human language can’t quite grapple with, yet.

There is this Dutch/American composer, Morten Lourisen, who wrote the musical arrangement of O Magnum Mysterium. He shared his inspiration process composing this piece here.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I think the JS Bach argument is more a tongue-in-cheek statement rather than an argument. Nevertheless, there is still some truth in Kreeft’s assertion.

**The bottom line is, I think, that music is valued here because of its ability to communicate understanding and to evoke emotion, imagination where words fail. **May be because the concept of God is so mystical that it can’t be contained in human language, so the attempt to express such ineffable understanding is turned to music.

A parallel example is like understanding quantum physics. It is logically incompatible and irreconcilable with classical Newtonian physicals and Einstein’s relativism. The whole idea is so bizarre to put it in words but people are still intrigued about the idea to want to express that cognitive dissonant experience mathematically by hypothesizing additional dimensions and then suddenly it all seems to make sense.

So, yea, Kreeft’s Bach-assertion can be deduced as that the existence of a mystical power that words are insufficient to convey but the perception of such existence can be enriched musically. It is not just that there is a God, but there is a God that human language can’t quite grapple with, yet.

There is this Dutch/American composer, Morten Lourisen, who wrote the musical arrangement of O Magnum Mysterium. He shared his inspiration process composing this piece here.

You said:

The bottom line is, I think, that music is valued here because of its ability to communicate understanding and to evoke emotion, imagination where words fail.

Music can communicate emotion. That is something I will not argue.
I will argue that the emotion that is evoked has no basis at all in making a choice about the real world.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Regarding the ‘hole’ in Point Three- we can only make judgments of what human are capable of on the basis of our experience (there is no LOGICAL necessity why a human can’t run 100m in 5 second!). So, Point 2 is really a premise. Like Point 1, it doesn’t need to be demonstrated- it either accords with experience and observation, or it doesn’t.

If we require all our premises to be demonstrated, then we fall into infinite regress.

The problem is that point 2 DOESN’T accord with our experience. In our experience humans DO create such music. We’re just trying to establish a reason WHY. And there really isn’t a way to do that, IMO.

 

[HelenRose]

The problem is that point 2 DOESN’T accord with our experience. In our experience humans DO create such music. We’re just trying to establish a reason WHY. And there really isn’t a way to do that, IMO.

Music is our bird song. Words communicate to our mind. We create music to communicate to our hearts. We may even say that music is God’s bird song for us. He uses music to communicate with our souls.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

J.S. Bach aside, the Holy Scriptures make it clear, reading them attentively, that music existed before the creation of humankind. So, at a level very profound, indeed, music is from God Himself!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Music is our bird song. Words communicate to our mind. We create music to communicate to our hearts. We may even say that music is God’s bird song for us. He uses music to communicate with our souls.

I worded what I said incorrectly. My apologies.

I said, in response to Qoeleth:

**The problem is that point 2 DOESN’T accord with our experience. In our experience humans DO create such music. We’re just trying to establish a reason WHY. And there really isn’t a way to do that, IMO. **

What it should say:

**The problem is that point 2 DOESN’T accord with our experience. In our experience humans DO create such music. We’re just trying to establish a reason HOW. And there really isn’t a way to do that, IMO. **

So basically we’re saying that humans create very beautiful music, but it doesn’t follow that because it’s really beautiful it could only come from God.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

So basically we’re saying that humans create very beautiful music, but it doesn’t follow that because it’s really beautiful it could only come from God.

I think I’m getting the gist of it now.

But could we say that the most beautiful music are inspired by our thoughts and imagination of God, as in the context of Bach’s composition and many others that were mentioned here. Since the evocative power of such music are immensely palpable and tangible, that makes the object of inspiration, a.k.a God, an immensely palpable and tangible object (or entity?).

Let me venture to put the premises down:

1a. (God-)Inspired music are beautiful.
1b. Such beauty is discernible
2. Discernibility is characteristic of perceptible reality

Ergo, God is a perceptible reality.

Do these make sense?

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Sublimely great music, like the polyphony of Lasso, Palestrina, J.S. Bach, Cherubini, or Busoni, which is so galvanic and beautiful, seems to have a quality of creating itself anew every time that it is played and/or sung, because of the way that it unfurls its internal logic so audibly and unmistakably. That is similar to the impact of God`s word in the Holy Scriptures or in the Traditional Latin Mass upon the senses which receive it, leaving its trace on the human mind that experiences it.

Music and liturgy of such sublimity is so surpassingly great because it expresses far more than merely human emotion, although it moves the spirit in a manner and to an extent that other music cannot really do in the same way. The music of the great contrapuntal masters of music seems to surpass any merely mortal level of being and of expression that its gift and its spiritual power come from God, even if it is great men who composed it; if it so comes from God, then GOD IS!

 

[prodigalson2011]

I didn’t have time to read through the entire thread, so forgive me if this has already been said. I think the “proof” here is not the answer it provides, but the question it raises. Why should we obtain a sense of beauty and transcendence from an ordered and sonically balanced arrangement of sounds? No other species of animal exhibits such a trait, not even our closest relatives. It could be reduced from the Bach Argument to the Art Argument. I would dare be so bold as to say that there can be no purely materialistic explanation for the effects of powerful music on a human being. If it’s merely a matter of structure/harmony/symmetry, we should be equally moved by geometry. Of course, we do take delight in pattern recognition, but this delight takes place on an entirely different plane with music than it does on most other pattern based stimuli. The most you can do is say that listening to X causes the brain to release chemical Y. This does not resolve the issue of why X leads to Y.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Prodigal Son wrote:* I think the “proof” here is not the answer it provides, but the question it raises. Why should we obtain a sense of beauty and transcendence from an ordered and sonically balanced arrangement of sounds? No other species of animal exhibits such a trait, not even our closest relatives. It could be reduced from the Bach Argument to the Art Argument*.​

Of course, you are right. I am not comfortable, either, despite what I last wrote, that this is a matter of logical argument, least of all of syllogistic reasoning. The way that the music of J.S. Bach, of Handel, or of Cherubini, for example, affects us in a way to assure us that God must be, is more sensably expressed as a matter of such great musics "intimations of immortality" (to use William Wordsworths immortal phrase) which it conveys to our minds.

Such music impresses upon us the state of the Divine Mind. It does not “prove” it, per se. Music is something that only God, angels, and humans can apprehend at all, perceiving its beauty.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I think I’m getting the gist of it now.

But could we say that the most beautiful music are inspired by our thoughts and imagination of God, as in the context of Bach’s composition and many others that were mentioned here. Since the evocative power of such music are immensely palpable and tangible, that makes the object of inspiration, a.k.a God, an immensely palpable and tangible object (or entity?).

Let me venture to put the premises down:

1a. (God-)Inspired music are beautiful.
1b. Such beauty is discernible
2. Discernibility is characteristic of perceptible reality

Ergo, God is a perceptible reality.

Do these make sense?

Interesting.

Do you believe there’s beuatiful music not inspired by God? Because if you say all music is in some way inspired by God that begs the question.

 

[Shlomo]

Like any other proof of God’s existence, it convinces only the convinced.
Man starts logically admit God’s existence only after he accepts Him by faith. And this is God’s gift.

When we try to logically convince non-believers that God exists, we try to take God’s place.

I doubt that this statement has ever made somebody believe in God, but I am sure that JSB’s music did.

Apart of this, I fully agree with the statement.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

“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 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.

Would this line of argumentation also mean that there exists an “Anti-God”?

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Shlomo wrote: *Like any other proof of God’s existence, it convinces only the convinced.
Man starts logically admit God’s existence only after he accepts Him by faith. And this is God’s gift.

When we try to logically convince non-believers that God exists, we try to take God’s place.

I doubt that this statement has ever made somebody believe in God, but I am sure that JSB’s music did.

Apart of this, I fully agree with the statement. *​

It is good to be reminded of something so basic, yet easy to forget in such a context as that of this forum, about the convinced who are convinced of this. There is such a cult of the ugly these days that many folks are incapable of perceiving the beauty of the music of Bach or of any other great composer, especially of the music of the grand contrapuntists like Sweelinck, Bach himself, Handel, Cherubini, Rheinberger, Reger, or Busoni, and that is not to mention earlier polyphonists, whose music now seems so ethereal as to be rather elusive (e.g., Machaut, Palestrina, Lasso, Victoria, Byrd, and so many others).

In fact, too many people now are incapable of listening to any music soever attentively, due to the presence of music as background to too many other activities of modern life. For decades, I have refused to listen to classical music or jazz as background music at home, where I have some control of what enters my ears. When I listen to such music, I listen with concentration and only when I can so “take in” classical music for all that it is and that it has to offer.

 

[PioYapJr]

“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 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.

This discussion reminds me of a book I read several years ago by Aldous Huxley (I think) where one character upon hearing the music by Bach commented that it almost made a believer out of him or to that effect.

 

[CompSciGuy]

This is a ridiculous argument from Kreeft.

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 am offended by this.

Anyone who has heard the Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor in its entirety would believe that Bach’s music is proof of God’s existence.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Pio wrote: *This discussion reminds me of a book I read several years ago by Aldous Huxley (I think) where one character upon hearing the music by Bach commented that it almost made a believer out of him or to that effect. *​

Some great and pious composers themselves have made statements somewhat to the same effect. Handel, a devout Lutheran (who, while so long in England, worshipped at an Anglican church in London) claimed that he sensed that God Himself inspired him in the composition of the music of Messiah, his greatest (of many great) oratorios, its libretto entirely set from the words of the Authorised “King James” Bible.