It would be hard to differentiate 'love' from, say, 'pleasure' by a brain scan though, surely? We only know what love is by feeling it ourselves and acknowledging that what we're feeling is actually 'love'.
Crying over sad songs on the radio
Gransnet forums
Religion/spirituality
John Rutter on religion
(158 Posts)I have just come across this interview with John Rutter the composer and I find it absolutely delightful - I identify with it so strongly - and his extraordinary personality shines through. I have edited it heavily, as the original is long (and can be found here: http://www.alanmacfarlane.com/DO/filmshow/ruttertx1.htm). I think the first and last sentences are fascinating!
"I am friend, fellow traveller, and agnostic supporter of the Christian faith; in my early days, people described themselves by default as Church of England if they didn't really have any religious affiliation...........I sang in the chapel choir and was always interested in religious studies, but somehow being a non-joiner became a habit; although I think I probably was religious in quite a powerful sense when I was young and into my twenties, not least because I felt so lucky as my career began to take off and things began to go well for me.......... a kind of theology of gratitude; probably can't take it very far because what happens when something goes wrong in your life? - the sense that there must be some benevolent deity behind all this is a bit like American religious thought; when I began to travel to America I started to meet an awful lot of Christians;....... the American faith world contains some of the very finest and most searching of theology and religious thought and practice, and some of the worst; I have experienced the full spectrum; ........ if I wanted to be honest about my own faith journey it has been backwards over the years; I am afraid what slightly began to sow the seeds of doubt was seeing the absolute certainty of religious adherents in America, and some of the harm that that certainty could lead to; I started by thinking there must be many paths to God and went from there to a rather tougher position which is that the universe is basically numbers, and in some sense mathematical and a lottery; if there is a controlling deity he is a bit like a Mafia don who is capable of doing good and charitable things, but also almost takes pleasure in doing malicious and harmful things, sowing the seeds of long-running dissent and problems; that is hard to reconcile with the Christian concept of a loving God; I don't find it helpful either to say that you have to have a personal relationship with Jesus; numerous of my religious friends say that if you are not born again and if Jesus is not your personal friend, then you are not a true Christian; I always remember the words of the Rev. Professor Charles Moule, a most searching theologian, who said he was perfectly sure he had only been born once; .........; people sometimes have asked me whether the fact that my son was killed affects my faith position; it happened in 2001 when he was nineteen and a student here at Cambridge, and he got run over crossing Queens’ Road one night; completely unforeseen and random, but I think that the answer is no, as by then I wouldn't have described myself as a believing Christian; on the other hand, you have to consider the alternatives; a world without any churches or space for religious thought or contemplation, or based only on material values, would be a hell; in a sense, if you believe the specific doctrines of the faith, I think that just the statement it makes about how man should not live by bread alone, is immensely important; music is a part of that because it is useless in a literal sense, you don't have to have music to survive, yet it has always been there; imagining a world without it is impossible, as is a world without faith; even though you might say that religion is an invention of man, I don't think it invalidates its worth; ....... it began to look to me as if the whole edifice of religion was a man-made construct; I do remain hugely sympathetic to the church, its music, its liturgy, its traditions, and, with some caveats, its ministry; on the whole, the Church I was baptised into, is trying to do good in a difficult situation, and is making a statement on behalf of qualities like compassion, forgiveness, charity, that everybody would support; I would be heartbroken if the Church of England closed its doors tomorrow; I hope to be buried in a country churchyard with a funeral service according to the 1662 Prayer Book, and all my favourite pieces of music; I suppose that is wanting it both ways - both the trappings without necessarily subscribing to the doctrine; I think there are quite a lot of people like me; Vaughan Williams was similar in that he had a sense of generalised spirituality which was triggered by things like standing on top of the Malvern Hills and contemplating the beauty of nature, or walking through the west door of a cathedral and being awestruck by the grandeur and mystery of the building, or being inspired by 'Pilgrim's Progress'; I think he would not have called himself a Christian, yet his life was steeped in Christianity at every point; I am like that and my moral compass probably does derive in large part from Christian ethic and teaching; I owe Christianity a huge debt and it is rather ungrateful of me not to believe in it more."
I'm as certain as I can be that life exists and that I'm alive. That'll do for me.
Yes, I do believe love exists, petallus, just as I believe anger exists, and other emotions. The evidence for them is observable from people's behaviour. I don't think there is the same kind of evidence for the existence of gods, though obviously some people do think there is. If there is, it's not observable in the same kind of way. At least, so it seems to me and millions of others, otherwise we'd all believe in gods (how many? which ones?) in the same way that we believe in love and other emotions.
The scientific evidence that emotions exist can be ascertained by brain scans which show electrical impulses/brain activity when people are 'feeling' certain emotions. That's what I understand anyhow, which is, admittedly, not much.
Mishap I'm one of those chaps who is certain of nothing.
Bags do you believe love exists and what is the proof (scientific not anecdotal)?
Yes, quite, mishap. By some people's definiton, I would be an agnostic. But since I have no gods and atheist means "without gods", I'm an atheist.
Being an atheist does not necessarily include certainty (see Dawkins' atheism scale in The God Delusion). It certainly doesn't in my case. I'm an atheist because no-one has given me an adequate reason to believe that gods exist. If and when they do, I'll believe that those gods exist. Until then, I feel no need for gods. I can get on with my life without them.
I can't speak for people with faith, but I have got impression from quite a few people who have some kind of religious faith that they aren't certain of much either.
So, it would seem to be a coin with degrees of uncertainty, or perhaps a scale of needing understandable or clear evidence. Some people seem to need less than others, and vice versa.
What about us chaps who are certain about nothing petallus? I am agnostic because I can see no way whatsoever that one might know the answers to these big questions.
The certainty that it's all true and the certainty that it isn't seems to me like two sides of the same coin.
I think they are taught that in good schools, jura, though the word humanism may not be used. DD's primary school had three rules: Respect yourself; Respect others; Respect your surroundings. They based ethical teaching on that without reference to religion.
They should also be taught about humanism - or the fact that not being religious doe NOT mean have no morality.
I think that children should learn about all the major religions of the world as the curriculum allows; and the role that religion has played in history and man's development.
The selection would depend on curriculum limitations, just like all the other subjects they learn in school - they do not cover every aspect of science, geography etc. because it would not be practical.
Yes, I was going to qualify my statement about faith and add that it is also, quite often, what people have been told they ought to believe. Truth is irrelevant once faith gets a look in.
But ain't it amazing what people do actually believe......
There is only one version of something that is true.
Faith is what people want to believe. That's why there are so many different versions.
Would you include a study of all religions, Mishap and if you wouldn't, on what basis would you include or exclude?
Well - there must be at least a few faiths that are false - logic dictates that they can't all be true because they don't all say the same things! Or are you just talking about faith as a concept however it is directed?
What is troublesome to me is that children are not just taught ABOUT religion, as a valid subject for study; they are taught that one religion (that to which their school is affilated) is true in the same way that they are taught that 2+2=4 in their maths class. If their religious studies teachers said "This is what I and many others believe....." I would have no concern about it, but on the whole no distinction is made between facts in a science class and "facts" in religious studies.
I have respect for others' beliefs but think that they should be expressed honestly as such, particularly to children.
Only if you think faith is false, Mishap. Lots of people think faith schools are a good thing.
granjura I htink I did reply to your question.
I agree with bags that some of the funding of faith schools is troublesome - I have never thought that schools should have a religious affiliation, and that this should be outlawed whether in the public or private sector. It is to do with the separation of church and state and the principle of honesty to children in their education.
petallus, I am so sorry, I never meant my 'no reply' comment to sound like a criticism. And of course you wouldn't reply if you are clearly on one side of the fence (like me) - but I am quite sure there is a significant proportion of people in the UK who are sitting on said fence, and would quite possibly come off it very promptly had they to pay quite a bit of money for the privilege.
Sometimes, it is difficult to imagine situations which seem so bizarre or extreme, as they are so different to what one is used to. As explained, the Protestant reformed Churches of Europe started with NO money at all, when they split from Rome (same for the non-conformist churches in the UK of course, many who do have a compulsory tythe) - whereas the CofE was never ever a reformed church per se - and was left with a lot of wealth by comparison.
granjura I didn't answer your question because I couldn't relate to it.
I never say I am a Christian.
If I did and suddenly was faced with having to pay a percentage of my income to the Church for the privilege I imagine the reason why I was saying I was religious would come into it.
Thanks Bags - your position and mine, and that of 'committed' Christians is clear - no fence sitting here, or there.
I was thinking the same, Bags, and no 'cultural Christians' have replied at all either.
I think it does matter who funds schools, and I think some of the current funding is undesirable, but I guess my view is of no consequence since we have a non-secular government.
jura, I would have answered but I don't use church services of any kind and haven't called myself a member of any religion for a very long time, so I thought the question didn't apply to me. I imagine that would account for the vast majority of GNers too.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »