Life is full of compromises for most reasonable people. Even Richard Dawkins accepts that thereprobably is no god - or at least that is what his advert  on London's buses said a few years back.

Cliff Richard (the greatest UK singer of all time) went through a period of Born Again christian belief and avoided singing his "Voice in the Wilderness" hit during that period.

I'm sure there are many more examples of people  feeling compromised or trying to avoid compromise.

Doesn't particular;y bother me either way. But then i'm a perfectly reasonable bloke.

Cheers

Don

Richard Dawkins is not a scientist -  he is an intellectual fraud peddling 19th century science as an ultimate explanation for reality - he is as dogmatic as many a religious fundamentalist. His books are full of subtle obfuscation and devious manipulations. His view that Darwinian evolution is unproblematic and that it is the only scientific theory in town is nonsense. 

Does he not have an MA and Doctorate in Zoology? Others will have to decide whether that is a science...

An army electronics friend of mine [who retired to teach electronics at Worcester Tech] used to lump all the 'ologies together, and he did not think much of Sociology!

Pseuds was his name for the followers of the 'ologies!

Not saying that I totally agreed, but it certainly made me smile! On the other hand I am quite entertained by 'osophy!

ATB from George

The problem with 'ology is that is covers a multitiude of interests.  I think the the archaeologists on Time Time are great and hopefully nobody could think ill of David Attenborough (zoologist).  However Russell Grant is an example of the shadier side of 'ology who perhaps better fits the description used by your ex-army friend.

Perhaps I should have put a smiley in!

My old friend also described an "expert" as a " former drip under pressure." He was a proper character, as you might guess!

ATB from George

Hi Don,

You will have to define your understanding of 'reasonable people'. And I am pretty certain Richard Dawkins 'knows' there is no god based on scientific evidence....don't think there is a question of "accepting" or "probably" as far as he is concerned, he's not compromised on this point, hence Snipers comments and occasional death threats from others.

I remember growing up to Cliff Richard's music as my mum loved him, she had a personal affinity with him as they were both born in Luknow, India and moved back to Britain at the same time when India got its independence. Cliff Richard is a very good example and a complicated one. He is an Anglo-Indian, grew up as an Anglican and then became ‘Born Again’ but you must explain to me why he avoided singing "Voice in the Wilderness", but I am guessing it was considered blasphemous in some way??? 

Additionally, he was quite critical of commercial radio stations for not playing much of his music during the 80’s, 90’s, as the stations regarded his music as 'uncool' or not cool enough. Which was in stark contrast to the beginning of his career when he was considered Britain's first rock and roll singer and being accused of being too sexy for tv, a kind British Elvis. As a non Cliff fan, I would say that his earlier stuff was far more interesting than the music he was writing during his Christian period, for me another example of this compromise affecting ones career. However, he did attain high music sales in the mainstream during this time so you could argue that perhaps by becoming a BAC, he may have even extended his commercial success???

Which comes to my query, I come from the premise that most of 20th century music is by default non-compromising, even referring to dance genres in the early 20th century such a Jive and Swing, which were frankly all to radical for the mainstream, partly because of its apparent sexual body language and the fact that it was associated with african rhythms and derivatives.

Another complex example from Britain is the great Cat Stevens, of Swedish - Greek descendant who became utterly compromised once he became a Muslim, deciding not to record music for some 20 years and then only playing percussion and singing about Islamic concerns, until relatively recently when he found a way to address all religious and non religious concerns.

Generally, these are only two fascinating examples and I for one do care about them. Yes we all make compromises, I think that it is sadly impossible not to in todays society (thats for another thread perhaps) and surely its not about compromises per se but what compromises we choose to make under the circumstances. Because these decisions affect what music is created, how it is played and listen too. The ‘listening’ aspect is interesting as I believe than many people listen to some music without really knowing what it really means.

I guess thats what music genres are designed for, categorising music so that we know what to expect in general terms. One generally knows what to expect from Chamber music or Classical or Jazz or Rock and Pop and so on. 

I see The Killers music as Pop foremost dressed up as commercialised indy. And I see indy from the past decade more commercial than indy from the 80’s or 90’s

If anyone has any other stories, then please join in.

Cheers.

Astrology? 

Here is a real scientist and a video that featured the late great man ... why don't we have geniuses on TV anymore instead of all that X-factor nonsense? 

Originally posted by jasonf:

The ‘listening’ aspect is interesting as I believe that many people listen to some music without really knowing what it really means.

Is that not the entire point of music? It means something [slightly or radically] different for each listener and is not part of some Universal truth that applies in every single case?

If it were tied down like words to a much narrower definition of what is meant then we would hardly be so interested in music as a species ...

ATB from George

Jason,

Are you sure it wasn't a repeat of a Jeremy Kyle show?

Host is probably a genius,I'm sure that I recall from Star Trek that you cannot allow religion and anti-religion to interact, causes a big bang. Blimey now there's a thought, the beginning of the Universe.....

Without compromise you have nothing, absolute 100% pure unadulterated nothing.

Ulrika Johnson and Richard Dawkins? Any chance of getting it on iplayer?

Andy

Sniper man very strong opinions!

Yes, since his book 'The God Delusion', he has received much condemnation from the religious amongst us ....and those that are not religious, which I find really strange...

But Sniper science is about attempting to 'argue' a premise. One has to start somewhere, and in the year 2012 Richard Dawkins has decided to start from the premise that Darwinian theory is better at explaining the wondrous world we live in, whether there are problems with it or not. And until a better premise comes along then........

His view is that 'God' is not a sufficient premise for an argument as it has no conclusion.

Non religious people are very happy to argue against the non existence of god in the pub, or in the home, but when faced with a tight scientific argument...it becomes all a little too much to take in and the default mode falls back to accusations of scientific suspision and dogma.

I think Dawkins premise is a very simple one, if you feel he argues it to vociferously, then so be it, but remember he is qualified to do that.

Cheers

Dawkins is free in this world to say what he likes, and others are just as free to disagree.

I am not sure that in the absense of a better argument than he makes, that I am able to take him very seriously!

I'll not go so far as to call him a fraud, but his very title, "The God Delusion," is by no means respectful of the counter-view. I don't care for his off-hand style, any more than his by no means water tight logic.

It seems that science has a healthy way of moving on from absolute statements, and this is healthy. Science tends to be the best guess yet, and evolves with deeper understanding... Eventually more will be understood, and Dawkins may be seen as a prophet who happened to guess right without all the evidence, or he may be proved a charlatan who was both certain and wrong. I am not in a position to state categorically one or the other, though he feels happy to do so. A little modesty on his part might make him more compelling in his commentary, which strikes me as just about as likely to be wrong as the persecution of Copernicus in his time was!

ATB from George

Hi George - yes I agree with your statement about music, its not always necessary to define anything from it except pure emotion, I am not seeking a Universal truth in music. But its not always a passive past time on the listeners part, if it were one would like everything or nothing at all.

My previous statement was referring to a new emotion to The Killers song. Once I understood a little more about the singers background and witnessing an interesting interaction between the people, this combined experience made me look upon the music/lyrics differently. 

Cheers,

Dear Jason [f],

The very fact that even watching a television interview that affected your understanding of the meaning of some music shows how individual [and changeable] is the meaning of music. That is why it is not just fascinating, but for some of us at least, utterly compelling!

Sometimes the change of meaning is utterly without parallel in human understanding, and is why some musicians as performers are streets ahead of others, who may actually be better technically at their work - if less mature as human souls!

Very best wishes from George

Whatever you think of the man personally is one thing.....the topic is more important than that. 

Its an emotive subject matter and he has put himself in the firing line. The default position on this subject is the status quo and he has put his career and reputation on the line to put forward a premise which disputes that, thats all he can do. He's not there to pamper to the general publics concerns about modesty.

I really don't want this thread to turn into an anti Richard Dawkins rant, someone should start another one if they feel strongly about it.

Lets get back to the music and dance  

Cheers,

Dear Jason,

May I very briefly answer your point. If you would like to discuss further, then a new thread is called for, which I would partake of.

I happen to have a Christian Faith, and that had more or less lapsed before reading The God Delusion, which refired it with certainty. Now may I explain certainty? With Faith one has to have doubt, because without doubt one is not being rational about the evidence! Faith does not require evidence, it requires human doubt, to be overcome by the good that can come from Faith itself!

If I were Faithless, I would be a less good person. With Faith, I have a rule book that goes beyond the simple canine expectation of fairness, to a real expectation that I behave as well to unknown people, who should be treated as well as my firends. In a word God is Love. Un-excempted Love. Without human judgement.

Now if Mr Dawkins can argue me out of that, then he is welcome to have a go, but he had better be an Almighty intellect to do that, and he certainly is not on current efforts

Bless you for the question, and if you want a replay to a further one, let's make a new thread! 

ATB from George

Dear George,

I think you had been making your own points to answer here, and a very elegant crescendo well done

'Your Faith' is your concern alone George and I certainly have not asked you to declare it. So please don't be so pompous as to challenge me to a thread regarding Richard Dawkins book, after high jacking this one, so that we can discuss your faith. I am sure an almighty intellect such as yours can understand that.

Bless you.

Dear Jason,

This is your thread! If you want to discuss Dawkins or Christ, I am happy to join in! Nothing pompous in following your request for another thread if that were to be the way things go. Your choice, not my pomposity!

Now where was I ? ...

Carry on ladies and gentlemen ...

ATB from George

Your quotation:

I really don't want this thread to turn into an anti Richard Dawkins rant, someone should start another one if they feel strongly about it.

Lets get back to the music and dance

Dear George,

Yes, I said if "someone"....."felt strongly about it" thats someone other than me!

Even though I think he writes excellent books, including the God Delusion, I am in no position to defend it in a way that would do you or him justice, especially with someone who possesses a strong Faith.

Cheers.

Great post Jason.

Politics, religion and women are subjects that always fascinate and devide opinions.

KR

Tony

Dear Jason,

You start a thread like this:

Chaps - 

I recently saw a chat show here in Norway called Skavlan, where the guests were as follows and in order of appearance;

1.Björn Ulvaeus - from Abba (self confessed Atheist).

2. Ulrika Johnson - C list celeb originally from Sweden now residing in London (self confessed Atheist).

3. Brandon Flowers - lead singer from The Killers (Mormon).

4. Richard Dawkins - evolutionary biologist and author etc. (self confessed Atheist).

But then you resist the main thrust, which to me appears to be three atheists againts one apparent man of Faith! So please do not complain too much that the thread then verges towards the difference. I don't think any of the participants in that TV interview have much to do with great music or dance.

ATB from George

George, your understanding of the main thrust "appears" to be misunderstood.

It was never about Richard Dawkins or your Faith, these were introduced by others as separate from the thread. And I never resisted anything, I answered comments on Richard Dawkins up to a point to keep the thread on track, that was clear.....and its not possible for me to comment on your Faith so thats where I bale out.

Cheers.

It's certainly not about my Faith! So please explain what it is about and we can start again!

Next time you start again with an opening post with atheism mentioned three times in the first lines maybe you will make clear what the topic is! It will save a huge amount of wasted effort from others.

ATB from George

PS: My cescendo has not yet made its clinch, and I am very interested in your awaited answer as to what the OP was about.

plenty of other definitions around. Not difficult or really crucial.

BTW, I have never subscribed to the idea that the person who starts a thread is the "owner" of said thread. Threads wander. Bit like a pub discussion.

Cheers

Don

Dear Don,

Please don't let the OP off the point of my last answer with nicelties about what is a reasonable person!

Hence my post, nothing more.

ATB from George

PS: Crescendo obviously does have an "r" in it ...