morning people, Sorry, I know I have already posted this week, but I just felt compelled to write following Rinaldo's post. It said everything I had wanted to say on the subject, but a tad more eloquently...! The part of the post that I am particularly in agreement with is : "I once heard someone say that music is the agnostic's connection to the spiritual." I seem to remember this being mentioned on the list not that long ago, and I was saying exactly this to somebody the other day. I was recommending that someone listen to some of the B&S tracks on the freeserve site, and as you do, I felt like I had to justify why I liked their music, and that of other bands I had recommended, beforehand, in case they didn't like it, and at least then they could understand why I like it. Some people have a sort of connection or commitment to a god, and that makes them happy, they have a faith in something that enhances their life and helps them out in some way when they need it. I've never had that, and never thought myself a spiritual person, but the more you see, the more you realise the parallels between your own relationship with music, and a religious peron's relationship with their god. And when you explain this to people, they understand why you listen to what you do....they may not personally enjoy it, but they still have more of an acceptance of it. On a related note, yesterday we were discussing where god and spirituality fit into the scientific world. As I'm studying geology, and have studied a lot of physics and other physical sciences, I find it really difficult to take the bible with anything other than a huge pile of salt. (I know it's not all meant to be 'literal', but there are some glaring ommisions from the 'facts' it presents). I know quite a lot of people who are studying geology, who are creationists, and I honestly can't see how they can have their beliefs, and still learn this subject, without completely ignoring the conflict in ideas that it presents to them. And isn't ignoring this conflict going directly against what we consider as scientific thought? But someone also said that science, especially physics (that's where our conversation started, but I suppose it applies equally to things like genetics, microbiology, etc), is becoming increasingly more complex, and as we learn more, and theorise more, we are automatically forced to have more faith in science and scientists. It gets to the stage where you have to believe some things are correct in order to arrive at something new...this means putting your faith in somebody else, their work, their results, and if you don't , you have to start all over again and do it all yourself. Which is pretty much impossible. What does everyone think of that? It's quite a lot of thought for this time of morning, I hope it's all written as I wanted it to be. On another note, Rinaldo, where can I read more about the "multiple intelligences" you mentioned??? I've never heard anything about it, and it sounds interesting. email me off-list if you can provide any information. And it's nice to see people apologising to each other to keep the peace. You're all lovely! lyns --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using DISS Web Mail. http://www.abdn.ac.uk/local/mailman/ +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ +---+ Brought to you by the Sinister mailing list +---+ To send to the list mail sinister@missprint.org. To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe sinister" or "unsubscribe sinister-digest" to majordomo@missprint.org. WWW: http://www.missprint.org/sinister +-+ "sinsietr is a bit freaky" - stuart david, looper +-+ +-+ "legion of bedroom saddo devotees" "peculiarly deranged fanbase" +-+ +-+ "pasty-faced vegan geeks... and we LOST!" - NME April 2000 +-+ +-+ "frighteningly named Sinister List organisation" - NME May 2000 +-+ +-+ "sick posse of f**ked in the head psycho-fans" - NME June 2001 +-+ +-+ Nee, nee mun pish, chan pai dee kwa +-+ +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+