Are religion, engineering and music connected?

My design efforts are like religion. I attach significance to it that goes beyond the here and now. One way to put it is that I would feel rather cursed if I could not engineer.

Music is a time-driven sequence, with inputs and outputs.

So is a system involving a Programmable Logic Controller.....

I don't know whether there is any real connection, but the manager who hired me for my first job always asked applicants whether they played an instrument. He had several other such questions, all of which seemed odd. But, he had the most productive design section in the company. ???

I don't know about the rest of you lot, but this is how it works for me:

Occasionally I'm tasked with a truly challenging (for me, anyway) bit of design work. Often I'll chew on it for hours or days or weeks, getting absolutely nowhere. Then on rare occasion and usually with no warning the most elegant, simple solution will suddenly present itself to me. Just then, for one tiny little moment, there's a wonderful sense of bliss that I assume is something quite akin to religiously spiritual.

Except that I recognize that it's an addictive drug and the hope of just one more fix is keeping me in this wretched job.

From the age of 7 to 18 I went to religious schools, founded and run as Church of England schools. We were never shown any evidence of the existence of God or of the efficacy of prayer and were expected to take both on trust and have faith. I would say 11 years of daily services during school term give me some data on which to work. Did your school provide evidence?

Simon

Well since there was no evidence in your response of a willingness to re-evaluate your assumptions, there is no sense in carrying on the conversation...

Much like any scientist I have based my conclusions on observation and investigation. Little if any of that happened in primary school, but to answer your question yes the divinity school I attended along with my own experience of living in this world did provide me with the evidence I needed for my personal conclusions on the subject.

I thought by the original post that perhaps you were interested in exploring the connection between engineers and religion, I guess not... Oh well... Perhaps some other time...

"Perhaps you could explain where this is wrong."

"Now faith is the substance (ground or confidence) of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

For the Christian this applies to the object of faith, ie God Himself because He is seen to be faithful and trustworthy so his promises are faithful and trustworthy.

Now here is the rub, a Christian is given the gift of faith to believe in the accomplished salvation that Christ Jesus secured. Faith is not "worked up" in man based upon superior intellect or better empirical skills. The work from start to finish is God's work not mine and that is why He gets the glory and I have confidence that I am secure in Him.

Does that mean that there is no evidence, absolutely not, but the most logical, reasonable, intelligent man will not find his way to God through these superior skills because at the heart of the matter the problem is moral. The scales must fall from his eyes to see himself and his nature as it really is. How much slack we cut ourselves shows clearly what our natural inclination is.

Gary

I used to spend a lot of thought on the scriptures until it finally occurred to me that we have more than enough cause and effect evaluation available to keep our relatively big minds occupied these days. I wouldn't say that God didn't ultimately cause us to develop those minds.

The controlling religious leaders discouraged deep thought because it caused a social discord and a decrease in their power over the masses. They coined the expression that an idle mind is the devil's workshop.

They created the concept of the devil because their concept of God otherwise appears to a apply to a person who behaves badly or is too weak to always do good.

We no longer have to fear saying that the earth isn't the center of the universe.

Hi Simon -

I'm a fan of BBC's Bob Harris music show. I only became a fan when I was able to join his "long-tail" audience via the Internet. So Internet engineering allowed me (a mechanical engineer) to get in touch with global music I'd otherwise never have experienced (one type of connection between engineering and music).

As far as what I've seen in the work/education world, many of the engineers I've known over the years at both small and large companies enjoy streaming music of all types (jazz, Metallica, classical, etc.) while doing CAD and other engineering work. My former professor at RPI is a member of rock band, "Commander Cody and His Lost Planet Airment", since the 70's, and he continues to play gigs around the Capital Region of NYS.

My feeling is that there is a connection there (in the brain-sense of what you mean). As for religion, I'll let others comment on that one. :)

-april05

From a scholastic viewpoint, you could say the link between engineering and religion lies in philosophy. Engineering grew out of science, science grew out of philosophy, and philosophy seeks to explain what theology doesn't.

As to the link between engineering and music: theology, philosophy and music all attempt to give a concrete expression to the abstract.

Well, some people treat engineering myths such as free energy, perpetual motion and onboard water for gas generation units despite the fact they have been repeatedly been proven not to work, so you might say that these people are also taking things on faith alone despite all evidence to the contrary. Oh, and these people also have very fanciful explanations why their airy-fairy "ideas" will work in defiance of the Laws of Thermodynamics, so they also have the wild imagination of a sci-fi writer or some other artist.

I suspect the link is that most engineers are driven by a deep need to understand how things work. Although western maths and science provide a rich set of explanations for the physical world they don't pretend to have answers for the "philosophical" questions we all have.

Luckily there are alternative fields of study (religions) that purport to have all the answers. Although each brand is equally useful (or useless) in filling in the gaps there is, at least to this interested bystander, no clear winner.

Until a universally accepted religion appears, it's probably best that children are not exposed during their formative years.

Very well put. Drat, I wish I had read your reply before writing mine above. I am afraid I have been a bit redundant.

i associated engineering with rationality (i happened to believe in God, i think it is quite irrational to doubt his existence haha) and i played several musical instruments and like art (doodling mostly)

engineering at its core required alot of creativity isn't it? where else do we get inventors?

Where is the common ground?: MAN

I know many engineers, some are believers and some others not.

The same with musicians.

Some engineers like classic music, some others don't and prefer other music type, while others (at least I know one) are unable to sing two notes, even I consider he's one of the smarter guys I've met.

Religion requires faith without evidence. and what about science? Why mathematicians strain their brains to try to demonstrate some of the non solved challenges when they know that there are math theorems which show that maths are unable to say if a proposition has a solution?

Anyway if I should select a logical answer, I like that of Steve.S

Kind regards

Another good answer, that has lead to mine being redundant. Sorry...

Just a thought: Engineering is about numbers, probabilities.

Music, at least classical music, is also about numbers and progressions

Religion is also numerically driven: a matter of finding the "music of the spheres", if you will.

The main connection is the desire for a pattern, for sense in a non-sensical (sic) world. A desire for predictable probabilities and patterns.

To find the Great Engineer and Composer of the Universe, is the desire of all religions. It does not matter what you call your God, perhaps only that you do call on Him or Her.

Just my opinion, Dragon

"To find the Great Engineer and Composer of the Universe, is the desire of all religions. It does not matter what you call your God, perhaps only that you do call on Him or Her."

Hello Dragon,

God or a Great Engineer and Composer is not a part of every "religious" worldview, however it is interesting to me how the basic ways most of us think and behave in everyday life is left at the door when religion is discussed.

The law of non-contradiction applies in both realms unless someone thinks that all is one, there are no distinctions and everything is illusion. The troubled individual who had a revelation and thinks that pink, long-eared bunnymen are the engineers of the universe and are currently controlliing our minds is not taken seriously. All opposing viewpoints do not stand upon equal ground, even long established ones.

So how do we test different truth claims? We must look at the internal consistency of the worldview being expressed and how it comports with the things we know about the universe.

As I have mentioned in other threads, none of us comes to the table with a clean slate, neutrality is a myth. We interpret things and "read the facts" through our own glasses, whether engineer, scientist or philosopher, but people do change their ultimate commitments, usually through much wrestling with previously dearly held presuppositions.

Gary

"This doesn't make valid link............where is the common ground?"

May be we cannot attend to these doubts with contemporary themes and vocabulary which are not mutually understood very well ! I would rather opt to take the thread- bearers to Schopenhauer's world on an interesting intellectual excursion !

Space, time, causation, and many other similar phenomena belonged properly to the form imposed on the world by the human mind in order to create the representation, and these factors were absent from the 'thing-in-itself'.

Schopenhauer pointed out that anything outside of time and space could not be differentiated, so 'the thing-in-itself' must be one and all things that exist, including human beings, must be part of this fundamental unity. Our inner-experience must be a manifestation of the noumenal realm and the will is the inner kernel of every being. All knowledge gained of objects is seen as self-referential, as we recognize the same will in other things as is inside us.

[for example: that one, is the core- melting music which is within the enjoyment of all others! The (egoistic) will is MELTED through to get indulged in the formlessness and timelessness of the pure Cosmic Will ]

Electricity and gravity[and such scientific formatives] are described by Schopenhauer as fundamental forces of the will.

Practical Knowledge [Engineering] is something that was invented to serve the will [ with no regard to cosmic aspect of that will] and is present in both human and non-human animals*. It is subordinate to the demands of will of all animals and most humans. The fundamental nature of the universe and everything in it is seen as this Will.

[One should gracefully proceed to understand the 'Will,' removing any vile, failing which an external moderation imposed as religion would steadily act upon especially humans (a privilege not for animals) to appreciate the CONTROL of Will , 98% of the times, involuntarily.]

-------------------------------------------------

[* bird nest-bio structural engineering]

Coutesy Wikipidia -Schopenhauer-German Philosopher....with [Additions]

Space time and causation I submit are noumenal, not merely phenomenal.

You err in labelling them mere phenomena.

Schopenauer does not add much to our praxis of engineering with claims of electricity and gravity as "forces of will." Their deployment certainly; but as things in themselves as manifestations of will, not at all.

Without math, there are too many words and too little praxis.

Interesting contribution none the less.

milo

The issue was the search of a common ground for many a phenomenal evolutions of truth as engineering, music and religion.- just a reminder, dear thread bearers!

On to your side… Thanks Milo.. thanks for a ready response (lest philosophical thinking get terminated).

Space and time are subjected to phenomenal logic or willful articulation ie., past, present / inner, outer etc.

Inner-experience, inexpressible and beyond the phenomenal is a manifestation of the 'noumenal realm' the will being the inner kernel of such a state of being.

The 'will' presides over (rather spontaneously) the creative phase of the formative arts and sciences including engineering. Scientific insights wouldn't get outlined though, unless for the force of will as much as the will as you agree, is presiding over their deployment. Math enabled praxis, definitely, I agree but 90% humans if possible take bliss in not to count. Does that human attitude not construed as part of praxis in the context of overall evolution?

Our truncated (a rush to conserve praxis) math formulas suppressing the higher power inverse functions in the RHS have already created so many untold blunders , forcing humans to fall into a debit account with the will!! 4 Praise him with the tambourine and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs…and continue engineering as usual.

..thats The Common Ground.

Bala Pullat:

You clearly are seeing an integration of cognition in your view.

You said "Space and time are subjected to phenomenal logic or willful articulation ie., past, present / inner, outer etc."

That is true, (at least the " subjected to phenomenal logic" part- I'm not sure that they are mere products of "willful articulation")- but it does not establish that Space and Time are solely in the phenomenological realm.

My earlier comment was that space and time are Noumenal, not just phenomenal.

I do not agree that Noumenal is solely an Inner reality.

Phenomenon is properly defined as "the thing as it is percieved."

Noumenon is properly defined as "the object itself as it is independent of the mind."

The phenomenon is what is emitted by the noumenon.

As engineers, we can get tricked up when by insufficent understanding, we mistake the phenomenon for the noumenon. So Science attempts tonail down the noumenon, by analyzing the phenomenon until no unexplained phenomena remain.

So I don't get any clarity at all from your "Inner Kernal manifestation of will being the" basis for the noumenon. I suspect you are confusing Noumenal for Numinous- where Numinous is "the intense feeling of unknowingly knowing that there is something which cannot be seen." (Wikipedia). People with lesser attention to the subtleties of terminology would just call this Faith, which would also be incorrect; Though to their misunderstanding, it may well be that "inner kernal" basis of such a faith. But again, Numinous refers to that which is "wholly other..."

I do agree that the inner kernal manifestation of will" colors our perception of the phenomenon, again, by my careful understanding the definition.

I believe that you have noumenon misappropriated when you refer to it as a property created BY human will or Cognition or MIND.

By definition, it is the thing as itself, independent of the human mind. But the human mind is free to study and attempt to understand it. We do this by perceiving it as a phenomenon. Occasionally, the understanding of the phenomena lead us to a greater meta truth, of the underlying reality.

In Science, we call this "discovery" or The Eureka Moment.

I admire the sense of your posted thoughts. They are broadly integrative.

I'm just trying to keep the vocabulary used tidied up.

Noumenon is the thing itself independent of mind. Therefore, it is NOT an "Inner mind" product.

Now if you are using Noumenon when you really mean numinous... THAT is a whole 'nother issue and probably one best not addressed on a forum dedicated to engineering.

What cracks me up is that it is now the 21st century, and we are still finding ancient Greek and Roman Terms to be our best tools for explaining understanding and conceptualizing.

milo

I never fail to be amazed at the directions a CR4 question can go and I am fascinated by the answers.

A brief history of why I asked the question might be informative. I am not an engineer, I am an inventor and wholly dependent on engineers to make my product work. At school I had no interest in engineering and not much in music after the school choir informed me that my greatest service to God would be in staying silent. I didn't volunteer for the choir, the school was/is a religious foundation and everyone was tried out for the choir. I think I managed two notes before being told to shut up.

My interest in engineering came a long time later, and I enjoy music though I am careful never to call myself musical, but religion started me questioning its validity, by saying music is good as long as Simon isn't singing. If I am God's creation, why can't I sing, and if I am not, why am I in this church.

It was from this background that I noticed the number of posts linking religion, music and engineering. Is the link only apparent to me and are other people noticing other strange pairs and triplets?

Simon

It is odd to me that many people think that singing is worshipping God. We worship God in everything we do, not just singing on Sunday at church.

My point is that only singing by others was worshipping God. His earthly supporters found my voice unacceptable.

Hi Simon,

[Is the link only apparent to me ...]

I certainly hope not , and I think the links go way beyond 'pairs' and 'triplets'.

For me, and it seems it is what 'we' are realizing, is that everything is linked. Not just in causality, such as in the 'butterfly effect', but linked in ways that are marvelously complex, but at the same time, marvelously simple. There is a 'whole' that is difficult to fathom that indeed everything, including us, of which everything is an integral part.

The more 'we' investigate, the more 'we' discover that all seems to be rather parametric by nature, and that changing 'this', also changes 'that'. In societies, we gaze 'across the street' and criticize some condition or behavior, yet we are learning that what 'we' do is indeed effecting, either positively or negatively, what 'they' are doing. In nature, now that many focus on planetary ecology, we are witnessing the effects of what happens 'there' caused by what was done 'here'. As scientists, engineers, and inventors we often see the effect 'somewhere else' when we 'fix' something. I think it is not unreasonable to 'discover' all sorts of links in areas we simply didn't notice before, and I believe these discoveries will go on and on. (Wait til we discover not only planetary ecology, but the ecology of the solar system, the ecology of the galaxy, the ecology of the universe, and possibly more.)

Regarding your aptitude as a vocal performer , actually, I think that fits well also. I said in an earlier post that religion is man-made, and I believe this because of the 'boxes' we put around what we do and don't do. We are not all the same, but no less a part of the whole. Imagine if we were all just 'big toes', or 'noses' (now THAT is a terrifying albeit comical prospect), but instead we are a collection of 'parts' specifically designed to do some special function. We may choose (and in society we do) to eliminate one of these 'parts' because in our narrow view it just doesn't 'fit', but that is a very wrong consideration. We need all our 'parts', even the 'stinky' ones .

Man-made religions draw a box around 'god', and tell us what we are and what we will do inside that box. It's often the wrong thing. The 'whole' includes both singers and inventors, and we are much better for having both. There is as much harmony and beauty (and praise for the creator, if you believe) in invention as there is in the raising of a lovely voice.

Your post is thought provoking, and I think has caused many to think a little more ... and maybe even a little less about what they 'know'.

"Regarding your aptitude as a vocal performer, actually, I think that fits well also. I said in an earlier post that religion is man-made, and I believe this because of the 'boxes' we put around what we do and don't do. We are not all the same, but no less a part of the whole. Imagine if we were all just 'big toes', or 'noses' (now THAT is a terrifying albeit comical prospect), but instead we are a collection of 'parts' specifically designed to do some special function. We may choose (and in society we do) to eliminate one of these 'parts' because in our narrow view it just doesn't 'fit', but that is a very wrong consideration. We need all our 'parts', even the 'stinky' one."

The all just "big toes" analogy that you make is interesting in that it is the exactly what the New testament speaks of when it speaks of the body of Christ. Many different parts are needed within that body that it might function correctly and many parts thought to be lesser, in the end will actually be shown to be the greater. That said, where the analogy takes a different path than the one you have suggested is that the body spoken of has one and the same Head, being Christ Jesus. The "body" that you point to is called the world in the New Testament and we are told to come out of that "body" which is likened to the turmoil of the sea and be adopted into a new and living body. I do not speak of these things lightly as my parents are at present not a part of this living body.

Gary

"Religion requires faith without evidence."

---

And for some, no amount of evidence is enough.