In a recent essay on Howard Skempton's music I suggested that there was 'something religious' about an attitude of 'fundamental optimism; willingness to discover wonder in everyday things; and happy familiarity with the gamut of human emotions'. I think (and thought at the time I wrote it) that I was being a little sophistical, and I was saying it to solve a particular problem specific to the occasion, which was how to reconcile Skempton's recent turn to liturgical composition with his earlier experimental tendencies. I suspect most people would view the experimental movement of the 1970s and 80s as closer to atheistic optimism than to religious optimism, and I suppose I was focusing on the optimism rather than on its particular (as it were) cognitive dressing.

I do think one can adopt both a religious and an anti-religious attitude out of either a sense of optimism or a sense of pessimism, and history provides plenty of examples of all four options. I also think there are probably relatively few people in any age who take up their cognitive stance based on considerations other than their own need to be comforted/discomfited, have someone to blame/thank/praise. Some of us try, of course ... and the effort at a more 'objective' approach can in itself be productive or remarkably counterproductive in different contexts.

I don't see how science on Richard's account excludes the possibility of faith, though it certainly removes the hope for faith ever to be proved (or, equally, disproved) by the findings of science.

 Milly doesn't the above rather conflict with the sentiment of your motto which I read as "enjoy, and make the most of this life"? Why must there be "something else" Is it because, unlike (it would appear) other animals, we have some idea of "self"? Are our human attributes of self-knowledge  anymore "divine" than the attributes of a bat's rada? Does your dog, sitting with you on the sand dunes, hope for any thing other than the assurance of your love, good health and a nice stick? Do you deserve more?-Give or take the stick.  What is it in our "superiority" over dogs and ear-wigs that says that as they, like us, rot in ground the human-being transcends death whilst the canine-being sinks to oblivion? is it not because only our species can fear the loss of all that we are, all that we have?
   Unless you adhere to a strict religious doctrine what could you believe this "reckoning" to be that you and I must expect after death? Can you have any way of knowing what the "reckoner" required from you in this life? It well be that should "It" exist the moral imperiatives that have governed your life mean nothing at all to "It" and the idea that Hitler, Pol Pot, or Fred West will suffer in another life for their sins in this one is nothing more than an unfounded assumption that human-beings have any knowledge of the workings of a supposed multi-dimensional heavenly-kingdom that rules a muti-dimensional universe.
  Having been enriched with the happiness of a marriage blessed in the love children and grand-children, having suffered serious illness and known the joy of recovery, enjoyed the wonders of nature, had a life filled with music and reached a retirement age where I have been given  time to enjoy gardening,walk the dog, be a member of this little community and even sit in front of the tv watching golf with my wife in the middle of the afternoon why would I ask for, or expect, anything other than a "final end" and why should I or anyone else fear it? We must be content and thankful with the life we have had or, if that life has been one of hell-on-earth just be grateful for the peace that is beyond all understanding.

Most assuredly I respect your beliefs ... and sensitivity, and knowledge and understanding of poetry and your ability to convey your feelings on it. Thank yoo for the comment about posting here! It is a privilege to be amongst so many very knowledgeable people, mainly on music of course, but on so many other subjects as well.

I think I am lucky to have the genes which have given me my optimistic character and the ability to bounce back from setbacks ... and six years of marriage to a violent man, followed by two years working out how to get out of it, were setback enough, I can tell you!!

Entirely agree with this.

Ted, firstly, my signature at the foot of the page is what I actually think is the case.  What I hope is that I'm wrong.  That is why I call myself an agnostic really.  Timidly optimistic that this isn't all there is.

With regard to superiority over animals - we have none as far as I'm concerned.  In fact sometimes the reverse is true, the more I see of people.  If there's something else after death, in my book, it would encompass every living thing.  Heaven would not be heaven without my dogs, magpie and wood pigeon. 

I have had (and indeed am still having!) a very full and eventful life for which I am extremely grateful.  There are lots of things I'd rather not have experienced but hey, all par for the course.

With regard to "reckoning", I abhor all the injustices that are perpetrated, as an example, and I can't believe that there is nothing, no karma even, to avenge atrocities or whatever. Secondly I want there to be a place where I can meet my loved ones again who have already passed away.   I don't want much do I? 

My "beliefs" are not from a strict religious basis. They're just a gut feeling that this can't be all there is.  I'm probably wrong, but please don't deny me my little utopia of hope.  It keeps me going through all manner of adversities and I resent people like Dawkins et al who seem to want to go out of their way to smash people's dreams.  They have no more proof than I do, in either direction.

My brain tells me one thing, my heart spells out another.  Surely that is my prerogative?  I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone else, just telling it like it is. 

No Ted!  You didn't offend me at all.  It wasn't taken personally.  I was just trying to show where I'm coming from.  Very unorthodox, very idealist....very unlikely....

I started ‘The Conscious Mind’ (a book recommended by George), but found I wasn’t too sure about all the terms used, so I thought I needed an introduction to Philosophy.

I found this in the library:

Looking at Philosophy, by Donald Palmer

It’s a really clear introduction, given as a history of philosophy (although it gets a little murky in later sections).

I also took up another George recommendation….



And would fully agree with what Milly wrote….


I now have loads of different thoughts about ‘being’, and ‘morals’, and ‘language’ and ‘meaning’ and ‘free will’, and ……

Maybe I’ll write them down before I read any more, in case I lose this “freshness of thinking”.

Tommo

I've just re-statred "Making Money" - seemed rather apt for the current financial situation.

Coincidentally, I have this evening seen another reference to Robert Rankin, of whom I had not heard before. Sounds like an author I'd like.