Surely religion and music were always inextricably linked; from the great classical works through gospel / blues, the traditions of hymns and choral works etc

How is one able to express/explore/comment upon the human condition without reference to spiritual matters (formalised or not)?

The best of the best has always had one eye to the heavens, has it not?

that i regularly read a magazine called 'The Word', one or two people thought it was aimed at the God-bothering types...

another reason to lose that definitive article, i might suggest!

Mitch Benn: "I'm what you might call a militant agnostic; Rule 1: I don't know if there's a God; Rule 2: Neither do you."
The tone of this post seems to be suggesting that there's something sinister about having religous faith. Lots of people do. Including lots of musicians. It may from time to time have some bearing on their work. So I don't see why a music magazine should, as you seem to be suggesting, be devoid of any reference to religion whatsoever. It's a topic that crops up naturally. Just as the subject of hats might.

The one problem with a lack of understanding of relgion is that gradually great art from the past becomes unknowable, the symbolism in painting etc is lost to us and same will go for song and music. One of the problems with the modern forms of music derived from Soul is that they have lost that connection with it reglious roots and use it's inflictions and idioms at random leading to discordant affected nonsense. Having said that I don't want apologies for any form of extremism.
Also on a personal note I will buy a pint for any critic who doesn't mention the fact that 2 of members of Low are Mormons in reviews of their work!

Both PDN's comment piece and Kim Cheshire's letter were in part reactions to previous discussion on this subject in THE WORD, where we received criticism from some readers for giving rave reviews to Dawkin's The God Delusion and Hitchens' God Is Not Great. This month's issue contains some of the right-to-reply-to-the-reply.

Rest assured that THE WORD will not become a haven for unchallenged religious apologia (not to speak for the rest of the staff but I suspect convinced atheism has the numbers in our office) although of course we'll keep printing interesting letters as they come in.

Personally I think an agnostic is just an atheist trying to be polite, and that it is certainly true to say that all the evidence isn't in yet on the science/reason side - which still puts it streets ahead of the religious point of view, for which no evidence is in at all nor looks like coming any time soon. But I agree with Chris G that an understanding of religious thought is essential to understanding the art and music of the past. You just don't have to believe in it.

Will any of this help us understand the transcendent mysteries of Joe Lean & The Jing Jang Jong. though?

Just a quick one, though.
I would consider myself to be an agnostic, but that doesn't mean my true inclination is in the lambasting of the Church and the denial of the existence of a deity (generally considered to be the Atheist coda). I am able to bring reproach on both sides of the fence, and have yet to find conclusive evidence to support both vehement defences. I suppose I would be considered a tepid flannel on the flames of controversy, a meek little fence-sitter who wants to retain neutrality in matters of adversity…but really, I just believe that our interventions in the matter are unfounded and unjustified.

Julian is an avowed anti mono-theist but he believes in Woden and all sorts of ancient druidic religion. I'm an atheist. I love (most of) his music.

... all good, intelligent polite stuff - indicative of the well-mannered broad church of Word readership!

Particular thanks to Andrew Harrison for his comforting comments re Word editorial policy.

Cheers folks

The discussion seems so splendidly book-ended by Monsieur Kiltyman, that to add another comment feels a bit like (to borrow from the wonderful Ivor Cutler) "completing a picture of a face and then drawing a pimple on it". However ...

I feel such assertions as "99.9% of the evidence is in" and "you can't prove there is/isn't a flying teapot/Tooth Fairy/Father Christmas..." are a tad sweeping. The kind of "sweeping" that Paul Du Noyer was taking issue with in his opinion piece.

A former colleague of mine from the BBC Science Unit was, in his spare time, fascinated by the interface between science and faith/paranormal/anthropic coincidences. A hugely intelligent man, he funded a series of rigorously conducted scientific trials into the evidence for telepathy. The results, while not conclusive, were, in his estimable opinion, "worthy of larger scale trialling".

This was his contention, when he appeared on national radio to discuss the findings. In the blue corner was "a leading brand of professional atheist" (ie. not Richard Dawkins, but same ballpark, keep guessing).

Said opponent decried such research as pointless. There was "no evidence whatsoever" for anything psychic, paranormal, or other-worldly of any sort. He was asked by the chair of the discussion what he thought of the data that my colleague had provided. He replied that he had not read it. There was no point. There was, after all, no evidence whatsoever ...

Richard Dawkins was recently faced with a similar "what do you think of my evidence?" question by controversial writer and researcher Rupert Sheldrake, whilst Dawkins was filming for his TV series Enemies of Reason.

"I don't want to discuss evidence." Dawkins is alleged to have replied. "It's too complicated. There isn't time." (This, I hasten to add, was Sheldrake's recollection of the incident http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html in case you are interested).

What is my point? There are reasons why I have a faith (not based, I should add, on the sort of research described above, which I quote solely to make a point). These are, IMHO, fairly tenable reasons, not just the product of wishful thinking or a tender, suggestible psyche. Alas, like Paul Du Noyer, Rupert Sheldrake and my colleague at the BBC, I am more used to feeling mildly patronised by convinced atheists, than actually being asked what I believe and why.

Final word I think should go to Marcus Brigstock

That showed those beardy-weirdy religious types, eh?

I refer the right honourable gentleman to my previous closing sentence.

I am always struck by the fact, that although I claim myself to be a person of faith, I can rarely find a team that I actually want to be on. Maybe I love cheering for the underdog and I can't work out who the underdog is.

Many of the people I know who have substantial "faith" in the true meaning of the word are also quite rational people and are looking to make a positive contribution to the world. Very few of them are "supernaturalists" ; rather they want to feel connected to something that is greater, more profound than they are. This is what I think many of us find in music; that music (like other arts) has this transcendant dimension. The in word for this is "spiritual" but my problem is that I find it to be a lazy way of people saying that they are emotional when listening to Bach and enjoy a glass of red after sunset.

The patronising aspect that was referred to earlier comes about because hardly any fired up atheist (in my experience) is ever very familiar with their subject. They cling on to stereotypes and caricatures and love demolishing straw men. Fired up literalists hardly ever really know what a faith actually requires of them.

Finally, CS Lewis once wrote that people who know a 10 minute short cut to a destination don't really mind being told that such a short cut doesn't actually exist.

TK

The article by Paul Du Noyer seemed to me to be guilty of the same fault it was accusing certain atheists of - over simplification and devaluation of a belief.

It's message seems to be that you can't produce great art - including music - without faith. To compare Al Green to Gary Numan and say one artist is clearly better than the other since one is inspired by religion and one isn't, is twisting things to fit your view. It's just a comparison of a great artist and an OK/poor one. Take a track like Taxman by The Beatles, which lyrically is just a rich man's whinge about paying tax, yet is a brilliant piece of music. Great music can be made about any subject. There is plenty of Christian rock that is dire.

Yes you need to understand religion to understand art that is about religion, but you don't have to have faith to be moved by it or to respond to it. Is the joy heard in a piece of music necessarily coming from it's religious subject or the sheer joy of just making music? Maybe the new music he is hearing is not of so much interest to the article's author since it is just not good music. Being annoyed about the government can produce great music - talking of Canadian warblers what about Neil Young's Ohio?

It seems to me that if you have to disort or exagerrate to make your point, your point is rather undermined. By all means criticise those atheists who dismiss religion out of hand but don't repeat the same mistake they have made to have a go back at them. The whole subject of religion in art is more complicated than is suggested in the piece, in my view.

Passion comes from many sources.

Like with any discussion of this ilk, it seems to me that actually there is some significant agreement here masquerading as beligerently opposing viewpoints.

I would contend that much of the most interesting art, be that music (of any persuasion) or anything else, is borne not from certainty, but from doubt. It is the tension between faith and unbelief, that space where things aren't clear cut, and where there is room for exploration and journeying, that is the really interesting place to be. And it also seems to be a space that gurantees to set the creative juices flowing - a sense of disatisfaction, struggling for something better.

Nick Cave comments as much in this month's ish.

"The thing my belief has going for it that a lot of the fundamentalist beliefs don't is that mine is riddled with doubt. It allows me to be open-minded about things."

Any religion that thinks it has got things so totally sussed that it doesn't need to have open ears anymore is instinctively arrogant and unattractive. And so is any "secular" mindset that does the same thing.

Much of the pantheons that The Word holds up (quite rightly) seem to fall into this category - searching, yearning, wanting something more, something better. And it is that which seems to be fertile ground for great art.

for a few days now and it strikes me that so much lyrical expression consists of two main types of statement the first being along the lines of "this is what I'm FEELING" and the second being "this is the way things ARE" i.e. "I want to hold your hand"/"She was just seventeen" and both types are usually an attempt to covince the listener of either the sincerity of the feeling or the truth of the statement. But the important thing when listening is that you can fail to share the sentiments expressed but still appreciate the expression because of the feeling it engenders.
So when I hear the following statements of "fact"
"I will know my saviour when I come to him, by the marks where the nails went in"
"life ain't nothing but bitches and money"
"anarchy for the UK, is coming sometime"
I can think to myself "no you won't", "no it isn't" and "no it isn't" but still enjoy the way the music sounds and enjoy what is effectively a bit of tourism in someone's head (as it were)
It's arguably neccesary that the person writing/singing believes in what they are expressing but not neccesary at all for every listener to be in complete accord to get something worthwhile from the experience.

Ah but Pete, the next line in 'Anarchy in the UK' had the caveat 'maybe'. I do wish prosletysing religious types had the same self-doubt. But as someone much wiser then me once said: 'I wish I was as sure of anything as they are of everything.'

ps Lapsed Catholics? I'm a lapsed Trot _ imagine my guilt.....

....right thinking people are sick and tired of being told that all right thinking people are sick and tired!"

Fair point well made, Paul. Often proselytizers will have a certainty that breaches no cross-questioning. Sometimes, too:

- Atheists can (please note the "can" caveat, all you open-minded atheists) be just as intransigent and closed-minded as the most zealous convert(see Paul Du Noyer's Closing remarks)

- Sometimes "the music you're not supposed to like is the music you enjoy the best" (see "20 best ..." this month).

- Sometimes a Pot Noodle or Sausage and Egg McMuffin hits the spot perfectly (sorry to any vegans, but I am aware that I am killing myself in the process).

- Sometimes a Mail on Sunday columnist says something fair and incisive that Guardian-reading types such as myself would do well to sit up and take note of.

- Sometimes (well, nearly always, actually) someone says something sensible and nuanced on Any Questions - to be greeted by a bemused silence from the audience.

I am fumbling towards a point here: Rock periodicals have invariably constructed a set of party lines on everything from what musical genres it is and isn't OK to listen to, to who one should vote for etc..

I treasure the fact that The Word is deliberately iconoclastic in this respect. I may get riled when I perceive Dawkins or Amis to be getting an easy ride in the reviews section. But then again, here's Paul Du Noyer to say that he was genuinely moved by The Passion of the Christ ...

Part of growing up is lying awake and grappling with the old Zoo TV anti-adage "Everything you know is wrong". It's also the sign of a grown-up periodical.

Happy Birthday Word, and thanks!