Psalms and Music

The Psalms are meant to be sung to music; when performed to music, they are an overall more powerful experience. The different branches of Christianity have different methods to how they perform the psalms. From culture to culture the text of the psalms change and seem to accommodate the cultural differences (as discussed in the previous blog post). Psalms are great modes of expression for cultures and individuals. The Catholic tradition uses psalms tones, similar to Gregorian chants, the music revolves around a certain note, the neighboring tones gravitating towards the main note. Protestant psalms, (ironically) are sung in a similar style; however, the text is different such as seen in the last blog post in The Bay Psalm Book.

Example of Gregorian Chant

 The Anglican tradition uses something called the Anglican chant, which takes un-metrical text by the matching the natural speech rhythm of the psalms to a short metrical piece. There is also modern music made for the psalms such as Igor Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms, Leonard Bernstein's Chichester Psalms, and Tehillim by Steve Reich.

This music helps to create, as it says in Geertz's definition, acts as "symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long lasting moods and motivations." Songs create a more memorable and powerful oral tradition, giving a faith more chance of survival. The use of music allows for communal use, bringing people together and each branch of Christianity can use the music in different ways to express their own differences. Also, as famous musicians have done before, the Psalms are used in ways to express themselves; like private prayer. The psalms are most effective when expressed in song, for they create "powerful, long-lasting moods and motivations" and are thus a more powerful experience.

Psalms, Old and New

The Psalms, collection of songs found in the Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible, that are often accredited to David (an early ancestor of christ). These are songs of praise and repent, joy and pain, good and evil; when translated from language to language and reinterpreted again and again you could understand that there are subtle differences in the many versions that can mean a lot. When looking at Psalm 2 for example, one version from a modern translation (found at http://www.ebible.org/WEB/Psalms.htm, which is based on The Standard American Version, 1901) in the first line says, "Why do the nations rage,/ and the peoples plot a vain thing?" Now, when looking at a much older version such as in the first version ever printed in North America, called The Bay Psalm Book printed in 1640, we can see more hostility towards the wicked (as might be expected from a puritan tradition):

(Why rage the heathen furiously?/ muse vaine things people do)

This opening phrase is certainly much more hostile than in the modern translation.

In another Psalm, we can see a similar comparison. In Psalm 8 we see the notorious puritan thinking, which you might expect. In The Standard American Version line 4 says, "what is man, that you think of him? What is the son of man, that you care for him?" In The Bay Psalm Book this same line says: 

(What's wretched man,/ that thou dost him remember?/ Or what's the son of man, that thus/ him visited thou hast?)

According to them, people are wretched. And not only are we a little lower than God (The Standard American Version): "For you have made him a little lower than God,/ and crowned him with glory and honor" (psalm 8, line 5). We are a little lower than an Angel: 

(For next to Angels, though hast him/ a little lower plac't/ and hast with glory crowned him,/ and comely majesty)

This view is not surprising from the Puritan culture, who were very strict on themselves and looked in every aspect of life to find where they could be more pure. This passage seems to reflect the idea of telling yourself that you are not ever good enough, in hopes that will compel you to do better.

However you see these passages, it is interesting how from language to language and culture to culture, these 150 songs written thousands of years ago are interpreted differently as they are translated. Giving us insight to cultures old and new.

Natural Progression

Where would Native Americans be today if left alone? That is, if the Americas were not colonized would the Native culture and religion be different then it is today? Obviously, if they still had the land to themselves, they wouldn't be living in reservations (which are often third-world poverty level) and there wouldn't be any hard feelings about the taking of their land. But as you look at the progression of the mound building of the native people, it seems interesting how it progressed from little mounds to bigger mounds, to huge mounds. it eventually became a way for them to send messages of dominance to other tribes; marking their land as their own. This is seen in the case of the village of Aztalan (Now a state park in Wisconsin:  http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/parks/specific/aztalan/) where there are temple mounds and stockade fences around the village. The temple mounds are used to bury important people and to mark the land. This protective stance and land marking seems a far cry from the early mound builders, who simply buried the dead in small mounds (which are often barely even noticeable). I guess what I am getting at is that when I see that these tribes in the midwest became very protective and warlike, that contradicts my view of Native people as a peaceful people, and if the native people were left to progress without the interruption of the manifest destiny driven settlers would they have become even more like the (still manifest destiny driven) U.S. and other war loving countries? Or would there still be an emphasis on the natural world and simple living?

Mounds of Belief

Although it is uncertain what the effigy mounds in Wisconsin are there for and what they mean, you cannot possibly believe that they were just built for fun. Possibly, that unexplainable religious urge that we all seem to have is responsible for these structures. But who built them? There is also uncertainty there. However it is clear that whoever built them had a fascination and possibly a dedication to the natural world - specifically the world of animals. These mounds are quite possibly symbols of the world around them - a dedication to the animal world, much like what is seen in the caves at Lascaux. The animal world around these people was everything to them; it was their order, and making these mounds helped them express the and harness the spiritual power that the mound builders felt the animal world held. Such as Clifford Geertz says in his definition of religion: "Religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence."

It is also possible that these mounds are simply burial sites, as there have been human remains found in the mounds. There have also been pottery, tools and other funerary items found along with the human remains suggesting a belief in the afterlife, suggesting a belief in religious type systems of belief. The animal world being a huge part of their belief, it seems that if these mounds were used as burial sites it makes sense that they are in the shape of an animal. Whatever these mounds are here for and and no matter who made them, it is clear that they are symbolic in a system of belief.

This photo is from Randy Roberts' blog: http://randyroberts.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/effigy-mounds/

Religion is an easy answer for our restless minds when you consider that we have an advanced brain that longs to understand everything. This has to do with the three aspects discussed in the byproduct theory from the article "Why We Believe." Agent detection (e.g. assuming ambiguous approaching creature is something dangerous), causal reasoning (e.g. ability to connect things and make a story out of it, in order to predict and learn), and theory of mind (e.g. the ability to "put yourself in someone else's shoes"). Causal reasoning in terms of religion, is people making sense of extraordinary events by assuming a higher being is responsible. And in the spirit of agent detection, if people cannot tell whether or not a higher being is responsible for an extraordinary event or not it is safer to assume that it is. When looking at this idea that we are willing to believe in the supernatural objectively, it does not seem to make sense. A neo-atheist such as Richard Dawkins would likely agree that this makes no sense. To him, religion is blind faith; that is, it is belief in something that there is no evidence for. Science is how he chooses to fulfill that longing to understand the world, because there is evidence there and there are real tangible things to study.
I tend to agree with Dawkins. There does not seem to be proof of God or a supernatural force acting in our everyday lives, and I instead find wonder in the scientific mystery that is life. I find it more reasonable to look at something that there is proof of and that we can make sense of. I like to think that I keep an objective view of the world. However, I find myself acting religiously in various aspects of my life wether it has anything to with a God or not. 

Should we ditch religion? Often when I look at religion I see the good in it. Every religion is full of doctrine and essentially rules that the members are supposed to follow, and often these are things that encourage people to do the right thing. However I feel that when people take a religion too seriously it gets in the way of doing the right thing. Humans inherently know right from wrong, and often religious thought can help to encourage us to make good choices. However, if taken any farther than this and religion becomes dangerous. And I think that Sam Harris, Author and CEO of Project reason would agree. He argues that religion concerns us with things that really are not important and that will better the human experience on earth. Such things as being concerned with pleasing a God with performing rituals, and placing rules and limitations on our lives. This is seen in politics as religion often comes first (not politics) and initiates conflict and keeps just initiatives from moving forward.

Sam Harris would argue for us to give up on religion as it does not seem to help humans in moving forward. This goes along with what is discussed in the article "Why We Believe" from The New York Times Magazine (March 4, 2007). Religion seems to not have a particular function in the survival of the human race; It consumes energy and takes up time. One explanation is that it is a byproduct of the development of our advanced brains. Which makes sense when you look at the fact that less intelligent creatures do not seem to involve themselves with seemingly useless religious matters. Also, it seems strange that we would adapt to believe in things that are not objectively true, such as when someone dies and we go to thinking that they are still with us in some other way.

To me, it seems that God is a byproduct of our development; however we makes use of this byproduct and use it to better our experience as humans because it does have benefits on the communal and individual level. Yet, when the religious experience is taken too far it becomes detrimental to our lives, and yet it is often taken too far by many people. Perhaps we should ditch religion because we cannot seem to manage it and keep it from hurting others.