The University of Idaho Argonaut

I love music. I love taking the time to stop and savor something that I have heard many times before, getting to know it better. Something remarkable about music is that it is so emotional. Music is not just sound; it’s something better. It’s spiritual. The people who write our music are aware of this, and we can tell by the subjects. If you were to compile a list of all the songs written about God or Love, you would probably have the majority of all music ever written.
Music defeats the materialist. To anyone who says the only reality is the physical world, music says otherwise. We can describe it scientifically in terms of sound waves, but is that a satisfying description? An even bigger problem is that music creates emotions in us — strong, clear emotions. How can we explain that without the spiritual?

A neurologist can point out to me the areas of the brain which control various emotions. He could describe for me the chemical processes that occur when I feel happy or frustrated. His explanation, however, does not deal at all with the emotions themselves, but just their physical results (or causes). If I fall in love, does a lecture on the brain chemistry of the process really describe it? Not at all. Rather, it completely misses the experience. Who can describe emotion better, a chemist or a poet?
Music and emotions tell us that the world is more than just material. Science can tell us a lot, but it cannot explain — or even describe — everything. We are supposed to believe that denying the spiritual and the supernatural is a more rational, enlightened viewpoint, but if there are parts of reality that are clearly immaterial — such as music, emotions, reason, beauty — then is it more reasonable to deny their existence or to accept it? Could it be that the belief in the supernatural is the more rational view?
If we carry this thought out further, then perhaps what we think about “rational” views regarding miracles, angels, and demons are also wrong. Whose picture of reality takes into account more of what we actually observe?

We can apply the same thinking to history. Usually, if we hear a historical account of something involving the supernatural, we dismiss it as myth or exaggeration, because we know that there is no such thing. But that is not a rational approach; rather, it is making decisions based on preconceived assumptions, not on the evidence.
Our experience tells us that there is more to reality than the physical world. There are some things which are beyond the reach of the hard sciences — things which are not natural and material. If the world is beyond material, then the most intelligent approach is to accept the fact and include it in our thinking. If you still don’t believe me, maybe the best thing to do is to set aside some time to listen to Beethoven. I would recommend Piano Concerto No. 5 in E flat major. That’s where I’ll be.