I have been thinking about this song for a few days, and I have read the 5 books that are listed in the gatefold for the album.
This song doesn't seem to be about religion really. It is about polarization and absolutism. Chris Hannah seems to be warning people not to become fundamentalist when challenging fundamentalism.
Tertium Non Datur refers to the "Law of the excluded middle". In this case, that excluded middle seems to be understanding that the complexity of the human condition is not something that can be explained in black and white from either side.
While he certainly refers to to the religious world view and rails on it, it is not a song advocating atheism per se. It is a song advocating an understanding where evil actually comes from, and that is a fundamentalist mind.
Some good interpretations here. It's obviously advising against defining things as 'black and white' (a neat tie-in to Dear Coach's Corner, perhaps), but I still don't see Dawkins or Hitchens as fundamentalists. What is it, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"?
Some good interpretations here. It's obviously advising against defining things as 'black and white' (a neat tie-in to Dear Coach's Corner, perhaps), but I still don't see Dawkins or Hitchens as fundamentalists. What is it, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"?
Certainly, the major religions that claim esoteric access to the truth cannot all be correct, to any greater likelihood than the usual parodies such as the FSM. And whether one accepts the possibility of a deistic god or one of a type we've not imagined, unless it presents itself in some observable...
Certainly, the major religions that claim esoteric access to the truth cannot all be correct, to any greater likelihood than the usual parodies such as the FSM. And whether one accepts the possibility of a deistic god or one of a type we've not imagined, unless it presents itself in some observable way, it may as well not exist--and we'd do well to act as if it doesn't, rather than using it for power, etc.
Personally, I'd put myself at 7 ("There is definitely no god") on Dawkins' scale, if that wouldn't make me sound like a self-assured fundie. So, as a fan of science, I guess I'll settle for being a 7-1/∞.
"blankets so secure that they block out the sweep of the floodlights that could free them from the darkness that surrounds them. From the demons that keep hounding them and gouge their eyes"
"blankets so secure that they block out the sweep of the floodlights that could free them from the darkness that surrounds them. From the demons that keep hounding them and gouge their eyes"
With this part I get the feeling Propagandhi is trying to say that religion is creating its own fear in its followers. Unless you are a believer you don't have the sense of an EVIL trying to tempt you, take over your life and demons trying to gouge your eyes. They are saying that you are protecting yourself so securely behind your...
With this part I get the feeling Propagandhi is trying to say that religion is creating its own fear in its followers. Unless you are a believer you don't have the sense of an EVIL trying to tempt you, take over your life and demons trying to gouge your eyes. They are saying that you are protecting yourself so securely behind your religion and feel it is a safe-haven from evil that some people never see that their mere faith is what creates all of these characters in the first place. If only they would let in some of the floodlights they would be rescued from these fantasy demons that their own religion has created for them to fear. This is why people who follow a doctrine so strong especially when tied into a promise of a paradise in the after-life (or punishment) will do pretty much anything in this life.
I have been thinking about this song for a few days, and I have read the 5 books that are listed in the gatefold for the album.
This song doesn't seem to be about religion really. It is about polarization and absolutism. Chris Hannah seems to be warning people not to become fundamentalist when challenging fundamentalism.
Tertium Non Datur refers to the "Law of the excluded middle". In this case, that excluded middle seems to be understanding that the complexity of the human condition is not something that can be explained in black and white from either side.
While he certainly refers to to the religious world view and rails on it, it is not a song advocating atheism per se. It is a song advocating an understanding where evil actually comes from, and that is a fundamentalist mind.
Some good interpretations here. It's obviously advising against defining things as 'black and white' (a neat tie-in to Dear Coach's Corner, perhaps), but I still don't see Dawkins or Hitchens as fundamentalists. What is it, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"?
Some good interpretations here. It's obviously advising against defining things as 'black and white' (a neat tie-in to Dear Coach's Corner, perhaps), but I still don't see Dawkins or Hitchens as fundamentalists. What is it, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"?
Certainly, the major religions that claim esoteric access to the truth cannot all be correct, to any greater likelihood than the usual parodies such as the FSM. And whether one accepts the possibility of a deistic god or one of a type we've not imagined, unless it presents itself in some observable...
Certainly, the major religions that claim esoteric access to the truth cannot all be correct, to any greater likelihood than the usual parodies such as the FSM. And whether one accepts the possibility of a deistic god or one of a type we've not imagined, unless it presents itself in some observable way, it may as well not exist--and we'd do well to act as if it doesn't, rather than using it for power, etc.
Personally, I'd put myself at 7 ("There is definitely no god") on Dawkins' scale, if that wouldn't make me sound like a self-assured fundie. So, as a fan of science, I guess I'll settle for being a 7-1/∞.
"blankets so secure that they block out the sweep of the floodlights that could free them from the darkness that surrounds them. From the demons that keep hounding them and gouge their eyes"
"blankets so secure that they block out the sweep of the floodlights that could free them from the darkness that surrounds them. From the demons that keep hounding them and gouge their eyes"
With this part I get the feeling Propagandhi is trying to say that religion is creating its own fear in its followers. Unless you are a believer you don't have the sense of an EVIL trying to tempt you, take over your life and demons trying to gouge your eyes. They are saying that you are protecting yourself so securely behind your...
With this part I get the feeling Propagandhi is trying to say that religion is creating its own fear in its followers. Unless you are a believer you don't have the sense of an EVIL trying to tempt you, take over your life and demons trying to gouge your eyes. They are saying that you are protecting yourself so securely behind your religion and feel it is a safe-haven from evil that some people never see that their mere faith is what creates all of these characters in the first place. If only they would let in some of the floodlights they would be rescued from these fantasy demons that their own religion has created for them to fear. This is why people who follow a doctrine so strong especially when tied into a promise of a paradise in the after-life (or punishment) will do pretty much anything in this life.
@tmtek I agree with almost everything you said, but then you used the word "evil", which would be a good example of one side of a "rigid dichotomy".
@tmtek I agree with almost everything you said, but then you used the word "evil", which would be a good example of one side of a "rigid dichotomy".