Viva la Vida – What does it all mean?

2008 October 4
by lennymaysay

There has been much speculation recently on the “hidden” meaning in the lyrics of Coldplay’s hit new song, Viva La Vida. Penned by Chris Martin, lead singer, pianist and husband to actress Gwyneth Paltrow, the song has become Coldplay’s biggest hit.

Although some people listen to a song without actually thinking or caring about what the lyrics mean, others like myself, tend to appreciate good lyrics as one does good poetry, and we also wonder what the artist means by his words. I tend to believe that all songwriters write with great meaning, often hidden, which makes music all the more interesting. According to Wikipedia, the title Viva la Vida translates from Spanish into “long live life.”

When asked by Q magazine about what he meant by the line “I know Saint Peter won’t call my name” Chris Martin replied: “It’s about… You’re not on the list. I was a naughty boy. It’s always fascinated me that idea of finishing your life and then being analyzed on it. And this idea runs throughout most religions. That’s why people blow up buildings. Because they think they’re going to get lots of virgins. I always feel like saying, just join a band. That is the most frightening thing you could possibly say to somebody. Eternal damnation. I know about this stuff because I studied it. I was into it all. I know it. It’s still mildly terrifying to me. And this is serious.”

At some point Chris has stated that he is not sure about the existence of God and has also been quoted as saying “I’m always trying to work out what ‘He’ or ‘She’ is,” also saying “I don’t know if it’s Allah or Jesus or Mohammed or Zeus. But I’d go for Zeus.” In effect Chris has been cagey about his religious affiliation, or lack thereof. However, with this album, I think he has finally revealed his lack of belief n God, or at the very least, strong reservations about God’s existence. Arguably, the lyrics on other songs in the album such as Cemeteries of London and 42, hint at his religious doubts. So, with this I come to the crux of my essay: I think I may have cracked the real meaning behind the lyrics of Viva la Vida.

Let’s take the first verse:

I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sweep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own
I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy’s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:
“Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!”
One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of sand, pillars of sand

With this first verse (and subsequent verses), Chris assumes the position of the (imaginary, non-existent) God and laments the loss of power he once had (only in the minds of believers). “Now in the morning I sweep alone, Sweep the streets I used to own” is a reference to rational people abandoning religion in droves and realizing that religious claims (scripture etc.) are not real, hence the line “And I discovered that my castles stand, Upon pillars of sand.”

The second verse:

I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can not explain
Once you know there was never, never an honest word
That was when I ruled the world
(Ohhh)

These lines refer to the evangelists who spread fear and used religious rhetoric in order to convert and keep ordinary people in subservience, and enforce a blind faith in a God. The lines “Be my mirror my sword and shield, My missionaries in a foreign field” speaks of how these evangelists are no longer revered, or trusted. The lines “Once you know there was never, never an honest word, That was when I ruled the world” just confirms how lies were told to con the people, and how it kept (the idea of) God in power.

The third verse:

It was the wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in.
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People could not believe what I’d become
Revolutionaries Wait For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh who would ever want to be king?

The first three lines of this verse is a confession of the “wicked and wild” manner in which the idea of God (and religion) was spread. It goes on to acknowledge that people had started to realize how God was just a power mad, megalomaniac (in reality just a manifestation of ordinary people’s own lust for power). “Revolutionaries Wait For my head on a silver plate” is a reference to non-believers (anti-theists and Atheists) who are waiting for the downfall of religion. “Just a puppet on a lonely string” is clear acknowledgement that ordinary men used religion (and the idea of God) to stake their claims for power, and that they were really pulling the strings all along (and still are). “Oh who would ever want to be king?” is off course the lament of an imaginary God who has been placed in an imaginary, untenable position.

The fourth verse:

I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can not explain
I know Saint Peter won’t call my name
Never an honest word
And that was when I ruled the world
(Ohhhhh Ohhh Ohhh)

The conviction evidenced by “I know Saint Peter won’t call my name” is the final admission that that there is no Saint Peter, never was, and never will be.

The last verse:

Hear Jerusalem bells are ringings
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can not explain
I know Saint Peter will call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world
Oooooh Oooooh Oooooh”

“I know Saint Peter will call my name” appears to be a contradiction of the lines in the 4Th verse. However, since this is the closing verse of the song and, in the context of religion, it very cleverly pronounces the final death knell of (the idea of) God, as in being called to rest.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I am of the opinion that this song is perhaps the most brilliant piece of anti-religion, without actually explicitly saying so.

122 Responses leave one →
  1. 2008 October 18
    Tanner permalink

    I feel sad for Chris Martin and the loss of his faith, he has been blessed with a great gift. He inspires such life, joy, grace,and emotion with the purity of his music. Yet he seems lost… and his music is his outlet, filling up the hole that is his heart…I pray he finds himself.

    • 2009 May 6

      Just remember Chris Martin is an anti-christian person, so this is what he got out of the lyrics. But like any piece of art, it’s up to the person that’s listening to come to their own conclusions. This song could have numerous scenarios. It’s like looking at a painting at a museum each person will get a different meaning from it.

      • 2009 May 6
        lennymaysay permalink

        I don’t think Chris Martin would appreciate being called anti-christian; I think he just chose Christianity for poetic effect, but the lyrics would apply to all religions, equally.

        But, you’re right off course about the lyrics being art. And true that there could be many interpretations; this one is mine. That’s what makes art so wonderful and interesting; the different ways it could interpreted.

  2. 2008 October 24

    Ah! Ah! Tanner, his loss of faith (if indeed so) is actually a great “blessing”. If so, he can now indeed find himself, because there is no need to look for something (God?) that is not really there. How ironic?

  3. 2008 October 26
    Mark Hobart permalink

    Religion is the biggest bullshit story known to civilization. Religon is a creation meant to chain the masses to mediocrity and GUILT. And, once it is defeated we will know the true meaning of freedom. Because if there were no God there could be no fear. Then what?

    • 2009 May 7
      Creyeß permalink

      Being an Anti Christ or Atheist or whatever you want too call it, is the biggest Bullshit Story!!! You obviously have no feelings and proably will be just fine when you go to hell so good luck with that!!! I believe Chris is just confused about his religon I believe he has studied the religon subject sooo much he has became confused religon is a very tricky subject. I just believe he should proably just become a Non-Denominational person because maybe then he can find himself. I wish him good luck and will pray for him and you. You especially will need it.

  4. 2008 October 26

    If man finally reached the point where all gods were abandoned, it would signify true emancipation, true freedom. Yes, and then what. If man were then free of fear, would he go on to achieve true greatness or would he succumb to base animal instincts to wipe each other out. My personal belief is that if we reach the point of true emancipation, then it would signify that we have finally developed as a species to our true potential; and the base animal menatality mentality would have been eradicated.

    • 2009 May 22
      anonymous permalink

      Before I begin, I’m going to call to attention something that I’ve seen common in many of these comments. There is absolute truth. Truth is anything but relative. There is right, there is wrong, and there is no in between. What you think is true is either right or wrong. What I think is true is either right or wrong. End of story.

      So basically, a lot of people have been saying that man experiences true freedom when he gets rid of his religious hindrances. From my recent theological and philosophical studies, I have come to the conclusion that if there is no religion or belief system, there is nothing to base morals and standards on. As is quite obvious, there must be SOME standards, or else anyone could go around doing anything and everything and chaos would run rampant. So if there is no religion, what do you base these standards on? What man feels is right? That is completely abstract. What one person might feel is right might not feel right to another person. So that won’t work. Without religion, what else is there?

      This is why I believe in the Almighty God of Christianity. In the Bible, He sets forth morals and standards that are good and true. The Ten Commandments are part of our law today. However, people have also been saying that the Bible contradicts itself. In that case, how can you be sure these morals are valid? Well, they can only be valid if the Bible is aboslutely true. I certainly believe the Bible is absolutely, wholly, and perfectly true! If you think about the Bible as a whole and include an analysis of science and historical evidence, you really can come to this conclusion. I will explain this some other time (that’s a promise) because right now I’m supposed to be doing schoolwork.

      • 2009 May 22
        anonymous permalink

        Lenny,

        In the midst of all my theology, I forgot to thank you for your essay. It really helped to clear things up about the lyrics. I’ve been trying to evaluate the worldview of this song for a while now and your essay really helped me to understand it. Thanks again! (And now I really need to do my schoolwork or I won’t be prepared for class tomorrow.)

        • 2009 May 22
          lennymaysay permalink

          anonymous, the essay is my interpretation of the lyrics. It may not be the true “worldview” of the song, but it was written for generating debate and further thinking.

          Judging by the comments here, it has done just that; for which I’m glad. But, thank you for participating and taking the debate further.

      • 2009 May 22
        lennymaysay permalink

        Hi anonymous,

        “Without religion, what else is there?” You’d be surprized how much there really is without religion; you just need to broaden your horizons.

        Your conclusion that “chaos would run rampant” without religion or god is rather funny considering the state of the world right now with god/religion still very much part of it; with social upheavals on every continent, war, murder, general crime, and some of it caused by religion itself. So where does that leave your theory?

        Believing something does not make it true. Truth is scientifically verifiable. Religion is not scientifically verifiable, the bible is not scientifically verifiable.

        You sound like a reasonably intelligent person; though I’m not sure at what school level you are in at the moment, since you just mention homework. If you’re interested in learning more about the “real” world; why not read some of the following resources which will answer some of your questions above about morality etc. Try the following links:

        Without God, how do we determine what’s right and wrong?
        http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/determine-morality.html

        Without God, What Grounds Right and Wrong?
        http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/ground-morality.html

        Can Life Have Meaning without God?
        http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/meaning.html

        I’ll appreciate some of your thoughts on the resources I listed above.

        • 2009 May 27
          anonymous permalink

          Lenny,

          Before I comment on your web pages, I had a question. What do you believe regarding truth? Do you believe that truth is relative depending on the individual? Or, do you believe that truth can be determined only by science?

        • 2009 May 28
          anonymous permalink

          Lenny,

          I don’t have enough time at the moment to give you a lengthy, well thought out answer, but I wanted to quickly clear up something I said. When I claimed that chaos would run rampant without religion, what I meant was that chaos would run rampant without Christianity. This was my mistake. I am completely aware that war, murder, etc are often caused by religion (an obvious example: Islamic terrorists), and I appologize for not thinking before sending my comment.

        • 2009 May 28
          anonymous permalink

          Lenny,

          I was rereading my first comment, and I think you were mistaken. What I actually claimed was that chaos would run wild if there were no standards on which to base morality. Then I concluded that these standards come from religion. However, you are very right that many of our current problems are caused by religion.

        • 2009 October 7
          anonymous permalink

          Hi Lenny,

          I appologize for the late reply. My studies have been keeping me excessively busy.

          I read through some of your websites (I did not have enough time to read them all). Please correct me if I am mistaken because I do not want to take anything out of context. I gathered from this information that standards are relative to the individual, and people simply create their own meaning. However, to accept this view you have to assume that human nature is ultimately perfect or perfectible. If this is the case, where does evil come from?

  5. 2008 October 30
    Marvin permalink

    It has come to my attention that the masses, especially in the Western world, view the eradication of “Religion” as the path to emancipation. But nevertheless, the culprits who used religion to their aggrandizement (think Adolf Hitler,Richard the Lion-hearted, Islamic Extremists, KKK etc) are removed from the public harrassment and rejection rightfully due to them. Let’s not kid ourselves. A society without Religion is just as dangerous as one without. Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, among many others, massacred millions all in the name of an Atheistic state. The problem lies not on this substance that so many gladly finger-point at. The true problem lies at the myriad of uneducated people. For without self-education, one knows nothing. And if one knows nothing, they will fall for anything. Religion, Nationalism, Science and “Revolution” are but the opium for the multitudes!

    Viva La Vida~
    Marvin

  6. 2008 November 2
    Steve permalink

    The idea of god is inbuilt into man’s substance. You can’t just wish him away. He created everything and owns everything including us. Our problem has been well annunciated by the previous writers and that is, we hate Him. We talk about religion being the noose around our necks but who killed the son of god, none other than the religious. We are the enemies of God because of our sins. God is not the problem, religion is. Jesus did not come to set up a religion but to give His life as a sacrifice for our sins. We made up the religion! You want true emancipation, true freedom? You need to be forgiven. Simple as that. God has made the way possible through the death of Jesus on the cross. His death will substitute your eternal damnation if you will submit to him and believe the truth God has revealed about His son. You’re right, religion needs to get out of the way so the pure unadulterated truth can be seen. We need to get back into sync with God, only then can we be truly free.

  7. 2008 November 2
    lennymaysay permalink

    Steve, if by “inbuilt into man’s substance” you mean inbuilt into our gentic code, then I would to a certain extent agree with you. There have been logically constructed arguments favoring this particular hypothesis, but only in so far as the idea of god aided in man’s evolutional evolutionary development is concerned. The hypothesis postulates that man’s first attempt (philosophically) to explain the world in the absence of science, was through religion and the cocept of “god.” It is postulated that this aided in our evolutionary development, but now that science fills in most, if not all the gaps, the human has no need for the primitive concept of a “god” any longer.

    We have advanced to the stage where “god” is of no more use for our development. Rational people have abandoned the useless baggage that is god. We have accepted the next step in our evolutionary development. Get over it; there is no god, and no son of god, and no sins that I need to be forgiven for. Learn to live, not remain in submission for the rest of your life and be enslaved by an invisible, irrational concept.

  8. 2008 November 6
    Dirra permalink

    Does God exist? No one can tell each other if God does or God doesn’t.
    Does it really make a difference. Am I going to bash your head because you don’t believe in God? No. Are you going to bash my head because I believe?
    The argument is pointless. We should on the other hand respect people’s
    ideas and beliefs or non-beliefs. Atheist people have good points and so
    do people with faith.

    I believe in God because of personal experiences. Non-believers
    can’t take away what I have felt and seen. And I can’t forced them to to belief, but would love for them to listen. My life is different, my Culture is different and my relationship with people are different.

    I do think science is amazing and the bible contains great stories. I do think everything that was written in the bible more than likely happen scientifically in some way or form. Other things, well, only one’s individual faith explains.

    But the big mystery is why is science is so perfect. From gravity and calculations to time and birth. One will always wonder, what is this
    great energy that makes everything work so perfectly?

    D

  9. 2008 November 7

    Hi Dirra, no I’m not going to bash you over the head;I’ll leave that kind of thing to the religionists. But don’t ask me to respect you or anyone who believes that there is a man living in the sky who requires us to be forever subserviant, compliant and begging for forgiveness for an “original” sin. And you need Aesop’s Fables to explain everything in the bible, not science. Science itself is not perfect; it’s just the most perfect way to explain the wonders of the universe as an alternative to blind faith.

  10. 2008 November 12
    jaymiles81 permalink

    I believe this song describes the devil. Because his power was borrowed, and at the end of time it’s gone from him totally.

  11. 2008 November 12
    Dirra permalink

    Hello Lenny
    To each his own God, and there own religion, I’m sure the Man from the
    sky and the original sin is not every ones religion of choice or logic.
    They can worship the sun for that matter.
    As far as being forgiven. I think the only person that can forgive your
    doing is yourself or the law. (which ever comes first)

    I do think religion has fallen into servants of greed and power,
    nothing more.

    Blind faith… Blind faith can make a man do wonders in his life.
    The belief of this power has created many great men.
    Why the disbeliefs if the outcomes are great?

    But I do respect your belief in nothing.

  12. 2008 November 14
    lennymaysay permalink

    Jay, there’s no Devil either!!!

  13. 2008 November 14
    lennymaysay permalink

    Hello Dirra, I do believe in the power of man to overcome his superstitious beliefs. I, and other Atheists are living proof.

  14. 2009 January 6

    You have it all wrong. It is about a king who has power and just takes the wrong turns. Also about how he now knows that he did the wrong things (Who would ever want to be king.) not about being God. The saint Peter thing too it means he will go to hell as well.

  15. 2009 January 6
    Cherie permalink

    This is rediculous. People can take his lyrics in so many different ways. I enjoy this song and have a firm belief in God. Not blind faith, but faith based on irrefutable historical evidence. Sadly, mainstream religion has distorted and lied to its followers. There is no eternal fiery damnation in the Bible. Rather God has held out a hope that very soon we will enjoy a paradise condition here on earth. I don’t see athiest when I read the lyrics of this song. What I see is someone that is sick of Christendom misleading everyone.

  16. 2009 January 6

    Sammy, what makes you think you have it all right? Probably the same thing that makes you think hell is real.

  17. 2009 January 6

    Cherie, it’s about as ridiculous as believing that there is an invisible man living in the sky. What irrefutable historical evidence? There is no corroborating evidence for most, if not all things in the bible, especially the existence of a god. It would be paradise here on earth, if everyone held sane, rational beliefs.

    You can still enjoy the song, like i do, without having a belief in the supernatural. And so who is misleading everyone; me or Chris Martin or you, your bible, or religion in general?

  18. 2009 January 11
    MM3 permalink

    The lyrics of the song refer to man’s fall from grace and is said in both the context of the creator and the creature – speaking as though they were one, which they were. Far from showing Chris as having lost his faith I take the opposite view – he recognises where God is(altough not sure on his name which is fair enough), why man no longer ‘knows’ God. This is the second song in less than 2 weeks describing man’s fall.

  19. 2009 January 12

    MM3, so you also have difficulty reading between the lines. How strange, that most Christians interpret the lyrics of this song one way (literally), and then interpret the words of the bible in another?

  20. 2009 January 12
    MM3 permalink

    Lenny you’re right, although this is probably because of how Christianity has been ‘taught’ I dont find it too difficult to understand actually but that could be as I’m not religious, just lerned. If only the world knew…….

  21. 2009 January 18
    Hannah permalink

    Cherie, i agree. i love this song, and i am a firm believer in God. and people can take different meanings to this song. i agree also with MM3. i think he is realizing that there is a God, and he realizes he has fallen, but i dont know for certain. its my opinion. no one knows what is in chris’s head other that God and chris himself.

  22. 2009 January 18
    Hannah permalink

    and im also not saying your all wrong. its just that we all have opinions, but remember, by faith you are saved, not good works alone. the only way to heaven is thtough Jesus Christ who died on the cross to save our sins. whether you believe in Him or not, He loves you and wants you to come to Him.

  23. 2009 January 20
    lennymaysay permalink

    Hi Hannah, sure you’re entitled to your opinions, like everyone else. Chris Martin has hinted about his irreligious leanings and I have interpretd the song with this in mind. Off course, I could be totally wrong, but I have never claimed to be 100% certain…as opposed to your religious conviction which makes a claim about the existence of God and Jesus Christ and sin, without any proof whatsoever. Such blind faith is absurd, and dangerous…

  24. 2009 January 21
    Hannah permalink

    ok! i didnt know about his irreligious comments. but if you think about the song in my perspective, it says never an honest word, but that was when i ruled the world. i consider that to say there used to be lies when i was in control, but now that God is in control, there is truth being told. just a little side note there i thought was interesting. thanks!

    • 2009 January 21
      lennymaysay permalink

      Hi again Hannah, that’s what makes poetry (lyrics are poetry) so interesting. It can be interpreted in so many different ways; and is most probably the very intention of the poet (songwriter). It’s just important to note that we should steer clear of absolutism; which is what I find particularly offending about religion. Thanks for taking the time to debate…

  25. 2009 January 21
    Hannah permalink

    im sorry if i offended you lenny! i just have a strong faith and i may tend to come on a little strong. and your welcome! anytime!

  26. 2009 January 22
    lennymaysay permalink

    Hannah, no need to apologise to me or anybody else over your faith. I’m certainly not offended by you. I’m only offended by religion in general, and that’s not your fault.

  27. 2009 January 23
    Hannah permalink

    Ok! and i hope someday you will not be offended by religion.

    • 2009 January 23
      lennymaysay permalink

      Yes, I also look forward to that day, when I will not be offended by religion anymore; that happy day when man realizes that he has no need for religion any longer…

  28. 2009 January 24
    Hannah permalink

    i just have a question, why wouldnt we need religion? why dont YOU think we need religion?

    • 2009 January 25
      lennymaysay permalink

      There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of reasons why man does not need religion. You could read any number of books by Dawkins, Hitchens, Daniel Dennet, David Hume, Percy Bysshe Shelley, George Eliot, Benedict De Spinoza, John Stuart Mill, Charles Darwin, Anatole France, Michael Shermer, MArk Twain, Thomas Hardy, H L Mencken, Sigmund Freud, George Orwell, Chapman Cohen, Bertrand Russel, Carl Sagan, John Updike, Victor Stenger, Emma Goldman, J L Mackie, Salman Rushdie, A C Greyling….the list is endless; and they will all give you any number of reasons why. But for me, the most compelling reason is that religion requires that man must submit his mind and body, blindly to some unknown, unfathomable, unreasonable, illogical force, totally and without question; but man is not some weak mindless fool, unless he wants to be…

  29. 2009 January 25
    Trevor permalink

    When I listened to these great lyrics I never thought about religion or God. I must admit that I have wondered whether the writer was singing about an individual or whether he was simply postulating on life in general. Do not all of us recollect periods in our life when things seemed to fall into place and we had so much control over our affairs, but then things start to go sour, and we fall from our position of self confidence. I wondered if the king in the song was just an analagy of such periods of success, followed by the analagy of sweeping the streets we once owned. This is the way I identify with the words of the song.

    I cast my eye around the world and see empires which have grown and become powerful like the Egyptian, Ethiopian, Greek, Roman, British, and then withered.
    Even great artists and songwriters, actors etc.(I am currently reading Tony Hancocks life story)They,We,Rise on the crest of a wave, and then fall. Just read Judy Garlands life story.

    Could it be just this that the song is about?

    • 2009 January 25
      lennymaysay permalink

      Hi Trevor, yes it could be that your interpreation is correct; and yet again it could be that it isn’t. That’s what is so great about sharing ideas; we all learn. There is no need for the dogma, absolutism and blind faith associated with religion. Thanks for that…

  30. 2009 February 13
    kenny permalink

    sry..is it just me..or has anyone else thought of this song being about the French revolution?

  31. 2009 February 18

    hey, i’ve been looking for the meaning of Viva La Vida. Is it ok if i’m quoting your writing here?

    thanks

  32. 2009 February 18
    Lenny permalink

    Hi there ime, sure go ahead, but just remember that it’s just my interpretation

  33. 2009 February 19
    rhen permalink

    You all can belive what you wish but jesus saves. How can you live life believing that you just came out of the dust with no higher power.What a shame that is what this world is coming too. I know it gets old people preaching to you mabe if you would listen. And i hate the term ‘religious’ the only real ‘religion is eather you believe in God that he sent his son to die for everyones sins or you dont.

  34. 2009 February 20
    Hannah permalink

    amen rhen! i feel the same way!

  35. 2009 February 23
    lennymaysay permalink

    Rhen, how can you live life believing that you came out of the dust, period? Either you get an education or you remain ignorant. Those are the only choices.

  36. 2009 February 24
    EYC permalink

    Does the “I” still refer to God in the line“I know Saint Peter won’t call my name”?

    So, if the “I” is referring to the singer himself at this point, is he now saying that Saint Peter does exist? Or that it doesn’t matter because whether he exists or not, his soul is going to be just fine anyway?

    “I know Saint Peter will call my name” appears to be a contradiction of the lines in the 4Th verse. However, since this is the closing verse of the song and, in the context of religion, it very cleverly pronounces the final death knell of (the idea of) God, as in being called to rest.
    Yes, “very cleverly pronounces” accurately describes this interpretation. From the point of view of a fellow human being in spiritual quest, this interpretation is contradictory, obdurate, and perverse. Putting oneself in the position of god and imagining all the ways in which the influence of theocracy was shown throughout history has the basic premise of allowing oneself to think he/she is God. Perhaps Chris Martin is hinting at pantheism rather than atheism, and perhaps that he could do a better job when he gets to rule the world? Or hey, if God couldn’t do it, than don’t blame him for screwing up in life.

    “That’s why people blow up buildings. Because they think they’re going to get lots of virgins. I always feel like saying, just join a band. That is the most frightening thing you could possibly say to somebody. Eternal damnation. I know about this stuff because I studied it. I was into it all. I know it. It’s still mildly terrifying to me.”
    Huh? That totally went over my head. Why do people blow up buildings? Because they dread the possibility of being analyzed at the end of their lives, or because they are caught in the angst of not knowing how else they could lead their lives, or because they think putting themselves out violently in life it going to prove to others, “See how hard it’s for me, so don’t you dare come close to me or I’ll blow you up too- also notice the power I can wield”
    “Because they think they’re going to get lots of virgins.” I really must admit that I don’t understand the train of thought here. Because “they”? Uh, hello, I’m sure he’s laid plenty of virgins in his life without blowing up buildings. If virgins= beauty and purity, and he’s disillusioned with how the world has fared in treating these precious subjects, he shouldn’t be throwing up his hands in the air and leaving the cover artist to go ahead and vandalize LDoes the “I” still refer to God in the line“I know Saint Peter won’t call my name”?

    So, if the “I” is referring to the singer himself at this point, is he now saying that Saint Peter does exist? Or that it doesn’t matter because whether he exists or not, his soul is going to be just fine anyway?

    “I know Saint Peter will call my name” appears to be a contradiction of the lines in the 4Th verse. However, since this is the closing verse of the song and, in the context of religion, it very cleverly pronounces the final death knell of (the idea of) God, as in being called to rest.
    Yes, “very cleverly pronounces” accurately describes this interpretation. From the point of view of a fellow human being in spiritual quest, this interpretation is contradictory, obdurate, and perverse. Putting oneself in the position of god and imagining all the ways in which the influence of theocracy was shown throughout history has the basic premise of allowing oneself to think he/she is God. Perhaps Chris Martin is hinting at pantheism rather than atheism, and perhaps that he could do a better job when he gets to rule the world? Or hey, if God couldn’t do it, than don’t blame him for screwing up in life.

    “That’s why people blow up buildings. Because they think they’re going to get lots of virgins. I always feel like saying, just join a band. That is the most frightening thing you could possibly say to somebody. Eternal damnation. I know about this stuff because I studied it. I was into it all. I know it. It’s still mildly terrifying to me.”
    Huh? That totally went over my head. Why do people blow up buildings? Because they dread the possibility of being analyzed at the end of their lives, or because they are caught in the angst of not knowing how else they could lead their lives, or because they think putting themselves out violently in life it going to prove to others, “See how hard it’s for me, so don’t you dare come close to me or I’ll blow you up too- also notice the power I can wield”
    “Because they think they’re going to get lots of virgins.” I really must admit that I don’t understand the train of thought here. Because “they”? Uh, hello, I’m sure he’s laid plenty of virgins in his life without blowing up buildings. If virgins= beauty and purity, and he’s disillusioned with how the world has fared in treating these precious subjects, he shouldn’t be throwing up his hands in the air and leaving the cover artist to vandalize Liberty leading the People and for himself, going to another party and further disillusioning himself that that’s as good as it gets. Because if that’s the message, then this is not the work of an artist but a grown-up boy who thinks he knows all about this stuff because he “studied it.”
    “I was into it all. I know it. It’s still mildly terrifying to me”- you know who says things like that? Prepubescent kids who brave themselves through R-rated horror movies and to whom simply keeping their eyes open through the show is feat enough. The truth is, they don’t really understand the story.

  37. 2009 February 24
    EYC permalink

    Does the “I” still refer to God in the line“I know Saint Peter won’t call my name”?

    So, if the “I” is referring to the singer himself at this point, is he now saying that Saint Peter does exist? Or that it doesn’t matter because whether he exists or not, his soul is going to be just fine anyway?

    “I know Saint Peter will call my name” appears to be a contradiction of the lines in the 4Th verse. However, since this is the closing verse of the song and, in the context of religion, it very cleverly pronounces the final death knell of (the idea of) God, as in being called to rest.
    Yes, “very cleverly pronounces” accurately describes this interpretation. From the point of view of a fellow human being in spiritual quest, this interpretation is contradictory, obdurate, and perverse. Putting oneself in the position of god and imagining all the ways in which the influence of theocracy was shown throughout history has the basic premise of allowing oneself to think he/she is God. Perhaps Chris Martin is hinting at pantheism rather than atheism, and perhaps that he could do a better job when he gets to rule the world? Or hey, if God couldn’t do it, than don’t blame him for screwing up in life.

    “That’s why people blow up buildings. Because they think they’re going to get lots of virgins. I always feel like saying, just join a band. That is the most frightening thing you could possibly say to somebody. Eternal damnation. I know about this stuff because I studied it. I was into it all. I know it. It’s still mildly terrifying to me.”
    Huh? That totally went over my head. Why do people blow up buildings? Because they dread the possibility of being analyzed at the end of their lives, or because they are caught in the angst of not knowing how else they could lead their lives, or because they think putting themselves out violently in life it going to prove to others, “See how hard it’s for me, so don’t you dare come close to me or I’ll blow you up too- also notice the power I can wield”
    “Because they think they’re going to get lots of virgins.” I really must admit that I don’t understand the train of thought here. Because “they”? Uh, hello, I’m sure he’s laid plenty of virgins in his life without blowing up buildings. If virgins= beauty and purity, and he’s disillusioned with how the world has fared in treating these precious subjects, he shouldn’t be throwing up his hands in the air and leaving the cover artist to go ahead and vandalize Liberty leading the People, and for himself, going to another party and further disillusioning himself that that’s as good as it gets. Because if that’s the message, then this is not the work of an artist but a grown-up boy who thinks he knows all about this stuff because he “studied it.”
    “I was into it all. I know it. It’s still mildly terrifying to me”- you know who says things like that? Prepubescent kids who brave themselves through R-rated horror movies and to whom simply keeping their eyes open through the show is feat enough. The truth is, they don’t really understand the story.

  38. 2009 February 24
    lennymaysay permalink

    EYC, it’s simple. Chris Martin positions himself as the god (of our imagination) who laments the loss of interest by the very people who created him. It’s a useful poetic tool.

    What don’t you understand about people blowing up buildings? Have you ever heard of religious fundamentalists? Where were you during 9/11? Have you never heard of the Islamic myth which promises 72 virgins in heaven to a jihadist (Islamic fundamentalist who sacrifices (sic) his life for the Islamic cause)?

  39. 2009 March 11
    Christian permalink

    The devils greatest doing was convincing the world he doesn’t exsist. The Devil is in control of government issues. A nation that abandons GOD will not be protected by HIM. Everything is going according to plan. Soon in our time the rapture will take place, removing all Christians, (Accepters of Christ being the only one who can forgive us of our sins) allowing evil to reach its full power. The world will see a One World Government. Many will accept the Mark of the Beast (Micro chip to right hand or forehead) and all the prophecies yet to occur from the bible will occur. The worst thing about it is they’ll make it look like a great idea to take the Mark. Don’t be deceived my friends open your eyes.

    • 2009 March 11
      lennymaysay permalink

      Christian, yeah right!!! I saw that film too!!!

      • 2009 May 7
        Creyeß permalink

        Lenny who are you??? Some Atheist that believs you have too shoot down peoples beliefs??Well I’m here too shoot down yours! I will pray for you! You will need it! And science dosent explain crap because how did science start? in case your confused and I’m sure your anti christ self is, is it began with God someone had to create the sun, milkyway,planets. So here’s a idea get over yourself go to church and pray a lot and have a GREAT DAY!!! Hell won’t be fun! Sorry for the bad news!

        • 2009 May 7
          lennymaysay permalink

          Sorry to have to disappoint you, but far from having “shot down” any of my beliefs, you have strengthened them, by your very tone. I don’t shoot down people’s beliefs; I comment on its veracity.

          Like, I have requested others; please don’t waste your precious time praying for me; rather use it to examine why millions like me, question your beliefs.

          Science is a tool used by rational men and women to explain the world using empiricle, verifiable data. Religion is a tool that provides faith-based answers to explain the world, and entrenches irrationality.

          So, here’s an idea, get off your knees, go to a library, open a real science book (start with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution) and marvel at the wonders of nature as explained using testable facts. It wont be fun, but at least you’ll learn something new.

          There is no proof for god’s existence. There is no proof for hell’s existence. Sorry for the bad news!!! But if you actually read something other than the fairy tales in your “holy book,” you would have known this.

    • 2009 October 25
      maestra permalink

      Thanks for your comments Lenny. I used to be a evangelical christian…so put off by the atheists like yourself. The light finally came on for me and now when I read these comments by Christians, I realize how very absurd it all sounds and am grateful to be set free. How ironic that I’m saying “I’ve been set free” when speaking of losing my religion. That’s what people say when they get saved.

      • 2009 October 26
        lennymaysay permalink

        Hello maestra,

        Thanks for your response; it’s gratifying to note that there are people like you out there who are ‘lighting the way’ for others. I’m really pleased to share this journey of discovery with you, and others like you.

  40. 2009 March 19
    Mohammed permalink

    Hey,
    As much as I loved the song, I still your explanation of if better! Brilliant work. As for the song itself, I was reading on another website, baptist21, a completely different explanation of it all. I personally like to adhere to your version of the song, because it carries a far clearer explanation and one that is studied well. I think Chris Martin’s idea here was to make people think and analyze, and he certainly got your attention on that note. As for religion, I am certainly not educating you about it, but think about it as a car, given to a driver who ends up with a lot of speeding tickets and countless accidents, and in the end of it all, he blames the car, and even worse, the dealership that sold him the car. Religions in all of their versions, Judiasm, Christianity and Islam, have all meant the same thing, to live life in accordance with certain principles, mostly those of peace and common good, but us as humans did our best to deviate and use them for our own purposes. Judiasm was elevated from a religion of self-conservation to solitude, Christianity from a religion of peace to the Crusades and finally, George Bush’s claim against terrorism, and finally, Islam, from a religion of unity and peace to one of division and anything but peace. The more we screw up, we blame God (the dealership) and when we lose faith in that, we blame religion (the car) for the problems that most religious people (the driver) have caused. Stupid is it not? You Answer…

    • 2009 March 19
      lennymaysay permalink

      Hi Mohammed,
      What a breath of fresh air; finally a theist who can reason without resorting to plugging his religion and or religious beliefs. Your analogy is pretty good; but is relevent only to a believer. Your assessment about the Abrahamic religions is also pretty accurate, and quite honest.

      However, this is where we diverge; I don’t blame a god for any of my “screw-ups” simply because I don’t believe a god, or any supernatural entity, exists. I don’t lose faith, because I don’t have any; faith in a non-existent entity is irrational. So yes, you are quite right to say it is stupid, because it would most certainly be stupid to have faith in something that does not exist.

      And I don’t blame religion for my personal problems; I blame religion for the multitude of world problems that it (inadvertently, maybe) creates.

      Thank you for your submission; once again I laud you for your honesty.

  41. 2009 March 20
    Mohammed permalink

    Hey Lenny,

    Thank you for the lovely comment, as I have felt the same honesty and understanding from an athiest, and to begin this, I was never looking for a meeting of minds here. I mean where is the fun if we can talk about things we agree on? Plus, what are we adding to each other’s knowledge if we discussed our resolved issues? I would love to continue this, if you don’t mind…
    Personally, I am a religious person, and the funniest part about most believers, which is perhaps the same reason why you are not a believer, is that we, for many times, consider God to be the “guy in the white robe in the sky!” Surprisingly, he is always a male, he never had wives, and he, for lack of a better expression, “kept it real” when others denounce him. I have lived my entire life denouncing that misunderstanding, which by the way, is our creation, and not any Abrahamic religion’s statement. In Judiasm, God was this ultimate power, in Christianity, God was the word of peace, but the personification of that idea, which is Jesus, made it more believable, as for Muslims, God could not be portrayed, but I had to resort to a view, I would take the Islamic, because it does not personify God.
    I am not sure about your personal beliefs, but if you believe in evil and good, and if you believe in a power that has created humanity, then that’s pretty much what God is, in the core sence. The problem ofcourse, is what we did to that image to make it believable 2000 years ago, and some still continue to do the same today.
    My best friend, who is an athiest, denounces the idea of God for perhaps the same principles you have, she refuses to believe in a “being” that controls all of this, and so do I honestly. To my understanding, God is a power, rather than a person, and funny enough, if you read the Tora, the Old Testiment and the Quran you will find that spread all over the place, but no one paid attention!
    The other thing about religion; people love to use it to unite a certain force and fight for things that had nothing to do with it. To unite under a principle, you have to do what Russia did during their revolution and during the Second World War, you create an idol, a powerful one, and fight under that idol’s name. The Muslims invaded the lands between South China, and the entire Middle East arriving to Spain under that concept, and the Vatican Church held a war that lasted for years in Palestine under the same concept. In addition to that, one other thing that might through you off is perhaps that “big brother” concept of God; “he” is watching, “he” knows what you are doing, and “he” will punish you!
    So let’s gather things, if you have never seen this “guy” and you are told that “he” showed up a few thousand years back when “he” did some miracle work, and now you had to believe in “him,” someone whom you have never seen or even experienced the power of, for that matter.

    Finally here, the car analogy, it actually applies to athiests as well, the only difference is believing in the dealership (God). The concept is the same, religion is there! Thus, that car, which many used to get involved in many accidents is there whether we accept it or not.

    Let me know what you think…

    • 2009 March 20
      lennymaysay permalink

      Hi again, Mohammed

      Fortunately, I don’t have the same problem as believers, in that I don’t feel the need to visualize that which does not exist. I therefore don’t “see” god as the “guy in white robes” or any robes for that matter; I just don’t “see” god because it is not rational to “see” what is not there. I use the term “see” not in the same sense as physically seeing with the eyes; I am referring off course to the fact that there is no empiricle, rational evidence for the existence of any supernatural entity.

      The stereotype of portraying god as male is just indicative of the fact that the god entity was “created” by power-hungry men who cottoned onto, and adapted the primitive ideas of stone age man. Religion evolved to become his control mechanism.

      I don’t “believe” in evil per se, but observe that there is ample evidence for it in the world, either through man’s neglect or self-indulgence. Man’s inhumanity to man is self-evident, and religious disputes somehow seem to be one major cause of it; there are undeniably others off course, but somehow religion sticks out because rather than being the great mediator, it causes divisions and rifts. I do however believe that the capacity for good is inate in all humans, but is suppressed by selfish pursuits. Personally, I strive to lead a good, honest and principled life, and I don’t feel the need for a “higher power” to keep me on the straight and narrow. My mind is perfectly strong and capable of making morally acceptable choices, without the fear of some invisible entity hanging the threat of damnation over me. That’s just it, you see, eliminate fear of the irrational, and you have true freedom and control over your faculties.

      I could go on all night, but have to go; keep well, nice chatting with you.

    • 2009 March 21
      lennymaysay permalink

      Coming back to your dealership (god) analogy: methinks the dealership has sold you a right old lemon which requires constant attention to prevent a break down, keeps you in constant fear of breaking down and thus demands even more attention. Sound familiar?

      It might get you from point A to point B, but at what cost to your sanity, health, well-being?

  42. 2009 April 8
    Ed the Mysterious permalink

    As I listen to this song I think this is a perfect song on Hitler. He rose to power, was, “abandon” kinda, then died, and won’t go to heaven, which refers to Saint Peter in some way shape or form. Plus, there is a myth that nobody really ever found the body, which could possibly draw to the conclusion he was able to ‘walk the street’s he used to own.’ I believe you used very superior reasoning but I thought that this may, in some way, be something to consider.

    • 2009 April 8

      Hi Ed, even though I personally don’t think it refers to Hitler, I’m glad you think so, because at least you are demonstrating the ability to think “beyond the obvious.” Which is the whole idea, really; not letting any narrow world-view such as religion, limit the possibilities of thinking. You may even be right, but only Chris Martin can confirm that.

      So, good on ya, Mr. Mysterious.

  43. 2009 April 9
    Moe permalink

    Hey Lenny and all,

    It has been long since we last chatted about this song. Now that I think about it, I don’t think he was going in the direction of your essay, but something far broader. I think your analysis had more of your personal beliefs in it. The other day I was reading a book about Saddam Hussein, and in a way, Martin was talking about him as well. Furthermore, I looked into the history of all tyrants, you name them, and many of them had a terrible ending. I think Martin just incorporated the idea of St. Peter because he was raised in a Christian environment, even if he is not a believer now. It is not about whether St. Peter exists or not, which I know you would love to debate, but more about “belonging to a group” and whether some of these people who have done so much damage to others in search of human greatness and power, will they be included amongst the “good” according to classical Christianity, those who do not cheat, steal, kill and rape. Like Ed mentioned, it could be Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, or any other tyrant. The saying of rolling the dice and feeling the fear in his enemies eyes can be anyone really, same for wanting his head on a platter, well, he just named anyone hated by the people. After I was fully convicted of your analysis, I think I changed my mind, only because the later analysis carries a far more important message than the belief or disbelief in God. In addition to that, it is more relevant to the world we live in, which knowing about tyrants and how they think is much more important about our belief in religion in general.

    Thank you both for your amazing ideas,

    Mohammed

    • 2009 April 9
      lennymaysay permalink

      Hi again Mohammed, just as Ed mentioned, it is an interesting new way to look at it. Tell you what, I’ll re-examine the whole song again in the light of this new “theory” and see what I come up with. Perhaps a new post…

      I find your closing statement about the state of the world being of more concern than religious belief, quite intriguing. You might have something there worth exploring. As you know I reside in South Africa, and current events here pertaining to the new leadership is of great concern to many South Africans, particularly as this new leadership has a penchant for tyrannical behaviour. I dn’t know how much news you get of the events here, but please let me know what your opinion is.

      • 2009 April 10
        Moe permalink

        Hey Lenny,

        I live in Canada, but I have travelled and worked in 4 continents and I am still under 23. To me, belief in God is something of a personal trait or feeling, sometimes as personal and specific as someone’s sexual orientation. I am a Muslim, not the best kind, but I at least try to practice some parts of my religion. I have, however, argued and debated the classical meaning of God, and that’s why I have a totally different view from most theists.

        Name any Abrahamic religion, and you will find similarities, at the end of the day, it is all about guidelines of living life, and in some parts, it’s about pleasing a higher power, by doing “good” deeds. I personally believe in that, but I don’t believe it should be imposed on everyone and forced to be practiced by everyone. Frankly, I don’t even care, nor should any theist about atheists, they believe in what they think is right, so do we.

        My biggest problem, however, is the debate about the existence of God and the validity of religion, and further, the superiority of religion. I mean, who cares if theists think that atheists are choosing the wrong thing, or that atheists think that theists are idiots. I would care if this world had no problems, and then this would be one problem for us as species to look into, because for some reason we love to dig holes in the sea just so they can get filled up with water, when no one is really benefitting.

        For example, when a scientist works his entire life-time trying to prove that God exists or does not exist, he is just wasting his time because he is not helping our species live a better life. How about that scientist trying to develop something more beneficial, I mean we have many incurable diseases, how about we think of a cure for those?

        To me, religion, on the wide screen, is totally political. Take the Islamic capture of lands, the Crusade wars, the current religious upheaval in Northern Island, and even the crazy events in Iraq. Not a single religion has allowed any of that, but people have used religion to legalize piracy of sorts, and of course starting wars under false pretences. It is very convenient and easy to use religion to persuade simple people, who are most of the human population, to start something because of religion. I mean even China, they are being played by their government claiming that it’s all about that “nationalism” which is some sort of belief. In all, it has been used like that car theory that I have told you about, but now we use it to get us somewhere that it was never intended to.

        I don’t care who is atheist or not, I don’t who is Christian, Muslim or Jewish, I just care that as species we can live in peace and advance in our lives. If anyone doesn’t believe in God, well, good for them, how about we worry about something important such as health-care, world economy, peace and all that, and if someone is a theist, well, that’s good, but what will they do to improve this world that we live in?

        I hope this explains my point to you, I am humanitarian more than anything, and I would love to see the day when religion is actually being put to its true intended use, helping humans live better lives, not be the reason for their demise and discomfiture.

        Thanks again for this post.

        Mohammed

        • 2009 April 10
          lennymaysay permalink

          A big up to you Moe, at least you’re trying to make sense of it all, rather than just accept blindly.

          For example, when a scientist works his entire life-time trying to prove that God exists or does not exist, he is just wasting his time because he is not helping our species live a better life.

          No true scientist would work his entire lifetime trying to prove the existence of god because as you say it is an exercise in futility. However, I know of many religious organizations such as the Templeton Foundation and AIG that employ pseudo-scientists who try to prove god’s existence. Doesn’t make sense, does it?

          I like the fact that you call yourself humanitarian; it’s so much nobler than being simply religious. I guess I’m also trying to be a humanitarian, but a secular one at that. Thanks for the reply

  44. 2009 April 9

    Either you’re an atheist, who believes that ‘because I have not felt God, there is no God’, or you are a theist who believes that ‘I have felt God, I know God’. If you’d look for God, you can’t find him. None of us deserve God, yet He gives us that opportunity, none of us deserve life, yet He gives us life and a chance to seek Him and become One with Him. Chris Jesus died for us; God became what we are that we might be what He is. He loves us beyond any human knowledge, to the point where He positively screams at us to seek Him.

    Chris ‘knows God’, and I hope beyond hope that he soon ‘feels God’. I would ask Chris to place his trust and hope in Chris Jesus, and let Jesus work within him, to let him be with God.

    • 2009 April 9
      lennymaysay permalink

      Hi PD, I find your one-dimensional approach to this god thing rather tired and boring. We have people here who are exploring possibilities in thinking beyond the obvious; people who have freed their minds from the slavery of religious dogma.

      Your ideas about feeling and touching “god” border on a mental sickness known as schizophrenia. If you believe you don’t deserve life, please keep it to your yourself; don’t infect others with your self-hatred.

  45. 2009 April 28
    Rick permalink

    To all of those who question the existence of God I ask you this question…How could a book written thousands of years ago so accurately predict the future? I ask all of you to look at the cycle of life. Why is it that two unlike animals cannot be inbred? Look at a leaf or a snowflake non of which is the same. This world was designed not just something that popped out of nowhere. Saying that this world just happened would be the same as saying the corvette just popped out of nothing.. wrong it was designed and so was this world designed by our creator …God.

    • 2009 April 29
      lennymaysay permalink

      Hi Rick, care to provide examples of these “accurate” predictions?

      I don’t understand why you would want two unlike animals to be inbred. Do you have a morbid fascination for deformed animals? I suggest you study the theory of evolution and natural selection more carefully before passing un-educated aspersions about its veracity.

      Where is your proof that this world was designed? The fact that it appears so, does not make it so. Your analogy about the corvette makes no sense. I can observe how the corvette is manufactured (the entire process, from design to moulding the raw materials together) and thus can conclude that it just did not pop out of nothing. How can you conclude that the world was designed by a creator when you did not observe the process? Oh, I get it; you read about it in “a book written thousands of years ago…,” and somehow you concluded that a bunch of neolithic goatherders knew more about the world than modern scientists with access to space-age tools.

  46. 2009 May 4
    See permalink

    As a note, I’ve been thinking.. I may be narrow-minded, sure. While I was reading this whole discussion, most of it was basically “hey I’m right” by theists and atheists. Not exactly but keyword: basically.
    I’m the type that likes to please everyone (okay not so much everyone) so my ideas are mixed and I find sense in it.. Well of course I do, anyway, one problem with religion is that they, I guess, teach to shove their beliefs down every nonbeliever of that certain religion’s throats, for lack of better words. Whether you believe in a supernatural being or not doesn’t matter too much because I find, for the religions I do have knowledge about, which isn’t much, all simply say “do good in life!” And in most cases (still with the poor knowledge of mine), claim there’s someone, something to give credit and have many people follow under. And throughout the entire bible, literally, the use of God for means of power is apparent. And for a closing note, I like how a lot ofthe teachings contradict.. (christianity) but then again I could be wrong and being narrow- minded as usual. I call mysef that because I’m no good at intepreting beyond the literal and not so much for the obvious.

    • 2009 May 4
      lennymaysay permalink

      LIke you said, you can’t please everyone; when you try pleasing everyone, you wind up pleasing no one…

      Sure, there’s good stuff in the bible; the authors should have been sensible and created an index which references the good stuff, so that the avid Christian could avoid the bad stuff…

  47. 2009 May 4
    See permalink

    And I. Thought I. Added this but. I really just hope the world will be better. Just better for the all of us. But hoping isn’t going to do much is it. And if I kept going I would just rant, so nights (:

    • 2009 May 4
      lennymaysay permalink

      Strangely enough, atheists also wish that the world could be a better place. It’s probably why we care enough to rant so much…

  48. 2009 May 4
    See permalink

    darn my brain delays some thoughts. Something I thought interesting, “god” in the old testament of the christian bible says he’s a jealous god. I wonder whatthat could mean. Other than the obvious.

    • 2009 May 4
      lennymaysay permalink

      It’s probably a veiled threat to keep the flock committed to believing this particular brand of religion. Can’t have them wandering off and worshipping some other rock formation, or something, can we. The politicians who wrote the bible were clever that way…

  49. 2009 May 7

    Of course, it could be exactly the opposite, meaning that he knew that Peter would never call his name, because of his depravity and sinfulness. meaning he was confessing to God, rather than rejecting him. We’ll never know for sure, will we?

    • 2009 May 7
      lennymaysay permalink

      Sure, that would be the literal meaning, but poetry serves the purpose of conveying hidden meanings. But, I suspect you want desparately for it to mean anything that re-affirms your belief system!!!

  50. 2009 May 13
    fivecents permalink

    I’d give you an “A” on your essay, but I interpreted the song completely differently. I guess you can make your own meaning out of anything to fit your own beliefs. Come to think of it, I usually interpret rap songs wrong…when I realize what the words actually are, I like what I though it said better.

    • 2009 May 13

      I guess only the artist truly knows what it means, but then again, they are known to change their minds about things twenty times in a minute.

      The important thing is that you have the ability to recognize that there are meanings apart from the literal (which is usually not the true meaning, or it wont be poetry)

  51. 2009 May 17
    Amber permalink

    Interesting discussion.

    I’m glad I found your take on what this song means – I hadn’t really listened to the lyrics properly until today and I found them very confusing. For a moment I was worried that Coldplay had gone all evangelical, but your interpretation makes a lot of sense and I’m glad as it would appear their take on religion is similar to mine. :-)

  52. 2009 May 20
    Ben permalink

    While your essay is a nice read (I am an atheist as well), I will give my own essay on this song…

    I believe it is about the famed Napoleon of France, and is written from his view point.

    I used to rule the world
    Seas would rise when I gave the word
    Now in the morning I sweep alone
    Sweep the streets I used to own
    I used to roll the dice
    Feel the fear in my enemy’s eyes
    Listen as the crowd would sing:
    “Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!”
    One minute I held the key
    Next the walls were closed on me
    And I discovered that my castles stand
    Upon pillars of sand, pillars of sand

    First verse is very obvious.. he use to rule great armies and fleets of ships. Napoleon was also known for taking risks (rolling the dice) and loved the sounds of battle and battle itself. The french king had been beheaded (Louis XVI), but Napoleon had appointed himself Emperor (which is very similar to “king”). He was also exiled twice…

    I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
    Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
    Be my mirror my sword and shield
    My missionaries in a foreign field
    For some reason I can not explain
    Once you know there was never, never an honest word
    That was when I ruled the world
    (Ohhh)

    Second verse… Napoleon often thought god was behind his actions, and waited France to be Roman like, and his son was also known as the King of Rome. Missionaries – he led an expedition into Egypt in an attempt to convince the native populations to join France. Also Napoleon used propaganda in the press very well…

    It was the wicked and wild wind
    Blew down the doors to let me in.
    Shattered windows and the sound of drums
    People could not believe what I’d become
    Revolutionaries Wait For my head on a silver plate
    Just a puppet on a lonely string
    Oh who would ever want to be king

    Third verse… Wicked and wild wind relates to the Icy cold wind of the Russian land from his disastrous invasion of Russia (that led to France’s downfall). He entered Moscow, but the King of Russia (Alexandra) ordered Moscow to be burned and destroyed (by the ruling nobles). Thus he returned home defeated, bitter and revolutionaries questioned him..

    Regarding saint peter, it relates to the political capital of Russia at the time, Saint Petersburg as his offer for peace to Saint Petersburg was not answered, and thus it was his downfall. I could go into more depth but i do not have time :)

    Chris has used the story Napolean to illustrate how greed and absolute in one self can lead to downfall. What do you think?

    • 2009 May 20
      lennymaysay permalink

      That’s very good Ben. I like your detailed analysis. The album cover could also lend credence to your interpretation, but for me it is too obvious.

      I think that’s what Chris wants us to think, because it would be obvious. I tend to favor a hidden meaning (I’m not implying that my interpretation is the correct one for a hidden meaning, but it is one such offering). I am always in awe of poets because they can write something with a literal interpretation, but it could also have a misleading (or obvious) interpretation as well as a hidden meaning. I like to look beyond the literal or obvious, even if I’m just wasting my time…

  53. 2009 May 20
    jryanw permalink

    lenny,

    What happens when you die?

    • 2009 May 21
      lennymaysay permalink

      Since dead people aren’t saying anything, nobody knows. There is no evidence that anything does happen, so I’m not going to stress over what I don’t know.

      I live now; that’s all that matters…

  54. 2009 May 23
    lzzyy permalink

    Sir your incorrect, Viva La Vida is about Napolean, and his loss of power. It’s about how he was on the verge on conquering the world, and he failed.

    • 2009 May 24
      lennymaysay permalink

      Hi Izzyy, perhaps I’m wrong, but unless you personally wrote the song, or Chris Martin whispered its meaning into your ears only, what makes you think you alone are right?

  55. 2009 May 24
    twocentsworth permalink

    Hi,

    I am an educated and (yet) ardent Roman Catholic who strives to actually practice the religion rather than merely affiliate myself with it. I hold a diferent view than many Christians because I believe that the Catholic Church is the only road to salvation, and that we are not automatically going to enter heaven even if we do nothing – we have to cooperate with God’s grace won for us on calvary 24/7.

    I find the song, your essay, and the subsequent discussion to all be quite interesting. I agree with your interpretation of the song as correct for the author’s hidden meaning. My reason for writing is to make up for the poor account of theism given by most of the theists thus far.

    So far I can recall three important aspects of this debate which I would like to answer in the following order: empirical science is man’s only sure source of knowledge, God’s existence cannot be proven, and religion is a type of slavery. I ask that those responding would treat them in this order as well or I think that the first must be demonstrated before the next, then the third point.

    First, science does not reveal all knowledge. Each individual human being is unique among animals because of his intellect, a wholly immaterial principle by which he knows universals; this is separate from the power of cognition which animals and humans use to know distinguish (know) particular objects. E.g., a bear can sense a a wooden object with bark on it of a certain smell, with green leaves, etc…, and recognize that it is different from another similar object in some ways and that it is vastly different from a fish. But, a human can know that the object which has all these qualities is a tree and that it shares its “treeness” (its nature) with other similar things. The important thing to understand from all this philosophy is that all of this can be known through the use of reason and observation of the real world without any help from science. Also, the intellect is immaterial, but that is just what spiritual means. So when one talks of spiritual beings, one is referring to beings whose immaterial existence is just as possible as one’s own immaterial intellect. Of course science is completely incapable of understanding these beings or even whether they exist or not. This means that science is incapable of saying much of anything definite about God, and that one must rely on the science of thought, reason, to unlock the truth.

    The second point is that God’s existence can be proven. Now, many people find no empirical evidence for this and conclude that he therefore doesn’t exist. This is absurd, because both because it denies the importance of man’s power of reasoning, and because it is concluding beyond the facts – just because one thing isn’t scientifically proven doesn’t prove the opposite view. This is as ridiculous as believing that there are no life-supporting planets because none have been found after much searching! In short, atheists accuse theists of futile belief when their own conclusions on are no better grounded. So one must look beyond scientific evidence to philosophical evidence. Now, this area is not often explored in today’s world because so few people are educated in philosophy. This may explain why perfectly valid arguments are thrown out the window because they are just too hard to understand, especially for those who have no patience or willingness to do so. Because Go is a spiritual reality, one cannot think of him within the limitations of the material realm. This is the key to making sense out of so many proofs for God’s existence.

    Finally, true religion does not enslave. That is, the truths taught by the Catholic Church actually give one the freedom to be happy! The reasoning behind this is simple, but needs a God to validate it (that’s why I’m treating these topics in such an order). God made each man and woman in a certain way so that they will be happy only by living in accordance with their nature. This is where the idea of natural laws comes from; they are principles by which one is to achieve one’s perfection and happiness. Divine laws are a way given by God for man to participate in the supernatural life (supernatural meaning: above the natural). Now the Catholic Church is the only one which teaches all divinely revealed laws. These laws in no way enslave its members, for that involve keeping man from doing what he was made to do. Instead, the truths of the Catholic Church are “in sync” with natural laws and thus help man to achieve his natural perfection.

    Now all three of these points could be expounded tremendously and they do not cover the entirety of the atheist – theist debate. Like I wrote earlier, they are just my attempt to make up for some poor representation of theism by earlier posts.

  56. 2009 May 24
    lennymaysay permalink

    Hi twocentsworth,

    You are one of the few people on this blog who tries to reason, rather than make bold but totally unsubstantiated statements about religion. For that I commend you.

    However, allow me to address the points you raise:

    Observation does not always equate to truth/reality. A person could be halucinating and believes what he sees to be real. However, science can be used to back up observation by simple testing and retesting, until the observation is proved to be true. Science is the only valid tool for confirming reality.

    The point about proving god’s existence is moot. If I told you that there was a giant teapot floating around in space, you would not believe me, simply because you cannot see any giant teapot, nor has anyone else. The same applies to god; you say it exists because of belief/faith; I say it is untrue because neither I nor anyone else has seen him/her/it. Without evidence, belief is just an arbitrary emotion. Philosophy does not provide proof for the existence of something, it merely attempts to explain why something exists (as in really exists, which means you can see, smell touch it).

    What makes you think that the religion taught by the Catholic church is any more valid or true, than that taught by other faiths? Your assertion can be called arrogant, and indeed will be called thus by Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Scientologists etc. It proves my point about enslavement; you are enslaved to the Catholic version of religion, just as the Hindus and Muslims are enslaved to their versions of religion.

    • 2009 May 24
      twocentsworth permalink

      Thanks for the reply.

      I want to clarify what I meant by observation first, and also discuss what reality includes in a little more depth, because there is no use talking about God or faith unless we first establish that his existence in reality is possible. Also, philosophy is only a fluffy word with no substance if there are no spiritual realities. If there are, however, then you have to give a open ear to it as well.

      Okay! So I meant observation to be the perceptions of one’s interior and exterior senses. (If you’ve never heard of the interior senses, they are the imaginative, memorative (not necessarily memory), estimative, and common sense powers. I don’t think it is necessary to do more than mention them in passing unless you are interested). All scientists deal with observations, but because they only use sense perception, they are limited to a material world.

      We live in a world, however, in which immateriality is equally as important as materiality, if not more so. Ideals, knowledge of universals, opinions, etc…, are all immaterial and an essential part of our existence. Because these things are immaterial, they cannot be dealt with by a material power. Scientists don’t observe little opinion molecules floating around, nor do they observe opinions (acts of reason, i.e., judgments) being formed in the actions of a brain. These things are done by man’s immaterial/spiritual intellect and will. Basically the point is that the reality of our own immateriality leaves open the possibility of purely immaterial being(s).

      One of the greatest fallacies for anyone is to say that something absolute exists merely one’s by faith in it. Many people actually hold this illogical view, so I don’t blame you for thinking I’m the same. Basically God’s existence has to be absolute; that is, either he is or he isn’t independent of what we say about it. Now, accepting an invisible God is contingent on accepting immateriality which is all around us whether we accept it or not. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting something which you can’t see.

      I will also add that it is important that God is not material otherwise he would be just as finite as the matter of which he were composed. Spiritual things, unlike matter, are not made of parts and so are incorruptible, they don’t decompose. So God would have to be immaterial.

      Concerning the arrogance of my position, what if the Catholic Church is the sole “vessel of truth?” (I say this for your sake, I myself believe I could show it beyond reasonable doubt). Would bold declaration of the truth not be an act of kindness for a neighbor? I don’t shove my position on others, nor ought I to be accused of intolerance, for I cause no one harm by stating my convictions.

      I fear too, that atheists don’t liberate themselves by “killing” God. In the past two-three centuries since the enlightenment when man began to throw off religion (it is this that coldplay refers to), chaos has ensued. We have constantly experienced it in rampant anarchy, and tyranny with their subsequent oppression and wars. Atheistic governments take control of their citizens as we see across Europe. On the individual level, those who reject absolutes turn into self-gods as they make up they’re own moral code. It is only insofar as their code matches with the natural law that they find happiness. What is the point of searching endlessly for that which does not satisfy? What is the point of living if there is no ultimate good we seek? Is it a surprise that as God and religion are removed, crime and suicide go up? This is not to say that these crimes aren’t committed by theists as well. Rather, it is a loss of morality which atheism and secularism have brought which have influenced others’ morals. Atheists have essentially created their own one person box where the strongest eventually controls the rest. Theists have a much bigger box which the more they try to live up to it, the greater peace and harmony they create.

      • 2009 May 25
        lennymaysay permalink

        Hi

        Your suggestion that thought processes are “immaterial” and therefore idicative of some sort of spiritual or “godly” process, is quite frankly, astounding. Further your suggestion that there is a material and immaterial world is far-fetched, to say the least., but fits in nicely with the concept of a supernatural presence in the universe (for you at any rate)

        You stretch incredulity even further by suggesting that since god is immaterial, he/she/it is made up of non-matter. Which is meant to explain why we cant see him/her/it.

        So once again, I put this proposition to you. By your very own arguments, I contend that there is a giant teapot floating in space. And yesterday, I caught a glimpse of the green goblin with three eyes and a pot-belly, who lives in my garden, but only comes out when the moon is full. Do you believe me? I can honestly say this belief is a product of my “interior senses,” and who are you to shoot it down. Do you understand where I’m going with this?

        Opinions, ideals and judgements are not constants, and therefore of no use to scientists. So too emotions and beliefs.

        Atheists have not “killed” god. We cannot kill that which never existed. Chaos has always been around; even before religion. Religion was probably created as a means to find answers to chaos (among other things) by primitive man. If you look at some of the darkest periods in our history, that was when religion was at its peak.

        If you need religion to hitch your morals to, then you are truly lost.

  57. 2009 May 28
    Liesa Wilson permalink

    I think you are all just spinning a lot of crap, especially you Lenny. I just googled what the title meant in English and was met with your babbling. As with any religious literature, I am sure the song can be interpreted in many ways. I wonder if Chris Martin appreciates you ‘clearing’ all this up for him. Why are you so passionate about not believing? I don’t care if you don’t believe! Go for it! I guess I will just have the last laugh.

    • 2009 May 28
      lennymaysay permalink

      Hi Liesa,

      Interesting that you say that religious literature can be interpreted in many ways. Don’t you find that rather odd? And why would you think that Chris’s song is religious literature?

      Perhaps you’d like to tell us what the real meaning is? Like many believers I’ve come across, you have this conviction that only you have the right answers!!!

  58. 2009 June 9

    I too find it odd that you have used Chris’ song to criticize religious views. Love them or leave them (religious views that is), I hardly think that his purpose was as simple (or profound), as you think. His “poetic” views are just that: his views. The meaning may be plain or hidden, but none of us know for sure. On the other hand, while you claim an open mind, I find you aggressively critical of those who disagree with you, or who stoop to belief in what you consider false. And while I am not religious, I find it odd that you so strongly claim that Darwin’s theories are accepted fact. In reality, many of his views are much like the religions you criticize… ideas looking for concrete eveidence that simply doesn’t exist, even among the scientific community. And further, many of those views are not even his, but those of subsequent followers who will not acknowledge that these were simply theories or possibilities developed but not proven. Yet those who believe wholeheartedly exert the same “faith” that you dismiss in others.

  59. 2009 June 9
    lennymaysay permalink

    Jim,

    Perhaps you’d like to re-read my comments. Sure, I’m “aggressively” critical of some of the comments here, but that’s because I expose irrational thinking. If you care to go through the comments again, that’s what you’ll find. It so happens that the irrational comments tend to originate from those who are religious, but that’s not my fault. Don’t expect me to accept uncritical thinking.

    Agreed, Darwin’s original theories on the origin of species and natural selection were further developed by scientists after him to eventually comprise what we know today as the theory of evolution. However, the theory of evolution has been confirmed through rigorous scientific experiment, and actually confirms Darwin’s original ideas as true. There are many online resources which confirm this; you can look them up eg. TalkOrigins, TalkReason, The Pandas Thumb etc.

    There is also no such thing as “simply a theory.” What you refer to is a common misconception. To clear this up, allow me to quote once again from The Defenders Guide to Science and Creationism:

    (i) When creationists dismiss evolution as “just a theory,” they mean to say that it is at best a speculative proposal, or at worst a mere guess. Such an assessment has been rejected for over a century by the scientific consensus, which recognizes that evolution has been established by evidence as firmly as anything can be: not for no reason is evolution considered the cornerstone of modern biology.

    (ii) But if evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology, why do scientists still refer to the theory of evolution? Doesn’t this prove that they themselves believe evolution to be speculative? On the contrary, the word “theory” has a specialized meaning in scientific usage that is much stronger than its colloquial meaning. In scientific circles, the word “theory” usually designates a wide explanatory framework that has reached the highest standard of confirmation by factual evidence. When scientists want to talk about a mere conjecture, they use the word “hypothesis.” As zoologist Tim Berra explains:

    >A scientific theory is the endpoint of the scientific method, often the foundation of an entire field of knowledge, and is not to be confused with the sort of “theory” we so easily propose in everyday conversation. (Berra 1990:4)

    To say that evolution is “just a theory” is at best to make a mistake comparable to saying that Copernican theory, electromagnetic theory, quantum theory, the theory of relativity, the theory of continental drift, and the germ theory of disease, to name a few, are just guesses. Evolution is a theory only in the same robust scientific sense as all of these other theories. Creationism, on the other hand, is not even a theory.

    (iii) To its credit, the creationist organization Answers in Genesis advises against making this assertion. The assertion AiG recommends as a replacement (namely, that evolution is an unsubstantiated conjecture) is equally false, but at least does not trade on confusion over the word “theory.”

  60. 2009 June 11
    Jim permalink

    I “almost” feel cheated. So many others receive a rousing response. I had to settle for a generic copy of othe’s data. I know, I know…you can’t keep reworking the same ideas. But, I still think Darwin & his theories/ideas are suspect! Thanks for the debate!!! Jim

    • 2009 June 11
      lennymaysay permalink

      Jim, too bad you feel cheated. It just gets a little tiresome answering the same misconceptions on multiple blog posts.

      But I don’t want to disappoint you, so here’s your rousing response:

      You can think as negatively as you want about Darwin’s “ideas,” or bury your head in the sand, but the evidence cannot be wished away.

  61. 2009 June 16
    Soca Warya permalink

    Hey good essay and all. I’m a musician and I just liked the vibe and the instruments and never really read into the lyrics too much.

    As for the religious part of this discussion I will say I am no philosopher like some of you sound like, I am not well read with all these books and I do not feel the need to be. I believe in Christ Jesus and the Father, I dont feel like I am being controlled or anything of that matter. I believe God created all and I feel more than happy knowing that I believe we are made from dirt because we return to dirt when we die. I dont know who said anything about blind faith but FAITH IS SUPPOSED TO BE BLIND. It would not be faith is there was proof. the majority of the world thinks otherwise and I’ve learned that the world usually doesn’t have my best interest at heart. The best part of believing in God is what I have to look forward to; heaven. Call it one dimension, call it boring, call it childish, but I have hope in something. You may feel emancipated from disreagarding the idea of God but I feel great. If freedom is what you want you can have it but I want God. Man can hardly control the little freedom we have here in America and you want total freedom? I am telling you this not to change your mind but because I am passionate about a God who was passionate to me. (and I love deep and meaningful discussion). When something is so great one can’t help but keep it to themselves. If i were to find a field with an endless amount of gold, would I keep it all to myself? God is that gold, and I have to share it, no matter how selfish I may want to be. The mere English language or any language could not describe God or all of this universe and neither can science but I choose to believe in God still. You may say it is harder to believe what I do and there is no evidence but I don’t need that. I’ve learned that the harder thing to do is usually the right thing( I’m not saying I’m right and you’re all wrong, just an example) but I choose to believe with faith because it gives me hope. I hope I have chosen my words carefully and I am not misunderstood. God bless.

    • 2009 June 18
      lennymaysay permalink

      Hi Soca Warya,
      Your honesty is commendable, which is why I can’t really fault the choice you have made; nor am I going to dissuade you from continuing with your beliefs.

  62. 2009 June 19
    Mark permalink

    Just a heads up it is “I know Saint Peter WON”T call my name”

  63. 2009 August 13

    Lenny, I enjoyed reading your interpretation of the lyrics and I agree that there are multiple interpretations to poetry.

    As an English professor, I often use songs like this to encourage critical thinking in the classroom. I googled around to see what others were saying about this song and voila! Intelligent conversation (mostly :) ) I can see the truth in every interpretation so far: God, Napolean, Evil Tyrants In General, (Wo)Man’s personal greed, and the one that caught my eye the most. . .Satan.
    Hmmm, there wasn’t much comment about that person’s suggestion.

    However, as a Milton scholar, I can tell you that there is a huge argument to be made that this is an ode to Milton’s version of Lucifer-The Morning Star. Before all you theist’s whip out the pitchforks and torches, I’m talking about the rise and fall of one of God’s angels. Eventually, he became the sad sack known as Satan, but in Paradise Lost, the story is told from the beginning when God’s angels were first introduced to his Son (knocking the Morning Star down an unwelcome peg or two which leads to his revolutionary war in Heaven which leads to his long plunge into hell–it took nine days! which leads to him becoming King of The Bog of Eternal Stench, etc.)

    I wish I could figure out how to explain this line by line, but its late and I should be sleeping. . .
    Suffice it to say that I agree there are many interpretations.

    And I’m ill-equiped to join the deep philosophical debates like I wish to, but I do get the argument that God is not made up of “material” that can be measured or weighed. She’s like gravity (which Science has pointed to and named, right Lenny? But it was still there even before scientists could prove it was there) The Creator is a force like gravity, always present and working, whether we “feel” him or not.
    I agree with that one chic who said she gets Hope from her beliefs. Hope is the feeling that motivates us all if you think about it.

    • 2009 August 13
      lennymaysay permalink

      Hello Sarah, unfortunately hope does not do it for me. I’m more inclined to be motivated by truth, natural beauty, reality. Hoping is such a cop-out.

  64. 2009 August 30
    PHD DOCTOR permalink

    Interpretation of the lyrics is just that “interpretation.” As a molecular anthropologist I have learned that anything said has multiple interpretations which can all be correct. Let’s take religion completely out of the equation. No one wins when debating over religion and politics.

    Now, let’s take these lyrics to another level of thinking. “I used to rule the world” and “one minute I held the key” could possibly mean that you had it all at one time, then one day everything came crashing down (“next the walls were closed on me”). Especially when your “castle stands on pillars of sand.”

    “People couldn’t believe what I had become” could mean that once you were looked at with such respect and dignity, then one day all of that was gone. You would feel completely unworthy and doubtful of anything.

    To me, this song tells the story of someone’s life; of how they were once on top and had everything, then they fell from their once high social status only to crash at the bottom.

    Just another way to look at the lyrics from my perspective.

    • 2009 August 30
      phddoctor permalink

      Oh, one more thing. Lenny, I think that you did an outstanding job of interpreting this song. It may not be the truth for everyone, but it did stimulate thinking and the possibility of various perspectives rather than just one.

      • 2009 October 8
        lennymaysay permalink

        Hi doc,

        Please review my latest interpretation titled Viva la Vida: A new take….
        I wrote this last night after an inspired re-think on my original interpretation of the song.

    • 2009 September 1
      lennymaysay permalink

      Hi phddoctor,

      No one wins when debating over religion and politics

      I’m reminded of that all too often. It may be true and even though religion and politics don’t deserve any protection from criticism, I’m beginning to ease off, albeit reluctantly.

      Anyway, the (alternative) religious interpretation does give the song the spice it deserves. The straightforward interpretation (which, as you correctly point out, could be entirely correct) makes it quite bland, in comparison.

      Thanks for the comment, and appreciation of poetry.

  65. 2009 October 7
    anonymous permalink

    Lenny,

    I think you have contradicted yourself. First, you say that “we are evolving all the time.” Then in your next paragraph you state: “In all honesty, the state of man today is in deterioration.” I’m sure this was just a mistake. Would you mind clearing up what you said?

    Let us define some terms so that we can be on the same page. According to atheism, how do you define perfection? How do you define evil? And, I would still like to know what you believe regarding the origin of evil.

    “Absolutes are very tricky to discuss and actually undesirable.” I’m a bit confused. I know they are tricky to discuss, but what do you mean when you said they are undesirable?

    Genesis 1: 26-27 (NIV): “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created man in His own image, and in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Nowhere in this passage does it say that man was created perfect. For the sake of space I was not able to quote the whole chapter, but if you read the entire creation account, nowhere will you find the word “perfect” used to describe God’s creation. Man was created in God’s image, but was not created perfect. Thus, Christianity does not claim man was created perfect.

    You tend to lump Christianity together with all the other religions in the world, which is understandable coming from your worldview. However, let me make it clear that I am not an advocate of religion in general. Rather, I am an advocate for Christianity. Remember that you use the term religion to describe all the different beliefs of the world. I have been using it in reference to my own religion, Christianity. This was an error on my part, and to prevent confusion, I will stop using the word ‘religion’ and use Christianity instead.

    • 2009 October 8
      lennymaysay permalink

      Hello anonymous,

      A pity we live in different time zones. I wish I could respond sooner than I do, but I appreciate your patience for responses.

      Let me clarify my apparent mistake. Evolution does not imply a natural progression in only a positive (or improved) direction. In other words, bad genetic copies (mutations) occur from time to time, which results in the copy not surviving. I am by no means an expert in the subject, but you are welcome to research this phenomenon at your leisure.

      So yes, we do evolve all the time, but do not necessarily generate improved versions of ourselves. I was not actually referring to our physical evolution, but rather our mental evolution. The physical side is observable (maybe not so easily), but the mental development is not always so easy to gage. But yet, it does happen.

      As I said before, evil is relative. One should allow for a wide range of interpretations on either side. The origins of evil is of no consequence to me; the origin of evil does not influence my choice of behaviour. It may come as a surprize to many believers, but I do have morals, and they surprizingly co-incide with the morals proposed by religions, but I do not need any religion (or holy books) to be my guide. I hope I don’t sound facetious here, but morality comes to me naturally.

      Absolutism is not a desirable trait (my honest opinion, supported by many, many others). Religions/religious adherents are particularly guilty of propounding absolute views of the world. Absolute views of the world don’t allow for the “many shades of grey” that does in reality exist. Most (if not all) things are relative.

      If as you contend, man was not created perfect, but was created in the image of god; would you then not conclude that god was imperfect?

      I don’t discriminate between competing religions, so its natural that I tend to “lump” them together. The basis for all religions are the same; you just have different holidays. I’m sorry, old joke :-)

      • 2009 October 13
        anonymous permalink

        Lenny,

        I understand you believe absolutes are undesirable, but you can’t escape them. Whether or not they are desirable, they are still there, and they are still important. Take gravity for instance. I once saw this shirt. It said: “Gravity. It’s not just a good idea; it’s the law.” If I say I don’t believe in gravity, it still exists whether I believe it or not. Gravity is an absolute. Thus, you can also conclude that the world either evolved over time or was created. One of these is true whether or not you believe it. But I might note that it takes faith to believe either one.

        “If as you contend, man was not created perfect, but was created in the image of god; would you then not conclude that god was imperfect?” I do claim that man was created in the image of God, but this does not mean man was created exactly like God. On the contrary, man is an imperfect, fallen being, whereas God is infallible, righteous, and all-knowing. However, man does embody certain traits of his Creator that reflect this truth. Like God, humans have an eternal soul, innate creativity, and large capacity for thought, which distinguishes us from the rest of God’s creation. Thus, man is not created exactly like God, who is perfect, but in God’s image. Man embodies certain traits of God, but not all His traits.

        As I said before, I understand why you lump all religions together, but you can’t truthfully claim they have the same basis. Perhaps the majority of them all believe in at least one god, but they all have very, very, very different views on the character and nature of their god(s) and also how their god(s) is/are to be worshipped. These things affect the way the religious community operates, and in turn they affect the world. So again, I understand where you are coming from, but don’t forget that each religion’s individual beliefs make a great deal of impact.

        The reason I am so curious about your take on evil is because it doesn’t seem to fit with your view of evolution. Who can deny there is evil in the world? We see it all around us. But if man is constantly evolving and becoming better and better, how does evil fit into the picture? You said in your last comment that evolution doesn’t always move in an improved direction, and sometimes “bad genetic copies occur from time to time.” I understand what you mean. But still, evil just doesn’t seem to fit. I would think the subject of evil would be very important to you simply because it seems to be in opposition with your evolutionary theory.

        I must thank you. This type of debate has really made me think about and ponder my beliefs and their implications. I have really been enjoying this. :)

        • 2009 October 13
          lennymaysay permalink

          Hi anonymous,

          I suppose you could refer to gravity as an absolute, but it’s an absolute of nature. Good and evil are not forces of nature. They are relative, subjective. Gravity is not subjective. It exists and can be proven to exist, scientifically and through observation. Not so with good and evil and other absolutist ideals. It also does not require faith to observe scientifically, unless you distrust your very eyes and ability to make calculations. The observable results corroborate the hypothesis through testing.

          Lets be fair on the image of god thing: I’ll go as far as to suggest that man was then created in the in-exact image of god. Perhaps you could through observation conclude that man is an imperfect being, but how do you know all these characteristsics that you attribute to god, to be true? Have you observed god? Has anyone observed god? Has god personally spoken to anyone? The bible says so? Come on now, lets not even go there?

          Me lumping religions again? I was being generous when I said all religions have the same basis. Perhaps the truth is that they all have no basis? To me, the character and nature of one religion’s imaginary god, is no different to the character and nature of another religion’s imaginary god. Does that make more sense now? The individual beliefs of each religion, makes a difference only to the followers of those religions, not to me. I have no preference for any one of them.

          Evil is not in opposition to “my” evolutionary theory, or any theory for that matter. It’s inexplicable to me why you would believe so. Evil plays no part in evolution or any other natural process for that matter. The case for evolution has already been made, may time before, and various fields of science continue to make corroborating discoveries, almost daily. Therefore, there’s no point in me trying to prove the theory all over again.

          Nice chatting to you.

  66. 2009 October 7
    PHD DOCTOR permalink

    “Absolutes are very tricky to discuss…..” I agree 100%. Everyone has their own perspective and take on things. So how would one know what perfection is? Does perfection even exist? What maybe perfect to one, maybe less perfect to another. As for evil, what exactly is evil? In some countries, infant girls have their labia cut off, which is considered a ritual. Is that evil? Some people will say yes, some may say no, and some may choose to not say. Therefore, evil, perfection, or anything for that matter is all relative.

    This is why people worldwide do not agree and arguments arise. If people could simply learn to accept that everyone has different perspectives and that their view is not always the right one; then we might see more collaboration and possibly peace amongst people worldwide.

    • 2009 October 7
      anonymous permalink

      PHD DOCTOR,

      I understand that everyone has their own opinion about perfection, evil, etc according to their belief systems. For me, as a Christian, it is very easy to define these things because the Bible sets down a clear distinction between right from wrong, good from evil, and perfection from imperfection. This is why I asked Lenny how he defines these things so that we can understand where the other person is coming from and so discuss beliefs intelligently.

  67. 2009 October 8
    Addy5 permalink

    The Bible is one example of a book partially designed to assist man in perfecting himself whilst simultaniously denying him the try knowledge the original preacher, in this Jesus. The major religions are near identical in nature and are largely based on an older religion. The religions are designed, largely for the masses, above which there exists belief systems, these usually require an underlying faith in some kind of deity. These belief systems tend to be more of a practical nature, in terms of perfecting the human being, and over a period of time will usually convey a better understanding than that of religions.

    Over time those in the belief systems will attain the knowledge of how humans, earth, the planets and the One (or God, pick any name you’re comfortable with it doesn’t mind lol) interlock with each other, seemlessly and effortlessly.

    Above the belief systems(which all have an indoctrination of one kind or another) there is the root understanding, free of ego, dogma and unsubstantiated claims. It essentially completes the key areas missing from both religions and the belief systems, which is extremely useful as one is then able to verify information provided in for example the bible.

    I am not a religious man and just used the bible as example, and I’m not a member of any belief system. Yes man should be perfecting himself, sadly the vast majority are not and this is evidenced by much of the state of the world today.

    • 2009 October 8
      lennymaysay permalink

      Hi Addy5,

      Extremely well said.

      There has been much work done by scientists over the last few years, to understand why the religious belief system persists to the modern day.

      There have been proposals which state that belief systems (such as religion) have been hard-wired into the brain of man, to aid in our evolutionary development in earlier times when the universe was still one big mystery.

      Why it still persists, however, is still very much a mystery.

  68. 2009 October 7
    lennymaysay permalink

    Hi again anonymous,

    you have to assume that human nature is ultimately perfect or perfectible. If this is the case, where does evil come from?

    Considering that we are evolving all the time, I would say that human nature is perfectable. Can perfection be reached? Maybe not. Consider that perfection and even evil is relative. What you would call perfection could be someone else’s work-in-progress. Absolutes are very tricky to discuss, and actually undesirable.

    Religious doctrine professes that man was created “perfectly” in god’s image. In all honesty, the state of man today is in deterioration. So, is the perfect creation is degenerating. The theist may conclude that this is so because man has abandoned god. But, if something can deteriorate/degenerate, then it could not have been “perfect” in the first place, now could it?

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Why do so many religious people hate themselves so much? « Lenny Says
  2. Viva la Vida: A second take on the meaning of the lyrics « Lenny Says

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS