Roll the Bones

[Slaine mac Roth]

I've been getting into a few religous discussions on other forums and, the more I think about it, the more I feel that Roll the Bones seems to sum up the position of the agnostic in this world.

 

At first, I felt that it was an atheist's anthem but, upon closer reflection, the more it seems to represent the agnostic's viewpoint.

 

A number of the questions raised in the song seem to echo questions asked by both atheist and agnostic. "Why are little ones born only to suffer/For the want of immunity or a bowl of rice?" being the most pertinent on. However, if you consider the line before - "Faith is cold as ice" and a line later on in the verse - "If there's some imortal power to control the dice", the agnostic view becomes clear.

 

Taking the first of these two lines, initially it could stand for either viewpoint. However, the cold as ice speaks to me of a certain degree of remoteness in the questioner. It conjures a very dispassionate view of the matter whereas an atheist is equally passionate about the non-existence of god as theist is about god's existence.

 

The second of the two lines is the clincher. By putting it in the form of a question, Neil is placing the song firmly in the court of the agnostic. For an atheist, a more appropriate phrase would be "When there's ni imortal power" because an atheist is sure. The question is the realm of the agnostic, especially if that question begins with if.

 

Anyway, these are just some idle musings with I've passed the day but I'd be interested to hear what anyone else thinks.

[madra sneachta]

I agree. There's an interesting contrast between these sentiments and those expressed in Freewill on PeW, which seems far more unambiguously athiest. There's some very interesting threads on the Counterparts board, both of which I've contributed to, and both of which are informing what I'm saying here.

 

One poses the question "Is Neil an athiest?", and leans towards the agnosticism you've suggested. The other suggests that Neil has mellowed a lot over time, with the black and white, Ayn Rand influenced themes in earlier songs have given way to a more questioning viewpoint.

 

However, there is one fly in the ointment in Roll the Bones, and that's "Ghost of a Chance", which coincidently I was listening to in the car on the way home from work tonight. The lines (in block capitals)

 

" I DON'T BELIEVE IN DESTINY

OR THE GUIDING HAND OF FATE

I DON'T BELIEVE IN FOREVER

OR LOVE AS A MYSTICAL STATE

I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE STARS OR THE PLANETS

OR ANGELS WATCHING FROM ABOVE"

 

suggest a more athiestic viewpoint, but the key question is "Does not believing equate with outright rejection of the existence of a God?". I would suggest not, because by definition, an agnostic is not a believer. He/she is a person who is not convinced, but is open to persuasion. However, Neil's oft reflected fascination with science suggests he is seeking a level of proof that no church or religious system can provide.

 

[Rolinda Bonz]

There's also

Between Sun and Moon

Reborn and baptised in moment of grace

I'm not saying that Neil was ( I have no idea,) but it's a relevant lyric to consider.

 

Incidentally, Roll the Bones (Rolinda Bonz = rolling the bones) has been my anthem since I was widowed 2 years ago. Yet, I am passionately Christian.

 

The age old questions of "if there is a God, why is there so much evil in the world?" or "if there is a God, why do bad things happen to good (or innocent) people?" are tough questions. It is because 1) We DO have free will, and some people carry out evil deeds by there own choice. 2) If you can identify the bad then it is in contrast to good. So there must be good in the world, too, or we wouldn't know the difference.

 

Further, as the Creator, He loves each person like a parent loves a child. So much, that He sent His son to show us how much he loves us and forgives us for our sin.

 

I can't answer your question about where Neil is. (I hope he believes, and that God puts him in charge of thunder some day.) Maybe some agnostics live to the lyrics of Roll the Bones, but so does at least one Christian.

 

So, I'm betting on God and rolling the bones. And yeah, I bet my life.

[Sweetmiracle]

I've never been quite sure on the use of the word 'immortal' when 'omnipotent' is probably more to the point...

 

I mean, I believe that there is a deity, but I also wonder , if this being CAN make a world where the created ones can live without constant pain, then why are here in this mess? There's a lot of good here, but sometimes that only makes the bad harder to take.

 

After all, it's the movement of continents and the force of the moon's gravity that causes earthquakes, not human sin. But earthquakes still destroy life.

 

Very difficult questions....

 

 

 

[madra sneachta]

QUOTE (Sweetmiracle @ Oct 29 2004, 04:03 PM)

I believe that there is a deity, but I also wonder , if this being CAN make a world where the created ones can live without constant pain, then why are here in this mess? There's a lot of good here, but sometimes that only makes the bad harder to take. After all, it's the movement of continents and the force of the moon's gravity that causes earthquakes, not human sin. But earthquakes still destroy life. Very difficult questions....

I think the answer to your question Sweetmiracle is no, intervention by "God" on that level would negate freewill, and that would substantially alter the state of humankind insofar as freewill is the key element of the "humankind being made in God's own image" analogy.

 

Freewill is a double edged sword - It gives people the choice to do the wrong thing or the right thing, and the consequences of the wrong thing more often than not impact on many people. Can God, for instance, stop a child being killed by a drunk driver?. The drinker has a choice to drive or not to drive, and the ability to make the choice, whatever the consequences, is an element of Freewill.

 

Even on the environmental level, it could be argued that many "acts of God" such as hurricanes, floods etc. are influenced, if not caused, by the activities of humans in terms of deforestation, global warming etc.

 

Prayer, to me, is not so much asking God to do something while we remain passive, but opening ourselves up to doing the right thing. While I would regard myself as a christian, I don't believe that belief in God negates me from making choices and living with their consequences. I certainly don't buy into the "I believe, therefore I'm saved" model. Belief is one element of start of a journey that adds reference points to the moral compass through which we live our lives. That's not to say that non-believing humanists cannot determine the same reference points.

 

Ultimately, I believe judgement/karma is based not on whether or not we believe in God, Yahweh, Allah or Vishnu, but on how we interpret our moral compass and make our choices through life.

[Slaine mac Roth]

QUOTE (madra sneachta @ Nov 1 2004, 02:07 PM)

Ultimately, I believe judgement/karma is based not on whether or not we believe in God, Yahweh, Allah or Vishnu, but on how we interpret our moral compass and make our choices through life.

I relate to a lot of what you said in this las paragraph although I must balk at your use of the word moral.

 

Moral is a word I do not like due to its religous connotations. The word is bandied about by those who, often hypocritically, sit in judgement on the behaviour of other - often taking, what they call, the moral highground.

 

For this reason I don't consider myself to be a moral person. However, I do consider myself to be an ethical person. I have a code of behaviour by which I try to live and by which I am raising my two children.

 

Semantics maybe but, for someone like me, an important distinction.

[madra sneachta]

QUOTE (Slaine mac Roth @ Nov 1 2004, 05:44 PM)

QUOTE (madra sneachta @ Nov 1 2004, 02:07 PM) Ultimately, I believe judgement/karma is based not on whether or not we believe in God, Yahweh, Allah or Vishnu, but on how we interpret our moral compass and make our choices through life. I relate to a lot of what you said in this las paragraph although I must balk at your use of the word moral.   Moral is a word I do not like due to its religous connotations. The word is bandied about by those who, often hypocritically, sit in judgement on the behaviour of other - often taking, what they call, the moral highground.   For this reason I don't consider myself to be a moral person. However, I do consider myself to be an ethical person. I have a code of behaviour by which I try to live and by which I am raising my two children.   Semantics maybe but, for someone like me, an important distinction. Personally. I have no problem using the word ethical instead of moral. It boils down to whether we define "morality" as the personal choices made by each individual or as a rule based structure handed down by a religion/state.   My own view is that it is the former. I think the key word I use in my last post is "choice". I may take a moral/ethical viewpoint, but I have no right to impose that on you or anyone else.   The drunk driver example I used earlier was perhaps a bit of a cop out, because no-one would condone a drunk driver killing a child. Let's look at a more complex and contentious issue. Abortion.   My personal stance is I abhor the notion of abortion. I'm acutely aware that I say that as a happily married, reasonably comfortable 40 year old father of two children who is not facing the same problems as a pregnant single woman, but that's not the point.   My point is I don't have the right to impose that belief on anyone else, and don't believe that abortion should be ended in all circumstances. I must be honest and say that if my daughter or someone I know found themselves in trouble, then my viewpoint would be likely to change dramatically. There's a world of difference between a notional moral viewpoint based on a detached world view and a hard choice to be made in relation to a specific situation. The "moral highground" sounds like a nice place to be, but I suspect it's a cold and lonely place- a bit like Xanadu!!.   I would say Slaine that your rejection of the word "moral" is a touch on the semantic side, but as I said earlier, I have no problem substituting the word "ethical". One thing I think we would agree on - In terms of the code of behaviour you refer to, the capacity to make informed choice mindful of the effects and consequences they may have on ourselves and others is more important than a "do this, don't do that" series of rules.

[Verena]

To me, these lyrics are about non-existance of God or any "fair power" that controls the world.

 

It's about us being in control of our lives and circumstances that simply exist. It's about a simple attitude that becomes something greater.

 

We don't need to compare "who is a good person" and "who is an evil person" to decide who'll be happy or unhappy. It all depends of situations we're in and how we deal with them.

 

There are no promises of fortune after death, but fortune exists here at this moment. The songs brings the idea of living here and now; about stop looking for certain explanations and living the best one can of the very moment.

 

Just living and letting go, dealing with situations as they appear.

[rushdownunder]

I think the time taken to discuss such trivial matters could be better spent going out and enjoying life!

 

But in all seriousness, I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter if you spend your life going to church and praying or whatever your religion says you should do, or having nothing to do with any type of god or deity.

 

At the end of the day, we're all the same. We have good times, bad times, tears, laughs, pain, love, sadness, happiness, illness, health, etc. The difference is how we perceive the events that happen in our lives. Some people need the bible to help them through these events, some need drugs, some need music, some need themselves.

 

To me, it doesn't matter if there is one god or a million gods - I don't need or believe in one. And if there was a god, and he or she came to Earth and made itself known, it wouldn't matter to me one bit.

 

Live your life how you see fit. If you choose a god to help you through, go for it. If you need drugs, so be it. If you need to grind up chicken bones and snort them, don't let me stop you!

 

And as far as 'Roll The Bones', it is one album that reflects a lot of my beliefs and thoughts on the subject.

[trenken]

If you study Neil's lyrics over the years, you'll see he sort of flip flops from being an atheist to agnostic. Sometimes you'll see he seems so sure that god does not exist, then he comes back around and questions it.

 

He will say things like he does in ghost of a chance or faithless, then you come to this song and he seems unsure. I've come to the conclusion that he is in fact indifferent about god. He's in a place where he just doesnt know. He doesnt know if a god does or doesnt exist, so he's explored both perspectives in various songs, and sometimes even in the same song.

 

Really to me lyrically, ghost of a chance is the best evidence that he's somewhere in between. He says:

 

I dont believe in destiny

Or the guiding hand of fate

etc.

I dont believe in the stars or the planets....

 

What this is saying is that he doesnt necessarily believe that god put us here, or that science did. He simply doesnt know, so it's more of a place of indifference about it. Since there isnt any true proof one way or another, he is in between. He's what you would call a realist. He believe in the world as his eyes see it. He believes in love. All the things that he can see and feel.

[mfratt]

I actually used this song in a high school ethics class to try and argue that religion is unethical.

[rushdownunder]

QUOTE (trenken @ Sep 29 2008, 06:48 PM)

Really to me lyrically, ghost of a chance is the best evidence that he's somewhere in between. He says: I dont believe in destiny Or the guiding hand of fate etc. I dont believe in the stars or the planets.... What this is saying is that he doesnt necessarily believe that god put us here, or that science did. He simply doesnt know, so it's more of a place of indifference about it. Since there isnt any true proof one way or another, he is in between. He's what you would call a realist. He believe in the world as his eyes see it. He believes in love. All the things that he can see and feel.

To me though, destiny, fate and stars & planets have nothing to do with god or religion at all.

 

I believe that destiny and fate are for people who are too scared to shape their own futures and live their lives the way they want. For instance, I've heard of people being diagnosed with diseases such as cancer and rejecting treatment, saying things like "well, dying of this disease must be my destiny".

 

I have a big problem with that. To me, that's saying "I'm too weak and powerless to make my own choices so I'll just let the universe do what it will with me". I can't agree with that. Can you imagine saying to your child, "don't bother to try to do anything good with your life, because you have no say in it - it's all up to some sort of external force that may or may not exist".

 

Then again, you could say the same thing in regards to god. If it's not destiny or fate, people will say that disasters and tragedies are 'gods will' and that we should just accept it, because he apparently knows what he's doing.

 

By that logic, we could have many thousands of people of a certain race killed off, and if it's 'gods will', then its acceptable. But when Hitler did it, he was a monster.

 

Bottom line - the world is a horrible place and a beautiful place. It depends on how you see it. As Neil said in 'Totem'...

 

I believe in what I see, I believe in what I hear

I believe that what I'm feeling changes how the world appears

 

Like I said in my previous post, whether you need god, drugs or music to help you through life, so be it. You're not wrong, but you're not right. You're just sitting in your groove and enjoying the ride.

 

But if you go around telling people they're wrong for not believing or believing too much or not living by the same book as you, then you're as bad as Hitler.

[Maestro]

QUOTE (rushdownunder @ Sep 29 2008, 06:13 PM)

QUOTE (trenken @ Sep 29 2008, 06:48 PM) Really to me lyrically, ghost of a chance is the best evidence that he's somewhere in between. He says: I dont believe in destiny Or the guiding hand of fate etc. I dont believe in the stars or the planets.... What this is saying is that he doesnt necessarily believe that god put us here, or that science did. He simply doesnt know, so it's more of a place of indifference about it. Since there isnt any true proof one way or another, he is in between. He's what you would call a realist. He believe in the world as his eyes see it. He believes in love. All the things that he can see and feel. To me though, destiny, fate and stars & planets have nothing to do with god or religion at all.   I believe that destiny and fate are for people who are too scared to shape their own futures and live their lives the way they want. For instance, I've heard of people being diagnosed with diseases such as cancer and rejecting treatment, saying things like "well, dying of this disease must be my destiny".   I have a big problem with that. To me, that's saying "I'm too weak and powerless to make my own choices so I'll just let the universe do what it will with me". I can't agree with that. Can you imagine saying to your child, "don't bother to try to do anything good with your life, because you have no say in it - it's all up to some sort of external force that may or may not exist".   Then again, you could say the same thing in regards to god. If it's not destiny or fate, people will say that disasters and tragedies are 'gods will' and that we should just accept it, because he apparently knows what he's doing.   By that logic, we could have many thousands of people of a certain race killed off, and if it's 'gods will', then its acceptable. But when Hitler did it, he was a monster.   Bottom line - the world is a horrible place and a beautiful place. It depends on how you see it. As Neil said in 'Totem'...   I believe in what I see, I believe in what I hear I believe that what I'm feeling changes how the world appears   Like I said in my previous post, whether you need god, drugs or music to help you through life, so be it. You're not wrong, but you're not right. You're just sitting in your groove and enjoying the ride.   But if you go around telling people they're wrong for not believing or believing too much or not living by the same book as you, then you're as bad as Hitler.     I'd argue from and expound upon this point of view, also; I tend to agree.   I'm rather surprised this thread has managed to survive thus far. The degree of civility on the topic is impressive!     III.

[kid glove]

the ghost rider book spells it out very well where neil comes from. to have his daughter and his wife in a years time die. he trully has his doudts about the God Creater belief. i personally understand the entire reason why people suffer while the almighty observes. one must understand that one must NOT think in mere human thought as to why. one must change his thought as to how the almighty sees the situation. when the then, perfect Eve ate the fruit if good and bad she sinned. later so did Adam. which as we all know caused all to be born into sin. mankind as whole nolonger can see or understand the justice that is being handed down to us. the issue raised by satan was we humans can be equal to god knowing both good and bad. not needing him. see here we all sit in this state suffering miserably, ultimately dying. proving that we are not equal to him. all the feelings that we have are God given. so it stands to reason that he understands our frustration and hurt....

 

neil only sees how man has been wronged to the point of not believing in a higher being or God. which is fine but still a mistake still the same. we cannot see air yet we have the sense to know it exists and gives us life. it's strange that neil in all his reading of vast amounts has not figured this out. there was a sin commited that was fixed by the dealth of God's only true son. Jesus. one must understand how all this relates to time, suffering and ultimately the fixing of the sin by Adam and Eve. theres more to this of course but heres the point. neil peart does not see the light, he feels that things are what they are. there is a purpose for where and why we suffer, neil does not feel the need to find this answer. so he pins the the lyrics of man with no clue.

 

even Paul who hated the early christians was trully forced to see the light. read the account. he became a fervant deciple. so trust me the answers are thier. thier not hiding.

[rushdownunder]

QUOTE (kid glove @ Sep 30 2008, 02:35 AM)

so trust me the answers are thier. thier not hiding.

That's a matter of opinion.

 

If you live your life by a book like the bible, fine. But don't tell people it's the answer, because you don't know that for sure. It may be your answer, but it's certainly not mine.

 

Just because you believe something doesn't mean it's for everyone.

[trenken]

QUOTE (kid glove @ Sep 30 2008, 02:35 AM)

the ghost rider book spells it out very well where neil comes from. to have his daughter and his wife in a years time die. he trully has his doudts about the God Creater belief. i personally understand the entire reason why people suffer while the almighty observes. one must understand that one must NOT think in mere human thought as to why. one must change his thought as to how the almighty sees the situation. when the then, perfect Eve ate the fruit if good and bad she sinned. later so did Adam. which as we all know caused all to be born into sin. mankind as whole nolonger can see or understand the justice that is being handed down to us. the issue raised by satan was we humans can be equal to god knowing both good and bad. not needing him. see here we all sit in this state suffering miserably, ultimately dying. proving that we are not equal to him. all the feelings that we have are God given. so it stands to reason that he understands our frustration and hurt.... neil only sees how man has been wronged to the point of not believing in a higher being or God. which is fine but still a mistake still the same. we cannot see air yet we have the sense to know it exists and gives us life. it's strange that neil in all his reading of vast amounts has not figured this out. there was a sin commited that was fixed by the dealth of God's only true son. Jesus. one must understand how all this relates to time, suffering and ultimately the fixing of the sin by Adam and Eve. theres more to this of course but heres the point. neil peart does not see the light, he feels that things are what they are. there is a purpose for where and why we suffer, neil does not feel the need to find this answer. so he pins the the lyrics of man with no clue. even Paul who hated the early christians was trully forced to see the light. read the account. he became a fervant deciple. so trust me the answers are thier. thier not hiding.

Try telling him that and you wont get through the 1st line before he walks away. There is no sense in trying to convince someone that see's things one way to just start seeing them the other way. He has lived his entire life as a non-believer and will likely die that way.

 

 

[Mara]

QUOTE (kid glove @ Sep 30 2008, 02:35 AM)

even Paul who hated the early christians was trully forced to see the light. read the account. he became a fervant deciple. so trust me the answers are thier. thier not hiding.

Paul converted because Jesus dropped in on him outta the sky, if we are to believe the Biblical account.

Maybe if Jesus lands somewhere out on a seldom-traveled road and Neil wrecks his bike to avoid hitting him. . .then Neil might have a conversion.

Or he might just get really pissed off at Jesus for making him dump his bike.

[Weakly Criminal]

[rushdownunder]

QUOTE (trenken @ Sep 30 2008, 08:40 PM)

Try telling him that and you wont get through the 1st line before he walks away. There is no sense in trying to convince someone that see's things one way to just start seeing them the other way. He has lived his entire life as a non-believer and will likely die that way.

You said it, Trenken.

 

I'll never understand those that feel they must convince others that their belief system is the ultimate way to live your life. When you really think about it, they've got a real nerve doing something like that.

 

Take the Jehovahs Witnesses for example. They're always knocking on doors in my neighbourhood, and when I tell them I don't follow a religion they always ask 'why?'. I tend to reply with 'why not?'. But to ask me why? That's my business! And it shouldn't matter to a perfect stranger what my views are.

 

The closed minded attitude of people like that really get to me, as it stops both themselves and others from exploring different facets of life. One girl I used to know was interested in me romantically at one point, and while I reciprocated, when she found out I didn't follow her catholic ways, she wanted nothing more to do with me. I've had that with a few people in my life, who can't put aside the fact that I have views other than their own.

 

However I must say that one of my greatest friends is religious, goes to church every Sunday, studies the bible, etc. And she has no problem whatsoever with my views. I think a lot of people could take a leaf out of her book.

 

By the way, you'll notice I use the word 'views' instead of 'beliefs'. A 'view' is an opinion, while 'belief' means you are 100%, absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that something is real and true. Which is why people cannot honestly say, "I believe in god". Unless you can show some hard undeniable evidence that god exists, then you are just of the opinion that god exists.

 

And no, the bible is not evidence. The 'Shroud of Turin' is not evidence. The face of jesus showing up on a grilled cheese sandwich or in a pile of cow manure is not evidence.

 

And if there is indeed a god, then please explain the popularity of Hannah Montana.

[circumstantial tree]

I believe in Jesus and I believe in God. I'm a Christian and I have no problem telling people that. There's no shame in it. I was given a choice to accept or to not accept. I accepted.

[Maestro]

QUOTE

And if there is indeed a god, then please explain the popularity of Hannah Montana.

[rushdownunder]

QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Sep 30 2008, 09:37 PM)

I believe in Jesus and I believe in God.

In that case, you'd have no trouble in proving that god and jesus exist?

[gleamingalloyaircar81]

QUOTE (rushdownunder @ Oct 1 2008, 12:44 AM)

QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Sep 30 2008, 09:37 PM) I believe in Jesus and I believe in God. In that case, you'd have no trouble in proving that god and jesus exist? Prove that God doesnt exist. Seriously this is getting as useless as the thread in the SOCN now.

[rushdownunder]

QUOTE (gleamingalloyaircar81 @ Oct 1 2008, 06:00 AM)

Prove that God doesnt exist.

I can't prove that god doesn't exist, just the same way that nobody can prove that god does exist.

 

 

[circumstantial tree]

God only asks that we believe. It's not about proof. And it's not my job to convince you.

 

No, you can't prove He exists or doesn't exist. When dealing with Spiritual matters, it's a whole different ballgame.