Tuesday, November 17, 2009


So here's what's been happening lately:

1. We've been working on the artwork for the re-release. It looks nice.

2. We've been practicing, and learning new songs. At practice, we play a game called pain, and marigold loses a lot.

3. Jon is playing with us again, as of last week! I am trying to both sing and play bass, but it's pretty hard. Bassists, get at us.

4. My boy Mark killed it the other day. Viddy this.

It's easy to write this sort of thing off as scare tactics or whatever, but for me it hits home. A couple years ago an atheist friend of mine killed herself. One of the main things we did when we hung out was talk about God (or not-God). She rejected the hope I feebly attempted to offer, and now she's gone. Obviously there are satisfied, happy atheists. I know plenty firsthand. But I don't understand how that behavior follows from their worldview.

I'd say hardcore shows Mark to be wrong about one thing: atheists do have good songs. His main point stands, however, because the best atheistic hardcore songs are also the most depressing. Not only that, but the despair seems to have ramped up even more than usual in recent years. It's all but standard for a modern dark-sounding hardcore band to have at least one song denying the Almighty. Trapped Under Ice says "no hope, I can't believe." Defeater's narrative ends with a suicide from a church rooftop. It's not even worth citing examples, because there are so many. What's interesting is that the main argument these bands seem to imply is this: because massive evil and suffering occurs, a good God cannot exist.

Everybody feels the force of this argument at some point, because everybody suffers in some form. However, I for one have never been able to swallow it. I don't want to write a long philosophical post, so I need to kinda gloss over defining the terms well...but here is one reason why:

1. If there is no God, then there is no such thing as objective good or evil.


2. If there is no God, suffering is not actually evil, just disagreeable to me.

which begs the question,

3. Why should my feelings or preferences dictate the existence or non-existence of God?

Does that make sense? To put it another way: an atheist has no good reason to be morally outraged, because for him, morality is a human construct. Moral outrage can only be consistently possessed by people who believe in objective morality. Without God, there is no objective morality. Therefore, moral outrage assumes God; so how can it then be used to refute him?

But enough philosophy. For me the hardest-hitting part was this line, because it's exactly how I felt when I became a Christian, and when I wrote Hope For Death.

"If there's no God to judge me, and no God to help me, and when I die there is no consequence, then if it hurts really bad, why not just get it over [with]? I'm gonna die anyways. Let's just move the date."


  1. I completely agree with your logic and reason ;) on this one brother. It was a good message. If there is No God. Then Moral Nihilism must become the topic of the day.

  2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbGpm9Cwr2I

    This is an interesting video where the videomaker brings up the russel piece and I believe that the preacher above misquoted Russel.

  3. Fred, I'm not sure I agree. For sure Driscoll can be a little free-flowing with his quotes at times, but I don't think he misrepresented Russell's view.

    Driscoll spoke of "building" one's life on the despair, while this video spoke of Russell likening despair to a "gateway" through which one must pass. They are different physical metaphors but they seem to be saying essentially the same thing.