The November 15 edition of Rolling Stone, the talky 40th anniversary issue, is stuffed with interviews. The hippie magazine's estranged relationship with God is quite obvious. We mentioned Bill Maher recently, but there was more atheistic talk included. Take rock star Dave Matthews, who found the notion of an all-powerful, loving God "more irritating than Santa Claus." He'd like the idea, but it's "absurd. It's just our attempt to be more important than a tree."
Matthews was discussing the fate of the planet. He said social issues like so-called gay marriage are "tiny" next to our environmental survival. He warned of the possibility of "massive die-offs of people – which has been predicted," but then turned to the idea that maybe the existence of man doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the cosmos:
So often we talk about saving the planet, but what we really mean is to save the planet the way it is, so we can live here. So that is can sustain us. Because the planet doesn’t need to be saved. It doesn’t care if all the squirrels, elephants, and trees die and there’s just a couple of amoebas floating around at the poles. Mother Nature’s not going to weep for what she’s lost. In a handful of millions of years, everything will be green again and nothing will have changed. It won’t matter in the slightest. We will have been brushed off the shoulder of the living universe indifferently.
The idea that we’re somehow centrally important to the plaent’s existence is pretty comical – although I’d like us to be. I’d like to think that the yes of some heavenly body are watching us and saying, ‘Oh, look at my beautiful children.’ But it’s absurd. It’s just our attempt to be more important than a tree.
Rolling Stone noted: "You’ve talked publicly about being an agnostic, which is pretty daring these days. Politicians are falling all over themselves..." He replied:
Yeah, "get out of my way so I can get into the church." It’s so small a view of things. Obviously, there’s a source o f all things, however big or small it is. But if you give it consciousness, it just gets smaller. If you give it concern for us, it gets smaller.
I use the word "God" in my songs all the time, because I don’t know what the hell is going on. So that’s God – everything I don’t know. But the idea of God as a fatherly figure who looks down on us and worries about how we’re doing or takes sides when we have fights – it’s more irritating than Santa Claus. The world and the universe are far more wonderful if there’s not a puppet master.
Atheist author Sam Harris was also interviewed by the rock and roll mag. He was asked how this time will be remembered in forty years:
With any luck, we’ll all be embarrassed by the sate of our discourse in the same way our ancestors treated race during the first part of the twentieth century. We’ll be astonished by the smugness and the certitude with which people not only held their religious convictions, but imposed them on others through public policy and the law. We’ll look back in wonder that the Vatican was preaching against the use of condoms in the developing world, and that the United States impeded stem cell research becuse some imagined that microscopic human beings had souls. Forty years from now, we’ll realize that taking religion seriously was like taking astrology seriously.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Wow
November 16, 2007 - 23:46 ET by well99Another musician whose opinion means nothing to me.Guess I wont buy Rolling Stone magazine.Oh wait I dont anyways.Dave has the right to his opinion and we have the right to not care about it.
Anyone surprised here? Not
November 16, 2007 - 23:51 ET by balboaAnyone surprised here? Not exactly breaking new ground.
Yes balboa
November 17, 2007 - 00:32 ET by well99I will no longer be able to hero worship celebs.I am devastated.I wonder if I can reach Doctor Phil and does he take collect calls?
Never read it either
November 17, 2007 - 07:43 ET by ThisnThatExactly my thought, W99 -- I've never read Rolling stone either. Never will.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Dave Matthews on being a fool
November 16, 2007 - 23:49 ET by Lame CherryIn my journey through life, I have found what physicists have found in that the more one gains knowledge..........the more one finds things just did not happen, but that Someone put them there.
I ask people to behold the moon...........as it can not be there. By this I explain, the moon is too big to have ever been pulled into orbit around the earth. The earth does not have the gravity and the sun does. The moon should have been taken by the sun........and yet there it is.
You might also notice the moon is perfectly placed PERFECTLY so that when an eclipse happens it produces a light ring or corona around the sun........too far it would blot it out.......too near and it would not be a light ring..........same is true for the earth blotting out the sun's light on the moon in a perfect sequence every month..........too close and the earth makes it all black........too far and no waxing or waning moon.
It is always sad when people like Dave Matthews show just how mentally retarded they are on the simplest things in life. As one gains God given insight and Wisdom, like St. Paul stated, the very nature of all life in the simplest of ways shines forth with a revelation that God really does exist.
The entire lunar sequence was shown by God to me to simply reveal that His Light as the sun illuminates the moon of us.........but as we become less Spiritual and more looking toward the world........the moon of us darkens in time until there is no Light in us at all.
Dave Matthews obviously hates himself and is very angry like all liberals at God, because when he was screaming to his pillow in pleas like all of us do as children during our rough times.......God did not come like Dave had demanded...........and Dave never saw that God is always there not to take us out of the problem, but to help us grow through it to be better Spiritual people.
It is a shame as Matthews with all his God given talent a few years ago was reading like Rosie and Charlie Sheen all the kook Rense, Quayle, Jones, Capitol Hill Blue lies and took them to be real. Now even that has left Matthews and he has turned to weep over his god of earth he is trying to save because Dave can not save himself.
All rather elementary psychopathy.......and Mr. Matthews if you or those you love ever read this.......just know God does love you and He does believe in you. You though are not that bright and have to show God the respect He mandates, go to Him and start hearing what He says as He has already told you things, but you rejected them because you thought you knew better..........you though have deteriorated into being a mess.
Goodness Dave your focus is on saving a planet whose laws are consumptive which means it is part of a system that will destroy itself as that is how it all functions........and your other minor focus is on sodomy a process which is a death sentence as it does not reproduce and breeds infections.
That is very foolish Mr. Matthews.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
It is always sad when people
November 16, 2007 - 23:53 ET by balboaIt is always sad when people like Dave Matthews show just how mentally retarded they are on the simplest things in life.
Nice to know you have all the answers. Not everyone works that way, if that's OK with you.
Lame Cherry, What the
November 17, 2007 - 02:23 ET by hydrodynDMLame Cherry,
What the Moon has to do with this story is beyond me, be once again, your understanding of planetary physics is pretty... well, wanting.
The current thinking is that the Moon was formed as a result of a collision between the Earth and an asteroid during the Earth's early formation. The resulting material from that collision coalesced into the Moon. The important point is that this collision occurred with the Earth orbiting the Sun so the material that went into creating the Moon was also in orbit around the Sun (as well as the Earth).
Although it is true that the Sun exerts a stronger gravitational pull on the Moon than the Earth does, since both are in orbit around the Sun, their angular motion prevents either from being "taken by the Sun".
Even with all that aside, using your reasoning, it seems reasonable to ask why the Sun hasn't pull the Earth into it by now?
As for the relative angular size of the Earth and Moon, yes, they are about the same, but it isn't a "perfect" (or even "PERFECT") match. The simple fact that the Moon follows an elliptical orbit around the Earth (and same with the Earth around the Sun) means that the Earth-Sun and Earth-Moon distance is constantly changing and since the actual size of the Moon and Sun are pretty much constant, that means that the Sun's and Moon's angular size is constantly changing. So, most of the time, they don't appear to have the exact same angular size.
But, as I said, they are close. Most folks, however, chalk that up to coincidence. If you want to think that God arranged it that way so solar eclipses looked really, really cool for us here on Earth - um, ok.
Way to see someone finally
November 16, 2007 - 23:57 ET by sunandsteelWay to see someone finally come out and say how silly it was to believe in Allah and talk about how absurd it is for all the Imams to try and guide us. Wait, thats not what they said? I wonder which God and religion they were talking about? Its a thinker.
Texas has a population of nearly 21 million people, all of whom are ashamed to be from the same state as the Dixie Chicks. (IMAO.us)
Texas has a population of
November 17, 2007 - 07:19 ET by motherbeltTexas has a population of nearly 21 million people, all of whom are
ashamed to be from the same state as the Dixie Chicks. (IMAO.us)
They should correct that to "most of whom", since the Dixie Chicks' families probably don't mind.
Note that I said "probably."
Anyway, back to the subject: there are about 300,000,000 people in this country, most of whom don't wake up in the morning wondering or caring what Dave Matthews thinks about ANYTHING.
It's nice to think about, but then again
November 17, 2007 - 00:12 ET by exLibIt always comes to this:
Everybody likes the God of Grace and Forgiveness, so much so that entire sects are created to that "god"
And yet, very few accept that the God of Grace and Forgiveness is also a God of Sin and Judgement.
People like Dave Matthews, and myself not too long ago, have no desire to change their lives or modify the way they live to please God. If they so happen to stumble upon a religion that lets them do what they want and they can still be "cool" and sell records they may do it for awhile.
But the idea of an All-Powerful, Loving God, who cares for us and loves us and all that, well, it's too high a price for some to pay if means giving up all the adulation, praise, and ability to sin with impunity.
However, don't be fooled, these guys do have a Religion. The religion of self. They are worshipped and anything that gets in their way will be mocked and mercilessly.
50-100 years from now, if there is still an earth and we are not all taken to judgement, there will still be Christians and people like Dave Matthews will rotting in Hell wondering why, why, why did I not fight these things that put me here, but instead went on TV, and did interviews where I pushed blantant sin to the masses and became a spokesperson for them.
I've quite a few things to
November 17, 2007 - 00:30 ET by CortillaenI've quite a few things to say on this, so bear with me:
First, in response to "It’s just our attempt to be more important than a tree", can anyone explain why we wouldn't be more important than trees? Even without any reference to a higher power, it's pretty obvious that humans are on a completely different level of existence than any lifeform we've encountered thus far. I'm mystified by people who seem to revere "nature" as their god. They accuse Christians of being ignorant, blind faith-driven simpletons, yet they all but worship animals, plants, and natural forces, none of which have shown any evidence of being more than physical laws in action. If someone doesn't want to believe in anything beyond what they can sense, worshiping the human will and creativity seems to make much more sense considering how much it has impacted the world.
Second, for those who incessantly tell me to "save the environment", I ask, "Why?" What reason is there to try to preserve the planet? This always yields some amusing answers, one of the more common being, "For later generations." Of course, that answer is often contradicted by a firmly-held belief that humans are not special in the big scheme of things (If they aren't, why bother trying to help the next generation, see?). This sort of debate has led me to conclude that there are two types of environuts: The kind that worships the planet, and the kind that are simply cashing in on the first kind. There are also the fad-following idiots, but they'll break off as soon as something else becomes more popular.
Third, "Obviously, there’s a source o f all things, however big or small it is. But if you give it consciousness, it just gets smaller. If you give it concern for us, it gets smaller." So, according to this blowhard, a god who creates things with the intent to watch over them is lesser than one who capriciously creates and abandons beings like toys, and they are both inferior to a senseless power hurling newly-formed mass and energy into the void without reason or understanding. If I didn't know better, I'd think it sounds like he is saying the closer your god is to the Christian archetype, the more worthless it is.
Fourth, "The world and the universe are far more wonderful if there’s not a puppet master." I'm sick of idiots mis-characterizing my God as "a puppet master". Anyone who can say this obviously does not understand Christianity or know the slightest thing about God, but I suppose expecting the ignorant to remain silent is too naive.
Fifth, I'd like to thank Mr. Harris for defining fetuses as "human beings" while they are still microscopic. As I've noted before, this definition forces abortion to be termed murder in the first degree.
www.rhjunior.com/CC/ Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Agreed
November 17, 2007 - 01:42 ET by KC MulvilleI agree with you, Cortillaen.
Not to make a big deal about it, but I like your third point. I've always wondered why anyone who would replace God with nature doesn't get infuriated at hurricanes and earthquakes. Why aren't they angry about it? They're reject the idea of God because they can't fathom a personal deity who 'kills' innocents, yet they're OK about the power of nature rampaging through Louisiana. If you're going to give nature a pass, you can't use the same argument to deny God.
I agree with KC...good point
November 17, 2007 - 07:25 ET by motherbeltI agree with KC...good point about the violent weather. Also, those who say things are better without a "puppet master" not only don't understand "free will" but are usually the ones who think God should step in and "correct" things, such as stopping wars, etc. They want to tell God which things to fix. They wouldn't like it, for instance, if He stepped in and did something to stop all abortions.
The idea that we’re
November 17, 2007 - 01:20 ET by fitzfongThe idea that we’re somehow centrally important to the plaent’s existence is pretty comical – although I’d like us to be.
Thanks, Dave. With this statement, you've effectively confirmed that human activity has nothing to do with "climate change".
By the way, your hippie audience is starting to stink. Better empty out your bus' holding tank to clean them up again.
We'll be so glad that Sam Harris was here to lead us
November 17, 2007 - 01:30 ET by KC MulvilleI used to teach religion to high schoolers. Every year, some sophomore would raise his hand and ask, “Have you ever thought that maybe … this whole religion thing … is just a made up story, like Santa Claus?” (They always expected me to get defensive, as if I hadn't ever considered that possibility.) And yet they were always surprised when I told them to keep asking those questions, because that’s where the search for God begins.
But I have no time for these ‘trendy’ atheists or muffy-headed rock stars who are so convinced of their own superiority that anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid. Christianity has been around for two thousand years (Judaism for two thousand years more than that, and Hinduism a thousand or so years beyond that, and so on), but Sam Harris thinks that time is over because he has arrived on the scene. Religion won’t withstand his brilliance. He’s going to wake us up to the truth, I guess.
I feel a yawn coming on.
Dave
November 17, 2007 - 03:08 ET by USA4freedomDave Matthews:
“It's just our attempt to be more important than a
tree."
I guess that was your attempt to be “smarter” than a tree,
you failed..
A little back ground of Dave:
Upon Dave's graduation from St Stithians College “high school”, he faced a requirement by the South African government to put in two years of compulsory military service. Coming from a devoutly Quaker family, military service was not an option.[3]
I guess when you are trying to duck that military “gig,”
that being a Quaker works huh?
Because you are famous it does not make you smart, just ask
Paris..
Shut up and sing.. there mister high school diploma..
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
A smart response
November 17, 2007 - 08:24 ET by crablawWhile I am atheist and a (rare) liberal visitor here, you cannot realistically appreciate Western Civilization without being religiously informed. My only problem with Tim Graham's piece is that he got paid his salary essentially to say, "Rocker Dave Matthews doesn't like religion." While true, it doesn't constitute work.
I don't particularly like trendy atheism but only because I have never been trendy.
Your prejudice is showing, Crablaw
November 17, 2007 - 12:43 ET by RJAll you got from Tim's piece is that "Rocker Dave Matthews doesn't like religion"? Clearly, you began reading the article with a predetermined (atheist) interpretation....approximately the equivalent of reading an article about Hitler and thinking "well, all I'm going to get out of this is that Hitler doesn't like Jews."
Try reading the article again, this time with an open mind. You might even get a chuckle or two over how silly Matthews' interpretations of the world are....like when Matthews said that he's no more important than a tree.
But Dave Matthews is no more
November 17, 2007 - 12:46 ET by fitzfongBut Dave Matthews is no more important than a tree.
Considering some of the
November 17, 2007 - 14:10 ET by CortillaenConsidering some of the amazing documents written on shredded and pressed trees, I daresay DM is far less important than a tree. Even if the tree justs converts a little CO2 to O2, it's contributed far more to the world than that blowhard ever will.
www.rhjunior.com/CC/ Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
I always say KC, Athiests have faith
November 17, 2007 - 12:22 ET by exLibI always tell Atheists that they have MORE faith that I do.
It takes an incredible amount of faith in man's ability to figure out how old something is, what it's purpose is in life, how it got there, etc, without the idea of a creator.
I don't think I ever got to a point in not believing in God, only in organized religion. But as someone pointed out, it's better than disorganized relgion.
Back to my point, most atheists can't even handle the statement I made above since it is there belief (Faith) that they are working on "facts" and "science" and the Christian is working on "faith".
It's a strawman argument they have created for themselves and refuse to bring it out into the light.
It is very similar to the disturbing trend prevelent among modern liberals that they are in fact the ones with the "Truth" and go around making bold statements. The same kind of bold, "I know the truth" kinds of statements liberals are known for villifying Christians for making.
The old liberal line, that you can believe what you want to believe, as long as you don't judge me or tell me what to believe, it's ALL good, all points of view are valid.
This is now being replaced by a liberal dogma that states that you are a homophobe if you don't agree with there point of view. You are a Global Warming denier, as bad as a holocoast deinier if you disagree with the cause. You are a racist, xenophobe, etc. etc.
This is not the liberalism I grew up with.
If he finds religion and
November 17, 2007 - 05:38 ET by MidAmericaIf he finds religion and religious people so tedious and embarrassing why doesn't he try experiencing a non-religious world by taking a walk through some inner city neighborhoods alone around 2AM.
Garbage
November 17, 2007 - 08:20 ET by crablawAtheism among Black Americans and Hispanic Americans polls around 1 percent. Most Black Americans and Hispanic Americans don't live in the inner city, but those who do are not atheists. Indeed, what you will find in a lot of inner cities is both a lot of drugs, a lot of violent crime and property crime and a lot of churches. Ditto in prisons: atheism in prisons is lower, not higher, than in the general population. Which makes sense; religious fervor and crime correllate regarding low education and low income.
To find atheists, I suggest looking at low-crime upper-income white/European-American (and a few non-white) suburban neighborhoods in New England, liberal parts of the mid-Atlantic and the Pacific Northwest. Or the Czech Republic. Or Scandanavia. Or most of France (not the high-crime Muslim neighborhoods, the low crime secular ones). Or, of all places, Uruguay, an explicitly secular republic in South America. Don't go to the U.S. inner city; there's often little but religion and crime there.
You missed the point
November 17, 2007 - 08:46 ET by MidAmericaYou missed the point entirely. The guy sticking a gun in your back is not religeous. He is either agnostic or atheistic.
And as far as religion in high crime areas that's a good thing. Atheists have nothing to offer to the people on the bottom of society. The religeous are there to feed the body and the soul. The wealthy atheists are too busy preening in the mirror and marveling in awe at their massive intellect to care about anyone different than themselves.
Rolling Stone is hilarious
November 17, 2007 - 06:27 ET by zeoconAgnosticism is "daring"? Wow.
We’ll be astonished by
November 17, 2007 - 07:40 ET by motherbeltWe’ll be astonished by the smugness and the certitude with which people
not only held their religious convictions, but imposed them on others
through public policy and the law. We’ll look back in wonder that the
Vatican was preaching against the use of condoms in the developing
world, and that the United States impeded stem cell research becuse
some imagined that microscopic human beings had souls. Forty years from
now, we’ll realize that taking religion seriously was like taking
astrology seriously. -Atheist Sam Harris
"Imposed them on others through public policy and the law"????? This is especially funny when we are once again entering the season of the year when schools are being told they can't even use red and green lights because it "might" make someone think about Christmas.
And, Mr. Harris, the US is NOT "impeding stem cell research." There is no prohibition against it. The fact that the government doesn't provide federal funding for it doesn't mean it's "impeding."
Companies are welcome to engage in all the stem-cell research they want; just without money from the Government. And let's face it...if it held as much promise as its proponents would like us to believe, they would be putting their money where their mouths are.
Keep in mind, when Rolling
November 17, 2007 - 08:23 ET by bretzysdudeKeep in mind, when Rolling Stone does an interview, the probability that the interviewee is on drugs is pretty high (pun not intended).
"Did you just see a body drop? I think I just saw a body drop. Let's go up to the window. I know I just saw a body drop." -- David Bowie, in how he opened his interview back in the early 70's.
What's going on?
November 17, 2007 - 09:06 ET by nkviking75Matthews: I use the word "God" in my songs all the time, because I don’t know what the hell is going on.
That about sums it up.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Dave Matthews?
November 17, 2007 - 10:53 ET by Kirk TurnerDave Matthews . . . hmmmm; isn't he that guy who had a hit in the nineties? Is he related to Chris?
There is no more proof of the hegemony of liberalism in the media than the fact that whenever some old star wants renewed relevancy, he makes a pompous ass of himself by making a haughty, dull-minded statement against God, conservatism, Ronald Reagan, the family, or anything else that regular people hold dear.
On the positive side, this means we may be seeing Dave Matthews in a Disney movie soon.
When are people going to "get it," and stop giving these people their money? Oh yeah, according to the recent Iraq movie bombs, they already have.
My bad.
More anti-religion claptrap
November 17, 2007 - 11:32 ET by bulbasaurThe offense here is not the unimpressive philosophical attempt of Dave Matthews so much as it's the all-too-familiar cynical nurturing of a purely emotional predisposition against religion. You're not cool like Dave Matthews is if you believe in God. Perpetrating this anti-religion predisposition deprives real people, vulnerable, innocent people, who up to now maybe haven't thought seriously about faith, of a vital, literally life-giving resource they might find themselves requiring as life unfolds.
This is especially tragic in light of the fact that the rock 'n roll culture is closely bound to sex, drugs and alcohol, which have well known potential to destroy the human soul and place its victims in a life or death struggle for a higher purpose. Mr. Matthews apparently has made it through life without recognizing the need for humility. Bravo for him. But the rest of us aren't rock stars, and most of us are not as self-sufficient as Mr. Matthews believes himself to be. Most of us will sooner or later face the existential significance of God's call in human history, and in our lives. Some will accept it, others won't be able to pull it off, thanks in part to the reckless ever-so-hip iconoclasm of Dave Matthews, courtesy of Rolling Stone.
This shallow Rolling Stone piece deserves the expose' it's getting in Mr. Graham's fine post.
Dave Matthews is NOT a 'Rock Star'
November 19, 2007 - 08:41 ET by Six String SpiffDave Matthews is a whiny, untalented sad sack who is only popular with other whiny, untalented sad sacks. ALL of his songs sound the same. Barf.
Islamic Religious Services Will Be Held at the Firing Range At 0800 Daily.