As I would assume is true of most musicians, I have probably hundreds of random riffs and melodies and ideas recorded and stored across multiple devices, just waiting to be used in a song eventually. The acoustic portion of the intro for "No Reason" was one of those for years before I incorporated it into the song you hear today.
This is absolutely one of my very favorite DIRE songs, lyrically. It has a lot of excellent word play, in my opinion. And I think it ended up very effectively communicating exactly what I wanted it to. Hopefully listeners feel the same.
There are many who would have everyone believe that all of those who worship God are simply unintelligent; mindless sheep, blindly embracing the status quo. For years that was a very prevalent thought I saw woven into the media, sometimes subtly, sometimes blatantly. (It may very well be just as present in modern media. I'm pretty detached from any mainstream shows and movies nowadays.) "No Reason" is written to be a response to this idea, and to compare people of faith with those who would ridicule them.
Said creature to creator, "You are no longer welcome here"
And finite to eternal, "Who are you that I should fear?"
I really like these lines. They illustrate the irony of man's rejection of God, and introduce the song with a quick summary of the subject matter.
"Fool, you cling to a lie,
Live on your knees to please some force in the sky
The whole first verse is written as a quotation of someone antagonizing a believer. Other than being conscious of the syllables and rhythm of these lines in the context of the music, I employed no exaggeration whatsoever in conveying what many say about followers of Christ and their faith in God. I can say with certainty that these words are exactly the kind of thing I've heard or read directly from multiple aggressively atheistic people in regard to my own beliefs.
Your kind, the weakest of mind
A world of difference between you and I
So I'm told, and so I believe
May not see it, but they tell me that they do
New scriptures, new priests
Still can't explain it, but then why would I need to?"
The development of the first verse is intended to emphasize many of the fictional distinctions between religious and non-religious groups. Believers trust in the Bible, which was written, translated, and is now taught by men. Many non-believers, however, claim to only trust in reason. In reality, this "reason" consists almost exclusively of whatever they've been informed by other people who have been established as authorities. Now, I'm not criticizing placing trust in the experiences or teachings of people other than ourselves. The point is that this is an inescapable part of existing within time and space as a human being. You could spend a lifetime attempting to verify everything you've been taught in school and still not have enough time to experience it all for yourself. Trusting in the word of other people with different knowledge or experience is a vital part of life. Is every atheist able to comprehensively explain every scientific theory they hold to be true? If not, on what basis do they believe? The word of another human or group of humans that they deem trust-worthy. Some such people really don't like this to be addressed, but it's true. Mocking someone for believing something because they haven't experienced or proven it for themselves is inherently self-defeating for anyone who attributes any credibility to literally anything another person has said, whether a pastor, a parent, or a scientist.
I once watched a video of a discussion between a theist and an atheist, presumably taken during a debate on the subject. The latter was insistent that he didn't have faith in the accuracy of some certain scientific theories or papers, rather he had confidence in their credibility. Eventually the theist pointed out that the word "confidence" comes from the latin phrase "con fide" which translates to "with faith". On multiple levels, this exchange demonstrates exactly the reality I'm referring to. Both have some level of trust in something beyond their immediate experience. Only one pretends not to.
Taught to reject the very notion of God
I see no reason
Cut to the heart of this pathetic facade
I see no reason
Among much of the anti-theistic rhetoric and philosophy I mentioned being smuggled in through years of mainstream media is this idea: God and science are inherently opposed to one another. It's often spoken of as if it's just obvious, self-evident. With the first half of the chorus, I'm saying I see no reason to reach this conclusion. The second occurence of "I see no reason" is me saying that in spite of what so many would have us believe, I’ve come to realize that reason itself isn't the driving factor behind man's desire to reject his Creator.
Void, the core of your claim
The gaping hole in the allegiance you feign
Such faith in corruptible man
Accepting yet that which you don't understand
The opening line for verse two is a reference to the idea that everything came from nothing, or from what was essentially just already everything, but condensed into an unfathomably minuscule singular point. Or really whatever the newest non-God idea people are using to explain the inescapably miraculous fact that existence exists. Every one of these explanations requires an assumption of something that by its definition transcends our present understanding of the laws that govern all of reality. None of them is any less supernatural in the most literal sense of the word. And that's fine. But you can't ridicule faith in the supernatural while also depending on faith in the supernatural as the central point of your worldview. (Well, you can of course, but . . .) Again, until you've experienced such an occurrence for yourself, or at the very least can rationally explain it, to believe it is to accept it on faith.
It's the pride of the godless
The irony of the contempt he holds
For the sheep, for the faithful
No less dependent, just a different fold
I've heard Christians referred to mockingly as sheep so many times. The thing is: It's a valid comparison. In fact, it's a Biblical comparison. We are not self-sufficient in any sense. No one is, whether they accept it or not; whether they believe in God or not. Each of us is dependent upon things and people beyond ourselves, no matter how much some of us might try to convince ourselves this isn't true. To isolate one's self exclusively to one's direct experience would simply be unlivable. I am not ashamed of my dependence on my fellow man, and certainly not of my dependence on my Lord. We are all sheep, but I want to make sure to follow the Good Shepherd.
So you can label me lunatic
But I know what I've seen
Go on and mark me a heretic
'cause I still believe
I thought the use of the term "heretic" in this instance was interesting, given the typical context and meaning of the word. At this point, I'm fine with being mocked for my beliefs, and I hope I'll have the strength to endure whatever else may come as a consequence of my faith in Christ. When godlessness is the religion of the day, I hope to die a heretic.
Comments