Russel Brand is an idiot

[AJ113]

Brand is basically saying that a god exists because he wants it to be so - regardless of the fact that there is no evidence to support his belief.

He justifies his belief by saying that science is good at explaining 'what' but doesn't explain 'why', which somehow entitles him to supply his own 'why' and claim it as true.

 

[barbos]

Brand is basically saying that a god exists because he wants it to be so - regardless of the fact that there is no evidence to support his belief.

He justifies his belief by saying that science is good at explaining 'how' but doesn't explain 'why', which somehow entitles him to supply his own 'why' and claim it as true.

Fixed for you. And yes that's pretty much his position. Also, I have to mention this is a default politically safe position of average atheist scientist.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Brand is basically saying that a god exists because he wants it to be so - regardless of the fact that there is no evidence to support his belief.

He justifies his belief by saying that science is good at explaining 'how' but doesn't explain 'why', which somehow entitles him to supply his own 'why' and claim it as true.

Fixed for you. And yes that's pretty much his position. Also, I have to mention this is a default politically safe position of average atheist scientist.

Also nonsense. Since the fact that science can't explain something doesn't give a free pass to insert whatever. Which is what religions do. That's argument from ignorance

 

[Atheos]

... science is good at explaining 'how' but doesn't explain 'why' ...

I disagree that science doesn't explain "why." The "why" may not be very satisfying, but that's just how truth is. It really doesn't care whether we like it or not.

It seems to me that those who make statements like this are using the word "why" in a very specific, almost question-begging sense. It's as if they're assuming that there is someone out there with a grand purpose and castigating the scientific method for not recognizing it. It smacks of hubris, the assumption that somehow the universe is here for me.

Science does a great job of discovering "why." Without science many of us would still think the "why" of epilepsy was "possession by demons."

 

[Juma]

... science is good at explaining 'how' but doesn't explain 'why' ...

I disagree that science doesn't explain "why." The "why" may not be very satisfying, but that's just how truth is. It really doesn't care whether we like it or not.

It seems to me that those who make statements like this are using the word "why" in a very specific, almost question-begging sense. It's as if they're assuming that there is someone out there with a grand purpose and castigating the scientific method for not recognizing it. It smacks of hubris, the assumption that somehow the universe is here for me.

Science does a great job of discovering "why." Without science many of us would still think the "why" of epilepsy was "possession by demons."

Funny. You totally misses that the point you are doing was the intended...

 

[AJ113]

... science is good at explaining 'how' but doesn't explain 'why' ...

It seems to me that those who make statements like this are using the word "why" in a very specific, almost question-begging sense. It's as if they're assuming that there is someone out there with a grand purpose and castigating the scientific method for not recognizing it...

Yes, that was my point. Brand's view is that since science doesn't explain about the cause of "things" - i.e. god(s) - or doesn't explain the lack of evidence for the cause of "things", then he is somehow allowed to devise his own "truth" - which - surprise surprise - exactly fits his own pre-conceived theistic beliefs.

 

[Hickdive]

Always a joy to see the odious Gay Byrne squirming.

 

[barbos]

Fixed for you. And yes that's pretty much his position. Also, I have to mention this is a default politically safe position of average atheist scientist.

Also nonsense. Since the fact that science can't explain something doesn't give a free pass to insert whatever. Which is what religions do. That's argument from ignorance

Nonsense or not but this is a standard disclaimer when professors teach undergrads.
In any case, Brand's "religion" is much less nonsensical than any standard religions like Christianity.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

In any case, Brand's "religion" is much less nonsensical than any standard religions like Christianity.

Well, that's not saying much. It's like talking up a US President by saying he wasn't as bad at the job as George W Bush. That doesn't counter any reasons as to why he sucked at it.

Brand is making a vacuous argument from ignorance. Arguments like that should be shot down and derided.

 

[barbos]

In any case, Brand's "religion" is much less nonsensical than any standard religions like Christianity.

Well, that's not saying much. It's like talking up a US President by saying he wasn't as bad at the job as George W Bush. That doesn't counter any reasons as to why he sucked at it.

I said "much less nonsensical". Obama is much less bad than George W Bush

Brand is making a vacuous argument from ignorance. Arguments like that should be shot down and derided.

Tell that to US universities professors.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Tell that to US universities professors.

No. They culturally appropriated their lesson plans from British professors, which means those motherfuckers are dead to me. I'd sooner stab myself in the eye with a red-hot knife than speak the first word to any of them.

 

[Herrick]

I haven't seen the Fry video in a while but if I remember correctly, the version of god he was talking about wasn't the same version of god Brand was talking about. They both seem to be in agreement that Yahweh doesn't exist.

Brand is defending the logical fallacy of equivocation. He's ok with that god sometimes really really exists and sometimes only exists metaphorically. He doesn't acknowledge the intellectual dishonesty of it. In other videos Brand does a lot of arguing from ignorance when it comes to "spiritual" matters. He's the typical New Age yoga guy. A lot of magical thinking and energies. I don't think Brand is an atheist at all.

I didn't mean to imply that he was an atheist. I just found his reply to Fry to be misplaced because Brand's god isn't anything at all like the god Fry was talking about. It would've made more sense for Brand to make a video expressing his ideas on the nature of his god without bringing up Fry's argument. It's like someone making a video about how much Xbox sucks and then me trying to defend Xbox by making a video about how great the PlayStation is.

... science is good at explaining 'how' but doesn't explain 'why' ...

I disagree that science doesn't explain "why." The "why" may not be very satisfying, but that's just how truth is. It really doesn't care whether we like it or not.

It seems to me that those who make statements like this are using the word "why" in a very specific, almost question-begging sense. It's as if they're assuming that there is someone out there with a grand purpose and castigating the scientific method for not recognizing it. It smacks of hubris, the assumption that somehow the universe is here for me.

Science does a great job of discovering "why." Without science many of us would still think the "why" of epilepsy was "possession by demons."

This. The reason science cannot explain "why" to the satisfaction of Believers is because there is no fucking "why"...at least not in the way Believers use the word.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

... science is good at explaining 'how' but doesn't explain 'why' ...

I disagree that science doesn't explain "why." The "why" may not be very satisfying, but that's just how truth is. It really doesn't care whether we like it or not.

It seems to me that those who make statements like this are using the word "why" in a very specific, almost question-begging sense. It's as if they're assuming that there is someone out there with a grand purpose and castigating the scientific method for not recognizing it. It smacks of hubris, the assumption that somehow the universe is here for me.

Science does a great job of discovering "why." Without science many of us would still think the "why" of epilepsy was "possession by demons."

Science explains in an unsatisfactory why to some, but it can't be expected to do anything else.

You press the accelerator of a car and it moves forward. What some people want is for science to solely explain why the accelerator makes the motion happen, instead of the several steps involved that lead to the car's propulsion. IE, there a lot of whys to explain, not a simple single one. Many find this unacceptable.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I disagree that science doesn't explain "why." The "why" may not be very satisfying, but that's just how truth is. It really doesn't care whether we like it or not.

It seems to me that those who make statements like this are using the word "why" in a very specific, almost question-begging sense. It's as if they're assuming that there is someone out there with a grand purpose and castigating the scientific method for not recognizing it. It smacks of hubris, the assumption that somehow the universe is here for me.

Science does a great job of discovering "why." Without science many of us would still think the "why" of epilepsy was "possession by demons."

Science explains in an unsatisfactory why to some, but it can't be expected to do anything else.

You press the accelerator of a car and it moves forward. What some people want is for science to solely explain why the accelerator makes the motion happen, instead of the several steps involved that lead to the car's propulsion. IE, there a lot of whys to explain, not a simple single one. Many find this unacceptable.

That may be. But what's wrong with admitting ignorance? That is the only intellectually honest position. All the other positions are just lies.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Science explains in an unsatisfactory why to some, but it can't be expected to do anything else.

You press the accelerator of a car and it moves forward. What some people want is for science to solely explain why the accelerator makes the motion happen, instead of the several steps involved that lead to the car's propulsion. IE, there a lot of whys to explain, not a simple single one. Many find this unacceptable.

That may be. But what's wrong with admitting ignorance? That is the only intellectually honest position. All the other positions are just lies.

Pragmatism regarding the unknown and religion have been long at odds since humans were sacrificing animals to make it rain. Religion at its very core is about control of ones surroundings. Religion is likely an important evolutionary coping mechanism to keep from neuroses, ironic.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That may be. But what's wrong with admitting ignorance? That is the only intellectually honest position. All the other positions are just lies.

Pragmatism regarding the unknown and religion have been long at odds since humans were sacrificing animals to make it rain. Religion at its very core is about control of ones surroundings. Religion is likely an important evolutionary coping mechanism to keep from neuroses, ironic.

And keeping women as second class slaves whom you control access to is also an important evolutionary development because it helps ensure that you're not expending your own resources to propigate someone else's genes. That's not a reason to continue that attitude in modern society.

Religion is the same. It had a use, like the scaffolding needed to build a house. Once the house is up, though, you knock down the scaffolding because it's not only not needed, but actually gets in the way of using the finished house.

 

[Atheos]

Pragmatism regarding the unknown and religion have been long at odds since humans were sacrificing animals to make it rain. Religion at its very core is about control of ones surroundings. Religion is likely an important evolutionary coping mechanism to keep from neuroses, ironic.

And keeping women as second class slaves whom you control access to is also an important evolutionary development because it helps ensure that you're not expending your own resources to propigate someone else's genes. That's not a reason to continue that attitude in modern society.

Religion is the same. It had a use, like the scaffolding needed to build a house. Once the house is up, though, you knock down the scaffolding because it's not only not needed, but actually gets in the way of using the finished house.

That is an excellent analogy Tom Sawyer, and I think it is dead on. Too bad the majority of folks want the scaffolding to stay. Some are just comfortable with it, as it's been there all their lives. It was good enough for their parents and grandparents, it's good enough for them. Others actually use it to get around and would miss it if it were gone. Still others feel like it's time for the scaffolding in other parts of the house to go but since theirs is the only true scaffolding theirs should stay. Finally there are the folks who sell and maintain the scaffolding. It's in their best interest that the scaffolding stay because without it they'd be out of a job.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pragmatism regarding the unknown and religion have been long at odds since humans were sacrificing animals to make it rain. Religion at its very core is about control of ones surroundings. Religion is likely an important evolutionary coping mechanism to keep from neuroses, ironic.

And keeping women as second class slaves whom you control access to is also an important evolutionary development because it helps ensure that you're not expending your own resources to propigate someone else's genes. That's not a reason to continue that attitude in modern society.

Religion is the same. It had a use, like the scaffolding needed to build a house. Once the house is up, though, you knock down the scaffolding because it's not only not needed, but actually gets in the way of using the finished house.

A good analogy. Unfortunately, in the house analogy, the first floor of the six story building that represents the universe and our understanding of it isn't built yet. It isn't as if we know of the universe and its origin and final disposition, about ourselves.

We are still woefully ignorant, and I think the brain rewards religious thought because it allows a person to feel that they have control. In absolutely no way am I condoning willful ignorance, just explaining why I think it exists and the irony that is religious willful ignorance (or the "benefits" it provides) potentially being an evolutionary trait to help stave off neuroses.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And keeping women as second class slaves whom you control access to is also an important evolutionary development because it helps ensure that you're not expending your own resources to propigate someone else's genes. That's not a reason to continue that attitude in modern society.

Religion is the same. It had a use, like the scaffolding needed to build a house. Once the house is up, though, you knock down the scaffolding because it's not only not needed, but actually gets in the way of using the finished house.

A good analogy. Unfortunately, in the house analogy, the first floor of the six story building that represents the universe and our understanding of it isn't built yet. It isn't as if we know of the universe and its origin and final disposition, about ourselves.

We are still woefully ignorant, and I think the brain rewards religious thought because it allows a person to feel that they have control. In absolutely no way am I condoning willful ignorance, just explaining why I think it exists and the irony that is religious willful ignorance (or the "benefits" it provides) potentially being an evolutionary trait to help stave off neuroses.

Exactly. Sceptics often underestimate what a sensitive species we are. In order to find the mental power to do great things we often need a crutch. Often this comes in the form of religion.

I often find that hard-core sceptics are pretty cowardly. I do a lot of MMA. The best fighters have a lot of quasi-religious thinking going on. I've often wondered what the pattern is. I don't know. I haven't the merest explanation. Just something I've noticed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A good analogy. Unfortunately, in the house analogy, the first floor of the six story building that represents the universe and our understanding of it isn't built yet. It isn't as if we know of the universe and its origin and final disposition, about ourselves.

We are still woefully ignorant, and I think the brain rewards religious thought because it allows a person to feel that they have control. In absolutely no way am I condoning willful ignorance, just explaining why I think it exists and the irony that is religious willful ignorance (or the "benefits" it provides) potentially being an evolutionary trait to help stave off neuroses.

Exactly. Sceptics often underestimate what a sensitive species we are. In order to find the mental power to do great things we often need a crutch. Often this comes in the form of religion.

I often find that hard-core sceptics are pretty cowardly. I do a lot of MMA. The best fighters have a lot of quasi-religious thinking going on. I've often wondered what the pattern is. I don't know. I haven't the merest explanation. Just something I've noticed.

I wouldn't extrapolate that too far. I'm not a hard-core skeptic, but I am a coward.