Russell Brand: Richard Dawkins Is a Proponent of “Atheistic Tyranny” For Rejecting the Supernatural

[rug]

November 2, 2014
by Terry Firma

Last year, the comedy actor and activist Russell Brand did an eleven-minute interview with BBC Newsnight’s Jeremy Paxman that was a bit of Rorschach test of one’s political sensibilities. Brand had full-scale political revolution on the brain, and he talked less than coherently on the matter, clearly exasperating the more practical (and more jaded) Paxman.

Scores of moderate and right-leaning pundits found Brand confounding and lacking in intellectual heft. Many on the left, however, thought the interview was a thrilling example of someone finally speaking truth to power, possibly heralding a beautiful dawning of the Age of Aquarius Anti-Capitalism.

The excitement transcended national borders, with the YouTube clip

… being passed hand to virtual hand among Scandinavian intellectuals like a samizdat copy of Solzhenitsyn behind the iron curtain,

… in the memorable phrasing of David Runciman.

Pleased by the reverberations (and never one to underestimate his capabilities as a Buddhist pop philosopher), Brand decided to write a book on how we ought to overturn the old strictures and structures. It just came out (title – what else? — Revolution) and it reads a bit like Karl Marx Marries the Dalai Lama — for Dummies.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/11/02/in-new-book-russell-brand-says-richard-dawkins-is-proponent-of-atheistic-tyranny-for-rejecting-the-supernatural/#ixzz3I10ur4O

Someone's bollocks have been twisted.

[NYC_SKP]

1. "Karl Marx Marries the Dalai Lama — for Dummies" Great clip, but couldn't help but think of...

...these two:



But, seriously, I loved his answer to "What would the revolution be like."

"I'll tell you what it won't be like, it won't be...." and goes on to describe the status quo, wealth inequality, underclass.

Bravo!

[cbayer]

18. I've never seen this show. Is it worth the watch?

[NYC_SKP]

19. I think it's worth a shot.

I have an odd sense of humor, and I'm a sucker for anything that mocks culture and this show does that well.

I put it my "Idiot Abroad" category of modern British comedies worth a watch.

Trailer:

"How do you guys make your money?" "We already have it."

[cbayer]

22. Love Idiot Abroad, so would probably like this.

Can't stream - can barely load a page.

AARRGGH!!

[djean111]

2. “Atheistic Tyranny” For Rejecting the Supernatural - what utter bullshit.

More on this - (Brand credits religion for saving him from drugs and alcohol, by the way)
http://unsettledchristianity.com/2014/07/quote-of-the-day-russell-brand-on-dawkins-atheism-and-religion/

Green: Russell, quit hating on Dawkins. You know religion has done more harm than good!

Russell Brand: How can we measure that? What you call religion, I call territorialism, and sort of an ideological imperialism. I don’t think it’s good to go around on crusades or do jihads or lie at people or have a go at people. But I do think it’s good to have a system that connects the known and the unknown and for us to have a ritualized way of understanding the limitations of our own perspective and embracing ideas that are beyond our consciousness. And that’s what religion’s meant to be for me. And ol’ Dicky Dawkins, with his way of judging the world, prevents the positive things about religion. And I think if we eschew those positive things, then we ain’t got any chance of countenancing [sic] the materialistic ideologues that currently govern us. You know like governments, big corporations and that. So I think religion might be a way of circumnavigating them. I don’t think we can do it with old leftist ideas or old revolutionary notions. I don’t think they work anymore. Obviously there’d have to be loads of administration, collectivisation, all that. But what I’m saying is part of it is a sense of spiritual connection. So, Josh Green. I don’t hate Dawkins, anyway. I’m just pointing out that that sort of scientific dogmatism and materialism actually shares quite a lot with the aspects of religion that they claim to dislike, like being sort of quite judgmental and limiting and all that kind of stuff. And anti-mystical. I don’t like it.

Oooh - anti-mystical. You are just as judgmental, sweetie.

[DetlefK]

3. The good things religion did can be counted on one hand:

- They gave godly authority to the rules needed for sustaining healthy societies: Don't fuck around, don't kill each other, be nice to each other, don't breed animals that aren't made for the climate (pigs in the Middle-East), don't eat animals that you need for agriculture (cows pulling plows in India)...

- They are essentially a parallel society and their tradition of conservation allows them to serve as a back-up of knowledge during dire times. (Who kept the idea of democracy alive in communist Eastern Germany? Church commitees. Who kept libraries around when the Roman Empire collapsed? The church.)

- They give people hope in situations where salvation is statistically negligible but still possible.

[rug]

4. Well, that's a neat pile of bullshit.

The good things religion did can be counted on one hand

You're peddling opinion as if it were dogma. Green did the same thing.

History is not nearly as simple-minded.

[DetlefK]

5. I wasn't trying to be dogmatic. Would you mind adding examples to increase the count?

[rug]

7. I won't search your posts but I'll let you know as they come up.

I'll take your word for it that you weren't trying to be dogmatic. I'll take it as an uninformed opinion expressed vehemently.

[cbayer]

9. I can't even begin to count the number of good things

that religious individuals and groups have done for people on the margins or the scores of affected individuals during the AIDS crisis or in countries currently being devastated by ebola or for women and girls in east africa or the victims of Katrina in New Orleans.

I could go on and on. The fact that what you see can only count them on one hand represents a serious problem with your perspective, not a problem with religion.

[djean111]

10. Sad if the only reason they did good things was because of religion. n/t

[cbayer]

11. Good people do good things. Sometimes they are religious and sometimes they are not.

But it is a fact that religious organizations often have the structure and facilities needed to provide help where governmental and secular agencies do or can not.

The problem is your inability to see that. Saying that it is sad if they only do it because of religion is completely moving the goalposts.

And if they do it because of religion, so what? At least they are doing it.

[rug]

12. It would be sadder if they didn't do it at all, religion or no religion.

[cbayer]

15. My apologies. Part of my response was due to my mistake that

you were the person I had first responded to.

[djean111]

16. Thanks.

Just reminded me of when my sister (who has gone from Episcopalian to Mormon to believing there is something out there, but not "a god&quot used to insist on when she was wearing her Mormon hat -she said I was a really good person, but only because her god was in my heart, telling me to be good. Aaaaargh and all that!

Religious groups can do wondrous things. So can groups of golfers. Religion part not necessary. That's my belief.

[DetlefK]

13. I was talking about religion as a whole, like the post that I responded to.

And there are more reasons for altruistic behaviors than religion. Those people might as well have helped others if they had been atheists.

I don't deny the fact that religion has its good sides and its bad sides, but it's wrong to deify it as the sole source of kindness and morale.

[cbayer]

14. The whole is the sum of it's parts.

How can you talk about "religion as a whole". The diversity is immense.

Of course people can be altruistic without religion, but the fact is that governmental and secular organizations just don't provide the safety net that religious organizations do throughout the world. I would love to see the day when that happened, but at this point they are take care of the most desperate among us.

I agree that it shouldn't be held up as the sole source of kindness and morality, but it should not be dismissed as a source either.

[djean111]

17. I took "religion as a whole" to mean "groups with a belief in some sort of deity". not an attempt

to homogenize.

[cbayer]

23. Then I also object. Groups with a belief in some sort of deity have

done many more good things than can be counted on one hand.

The inability to see that is the problem here.

[djean111]

28. I agree with the counted on one hand part.

You objected to "religions as a whole", because of diversity, and I think the diversity part is not germane to the conversation, unless we are breaking out individual religions for specific goodnesses. Or something.

[cbayer]

30. You honestly don't think that religion or religious groups

have done more than 5 good things ever? Seriously?

Have you seen Half the Sky? There's more than that in just one film.

It's a prejudiced POV that has no basis in reality, just an opportunity to say something ugly about religion.

[djean111]

31. I did not say I believed that. Not Once. I was just responding to the objection to the phrase

"organized religion". Truly.

[cbayer]

32. Ok, I misunderstood. My apologies once again.

[Lordquinton]

21. Nice framing

let's reverse that for balance:

"I agree that it shouldn't be held up as the sole source of hatred and evil, but it should not be dismissed as a source either."

[cbayer]

24. Thanks, I can agree with that statement completely.

Would like to see that expressed more by some of our members.

[rug]

8. It looks like Watt and Stark are on Brand's side.

[AlbertCat]

20. Russell Brand vs Richard Dawkins on the nature of things

It's such a hard choice......


Dawkins' 1st paragraph in his Wiki blurb:

Clinton Richard Dawkins /ˈdɔːkɨnz/, DSc, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is an ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and writer. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.

Brand's 1st paragraph in his Wiki blurb:

Russell Edward Brand (born 4 June 1975)[8] is an English comedian, actor, radio host, author, and activist.

Hmmmm.... should I go with the guy who won "Outstanding contribution to comedy" from the British Comedy Awards?

or the guy who's 1st paragraph under "Awards and Recognition" reads: Dawkins was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University of Oxford in 1989. He holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Huddersfield, University of Westminster, Durham University, the University of Hull, the University of Antwerp, and the University of Oslo, and honorary doctorates from the University of Aberdeen, Open University, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and the University of Valencia. He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University (HonLittD, 1996), and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and the Royal Society in 2001. He is one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society.



No...no it isn't such a hard choice after all.

[cbayer]

25. Which you go with is up to you, but neither has credentials when it comes to religion.

So I might choose the humorous guy when listening to someone talk about something like this.

But if it were actually about science, then I would have to give it to Dawkins hands down.

[djean111]

29. There are no "credentials" when it comes to believing in a deity or not. None.

I am an atheist, by the way.

Brand is just as qualified to expound on his beliefs as Dawkins is.

What neither one can do is expound on what anybody ELSE should believe. Or not believe.

I think they both are, at times, boneheads, and I would take guidance from neither one when it comes to atheism or theism. That, to me, would be ridiculous.
It is always a personal choice, and neither stance can be proven.

[AlbertCat]

34. What neither one can do is expound on what anybody ELSE should believe. Or not believe.

Oh please.

Believing in made up crap that can be harmful should NOT be championed. There's nothing wrong in pushing that.

Every belief is NOT equal. There's no need to show or have respect for harmful and hateful superstitions. Science and superstition are not equal by any stretch of the imagination.

[cbayer]

36. Yes people must be saved!

Drop to your news and praise the leader who would only wish to save you from the harmful, made up crap that are your religious beliefs.

You are right of course, Dawkins is the savior, even though he has absolutely no credentials in the field of religion, and we must follow his one way or suffer the consequences.

[rug]

38. Oh, admit it. You just made that up.

[cbayer]

37. By the way, you have been quote mined and are the subject of a post in the A/A group.

Thought you should know. FWIW, quote mining is a reason for banishment from some groups, but that apparently is a one-way street.

[AlbertCat]

39. OMG! Quote mining!

Actually, I don't like the banning of anyone on boards.... but I don't make the rules. (and I believe the problem was actually quote mining to get people alerted on)

Not sure why a self professed atheist would mind being quoted in the Atheist forum, if they indeed do.

But I don't want to appear "sneaky" or anything, so I'll post here my comments on what I termed a "kum-bah-yah" post.

no credentials...huh? "Just as qualified"????
Dawkins has been studying deeply the "non-supernatural" his entire adult life.
Has Brand been studying the supernatural his entire adult life?....or ever?

And as to studying the supernatural.... it's a joke. Real science is "robust"...it moves, it builds upon past discoveries, it changes over time and is applicable. The "study" of the supernatural is in the same place it was in the 17th century (and earlier) no matter how many devices (devised from real science) and cameras they use.

This "fear" of insulting the religious is embarrassing!

Pointing out the ridiculous is not being "rabid" or "aggressive". I mean, Russell Brand commenting on Dawkins and some kind of tyranny..... that's too ridiculous...

[rug]

40. Why, Albert, you left out the beginning:

13. You knew it was coming!

Here's the kum-ba-ya post from an atheist (by the way) we all knew would show up sooner or later.

[cbayer]

41. Actually it had absolutely nothing to do with getting people alerted on,

Last edited Wed Nov 5, 2014, 12:11 AM - Edit history (1)

but I don't expect you to know what actually happened. It's so much easier to just make something up.

I've got no issue with quoting people, by the way, but I do think that calling out other members is really questionable.

Did you know that over half the people blocked for the A/A group are self-professed A/A's? So I think some one might mind being quoted, particularly if it was to call them out.

Glad you re-posted here. That's much more honest.

[skepticscott]

42. And did you know that EVERY person blocked from A/A

got blocked for engaging in rude, dickish, unwelcome behavior, being warned about it, being asked to desist, and then doing it some more? Every single one. And a good number of the people blocked from A/A are also PPR'd from DU in general, so our judgement of who's an ass is pretty damn good.

Enough of your sour grapes revisionist nonsense. If someone is embarrassed to have their own words quoted back to them, maybe they shouldn't have said them in the first place, don't you think?

[rug]

43. A ringing endorsement of quote-mining.

If someone is embarrassed to have their own words quoted back to them, maybe they shouldn't have said them in the first place, don't you think?

BTW, your revisionist view of A&A blocks is complete bullshit.

[beam me up scottie]

44. Sorry, your revisionist history about why you were banned is incorrect.

Anyone who wants to see why you're not welcome can view the thread. The hosts were very honest about it.

it was her quote mining from a safe haven group and posting it somewhere else that was the reason for the ban.

As a host you knew your behaviour was unacceptable.

[arcane1]

26. Wow, people are still believing this fool is some sort of deep thinker?

Other than "income inequality is bad" everything he says sounds like an angry 10-year-old who didn't get his way.

[Ampersand Unicode]

27. Dawkins or Brand?

Because honestly, I can't take seriously anyone who shit all over Dudley Moore's beloved masterpiece.



Shoot me if Katie Perry did a cover of "Best That You Can Do."

[LeftishBrit]

33. Russell Brand also refuses to vote in elections because all the parties are supposedly equally bad.

I wouldn't take his words too seriously on anything (though he happened to make some appropriately harsh comments on Thatcher and Bush!)

[AlbertCat]

35. appropriately harsh comments on Thatcher and Bush!)

shooting fish in a barrel.

[Odin2005]

45. A pox on both their houses.