The Wisdom Of Russell

[Solitary]

http://youtu.be/_Te862VIUBo      If he had a brain he would know the nature of his consciousness---a function of his brain body. Ever see consciousness without one? To ask why is like asking why 1+1=2. Why is there a God would be a better question. Why would there need to be one---to give an answer for all the question we don't know the answer for? Sometimes questions are rhetorical questions. Why a God to create everything and not the Devil, or invisible pink unicorns? Can he give an answer to these with God? Solitary

[Munch]

Stephen fry = A sophisticated, witty, largely intelligent gentleman with a heart of gold for people, who reflects on things like the atrocities of past wars and sins of the past.

Russel Brand = An obnoxious, crude, full of himself entertainer who whores himself out to the media trying to appear quirky and jumping on any bandwagon he can.

Yeah its a real tough one here figuring out who wins the argument. I didn't even like this wanker before he tried this on, he's like cast off afterthought Jo Brands affair.

[stromboli]

Yeah, Brand is a self involved wanker imo.

[GSOgymrat]

I think I understand the point Russell Brand is trying to make. Science is a tool used to establish consensus about physical reality but it doesn't really explain the human experience of consciousness. Science doesn't really help me face death or appreciate the inner life of the mind in a way that is satisfying, at least not yet. Many people look to religion because they are less interested in planets, molecules and neuroscience than knowing what exactly am I and what am I doing here. Does all this suffering mean anything or is it all for nothing? Does living an honest life matter? I think Russell Brand is saying science isn't giving people all the answers, which I think is a legitimate observation and one that helps explain why religions persist given their obvious failures. Where I disagree with him is his assertion that God or religion is the answer. Religions as moral or existential guides fall apart under scrutiny. God without a religious interpretation is too undefined to be of any use. Yes, there are fundamental questions about the human experience that science hasn't answered, and Russell Brand says science can't answer these questions, but I would argue that religion hasn't done a very good job either.

[Hydra009]

I think Russell Brand is saying science isn't giving people all the answers, which I think is a legitimate observation and one that helps explain why religions persist given their obvious failures.

1) That's a very generous assessment.
2) Of course science isn't giving people all the answers.  Nothing short of omniscience could.  That's not a flaw of science, that's just reality.  Mountains don't dance, fish don't tuba, and science doesn't have all the answers.  Cause if we had all the answers, we would have no need of science.

But science is great in that it's a process in which we can systematize existing knowledge, gather new knowledge, and eventually come up with some fairly reliable answers to some questions with the potential of eventually tackling more.  That beats someone's guess or someone's "visions" any day of the week.

[Hydra009]

I feel slightly dumber for having watched Russel talk about this stuff.  And it's probably the death knell of the british accent = charming/intelligent stereotype.

I can't believe he even brought up Fine Tuning, it's such a rubbish argument.  Didn't his professors teach this guy that a universe that gives rise to life would always appear "fine-tuned" by its denizens because a universe that doesn't give rise to life wouldn't have anyone around to care?!

[Munch]

I know it's been used to death but this here is what brand is trying to win a debate over, Stephen Fry telling the facts that if God was real, he'd be just evil.

https://m.youtube.com/index?hl=en-GB&gl=GB&rdm=zrezqtm&layout=mobile&client=mv-google#/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

I'd also refer to his words in regards to a lot of CPs debates over on the 'why be atheist instead of agnostic' thread.

[SGOS]

Russell Brand is just taking some tired arguments of religion and flinging them more or less randomly at Stephen Fry.  They don't seem to counter what he's saying, but it does use up debate time, and manages to muddy the water, which is the best any religious argument can hope for.  I've also long had a problem with the bullshit assertion that "science answers the how questions, but religion answers the why questions".  In fact, science does answer some why questions, and quite well at that.  Religion also answers some of the how questions, but usually with substandard methods.   What science can't answer are certain "why" questions that can't be answered with anything other than speculation pulled out of the air.  This is where religion steps in and proudly asserts that it answers the "why" questions.  It's not that religion has a separate set of tools or special processes for finding answers.  In fact, it has no tools and no processes at all.  But ask a why question, and religion proudly offers an explanation which can't be tested, and has no evidence.  It's strange that religious speakers would be proud of this.

We all know people that have answers for anything and everything.  But their answers are just empty assertions.  These are not the kind of assertions that impress thoughtful people.  Such answers are nothing to be glorified.  Bright minds dismiss them as thoughtless sputterings from sources like Russell Brand.

[Green Bottle]

I've never liked russell bland, i think he's a loudmouthed arsehole. He's like the obnoxious kid in the classroom who constantly interrupts everybody else with his fkn nonsense because he craves attention.
he isnt fit to lick Steven fry's boots.....

[Shiranu]

Russell has actually said some really intelligent things about political corruption, social injustice and other topics of that matter... so it is a bit disappointing to see this. But no one is perfect.

[Solitary]

It really was a disappointment to me. I don't mind his antics, but this video shows he is dumber than I thought.

[cmallen]

I thought this was going to be a thread about Bertrand Russell.  Imagine my shock.

Fry is a thoughtful and compassionate human being, whereas Brand doesn't even seem capable of wrangling a string of words into a cogent response.  Shame, I always thought he was annoyingly funny, and rather intelligent.

[SGOS]

I thought this was going to be a thread about Bertrand Russell.  Imagine my shock.

That was my expectation also.

[cmallen]

That was my expectation also.

Glad to know I wasn't alone in that.  Now I need to go elsewhere for my BR fix.  I'm gonna have to skim through Unpopular Essays again.