Stay Free - Russel Brand - Russell & Richard Dawkins | ATHEISM Vs. GOD, PANDEMIC & POWER - #143 - Stay Free With Russell Brand

00:00:00.000 Wait, you think that could be...

00:00:04.000 He's frightening He's frightening ME

00:00:07.000 He's frightening ME YOU

00:00:10.000 YOU This

00:00:12.000 THIS O

00:00:16.000 O The puppy

00:00:29.000 The puppy And I could never be a better man on the radio

00:00:33.000 Brought to you by Pfizer And I brought all those in, so I'm looking for this deal

00:00:38.000 I'm looking for this deal In this video, you're going to see the future.

00:00:53.000 Hello there you awakening wonders!

00:00:55.000 It's Friday and of course every Friday, as you by surely are now aware, I have an in-depth conversation with intellectuals, visionaries, radical thinkers and spiritual leaders.

00:01:03.000 Joining me today is one of the most influential philosophers, evolutionary biologists, social influencers, inventor of the term meme, he's the best-selling author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion and I'm very excited to be communicating with Professor Richard Dawkins.

00:01:21.000 Dickie Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, the foremost atheist in the land, talking to me, one of the world's most religiousist folks. 0.96

00:01:29.000 Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can f*** off.

00:01:33.000 I mean, how's it gonna go down?

00:01:34.000 Do you feel that society's in trouble?

00:01:36.000 Maybe I do.

00:01:37.000 Yeah?

00:01:38.000 Yes.

00:01:38.000 Right.

00:01:38.000 So what?

00:01:39.000 What do you think the answer is?

00:01:40.000 Well, not religion.

00:01:43.000 Well, I do!

00:01:44.000 I think religion is relatively too small to deal with big problems.

00:01:48.000 There's this assumption that science and religion are at odds with one another.

00:01:52.000 I agree that there's a lot we don't know we may never know.

00:01:55.000 But I want to know.

00:01:56.000 I want to work on knowing.

00:01:58.000 How come you're doing this?

00:01:59.000 I don't know.

00:02:01.000 That's not very interesting.

00:02:05.000 These are some of the things I've always wanted to ask you about.

00:02:11.000 Okay, we can certainly disagree on that.

00:02:13.000 I mean, of course we can.

00:02:16.000 We can, I'm not arguing with you.

00:02:18.000 Stay free with Russell Brand.

00:02:20.000 See you first on Rumble.

00:02:21.000 Thanks for joining us.

00:02:22.000 Thank you.

00:02:24.000 I've been looking forward to speaking to you for a very long while because, well, quite a lot of things as a matter of fact.

00:02:32.000 I wonder, mostly, where you feel the conversation about deism and theism currently resides.

00:02:43.000 If there is anything that you would amend around your evolving discourse from the point where it became in a sense one of the key components of the cultural conversation around faith and atheism in I guess it was maybe the late 90s when the selfish genes certainly came to my attention.

00:03:02.000 I wonder if your views have altered and What, if anything, you see as being valuable in a spiritual perspective?

00:03:12.000 Most of my books have been about evolution, starting in 1976 with The Selfish Gene, and then I suppose the main book on atheism is The God Delusion, which was, I believe, 2006.

00:03:27.000 But mostly I'm a scientist.

00:03:30.000 I regard religion as scientifically interesting.

00:03:36.000 in the sense that if religious belief is true, if there is a creator of the universe, then it's a very very different kind of universe from if there isn't.

00:03:48.000 And so it's a very profoundly important scientific question whether there is a creator of the universe, an intelligent being who lurks behind the laws of physics, the laws of science, or whether there's not.

00:04:02.000 Because if there is, then it's an utterly different scientific enterprise that we're engaged upon.

00:04:08.000 We would be engaged upon trying to work out how his mind works.

00:04:13.000 Whereas if there isn't one, as I believe, then it's an entirely different kind of enterprise.

00:04:18.000 So I do think it's a very important question.

00:04:21.000 C.S.

00:04:21.000 Lewis said that there's this sort of, obviously he was famously an atheist who became a Christian at some point in his life, said, used the phrase, the idea that nature is haunted.

00:04:33.000 He used the idea of the nuministic and numinism as one of the coordinates around which a discussion in favor of a omnipotent, omniscient being might center.

00:04:49.000 I wonder if within your studies of evolutionary biology, and of course it's perhaps the most obvious question anyone could ask you, if even within the patterns that you observe there is a sense of intelligence or even teleology?

00:05:09.000 No there isn't but there's a very very strong illusion of it and this is one of the main things that Darwin faced The living world especially has an amazingly strong appearance of design.

00:05:23.000 You've only got to look at any animal.

00:05:25.000 Look at your dog, look at a tree, look at an insect that beautifully mimics a leaf or a stick or something of that sort.

00:05:35.000 It looks as though it's got design written all over it.

00:05:39.000 And it was the genius of Darwin to see that that didn't have to mean there really was a designer.

00:05:47.000 Um, although that.

00:05:50.000 I don't know that Darwin explicitly said that there wasn't a designer, like the theory of natural selection prohibits the idea that there is an intelligence or a God or a creative force or creative component behind the processes of evolution.

00:06:05.000 And what do you think about Alfred Russel Wallace's contribution to those theories and how they aligned with some of these interests, for example, in sort of mysticism?

00:06:19.000 Wallace and Darwin definitely independently arrived at the same idea.

00:06:23.000 So Wallace does deserve great credit.

00:06:27.000 Darwin had it first but he didn't publish and so it was, as you know, it was Wallace's paper that he sent to Darwin in 1858 which spurred Darwin on to write The Origin of Species.

00:06:40.000 So Wallace and Darwin independently discovered it.

00:06:43.000 Wallace actually described himself as more Darwinian than Darwin at one point.

00:06:49.000 He even thought that Darwin was a bit too mystical.

00:06:53.000 Surprisingly, that obviously surprises you.

00:06:55.000 And so it should, because later on in his life, as you know, Wallace did become quite mystical.

00:07:01.000 Wallace became a spiritualist.

00:07:02.000 He became interested in communicating with the dead.

00:07:06.000 And so there was a bit of a box and cox relationship between them over sexual selection, which, as you know, is the idea that Not just survival, but attraction to the opposite sex, or ability to fight for the opposite sex, was an important aspect of natural selection.

00:07:28.000 Darwin called it sexual selection.

00:07:31.000 And with respect to attraction of the opposite sex, things like the peacock's tail, Darwin was content to say that peahens just like beautiful, magnificent, embroidered tails.

00:07:47.000 Wallace hated that.

00:07:48.000 Wallace thought that was too mystical and Wallace wanted there to be a fully rational explanation for sexual selection.

00:07:55.000 And so that's one of the main disagreements between Wallace and Darwin.

00:08:00.000 Darwin was thought to be on the more mystical side rather than Wallace.

00:08:03.000 But then later on in life, Wallace, as I say, became a spiritualist and was interested in communicating.

00:08:11.000 Wallace thought that we survived our death and Wallace wanted to communicate with the dead.

00:08:16.000 So as I said it was an interesting kind of reversal of roles.

00:08:19.000 Also that him saying that Darwin's not Darwinian enough, the nerve!

00:08:23.000 But like you know you say it's an important scientific question and I can appreciate why it would be and I'd love you to unpack that further if you know over the course of our conversation but also it's an important social, there's an important social implication I feel, one, I guess the reason that I, when I speak with atheists, I usually end up becoming quite passionate.

00:08:48.000 I believe in God, myself, and these are some of the things I've always wanted to ask you about.

00:08:57.000 We see that distinction that Wallace seems to draw between the rational and the spiritual, identifying that there are certain categories where rational discourse is necessary and ought be pursued to its zenith or nadir, certainly pursued to the point of exhaustion, and yet there is territory that remains.

00:09:14.000 I feel consistently, Professor, But there are limitations to what a human might know.

00:09:22.000 There is a limit to our understanding.

00:09:24.000 But knowledge itself is unlimited.

00:09:26.000 Unlimited.

00:09:27.000 The potential for knowledge is unlimited.

00:09:30.000 As with the range, the limitations with what we can decipher through the senses, the amount of the electromagnetic light spectrum that we can witness, the amount of olfactory and audible information that we have access to.

00:09:46.000 And if there is limitation even within the sensory realms that we can identify because we have the instruments there is observable limitation.

00:09:55.000 Is it reasonable to suggest that there might be entire dimensions and realms of data to which we do not have access and the assumption that because we cannot measure them they are not there.

00:10:09.000 is such a sort of a limiting premise and whilst i understand what the science is and science is about what can be measured and what can be observed is this not an important time to once again mark the bifurcation that wallace appears to note that the rational has its realm and the mystery has its realm also well this is this is very interesting um as a matter of fact the last chapter of my book the god delusion does use that very analogy of The electromagnetic spectrum, we can only see a tiny, tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum and it extends hugely in either direction from the visual.

00:10:45.000 And so I have every sympathy with the idea that there's a lot that we don't understand, that's certainly true. 1.00

00:10:53.000 And there may be a lot that we cannot understand.

00:10:55.000 I think there may be physicists, I think, are open-minded about whether there are questions that physicists will never be able to understand because of the limitations of the human mind.

00:11:07.000 And I would look at this as not at all surprising because our brain, for me as a Darwinian, our brain was fashioned by natural selection.

00:11:19.000 On the Darwinian, on the African plains.

00:11:23.000 And it's a device to help us to survive and reproduce in Africa at that time.

00:11:29.000 And in a way, the astonishing thing is that we have advanced so far beyond that.

00:11:34.000 I mean, who could have foreseen Einstein?

00:11:36.000 Who could have foreseen quantum theory?

00:11:39.000 The fact that the human brain that was built to survive as a hunter-gatherer, can actually do relativity, can actually do advanced physics, can actually do poetry, can do philosophy, can do mathematics.

00:11:53.000 So already we've advanced far beyond what a utilitarian might think that we ought to.

00:12:00.000 And the question is, is there a limit?

00:12:02.000 Are there some important truths that the human brain can never master?

00:12:08.000 Are there beings in the universe, extraterrestrial beings perhaps, who already understand things that we cannot understand?

00:12:18.000 I love the science fiction book The Black Cloud by Fred Hoyle.

00:12:23.000 The Black Cloud is a superhuman intelligence and it approaches Earth and gets in touch with humans and they ask him to teach them its advanced knowledge and two of them volunteer to be taught.

00:12:41.000 the physics that this creature knows.

00:12:43.000 In both cases their brains just burn out.

00:12:46.000 They just, they die of an overheated brain because the human brain is not capable of understanding.

00:12:54.000 And this may well be the case.

00:12:55.000 It may well be that there are profundities which we can never understand.

00:13:02.000 On the other hand, maybe we can understand them.

00:13:04.000 And I'm open-minded about it.

00:13:06.000 I would like to I'd like to live another 500 years to see how far the human brain can advance in understanding these things.

00:13:16.000 And as I say, I don't know.

00:13:17.000 No, this is true, isn't it?

00:13:22.000 With your reference to the black cloud, I felt the eerie and uncanny shadow of AI appear.

00:13:31.000 This potential for limitless intelligence, if not consciousness itself.

00:13:38.000 And as you say, the potential for advanced beings is impossible to rule out, but also difficult to prove.

00:13:47.000 Although it's curious that the conversation around UFOs has radically altered literally in the last couple of years.

00:13:52.000 We have someone on here, Jeremy Corbell, who's Forever releasing CIA and military files, observation of artifacts and then just over the weekend non-human craft and they seem to be sort of more credible than these reports have ever been before.

00:14:09.000 When I spoke to the science entertainment speaker Neil deGrasse Tyson, he used the I'm sure famous example of the two percent difference in DNA between us and chimps represents all architecture and art and the litany of wonderments that you outlined and to imagine a creature 2% more advanced of us

00:14:27.000 suggests I suppose perhaps literally unimaginable realms. You referenced too

00:14:34.000 of course quantum theory and Einstein and on the precipice of each of

00:14:37.000 these epochs there was this hubristic assumption that we were at the summit of

00:14:45.000 all human In fact, it appears when looking back at history that part of our condition has always been to imagine that the contemporary height of our knowledge and understanding represents the absolute height.

00:14:56.000 When we get into quantum theory, and you strike me as a man who might be somewhat irked by the mystification and woo-woo-ification of quantum theory, so I'm not going to agitate you through any of that, but it does appear that sort of that But in that sub particular realm, Newtonian and indeed Einsteinian physics appear to sort of fall away at the fundament, as it were.

00:15:21.000 And I start to I want to again turn our attention to something that you alluded to, that it's an important scientific question.

00:15:32.000 If there is a God, an intelligent creator, behind the universe, haunting nature, as C.S.

00:15:39.000 Lewis says, this is a very different proposition than if it's a sort of a random, sort of a set of random events, or selective events actually, the opposite of random.

00:15:50.000 From a social and cultural perspective, the presence of, uh...

00:15:57.000 Theism, and I know that this is something that you've spoken about in depth, that you've outlined incredibly articulately, of course, the damage that can be done and has been done by religion, the ridiculousness of saying this baby is a Christian, or it kind of made me laugh, like let's say it's a Tottenham fan or something of a baby, and all of this I appreciate.

00:16:27.000 But now that we live in a somewhat, I want to say, simultaneously nihilistic, peculiarly puritanical, oddly free of redemption and salvation, a sort of materialistic, hollow, listless, joyless society, I wonder if this extraction of the mystery isn't a little costly.

00:16:55.000 I don't feel that human beings, in order to flourish, thrive, and communicate lovingly,

00:17:01.000 require a retrospective tumbling into idiocy and superstition, but the humility that comes

00:17:08.000 along with the acceptance that is found at our current frontiers, i.e. the famous hard 0.98

00:17:15.000 problem of consciousness, the potential therefore that consciousness precedes matter, the odd

00:17:23.000 combination as observed by Huxley that exists between the acknowledgement of the nuministic

00:17:34.000 and a credo and set of morals and traditions that are somehow connected to this nuministic

00:17:41.000 experience.

00:17:43.000 there is an awesome creature on the, not creature, a creator, at the end of the tendrils of the uncanny and that somehow this bestows upon us a set of duties and obligations.

00:18:00.000 Aspects of spiritual life that are aligned to morality that are valuable.

00:18:06.000 And I wonder what you think of the terrains, the sort of psychic terrains that are found through psychedelic experience, through shamanic experience, through the utilization of non-sensory stimulation, which by its nature is difficult to corral into data sets and to lean into empiricism.

00:18:27.000 I wonder if you feel, as I do, that there is a cargo there that we are feeling the lack of in our current decline?

00:18:35.000 You covered a whole lot of ground there, shifting around.

00:18:39.000 I know, but you can do all that, can't you?

00:18:40.000 I remember with Jordan Peterson you wouldn't have that.

00:18:42.000 You wouldn't have a diffuse question.

00:18:43.000 You took issue.

00:18:48.000 Let me go back first of all to you're talking about the puritanical joylessness.

00:18:51.000 Yes, because that I agree that I feel strongly about that and I think that this is one of the faults of extreme Islam that it is joyless and hating of music, hating of dancing, hating, hating of everything that makes life fun and that so I find that there's a difference between Evangelical Christianity, for example, and Islam. 1.00

00:19:15.000 Evangelical Christianity has this, you know, love of music and... But there are also aspects of Islam that are abundant and voluptuous, Sufism for example. 1.00

00:19:25.000 There have been, there have been, that's true.

00:19:28.000 But some of the militant Islam at present actually squashes any attempt at enjoyment and fun. 0.97

00:19:36.000 So that's that point.

00:19:38.000 And also the austerity that's in our culture, in our sort of very economically-led, materialistic, rationalistic culture, like the sort of the joylessness of contemporary cancel culture, for want of a better word, the piety, the puritanism, the moral certainty.

00:19:52.000 Yeah, I agree about that.

00:19:53.000 And I think that's a more significant cultural influence at present than militant Islam, which, post-Covid, everyone seems to have gone off it.

00:20:01.000 Yes, no, I agree. 0.62

00:20:03.000 And that puritanism is horrible.

00:20:08.000 But then you came on to mysticism and the capacity to feel awe, the capacity to respond aesthetically to the universe.

00:20:22.000 And you would be wrong, I think, if you thought that a scientific worldview led down that path.

00:20:31.000 I think that a scientific worldview, well you had Neil deGrasse Tyson on and he's an eloquent spokesman for an aesthetic, a poetic response to the universe and I subscribe to that.

00:20:46.000 So I think you can get much of what you associate with the with the mystics that you admire

00:20:55.000 without actually being supernatural about it.

00:20:58.000 You could stay within the realm of the natural, the materialistic, and yet have all the aesthetic

00:21:05.000 response that you do have to the universe and to life.

00:21:13.000 But also the other thing we touched upon there Richard was the nature of consciousness and

00:21:16.000 was the nature of consciousness and our inability to explain it entirely is a by-product of

00:21:21.000 our inability to explain it entirely is a byproduct of neurological networks, some inadvertent

00:21:25.000 neurological networks, some inadvertent consequence of the patterning and evolving out

00:21:32.000 of Africa there.

00:21:33.000 Also Wallace's latter life, spiritualism, and I know one anecdotal example of albeit

00:21:39.000 a brilliant and significant scientific figure leaning towards spiritualism doesn't mean

00:21:44.000 that that's necessarily a progression because of course we discussed earlier or touched

00:21:47.000 upon the idea that you would regard it as a deterioration.

00:21:50.000 But the other, so there's two areas that we, from my admittedly corroming and diffuse question

00:21:56.000 that you didn't cover.

00:21:57.000 And one is the emergence of consciousness.

00:22:01.000 There is nothing in biological processes that can indicate from whence consciousness emerges.

00:22:07.000 You called it the hard problem.

00:22:09.000 It is the hard problem.

00:22:11.000 Philosophers and scientists admit that it's a hard problem.

00:22:15.000 It's an unsolved problem, but unsolved problems are there to be solved.

00:22:19.000 It doesn't mean because it's so far unsolved that it's never going to be solved.

00:22:24.000 And I am materialist enough to be convinced that it has to have a solution.

00:22:31.000 Consciousness must be a manifestation of brain stuff, the materialistic brain stuff.

00:22:38.000 I don't understand how that came about but Science has a history of not understanding and then later understanding so I wouldn't write off just because we don't understand something yet we're not never going to.

00:22:50.000 Often though these uh these pivotal points represent a significant shift and I wonder if what May lie ahead of us.

00:23:05.000 Each of these points that I referred to previously as sort of hubristic plateaus that's endured under the assumption that they were summits, that the idea that when we get into the quantum...

00:23:23.000 What do you think is the relationship between consciousness and the double slit experiment?

00:23:30.000 I guess the woo-woo mystical approach that I promised I wasn't going to use on you, but sort of now want to a little bit, is that is it an indication that consciousness itself could be the prima materia of reality or perhaps even the universe?

00:23:49.000 I don't think so.

00:23:50.000 Why not?

00:23:51.000 I'm familiar with the idea and I'm familiar with the idea that consciousness resides in every particle in the universe, that kind of thing.

00:24:00.000 Consciousness, whatever else it is, I think it's a manifestation of complexity and so it will be the complexity of brains, complexity of computers in the future perhaps, a complexity of whatever passes for brains in extraterrestrial life, but complexity means massive organization of different units connected together in complicated ways.

00:24:24.000 Particles, electrons, atoms are much too simple to have anything remotely approaching consciousness.

00:24:34.000 Perhaps they're a gradient of consciousness and in fact beyond particles having consciousness or being... I suppose what I'm suggesting is not sort of panpsychism but that the quality of consciousness is within material but rather that material emerges from consciousness that consciousness is a precondition for being and it's only at advanced states of evolution where consciousness becomes accessible that as intelligence becomes more complex as the mechanics of the mind become more complex there's also an access to it and I know that sounds sort of slightly hocus-pocus but perhaps only in the same way that radio signals and the potential for electricity always existed but until the mechanics were developed to access them they were

00:25:23.000 redundant and irrelevant and I think that if you know with the hard problem

00:25:27.000 of consciousness there with the what Terence McKenna memorably and beautifully

00:25:32.000 described as the free miracle of the Big Bang, give us one free miracle and we'll

00:25:37.000 describe the rest, it seems to me that within that which is unknown

00:25:43.000 there's one idea recurs to me and this is of unity.

00:25:50.000 That separateness, that material, ought not be the defining lens through which we understand reality, but the potential of a oneness.

00:26:01.000 And for me, your interest, you're a scientist, and you're an eminent and well-respected scientist, and I'm embarrassed even to put before you theories dreamt up in crack houses and bedsits in the years

00:26:15.000 between 1994 and 2001. But what I am, I suppose, saying is that the impact that it has on your

00:26:27.000 discipline to consider whether or not there's an omnipotent force or some sort of cohesive deity

00:26:33.000 or an author of the universe or however you want to regard it.

00:26:39.000 It's so significant and important and it changes everything.

00:26:42.000 I feel like it changes everything in the way that we organize cultures, observably so. 0.99

00:26:47.000 It feels to me that since the Enlightenment, since we've had an irrational, individualistic, materialistic, egocentric culture, it seems to me that what the mechanics that emerge from that are indeed rather selfish, and that the metaphors that we use are somehow creating a culture that is antithetical to What might be a favourable outcome were we to use a different image system?

00:27:17.000 And again, I'm not asking scientists to start glibly accepting, oh yeah, no, there probably is a God.

00:27:25.000 But what I am, I suppose, asking is, is it possible to say that in the material realm, as Alfred Russel Wallace appears to have accepted, There is a necessity for critique and rigor and analysis and there can't be any sort of woo-woo acceptance that female peahens just like the look of those tail feathers, honey.

00:27:46.000 But elsewhere there is an unknowable mystery.

00:27:50.000 We know awe when we feel it.

00:27:53.000 We know, as C.S.

00:27:54.000 Lewis contested, when we have done wrong.

00:27:56.000 What are these sets of visceral codes?

00:27:59.000 What is this awe?

00:28:00.000 And whilst in botany and biology it's possible to emerge that which looks like intelligent design is a kind of, I believe, a kind of teleology, an intention spilling into the world and adapting in harmony with its environment from which it cannot be separated, but When it comes to organizing a society, the ideas that might be derived from the acceptance of, gosh what am I trying to say, that unity and love underscore reality, that the meaning can be derived from it, that a sort of an open-heartedness to it rather than a sort of a foreclosing cynicism,

00:28:40.000 These are emotional words and words like love to me are things that emerge from nervous systems, especially human ones, and to regard something like love, something emotive like that as Lurking in the material world doesn't sound at all convincing to me and I think you've got the cart before the horse.

00:29:09.000 Things like love emerge late in evolution as a consequence of the evolution of highly complicated nervous systems and they don't come first.

00:29:24.000 Now you also earlier on used words like egocentric and selfish and things again.

00:29:30.000 I don't think That kind of language belongs in when you're talking about science, materialism.

00:29:42.000 Again, selfishness is something that emerges from living things.

00:29:47.000 And I've written a book about that, Selfish Gene, which is actually about selfish gene rather than selfish individual.

00:29:53.000 But nevertheless, it's not the right level of language to use for pre-living entities like Pure physics.

00:30:05.000 So you would say then that there are discrete categories.

00:30:08.000 There is the domain of science where the lexicon and nomenclature of science are appropriate.

00:30:12.000 Then there is the domain of morality and the domain of social ethics.

00:30:16.000 I think I would say that.

00:30:18.000 And those latitude domains are appropriate where you have life and especially where you have human life.

00:30:27.000 Do you feel, Professor, that there, and this is not something that I would attribute to you or certainly make you culpable for, but that's not an authority that I would claim to have, but that almost, in fact, since you've risen to prominence, that the language of science has entered into the realm of politics, society, that there's no question that, in fact, isn't it somewhat disingenuous to claim that these two worlds aren't fused?

00:30:56.000 What do you think of it?

00:30:57.000 Well, she's Galileo, right?

00:30:59.000 I suppose there's this assumption that science and religion are at odds with one another, which I would say is, you know, who's that dude Bruno, the guy that imagined the countless, you know, was burned at the stake?

00:31:12.000 Yeah, yeah, that guy.

00:31:13.000 But, you know, in a sense that True religion and open-mindedness, and open-mindedness to unity, to non-judgment, to beauty, to service, to kindness, to quite simple values, is not at odds with scientific inquiry, but acknowledges that there is a different type of language required.

00:31:32.000 I think since the advent of You know, whenever rationalism, materialism, say post-enlightenment thinking becomes the sort of dominant purview, that we do use scientific discourse and scientific language.

00:31:46.000 And my God, look at the last couple of years, science, some of which has subsequently been proven to be somewhat shaky, shall we say, is used to underwrite political action, is used to underwrite social policy.

00:32:00.000 What are you thinking of that?

00:32:01.000 A couple of examples.

00:32:05.000 Very broadly, the idea of social Darwinism, the idea that it's sort of acceptable, like the utilisation of Darwinian ideas to legitimise polity.

00:32:14.000 That's appalling.

00:32:15.000 I mean, that should never happen.

00:32:17.000 You should never use scientific ideas, inject them into ideology in that way.

00:32:23.000 And then that was a terrible thing that happened in the late 90s, early 20th century.

00:32:29.000 And then I was going to say, like during the pandemic, that some of the use of data and the way that that data was conveyed, and I would again say that my argument would be that science, or particularly pharmacology, is a subset of an economic system.

00:32:43.000 It's not its own separate silo.

00:32:47.000 Only the clinical trials that are taking place are the clinical trials that are profitable.

00:32:52.000 Where do these places get their grants from?

00:32:54.000 Who is funding that?

00:32:56.000 What is the intention behind it?

00:32:57.000 There is no... Of course, I understand, you know, double-blind experiments.

00:33:01.000 I understand what a clinical trial ought be.

00:33:04.000 I understand what peer-reviewed papers are.

00:33:06.000 But I also understand how economics works, and I understand how Pfizer operates, for example.

00:33:10.000 Yeah, you're probably right about that.

00:33:13.000 I'm not here to defend the the economic influx into the way science is done.

00:33:24.000 It's probably true to say that to a certain extent money talks when it comes to which science is done.

00:33:32.000 But that's not something you can blame science itself for.

00:33:36.000 Science is a dispassionate search for truth.

00:33:38.000 Yes.

00:33:41.000 That's the sort of science I care about.

00:33:43.000 Me too, me too.

00:33:44.000 And then, closer to home, even your analysis of Islam is the deployment of scientific critiques to a realm where, like, I'm not Muslim, but I Hold the faith of Islam in high regard and I would say that the problem the critiques one could level at Islam one could equally level at secularism you could say oh look these atrocities were carried out in the name of Islam these atrocities were carried out in the name of Christendom these atrocities were carried out in the name of late

00:34:22.000 Capitalist imperialism, the atrocities of what's significant and how people undergird them whether it's through science or capitalism or Islam or Christianity is not as relevant and I feel it's just a sort of a, it's just a particular moment in time where religion was used to undergird violence and now people will use different ideas.

00:34:44.000 Christianity had its bad moments in the Middle Ages and Islam is having its bad moments now, perhaps you could say that. 0.98

00:34:51.000 And there's been sort of a collision of cultures in both cases that for me reduce the significance of the doctrine or dogma or however you regard those faiths.

00:35:06.000 For me, my analysis would be this is the pursuit of power that's significant here.

00:35:09.000 But I suppose what I want to come back to is that It seems to me there is the domain where it's absolutely necessary that we do our best to understand the natural, physical and chemical world and use those findings to better understand the world and to, I would say, help one another.

00:35:30.000 Increasingly it looks like that is hijacked by economic interests, certainly in some of the ways that we just sketched out just then.

00:35:39.000 But what but what but do you acknowledge that given that we've said there's a limitation to that to human understanding currently and there is a sort of a requirement it seems to me for understanding and conversation beyond the current remit and in my view remittable stop of what can be understood, measured,

00:36:01.000 weighed, you know, and using consciousness and what precedes the Big Bang as just two sort of off-the-cuff

00:36:06.000 examples. I wonder what is the place of faith in forming a culture? What is the place of trust?

00:36:14.000 Like ideas that are unscientific, definitely.

00:36:17.000 Because we don't understand something, the appropriate response to that is to work on it,

00:36:23.000 to try to understand it.

00:36:25.000 The appropriate response is not to say, because science doesn't understand X, therefore religion does, therefore what some mystic has said or some religious person has said must be the truth because science hasn't got the answer.

00:36:38.000 The fact that science hasn't got the answer doesn't mean that anything else has got the answer.

00:36:43.000 And when we talked about those deep profound problems, the deep mysteries, I mean I was talking about the black cloud, There may be things that science will never understand, but if science doesn't understand them, nothing else will.

00:36:55.000 That's where I would stick my toes in.

00:36:59.000 Ben, what of perennialism, what of the consistent emergence, not only of myths and archetypes throughout culture, but also of ideals and hierarchies of behaviours that somewhat consistently emerge?

00:37:14.000 Well, ideals, moral ideals are another matter.

00:37:16.000 I wasn't talking about morals, I'm talking about truth, I'm talking about understanding of the universe, understanding of the deep.

00:37:23.000 Deep mysteries.

00:37:24.000 Things like consciousness.

00:37:26.000 I mean, that is a deep mystery.

00:37:27.000 And if science doesn't understand consciousness, which it doesn't yet, if science will never

00:37:32.000 understand consciousness, then nothing will.

00:37:35.000 But perhaps what you... is it not possible that there are truths that are beyond the

00:37:43.000 current purview of science?

00:37:45.000 Definitely, and I've just said that.

00:37:46.000 And what are they again?

00:37:47.000 Moral truths?

00:37:49.000 Oh, well, moral truths are another matter, and we can talk about moral truths, but that's not what I'm actually mainly concerned about.

00:37:56.000 What are the ones that are beyond science?

00:38:00.000 Truths about the universe, dark matter, dark energy, consciousness, the origin of the laws of physics.

00:38:08.000 These are profoundly difficult problems which science doesn't yet know the answer to.

00:38:12.000 All I'm saying is that if science doesn't know the answer to it, nor does religion.

00:38:18.000 And that you don't think sort of a kind of a poetic or intuitive or mystical understanding, and when you inventory them in that manner I'm inclined to agree that a scientific understanding, an empirical demonstrable understanding would be valuable.

00:38:35.000 But what I feel that we're, what do I want to say, the interface that we're operating at is that I'm saying that say if you want to sling together sort of post-enlightenment

00:38:48.000 values with a little bit of Nietzsche, God is dead and we can't get the

00:38:51.000 blood off our hands or we have killed him we can't get the blood off our hands, is

00:38:54.000 that where we find ourselves now is that in our culture if you look at the

00:39:00.000 sort of the morality that was formed during the pandemic period lent into

00:39:04.000 scientific understanding for its authority, for its moral authority,

00:39:09.000 for example you know it is immoral if you don't undertake these these medical

00:39:14.000 procedures, it's immoral if you don't remain within your home, well it turned out that

00:39:19.000 that morality was incorrect and one might argue that different interests were

00:39:25.000 being served by that being presented as a moral decision when in fact it

00:39:31.000 wasn't just to be less cryptic, for example the Pfizer never clinically trialed

00:39:37.000 their vaccines for transmission and yet the way that the vaccines were

00:39:42.000 presented to the public was as a remedy against transmission.

00:39:47.000 Right, so I know this is not your field of expertise, but this is but one example of how, in the way that the church once would have been used as the sort of storehouse of a collective morality, the institution of science is currently being used, and I would say it's equally fallible, and similarly being utilised to undergird the interests of the powerful, that all the while that people were being burned at the stake and martyred and slung off cliffs, that really, they were not like, are you happy with this God?

00:40:16.000 We're interested in power and in the same way but well we can show you the data this is you know that's being used in the same way and it's about power it's about something that's abstracted and from that you can deduce that science is neither good or bad it's about sort of cold hard facts and religion is neither good or bad it's an attempt to deal with the unknowable and to derive from the unknowable a sense of meaning and purpose and and if you want to apply empiricism to this professor that what are the results of a successful religion.

00:40:46.000 People behave as if there is a God.

00:40:48.000 You need to stop and let me get a word in.

00:40:53.000 The advice about vaccine and whether it prevents transmission.

00:41:03.000 As I understand it, what appears to be moral advice was kind of more what they thought to be common sense, which might not have been actually, based upon what you could call the measles model, where a disease like measles

00:41:29.000 where it is actually a public good, it's actually a social good to get vaccinated.

00:41:35.000 Because the more people who are vaccinated, the less chance the epidemic has to get going.

00:41:42.000 And so if you refuse to be vaccinated, you are in a sense, a problem, a social problem.

00:41:49.000 And I think the advice that was given over COVID was taking off from the measles model. 0.82

00:41:55.000 And that could have been wrong.

00:41:57.000 Epidemiologists were saying at the time that in those instances you do not do that during a pandemic you wait till after the pandemic people were trying to and those people curiously another weird coincidence were being censored almost as if yes there were an agenda conscious or otherwise to create conditions remember that there was an urgent need for hurry there was nobody quite knew it was it was brand new this was unknown territory and so Possibly what was going on was that the measles model was the best that the advisors could come up with, and if they were wrong, then people can be wrong, and they need to climb down and say they were wrong.

00:42:35.000 I don't know whether they were or not, as you said, it's not my field, but I don't think You can be too censorious about this.

00:42:44.000 I think you have to say that the pandemic came upon us so suddenly.

00:42:49.000 It wasn't clear what had to be done and an honest attempt was made to give the best advice.

00:42:56.000 Maybe it was the wrong advice.

00:42:58.000 I don't know about that.

00:43:00.000 But there was a good precedent.

00:43:02.000 We also don't know that it was honest.

00:43:03.000 We don't know that it was honest.

00:43:05.000 I'm not suggesting that it was deliberately duplicitous but But the set of assumptions when corralled together do not look favourable, i.e.

00:43:17.000 they censored credible sources that offered contradictory information.

00:43:24.000 I'm not sure about that.

00:43:26.000 That's actually true and publicly acknowledged.

00:43:28.000 We don't need to get down the rabbit hole.

00:43:29.000 Because in a sense, Professor, I'm merely using it to say that the presence of power is what is significant in both the cases of science and religion.

00:43:38.000 I think that's unfair.

00:43:40.000 I think that's unfair.

00:43:41.000 Is that the good point you said that was approaching?

00:43:44.000 I mean, what I'm calling the measles model was possibly the best they had to go on at the time.

00:43:51.000 And if that was wrong, then that's a pity.

00:43:56.000 But it was the best advice they had available at the time.

00:43:59.000 It was assumed.

00:44:01.000 They didn't communicate it like that.

00:44:02.000 I mean, I'm only continuing because you're continuing.

00:44:04.000 They communicated it with a good degree of certainty and this erroneous assumption that they made was very profitable for some of those powerful interests in the world and allowed governments to govern and regulate in ways that were increasingly becoming difficult.

00:44:16.000 I wouldn't wish to make the economic accusation at that point.

00:44:19.000 I think it was a fair point that epidemiological wisdom at the time and still is that vaccination is a public good and if there's some disease where it's not the case that vaccination is a public good because vaccination does not actually guard against transmission

00:44:39.000 Then that's something we need to take account of in the future, but I don't think I would wish to point fingers and say there was economic interests which were overriding this case.

00:44:50.000 I think it was if there was a mistake.

00:44:51.000 I'm not even saying there was a mistake, but if there was a mistake, then I think it was an honest mistake.

00:44:56.000 We've got some incredible information on this which to outline now would take us such a long while, but there's some quite credible sources that make it appear like that the institutions of the media, the government, the

00:45:11.000 pharmaceutical industry, unelected global bodies like the WEF, WHO,

00:45:15.000 philanthropic organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,

00:45:20.000 who had previously run sort of pandemic, sort of had gamed out what might happen in a pandemic

00:45:26.000 situation, conveniently aligned to generate a scenario where

00:45:33.000 the outcomes were favorable to governments whose general tendency,

00:45:38.000 one might argue, based on their name, is to govern and regulate and legislate

00:45:43.000 and to corporate interests whose, broadly speaking, exist in order to generate profit.

00:45:49.000 And that might sound unduly cynical, but I'll just take as just one sort of

00:45:53.000 simple example. At the beginning of the pandemic, Albert Ball, the CEO of Pfizer, said it would be unconscionable

00:45:58.000 to profit from this pandemic and that they would ensure that that

00:46:01.000 And yet by the end of the pandemic, curiously, Pfizer had profited by

00:46:01.000 didn't happen.

00:46:05.000 $108 billion. If I remain silent, it's not because I accept what you're saying.

00:46:11.000 It's because I just don't know enough.

00:46:13.000 little bit better.

00:46:14.000 Absolutely.

00:46:15.000 And also, to tell you the truth, this is something we cover in such detail elsewhere, citing credible sources all the time, and it's not something I claim to be an expert in either.

00:46:23.000 But what I'm interested in is the utilization of science as the sort of godhead, forgive the phrase, of a new sort of moral authority in order to bypass ordinary discernment and a way that it's become, in that instance for example, I would say undemocratic.

00:46:41.000 I wouldn't call it moral, I'd say it was more that science has to give the best advice available and it's not a case of moral advice, it's a case of just expedient advice.

00:46:50.000 It should never be fused with morality, it should always be this is expedient, this is what we know right now and morality is not our domain, we do not have the tools for morality.

00:47:00.000 Yes, fair enough.

00:47:01.000 So, Professor though, I guess I would like to advance this conversation.

00:47:08.000 How come you're doing this?

00:47:10.000 Well, last year's book was Flights of Fancy, about flight.

00:47:15.000 But I'm also starting a podcast of my own, I think that's probably why I'm doing it.

00:47:18.000 Yes, go on then, what's that?

00:47:19.000 Well, it's called Poetry of Reality, and science is the poetry of reality.

00:47:25.000 And I haven't really started it yet, but I want to advise, ask your advice about how to run a podcast.

00:47:31.000 I think it's, to tell you the truth, the advice I'd give you seem to me to be areas where you would not struggle, remain rigorously truthful to what you believe in, speak to people that you are interested in, be entirely willing to have conversations with people with whom you thoroughly disagree, and enter those conversations In good faith.

00:47:51.000 Sounds like Exodus advice, yes.

00:47:53.000 That's sort of how I do it.

00:47:54.000 And whenever I'm not doing that...

00:47:56.000 I get really bored really, really quickly and I do loathe to be bored.

00:48:01.000 Yes.

00:48:02.000 So I've got lots more questions.

00:48:04.000 Yeah.

00:48:05.000 All right.

00:48:06.000 So my belief in God, I listen to your podcast, what's it called?

00:48:09.000 The Poetry of Reality.

00:48:10.000 Who's coming on?

00:48:10.000 Yes.

00:48:11.000 Are you doing it all on your own?

00:48:13.000 Well, we don't know yet.

00:48:14.000 I'm pretty fascinated by Alfred Russel Wallace.

00:48:16.000 I'll tell you why.

00:48:17.000 Alfred Russel Wallace?

00:48:18.000 Yes.

00:48:19.000 Because I'm from Grey's in Essex, right?

00:48:23.000 Yes.

00:48:25.000 I went back there recently on some sort of pilgrimage because actually I'm like deeply religious.

00:48:30.000 I'm obsessed with the religion.

00:48:31.000 I'm obsessed with the unknowable.

00:48:32.000 I'm obsessed with the mystery.

00:48:34.000 I'm obsessed with the unknowable, but that's the scientific unknowable.

00:48:38.000 Yeah.

00:48:38.000 Anyway, go on.

00:48:39.000 And you similarly seem to be trying to derive from it some ethos, some ethic, some way that we might live.

00:48:45.000 I know that I'm so, what do I say, incredibly grateful to you for your rigor, for your work, for your fortitude,

00:48:53.000 for your willingness to endure, I imagine many difficult and challenging conversations and it must

00:48:59.000 have been incredibly difficult to create the body of work that you've created. But where I'm, it

00:49:04.000 seems sometimes, it does seem to me that you are almost determined to arrive at a materialistic

00:49:11.000 outcome with the kind of zeal that one might attribute typically to someone of a particular

00:49:17.000 religious persuasion. In the same manner that I am determined to believe in God, in the same

00:49:23.000 way that I lean into Joseph Campbell's observation when watching a vine wind its way across a trellis

00:49:29.000 that it appears to be moving to the warmth of the earth, I am determined to believe in

00:49:32.000 God.

00:49:32.000 That there is, and as you say, these patterns only appear to be like intelligence, but I feel that that is, that is a matter of perspective, and like an argument that you must have batted off a thousand times, the strawberriness of a strawberry can never be understood, and indeed that is the poetry, the poetry that science can never approach.

00:49:52.000 The reason that poetry is required, the reason that scripture is required, is when it comes to the most important matters in our life, death, Grief.

00:50:00.000 Joy.

00:50:01.000 Loss.

00:50:01.000 Love.

00:50:02.000 Heartbreak.

00:50:04.000 What use is it, Professor, to turn to this is the endocrinal outcome, and this is what we imagine has happened neurologically?

00:50:13.000 I mean, I love it, and I'm fascinated by it, and it's beautiful, and I'm grateful for it, but I feel like it exists here, in this territory, and over here we have this... we have...

00:50:24.000 Access to something that might never be measured.

00:50:27.000 Or might be measured.

00:50:28.000 Perhaps one day we will have the tools.

00:50:30.000 Perhaps one day we will have the tools.

00:50:32.000 But I can imagine that they will be so refined and so glorious.

00:50:35.000 And I have this faith that they are going to lead us to unity and love.

00:50:39.000 And if I can, because I saw that you got a bit irritated when I used that word love.

00:50:43.000 I wonder this.

00:50:43.000 Tell me what you think.

00:50:44.000 This is just a personal theory.

00:50:45.000 I'm glad I've got the opportunity to run it by you.

00:50:47.000 wonder if love is the sort of felt understanding of unity, a kind of sense that I have a duty to

00:50:54.000 a child or a sense that I have an affinity with another, that love implies duty, that it implies

00:51:01.000 connection, that separateness, the idea that I am this separate biological entity is temporal

00:51:07.000 and spatial and an animalistic interpretation of a narrow strata of reality which can never

00:51:14.000 really be measured because we don't have the instruments, we don't have the instruments,

00:51:18.000 we don't have the bandwidth but we can intuit it, that we sense it, that this is the job of the

00:51:23.000 shaman, the job of the priest, the job of the mystic, the realm of the psychoactive and psychedelic

00:51:30.000 experience.

00:51:31.000 That these are not just fluctuations and the flatulence of a busy mind, that there is something here that is vital.

00:51:40.000 And I wonder how you approach those questions in yourself and where it leaves you with regards to the joy and the grief and the stuff I said an hour and a half ago at the beginning of the question.

00:51:48.000 I never had a psychoactive experience, in which case I'm obviously deficient.

00:51:55.000 I understand what's meant by words like love and empathy and they are They mean a lot to me on a personal level.

00:52:10.000 I don't get mystical about it.

00:52:12.000 Why?

00:52:13.000 Because I'm a materialist, because I think science will or can explain everything.

00:52:20.000 And if it can't, nothing else can.

00:52:21.000 I said that before.

00:52:23.000 But that doesn't demean it, that doesn't reduce, that doesn't in any way minify the importance of love.

00:52:29.000 Love is deeply important to me, but I don't get mystical about it.

00:52:35.000 You don't sense yourself being at the edge of what it's possible to understand?

00:52:41.000 Oh, I think I sense that, yes.

00:52:44.000 But then I feel the urge to try to understand it at a scientific level.

00:52:49.000 There's much of physics I don't understand.

00:52:51.000 When I talk to physicists, I feel awed and wish I understood better.

00:52:58.000 So there are plenty of things I don't understand.

00:53:00.000 I feel I'm on the edge of understanding things.

00:53:02.000 Yes, I feel that.

00:53:03.000 I wonder then if awe might have a, I mean of course it must, a biochemical component that one might with the right instrument be able to measure and observe the impact of the numinous But there will always be an ulterior imperature in the same manner that we've dealt at once with atoms and then electrons and then bosons, quarks and whatever the hell it is.

00:53:34.000 But then it appears that we can never reliably say, ah, this is the genesis.

00:53:43.000 And I... What am I trying to say to you?

00:53:47.000 I'm trying to say that I don't know what I'm trying to say.

00:53:52.000 I think I said some quite good things there.

00:53:54.000 You keep using the word numinous and I'm curious what you mean by it.

00:53:59.000 Well, I like C.S.

00:53:59.000 Lewis's description of it.

00:54:01.000 He goes...

00:54:02.000 He goes, if I told you that there was a tiger in the next room, you would feel you would feel afraid.

00:54:11.000 And if I told you there was a ghost in the next room and you believed it, you would also feel afraid, but not afraid in the same way that you would be afraid of a tiger.

00:54:22.000 Oh no, what's this ghost going to do?

00:54:24.000 No one cares what a ghost is going to do, like in Scooby Doo.

00:54:28.000 But you are aware that your understanding of reality is glitching and twitching and being challenged.

00:54:35.000 He then said, imagine if I were to say there is a mighty spirit in the room next to you.

00:54:39.000 You might feel that you might feel yourself on the edge of something and as Shakespeare said, and here my genius is rebuked.

00:54:47.000 That the knowledge that there is a great power and I don't feel that we are at odds by perceiving it in nature or fetishizing its particular understanding over what it somehow suggests at its root.

00:55:04.000 I feel that in a sense we're talking about the same thing but I suppose what I'm trying to draw from it or extract from it is the possibility that there is something in religious thought that is valuable culturally.

00:55:19.000 and necessary in fact and that if we allow science to encroach continually upon that

00:55:27.000 territory what will happen is that this materialism, there's a word that's come up several times,

00:55:32.000 that materialism will lead, that does lead to, because it has led to and this is where we are,

00:55:37.000 a kind of, what do I want to say, a grimly metastasized capitalism where all that matters

00:55:43.000 is that which can be measured.

00:55:44.000 And in science, all that matters is that which can be measured.

00:55:47.000 Of course, that makes perfect sense.

00:55:50.000 No other science would be of any value.

00:55:51.000 Of course, conjecture will exist there.

00:55:53.000 But in the establishment of a society, in the establishment of a culture, in the establishment of a family, If all that matters is that which can be measured, you will get individualistic, materialistic, ultimately nihilistic, pious, moralising but oddly unforgiving cultures with no real values.

00:56:13.000 We are seeing it.

00:56:15.000 And I think, and my faith is, my belief is, that we need to reintroduce the mystery. 0.96

00:56:19.000 And I don't want it to be just like some sort of mad dogma or some stupid thing that's used to make people feel bad about the way they are or who they have sex with or something.

00:56:28.000 I want it to be something that Makes people be able to endure and love and I feel that we need it. 0.66

00:56:33.000 Indeed it is a scientific endeavor because I believe people require it.

00:56:37.000 The results are everything!

00:56:40.000 I know what a tiger is.

00:56:42.000 I have no idea what a great spirit is and so I would not be impressed if you said there was a great spirit in the room next door.

00:56:49.000 I would want to know what it was.

00:56:52.000 When you come on to Equating a scientific materialistic worldview with materialism in the other sense, materialism in the sense of a cheap sort of economically only caring about money and selfishness and things.

00:57:15.000 I don't own that.

00:57:16.000 I don't approve of that.

00:57:18.000 I don't feel that that should be laid at science's door.

00:57:22.000 Science is bigger than that, more important than that.

00:57:24.000 And I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the only escape from materialism in the demeaning sense, in the economic sense, is religion.

00:57:40.000 I think religion is relatively unequipped, too small to deal with these big problems that we're dealing with. 0.96

00:57:54.000 Beyond the coincidence of the shared semantic term, I feel that there is a corollary between materialism in the two senses, because I feel that the...

00:58:10.000 Beat about the bush here.

00:58:11.000 Secularism is predicated on the idea that the abiding and dominant idea now is that the state is the ultimate authority.

00:58:25.000 What's got to do with the state?

00:58:25.000 Nothing to do with it.

00:58:27.000 What's got to do with the state?

00:58:29.000 Why would you equate materialism with the state having authority?

00:58:34.000 Secularism.

00:58:36.000 And I'm saying that secularism... Secularism, yes.

00:58:41.000 Secularism, we have to separate church and state, we have to get religion out the bloody way and let the business of the state be the business of the state, but somehow man worships. 0.93

00:58:49.000 Even, you know, and I'm sure for you this might be somewhat hackneyed, but you're pretty evangelical and zealous and pretty devout And those things, regardless of the object, they're interesting qualities to have as a person.

00:59:03.000 Anyway, my point is this.

00:59:05.000 That materialism can lead to secularism.

00:59:07.000 All that matters is that's what we can measure and what's rational. 0.96

00:59:10.000 Let's get this hocus-pocus crap out of the way. 0.89

00:59:13.000 Yeah, let's. 0.98

00:59:15.000 And get and build a lovely state.

00:59:17.000 Right, now let's get on with putting poor people in jail. 1.00

00:59:20.000 No, come on! 0.99

00:59:22.000 It is, Richard!

00:59:23.000 That's what's happening.

00:59:24.000 Well, it may be happening, but it's nothing to do with it.

00:59:27.000 I mean, it's nothing to do with secularism.

00:59:33.000 Okay, we can certainly disagree on that.

00:59:35.000 I mean, of course we can.

00:59:37.000 We can, I'm not arguing with you.

00:59:40.000 I'm saying, what I'm saying is, is that perhaps a way of sharing, like I feel that, do you feel that society's in trouble?

00:59:50.000 Maybe I do.

00:59:51.000 Yeah.

00:59:51.000 Yes.

00:59:52.000 Right.

00:59:52.000 Yes.

00:59:52.000 So what do you think the answer is?

00:59:54.000 Well, not religion.

00:59:57.000 Well, I do!

00:59:58.000 So we're gonna have to somehow get along, because for the next six months, we're going to be in a caravan, together, touring the British Isles, you preaching materialism, and me wandering around with, like, um, burning sage, and I'm only wearing a blanket and stuff, and I'm like, Richard, I'll pray for you.

01:00:15.000 Hey, Richard, I've bought you a crystal.

01:00:16.000 Yeah, yeah.

01:00:17.000 Yeah, I've prayed for it, like that, and given you, like, trinkets.

01:00:19.000 You believe in crystal healing, by the way.

01:00:23.000 I believe that fundamental to the human experience, obviously, is consciousness.

01:00:28.000 That consciousness is a thread that we are all strung upon.

01:00:31.000 That if we have emerged from consciousness, that we are its avatars and its angels.

01:00:37.000 Now, when you start to codify something that's that mystical into this particular trinket as an attribute, I acknowledge that it's absurd.

01:00:50.000 I adore all that I can understand about science.

01:00:53.000 I adore it.

01:00:54.000 I adore it when people can explain to me, this is how this has evolved and look we can prove, look the monkey, the capuchin monkey on this side is like this and on that side of the mountain like that.

01:01:02.000 I mean, oh my god, you geniuses!

01:01:04.000 It's so magical.

01:01:05.000 And yet for me there is something more.

01:01:06.000 There is something more.

01:01:07.000 And I think you've inferred that society is in trouble.

01:01:11.000 I think that it's due to our belief systems and the way that those belief systems are playing out.

01:01:16.000 And when I say religion, actually Richard, I don't mean let's all dress up a particular way or worship a particular thing.

01:01:24.000 I mean let us acknowledge together that we do not know and that we may never know, but individually... I agree with that 100 percent.

01:01:33.000 Okay, but that doesn't mean religion.

01:01:35.000 I agree that there's something as lot we don't know we may never know and I want to know.

01:01:40.000 I want to work on knowing.

01:01:43.000 But we may not ever know.

01:01:45.000 Yes.

01:01:46.000 And I feel that what we may endeavor to do is create the conditions where we have a sense that we are pursuing something together, that we are respecting individual and community freedom, we are acknowledging the observable fact that we are all here together, potentially in limitless space, potentially the only example of conscious life in the universe.

01:02:12.000 And that this ought be revered and honoured and that there...

01:02:19.000 The earliest forms of religion, say, because it seems like what you don't like are institutional religions where it's sort of like people at some point or another get a gun or a candelabra and say our religion is about this.

01:02:30.000 But what about totemism?

01:02:32.000 What about the earliest forms of religion where people revered their food source and acknowledged that they needed to have an intuitive relationship with that food source that was somehow sacralized and ritualized?

01:02:46.000 I don't really, I don't revere that.

01:02:50.000 I mean you have a relationship with your food source, you work out how to grow it, you work out how to fertilize it, manure it, water it.

01:02:56.000 But where do people get all this spirit from if they're to do all of this stuff?

01:03:01.000 You're very unusual.

01:03:03.000 Have you had any diagnosis for particular neurological conditions and neurological diversity?

01:03:09.000 Have you?

01:03:09.000 No.

01:03:12.000 I have one, because I think people might not be willing to start farms and go hunting for stags if they don't believe that there is some intuition.

01:03:21.000 That there is the sensory realm, there is that which is observable, and there is that which might be observable by some advanced Oh, I accept that that's historically how it happened.

01:03:30.000 I mean, of course, that's the relationship that people had with their animals they hunted and the crops that they grew and so on.

01:03:38.000 I mean, that's historically what happened.

01:03:40.000 It wasn't the best way to do it, but that's the way it was done.

01:03:45.000 Yes.

01:03:46.000 And do you feel that there is something?

01:03:49.000 Do you feel that there is nothing in it?

01:03:51.000 You see it just as cold and full of edges and that where the edge ends there is nothing.

01:03:56.000 There is nothing between the edges of things.

01:03:59.000 That it's not alive with possibility.

01:04:02.000 I don't know what you're saying there.

01:04:04.000 That between us, in the space between us, and within you, the experience of you being Professor Richard Dawkins, and the experience of me being Russell Brand, that there might be some commonality, and that evidence of that commonality might be found in the ability for us to share this linguistic experience.

01:04:22.000 course, yes. The ability for us to interpret the vibrations in the air.

01:04:26.000 Like, there's sort of, I feel that somehow your ability to understand mechanics,

01:04:32.000 micro mechanics, evolutionary biology, has somehow stripped, if I may offer you this,

01:04:40.000 I hope it's not insulting, stripped away the sort of somehow wonder and awe.

01:04:46.000 And I know you say, oh, I do feel wonder at a mountain or some discovery of Isaac Newton or whatever, I'm sure, or indeed Darwin, your great hero, like, but I think it's... I feel that there is a relationship between what I'm saying and love, a kind of intuitive... You talked about what's passing between us, which is words, and it's waves of pressure, sound pressure waves, and it goes in the ear and it's interpreted in an amazingly complicated way.

01:05:14.000 A mathematical analysis of the waveform, Fourier analysis.

01:05:20.000 It's astonishing.

01:05:21.000 And that's what passes between us.

01:05:24.000 And do you feel that this happened as a result of single cellular entities evolving as a result of their relationship with their environment, the precise conditions for which were afforded to them, and ended up in this mathematically impossible miracle of our current communication?

01:05:39.000 And beyond this you think that there is nothing to revere or marvel at?

01:05:44.000 There's plenty to reveal and marvel at, but it's not supernatural.

01:05:50.000 It's natural, and it's beautiful because it's natural.

01:05:54.000 And maybe one day it will succumb to understanding.

01:05:57.000 We understand a lot more than we used to.

01:05:59.000 We understand what sound waves are now.

01:06:02.000 We understand, in principle, how they're analysed by the brain.

01:06:07.000 It's interesting that you use the word succumb.

01:06:07.000 That's wonderful.

01:06:10.000 Because of course so much of our history has been about the subjugation of nature, the management of nature.

01:06:17.000 And yet, and you get the semantics around natural and supernatural, this for me is like, for me, the god in nature, the idea that nature is somehow haunted through arithmetic and geometry and through a thousand patterns that appear poetic and indeed have inspired the title of your forthcoming podcast.

01:06:39.000 Good bit of promo there!

01:06:41.000 For me, I would not extract the possibility of theism being evident and stitched throughout all of that.

01:06:51.000 And I put it to you, Professor Richard Dawkins, that your problem has always been about the dogma derived from this evident and observable mystery, rather than the mystery itself, and that that mystery could just as easily be utilised to create more harmony and to create more hope.

01:07:03.000 And I don't think it's possible to create that harmony and hope if you foreclose it all the time, going, we'll understand this in a couple of weeks, this is Codswallop.

01:07:10.000 And giving people a wallop with a microscope every time they try to write a poem.

01:07:15.000 I was just saying it's a joke, you know, that's what you're like.

01:07:15.000 Are they?

01:07:19.000 Like everyone at times goes, isn't it beautiful, man? 0.98

01:07:21.000 I was standing on the edge of a cliff and I saw a sunset and you'd go, oh, that's just ridiculous.

01:07:25.000 It's just a refraction of the light.

01:07:27.000 That is treacherously what I would say.

01:07:28.000 And I'd go, look at that rainbow.

01:07:30.000 That's exactly opposite of what I would say.

01:07:31.000 I'd go, look at that rainbow.

01:07:32.000 And you'd go, it's just from the vapours. 0.93

01:07:33.000 And you'd hit me around the head with a glove.

01:07:36.000 It's just vapour. 1.00

01:07:37.000 You're being ridiculous. 0.99

01:07:40.000 I would respond in a poetic way just as much as you would. 1.00

01:07:44.000 Go on then.

01:07:45.000 What would you say?

01:07:46.000 We're seeing a rainbow.

01:07:47.000 It's you and me.

01:07:47.000 We're observing it.

01:07:50.000 I would say it's a beautiful thing and it's even more beautiful because we understand what put it together.

01:07:56.000 Thanks to Newton.

01:07:58.000 And in spite of our apparent separateness, here we are, sharing in this rainbow together.

01:08:03.000 Yes.

01:08:04.000 And then you go, I'm off to study it, and I go, I'm going to use it to start a system of government.

01:08:09.000 Well, how are you going to use it for government?

01:08:11.000 I don't know, Richard.

01:08:12.000 Who's going to start a system of government? 0.69

01:08:14.000 Me, I'm using that.

01:08:14.000 You're just off back to the lab.

01:08:16.000 Yeah, OK.

01:08:17.000 To write a book, to take all the fun out of it.

01:08:20.000 Maybe write a poem.

01:08:21.000 And I'm darting off to use it!

01:08:23.000 So, all right, I think we've got quite a lot out of this.

01:08:27.000 Obviously, you can read more of Professor Richard Dawkins' work on his new Substack and on the Professor's YouTube channel at The Poetry of Reality.

01:08:37.000 We'll post a link in the description there.

01:08:39.000 Sorry I didn't do enough of your questions, or indeed any of your questions.

01:08:42.000 I was really caught up in my own line of inquiry there.

01:08:46.000 I didn't do anyone else's questions.

01:08:48.000 Can I do someone else's questions?

01:08:50.000 I don't know what these questions are.

01:08:52.000 Tell me, I'll ask them, there's other people, and if you're interested in them you can answer them, if you feel... You mean people have sent them in?

01:08:59.000 That's right, and if you feel the lure of Oxford, simply dismiss them with a wave of a hand, as if it was me, sort of trying to say that a spider's web's an example of Jesus.

01:09:09.000 Camilla says, I've been so excited for this conversation.

01:09:11.000 I used to read Richard's books growing up.

01:09:13.000 Since then, my views have shifted and evolved.

01:09:14.000 Richard, have your views shifted over time?

01:09:16.000 If so, how and why?

01:09:17.000 I sort of asked that, didn't I?

01:09:18.000 Yeah, I think so.

01:09:19.000 I covered that, Camilla.

01:09:20.000 You're wasting our time.

01:09:21.000 Jimmy Greenwood said, why not acknowledge... Oh, he's going to hate this.

01:09:26.000 Why not acknowledge that a soul or spirit exists?

01:09:28.000 Otherwise one can miss out on so much you're going to really piss him off with this question.

01:09:31.000 Denying religions is fine, but atheism is not dissimilar to other religions, a belief system, and creates division in much the same way as churches.

01:09:38.000 God is simply a handy three-letter word to describe soul connection.

01:09:41.000 What's your thought?

01:09:42.000 I think we've had enough of that.

01:09:43.000 You've had enough of that?

01:09:44.000 You've annoyed him?

01:09:45.000 Rich asks, if God is not part of the observable universe but rather the transcendent cause of the universe, is it possible for us to confirm or deny this idea of God as humans without some kind of revelation from God?

01:09:58.000 I don't think, well that begins with an if.

01:10:01.000 It's a conditional and I think the answer is he isn't.

01:10:06.000 Well done.

01:10:07.000 Christine Hart, did you ever believe in God and if so what put you off?

01:10:11.000 That's from Christine Hart.

01:10:12.000 I certainly did.

01:10:13.000 When you were little.

01:10:14.000 As St.

01:10:14.000 Paul said, yes, when I was a child, I speak as a child, I thought of it as a child, I understood as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

01:10:22.000 If it's St.

01:10:22.000 Paul saying that, and I think that you're strawmanning Christianity there.

01:10:27.000 But we'll talk about this off-air when we go, when we do our caravan show.

01:10:31.000 Join us next week when I'll be joined by Michael Schellenberger and Matt Taibbi talking about the censorship industrial complex and looking ahead to our live show in London on June the 22nd.

01:10:40.000 You can buy tickets now if you want to come and see me, Matt and Shelley Schellenberger in London.

01:10:45.000 Join us next time.

01:10:46.000 Thank you.

01:10:47.000 It's been so rigorous, I've felt tearful a couple of times.

01:10:49.000 Join us next time, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.

01:10:52.000 Until then, stay free.

01:11:03.000 Switch off.

Stay Free - Russel Brand - June 09, 2023

Russell & Richard Dawkins | ATHEISM Vs. GOD, PANDEMIC & POWER - #143 - Stay Free With Russell Brand

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript