That monolog is from the Now Show of July 20th. The monolog from this week’s show (of July 27th) is even better and is specifically pro-atheism rather than just anti-religion. You can hear it at this Realplayer link for the next two-and-a-half days.
waldteufelsays
First time I’ve heard/seen this guy, but I want more!
Matt Penfoldsays
Marcus is a comic who does a lot of work for BBC Radio 4. The clip you provided is from a program called The Now Show which goes out on Radio 4 at 6:30pm on Fridays, repeated 12:00 noon Saturdays. Marcus is not the main presenter on that show but normally has a five minute slot, as well as contributing to the rest of the show when required. If you want to hear the whole thing you can via the “listen again” option on the BBC website. I can recommend it.
He comedy routines are not always as anti-theist as that one, but he has done routines talking about Dawkins (supportive) and the religious right (dismissive).
If you listen to the whole thing I imagine much of the content will not mean much unless you are British.
Warren Terrasays
I respectfully disagree with Matt Penfold’s #8, or at least suggest a modification: much of the content will not mean much to you unless you (1) are british or (2) have listened to a lot of Radio 4 humor about Britain, because it’s better than most of what’s available in the US.
Matt Penfoldsays
Warren,
I will stand corrected. I am not familiar enough with radio comedy in the US to know how Radio 4 compared.
My point about it not meaning much unless you were British was a reference to the fact the show is topical, recorded either day before, or on the day of transmission and has political references that unless you live in the UK you may not pick up on.
That was absolutely hilarious (and dead-on). I might have to start listening to his program.
I particularly enjoyed the part where he points out that religious “moderates” help provide the foundation for the crazies. Reminds me a lot of Sam Harris in “The End of Faith.”
Richsays
Brilliant. Reminds me of Bill Hicks. Yeah, I missed a few of the British references, but it didn’t stop me from laughing like a maniac. Time to hit google. Thanks PZ.
Peter McGrathsays
Second all the above about the Now Show: he does put the boot into religious with great vigour. He also has a visceral loathing of David Blaine, calls him ‘The Git Wizard.’
Louissays
I too want a cure for james blunt.
sailorsays
Brilliant! So is the one Warren Terra (2) links to.
I love his human service at the end.
Can you really have a STAND UP comic on radio?
Briansays
Dunno who he is, but he has a new fan! More, more!
GunOfSodsays
I’ve listened to a few of his shows now and they are absolutely hilarious. Can anyone tell me if he is one of the chaps who did this ? Creationism in a nutshell (which is also hilarious).
Stevesays
Weird, I’d just seen this clip on Comedy Central earlier this week, watched Love Actually in which he has a small part and then this shows up. Very funny, guy.
Marcus Brigstocke (born 8 May 1973) is an English comedian and satirist who has worked extensively in stand-up comedy, television and radio. He is particularly associated with the 6.30pm comedy slot on BBC Radio 4, having frequently appeared on several of its shows.
Now THAT was good! Thanks for the link. Off to find more of him…
cmsays
In the interst of another opinion: not brilliant, not hilarious. I’d say just hovering right under passable.
Also, sounds like he read The God Delusion and The End of Faith over the summer and worked chapters from both of them into this monologue (moderates from Harris; labeling kids as Christian from Dawkins).
Curtsays
That is simply comedic and philosophical genius. “Please don’t kill us”. Love it. Thanks for posting it.
Dahansays
Oh, only one thing, he said he got an art degree…which means he should have known better than to have put up the painting “American Gothic” by Grant Wood when making the joke about marriage. The couple pictured were Grant’s sister and dentist, and were meant to represent a father and daughter. Petty point, I know, but still.
Warren Terrasays
For those who like their modern British comedy, I note that BBC Radio 4 will be rebroadcasting the recent season of Jeremy Hardy Speaks To The Nation on the next four Thursday nights (i.e. not yet). After each broadcast, usually starting less than hour after the program is complete, you can listen online for the next seven days, using the BBC’s Radio Player.
The second episode of the recent season, on the subject of Faith, will probably be re-broadcast on August 9 and is especially relevant to this thread. The truly benevolent dictatorship alone is worth the time spent listening to the whole episode.
Jay Allensays
he should have known better than to have put up the painting “American Gothic” by Grant Wood when making the joke about marriage.
I believe someone else did the graphical accompaniment to his radio piece.
Seansays
Must transcribe that bit about the masses of moderates providing the power base for the loonies. Tis far more eloquent than my own responses to the countless “But I am a moderate (faith name here) and do not support (loony religous belief here) bleetings.
cmsays
Must transcribe that bit about the masses of moderates providing the power base for the loonies. Tis far more eloquent than my own responses to the countless “But I am a moderate (faith name here) and do not support (loony religous belief here) bleetings.
Bleatings.
Moderates provide a stabilizing force in religious affairs, a buffer between zealots and the fully unchurched As such, they are a step in the evolution of religion.
Oh, only one thing, he said he got an art degree…which means he should have known better than to have put up the painting “American Gothic” by Grant Wood when making the joke about marriage. The couple pictured were Grant’s sister and dentist, and were meant to represent a father and daughter. Petty point, I know, but still.
The routine was done on radio. That’s a medium where people talk, but there aren’t blinking lights to transfix the audience. A generous YouTuber put the moving pictures in so that the legions of drooling “Uhm, actually” chanters infesting the internet wouldn’t get bored.
Hey! Radio – isn’t that the thing that allows me to listen to a concert, baseball game or news program WHILE washing the dishes, driving a car, or reading scienceblogs? Yeah, that IS cool. Is that new?
phatsays
This is great. I half expected him to bring up “bleedin’ Watney’s Red Barrel”
“Moderates provide a stabilizing force in religious affairs”
No they don’t. They make it more difficult to criticize any crimes made by the faithful.
phat
MikeJsays
God has certainly blessed him with talent and intellect.
urielsays
Tis far more eloquent than my own responses to the countless “But I am a moderate (faith name here) and do not support (loony religous belief here) bleetings.
Bleatings.
Moderates provide a stabilizing force in religious affairs, a buffer between zealots and the fully unchurched As such, they are a step in the evolution of religion.
Now, now. I’m sure there’s an easy way to solve this conflict:
Since, as has been pointed out ad infinitum so many times here,
1)_all_ atheists prize rationality above all else, and would never make any truth-claim based on anything but objective, verifiable evidence- especially one that is as damning, absolute and universally applied as this,
and
2)this claim that “moderate x’s enable extremist x’s” is made insistently and authoritatively, over and over again in these parts,
It follows that:
3)There exists reams of objective, scientifically verifiable evidence that supports this claim.
I’m sure there must exist dozens of studies, covering not just Judeo-Xiananity in America, but all of the big religions- moderate Islam, Buddhism, Animism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sufism- in a variety of cultural settings. I have no doubt that there is demonstrable, totally objective linkage between the Dali Lama and Fred Phelps which has been rigorously tested and peer reviewed.
So, all that anyone needs to happen is for some wise soul to post links to the many, many scientifically rigorous studies that prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the existence of moderate religious views leads inexorably to the rise and perpetuation of dangerous fundamentalist versions of those beliefs.
I’m sure it will only be a matter of time- there must be oodles and oodles.
Its not like a community so universally seeped in a purely naturalistic/materialistic/scientific worldview would base such a sweeping assertion on things like appeals to authority, straw man arguments or a desire to demonize the “other” in an effort to bolster their own needs for importance and privilege.
And it certainly wouldn’t have _anything_ to to with mere opinions or feelings.
That’s the sort of thing only religious types do. I know, because other atheists tell me so.
No they don’t. They make it more difficult to criticize any crimes made by the faithful.
Great! You sound like someone who really has a handle on this subject!
I’m sure you’ve thoroughly researched the topic before coming to espouse such a universalist and absolutist deceleration. Using,of course, only the much vaunted objectivity and love of evidence that us atheists are so enamored of.
So, just to clarify, for those of us who question the validity of such blanket condemnations- exactly what rigorous, objective and comprehensive studies and papers are you basing this on? And perhaps you could give us a brief overview of the methodologies involved?
Thanks!
urielsays
Uriel, I was just gonna tell them that, honest!
Just kidding. But you’re right, darn it.
Thanks. Though you’ll probably end up regretting it.
If you could do me a favor, when you do deny me,(and you will) could you do it three times?
Wow.. that was awesome. I love the quick humor that infers further, quick thought. Like when he references “Nazi Youth,” hahahaha! I’d love to see an Atheists’ Comedy Show with this guy, George Carlin, and others. Can you imagine how successful that would be?
No, Kseniya. Radio is that box that blasts braindead contemporary beats and moldy, banal old music at you all day, at least when it’s not blasting the steady soul-rotting guffaws and bellows of morning DJs. And then there’s also Hannity and Limbaugh.
HPsays
As a non-Brit, let me just add my voice to the chorus: Fucking brill’, mate.
Oooh, is that Australian? Who gives a fuck. The point is, I would gladly give up whatever midwestern American English I speak to buy Marcus a pint down at the local.
“Moderates provide a stabilizing force in religious affairs”
No they don’t. They make it more difficult to criticize any crimes made by the faithful.
Religions are often false to the core and rife with con men. Criticism reveals these weaknesses and introduces followers to doubt, thus destabilizing religion. The claim that ‘Moderates provide a stabilizing force in religious affairs’ is thus not in conflict with ‘They make it more difficult to criticize any crimes made by the faithful’ .
phatsays
As a matter of fact, I have studied the claims made by those that consider themselves “faithful”, moderate or otherwise.
What, exactly, is the foundation of any argument that those who might be extremists are extreme?
The claims of the “moderate” religious are still founded upon the ideas of revealed truths. Anyone can claim that the have a personal understanding of what god is. But you are incapable of explaining how it is that someone else may have a different understanding.
It’s not the responsibility of those who do not believe to disprove the beliefs of others. It’s the responsibility of those who believe to show exactly why they believe what they believe. Furthermore, if those beliefs are questionable and possibly dangerous, it’s essential to the discussion that these beliefs be shown to have some value beyond personal experience.
On top of this, anyone who accepts the value of revelatory understanding has no right to question anyone who makes claims that their revelations are more important or more valuable.
The moderate position allows for interpretation that may violate your rules of good behavior. The moderate position has no right to challenge that interpretation, as it is still, as claimed, to be revelatory.
Revelatory truths are always questionable. I can claim that I should punch the guy who lives next door to me because he plays his music too loud. Religious moderates may claim that that’s bad interpretation of a text, assuming we’re all religious. But religious moderates have no leg to stand on if my neighbor claims it’s a faithful thing to do.
phat
tacitussays
Listened to his second monologue, linked in the comments above. I particularly liked his “healing through humanity” bit.
Curiously, I was on the receiving end of an attempt at faith healing for the first time in my life just yesterday. I had hurt my achilles playing volleyball and was having to sit on the sidelines watching a game when a member of another team came up and asked what was wrong. I explained, and he asked, quite politely, if I would mind if he prayed over it. That was the last thing I expected to hear, and so, almost in shock, I sort of mumbled “Uh, okay” then he bent down, grabbed my heel and muttered a prayer (I couldn’t hear what he said). Then it was over, just like that.
He’s a nice guy, and I’m not the militant type of atheist, so I did not remonstrate with him, though I would have told him exactly what I thought if he had asked me for my opinion. Given the way he flushed bright red afterwards, perhaps he thought he had crossed the line a little anyway.
Needless to say, I’m still limping just as badly as before. Humanity, in the form of RICE — rest, ice, compression, and elevation should do the trick quite nicely (if a bit more slowly). If not, there is a legion of doctors out there willing to attempt a healing in exchange for a bit of cash.
Kseniyasays
Rey (#42)
What can I say? I’m so sorry. You live in the wrong town, man… there’s some pretty good radio here in Beantown.
bernardasays
As to the Dali Lama mentioned in #36, “I have no doubt that there is demonstrable, totally objective linkage between the Dali Lama and Fred Phelps which has been rigorously tested and peer reviewed.”, why would he be considered a moderate?
Penn & Teller did an episode on the fraud.
Also see their episodes on Ghandi and Mother Teresa.
urielsays
Religions are often false to the core
Yes, I agree.
and rife with con men.
Any proof for this asertation? Any evidence that religion is more rife with con men than economics, politics, pseudo-science, or just badly applied common sense? Is the pyramid scheme the sole providence of the theist? If not, privileging religion with some sort of particular weakness in this regard is a side issue.
Criticism reveals these weaknesses and introduces followers to doubt, thus destabilizing religion.
Yes, it does- to a degree.
On the other hand, there is a fair amount of evidence that criticism causes some people to retreat further into their shells and abandon all reason in order to support their bizarrely elaborate preconceived notions of what must be right. Just google “second law of thermodynamics” or “heliocentrism” if you have any questions in that regard. Or consider the rather convoluted appeal to Paley’s watch that is UD.
Point being that pure criticism is a double edged sword- for some it weakens support, for some it galvanizes it. A lot of how it plays out tends to be based on how that criticism is presented. And yes, there is objective evidnece to support this- For example, a number of studies related to the treatment of schizophrenics.
The claim that ‘Moderates provide a stabilizing force in religious affairs’ is thus not in conflict with ‘They make it more difficult to criticize any crimes made by the faithful’
And the statement that “cats are largely terrestrial” is not in conflict with the statement “cats have wings and can fly.” However, that doesn’t mean both are equally true, absent any proof.
Now, there exists a rather large body of proof to support the notion that moderates provide a stabilizing force in religious affairs- all one would have to do is look at the large number of well documented cases where this can actually can be demonstrated to have happened. For starters, you could look at the scopes-monkey trial, Dover, the deist founding fathers, the Popes recent statements regarding evolution, the Dali Lama, thiestic evolutionists, and many of the cases argued by the ACLU.
Or you could consider pretty much any church and state separation case that has come up in the US, ever- all of which, to a statistical certainty, involved large numbers of theists on the “rational” side. (Admittedly, this is a bit of speculation- however, the likelihood that even the barest minority of these cases were presided over, tried by, and decided by nothing but atheists involves probabilities that would make Bill Demski’s head swim.)
Now, on the other hand, the positive claim that any and all moderates “make it more difficult to criticize any crimes made by the faithful,” regardless of their nature, requires far, far more proof than simply shrugging off an apparent contradiction.
It requires, again, not just proof that the existence of any and all moderate xtians in the US provides support for fundamentalists- a contention that is clearly disproven by the counter-examples I’ve already provided – but evidence that _all_ religious moderates _everywhere_ provide support for negative fundamentalist interpretations. Regardless of location, denomination or prior affinity for interventionist tactics.
If you have that evidence, please present it. Otherwise, this is nothing more than wishful projection.
And, in your reply, please remember that the contention is not that some moderates enable fundamentalists. The issue at had is that, again, any and all moderates enable fundamentalists. That’s that point you have to prove, if your statement is to stand.
I rather doubt you can.
Peter McGrathsays
Louis: Brigstock doesn’t have a cure for James Blunt, but calls him an ‘Adenoidal goat-faced strum-monkey.’
G. Tingeysays
Yes the Brit regional references would be obsure to outsiders – “scouse” for instance is Liverpudlians, who are ALWAYS percieved as a collection of whingers …
As for the “rife with con-men” bit.
Spot on.
After all, all religion is a combination of moral and physical blackmail ……
urielsays
Revelatory truths are always questionable. I can claim that I should punch the guy who lives next door to me because he plays his music too loud. Religious moderates may claim that that’s bad interpretation of a text, assuming we’re all religious. But religious moderates have no leg to stand on if my neighbor claims it’s a faithful thing to do.
Nonsense.
This is no different than claiming that an atheist has no leg to stand on in the face of the UFO-oligist because he has “pictures.” Or claiming the skeptic can’t reject big-foot or faeries because supposedly objective evidence and multiple witnesses of both exists. Or, frankly, questioning string theory because it has some mathematical support.
It is clearly within the purview of any person to evaluate the validity any statement given their understanding of the facts. This applies no less to “reveled” truth than it does to objective fact. The issue in question is how well the “truth” being expressed correlates with common sense and previously decided upon truths. This is true regardless of weather that truth is “revealed” of derived from observation.
To say otherwise is to equivalently say that the random ramblings of Sal Cordova bear equal weight with those of Stephan Hawikins, because both claim to be basing those beliefs on objective reality. Or claiming that the latest screed of your local black-‘copter schizophrenic are as valid as a local police report, because both are based on some sort of observation.
The ability to discern between competing claims is not the sole providence of a naturalistic worldview, regardless of how much you might like it to be.
Louis (not the other one)says
Marcus Brigstocke is (as others have mentioned) an hilarious comedian here in the UK. He’s doing a tour soon, for the Brits amongst us Pharyngulites.
On a separate note, like the chap who has STOLEN my name (the vile blackguard) I also want a cure for James Blunt. Also I LOVE Brigstocke’s description of David Blaine, which is “Git Wizard”, and of Blaine’s “Above the Beyond” (or whatever it was) trick where he was suspended in a box above the Thames as “Freak Dangle”.
That was one of Britain’s finest moments of recent years. There was this smug Yank magician dangling himself above the Thames and starving himself as some kind of stunt and what do the men and women of Britain do? They fly burgers up around him with remote controlled and shoot paintballs at him and wake him at night by shouting “OI!! Blaine! Wankaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!”. Normally I deplore our more low brow countrymen and their dubious actions, but on this occasion, they got my full support.
Louis
Duncansays
Uriel,
Dissecting in inordinate detail the truth content of a casual remark is surely a waste of your enormous talents.
Reading these comments, I long ago stopped giving a toss whether moderates enable extremists. If you want to argue how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, become a theologian.
urielsays
There was this smug Yank magician dangling himself above the Thames and starving himself as some kind of stunt and what do the men and women of Britain do?
Frankly, I never got what the whole point of that was supposed to be. And I have to say, the closest I ever came to being an anglophile was was probably watching the collective finger of the empire that was being waved in that goofs face. Good times.
I was lucky enough to go and see Marcus play in London a few months ago – he did a bit on religion, and was asked about his views on Dawkins, who he felt to be a little too extreme – I think he may even have used the ‘fundamentalist atheist’ fallacy. While it’s self-evident he’s anti-religion, he’s still hesitant about some aspects. That said, given what he said over the last couple of weeks, he may be a little more convinced than he was!
I listened to this soon after it was broadcast, and felt an enjoyable little thrill. And just last night I listened to the second recording. Figured it wouldn’t be long before someone put it on YouTube.
Also, Brigstocke did a drama degree and not an art degree.
I heard this when it was aired and the “put your glasses back on” “he can see !!” bit cracked me up – brilliant.
I am impressed that it had been listened to up over there in the states too ! apologies, but media flow often appears to be one way – obviously a false impression on my part.
Ysays
I heard this when it was on as well.
Religion seems to be a fairly recent addition to Brigstocke’s long list of annoyances, which includes David Blaine, BT Broadband, “grammar bullies” who make a point of correcting other people’s apostrophe placements, football (the real kind), personalised numberplates and The Daily Mail.
twincatssays
Ooooh, very funny and he looks a little like a young Michael Palin. Dreamy!
And re Matt Penfold and Warren Terra: There was a fair bit of Monty Python’s Flying Circus we ‘mericans didn’t get, either, but the rest was more than enough to make up for it. Plus, it was an added incentive to learn things about Brits and once I did gain a relevant tidbit of knowledge, prompted more than a little tittering in inappropriate settings when I put 2 ‘n 2 together.
Makes me think that Canadian comedians should do more Canada-centric humor; they seem to “perform down” to Americans because we’re not expected to care about what happens north of the border.
Well, do you care what happens north of the border?
Warren Terrasays
A lot of CBC radio is quite good, as I know from occasional sojourns north of the border, but unfortunately very little of it is available online.
I used to greatly enjoy listening to As It Happens several years ago (around the time of Maher Arar and the Liberal corruption scandal), and I learned a lot about Canadian politics and national issues when it was available online. Unfortunately, a couple of years ago music broadcast rights issues caused the CBC to only stream a version with extensive stretches of dead air, which is quite unlistenable. There is a podcast version, to which I subscribe, but it seems to select more human interest and global (or even American) stories than it does Canadian politics and national life stories. Of course, this may reflect a shift in what is contained in the full version of As It Happens since the time when I listened to it.
JJRsays
That just made my WEEK! THANK you. I haven’t laughed that hard for days. Brilliant, just brilliant. ;-D
William Gulvinsays
Warren, you may wish to give WAMU in Washington, DC a go. They rebroadcast As It Happens weeknights at 11 pm, and they no doubt stream it uncut. http://wamu.org/programs/schedule/
Peter Ashbysays
Tacitus.
Sorry to hear about your tendon. In addition to ICE you should add some ibuprophen (acetaminophen I think you Yanks call it). But only just before bedtime. You want it for its anti-inflammatory properties, not the pain killing ones. You take it at night so it can do its goodness when you aren’t likely to take advantage of the numbing and do some more damage.
Take it from a middle aged distance runner, used like that, the stuff is good.
MikeBsays
Marcus has done a fair number of things, including a piss-take of history prgrammes called ‘We Are History’. His finest hour on the Now Show was ripping the piss out of the ‘Great Global Warming Scandal’ on Channel 4, something which the British scientific establishment could hardly be bothered to do.
I dunno who he is, but I want to meet him.
That monolog is from the Now Show of July 20th. The monolog from this week’s show (of July 27th) is even better and is specifically pro-atheism rather than just anti-religion. You can hear it at this Realplayer link for the next two-and-a-half days.
First time I’ve heard/seen this guy, but I want more!
Marcus is a comic who does a lot of work for BBC Radio 4. The clip you provided is from a program called The Now Show which goes out on Radio 4 at 6:30pm on Fridays, repeated 12:00 noon Saturdays. Marcus is not the main presenter on that show but normally has a five minute slot, as well as contributing to the rest of the show when required. If you want to hear the whole thing you can via the “listen again” option on the BBC website. I can recommend it.
He comedy routines are not always as anti-theist as that one, but he has done routines talking about Dawkins (supportive) and the religious right (dismissive).
He is a talented chap.
Who the heck is Marcus Brigstocke?
My new hero!
Awesome.
That was divine.
Wow! He’s great! I really feel that way. Only I don’t have the comedic genius to bring that off.
The program’s website is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/nowshow.shtml
If you listen to the whole thing I imagine much of the content will not mean much unless you are British.
I respectfully disagree with Matt Penfold’s #8, or at least suggest a modification: much of the content will not mean much to you unless you (1) are british or (2) have listened to a lot of Radio 4 humor about Britain, because it’s better than most of what’s available in the US.
Warren,
I will stand corrected. I am not familiar enough with radio comedy in the US to know how Radio 4 compared.
My point about it not meaning much unless you were British was a reference to the fact the show is topical, recorded either day before, or on the day of transmission and has political references that unless you live in the UK you may not pick up on.
That was absolutely hilarious (and dead-on). I might have to start listening to his program.
I particularly enjoyed the part where he points out that religious “moderates” help provide the foundation for the crazies. Reminds me a lot of Sam Harris in “The End of Faith.”
Brilliant. Reminds me of Bill Hicks. Yeah, I missed a few of the British references, but it didn’t stop me from laughing like a maniac. Time to hit google. Thanks PZ.
Second all the above about the Now Show: he does put the boot into religious with great vigour. He also has a visceral loathing of David Blaine, calls him ‘The Git Wizard.’
I too want a cure for james blunt.
Brilliant! So is the one Warren Terra (2) links to.
I love his human service at the end.
Can you really have a STAND UP comic on radio?
Dunno who he is, but he has a new fan! More, more!
I’ve listened to a few of his shows now and they are absolutely hilarious. Can anyone tell me if he is one of the chaps who did this ? Creationism in a nutshell (which is also hilarious).
Weird, I’d just seen this clip on Comedy Central earlier this week, watched Love Actually in which he has a small part and then this shows up. Very funny, guy.
Marcus Brigstocke (born 8 May 1973) is an English comedian and satirist who has worked extensively in stand-up comedy, television and radio. He is particularly associated with the 6.30pm comedy slot on BBC Radio 4, having frequently appeared on several of its shows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Brigstocke
Now THAT was good! Thanks for the link. Off to find more of him…
In the interst of another opinion: not brilliant, not hilarious. I’d say just hovering right under passable.
Also, sounds like he read The God Delusion and The End of Faith over the summer and worked chapters from both of them into this monologue (moderates from Harris; labeling kids as Christian from Dawkins).
That is simply comedic and philosophical genius. “Please don’t kill us”. Love it. Thanks for posting it.
Oh, only one thing, he said he got an art degree…which means he should have known better than to have put up the painting “American Gothic” by Grant Wood when making the joke about marriage. The couple pictured were Grant’s sister and dentist, and were meant to represent a father and daughter. Petty point, I know, but still.
For those who like their modern British comedy, I note that BBC Radio 4 will be rebroadcasting the recent season of Jeremy Hardy Speaks To The Nation on the next four Thursday nights (i.e. not yet). After each broadcast, usually starting less than hour after the program is complete, you can listen online for the next seven days, using the BBC’s Radio Player.
The second episode of the recent season, on the subject of Faith, will probably be re-broadcast on August 9 and is especially relevant to this thread. The truly benevolent dictatorship alone is worth the time spent listening to the whole episode.
he should have known better than to have put up the painting “American Gothic” by Grant Wood when making the joke about marriage.
I believe someone else did the graphical accompaniment to his radio piece.
Must transcribe that bit about the masses of moderates providing the power base for the loonies. Tis far more eloquent than my own responses to the countless “But I am a moderate (faith name here) and do not support (loony religous belief here) bleetings.
Bleatings.
Moderates provide a stabilizing force in religious affairs, a buffer between zealots and the fully unchurched As such, they are a step in the evolution of religion.
Phee-nomenal.
The routine was done on radio. That’s a medium where people talk, but there aren’t blinking lights to transfix the audience. A generous YouTuber put the moving pictures in so that the legions of drooling “Uhm, actually” chanters infesting the internet wouldn’t get bored.
I’ll tell you who he is: a funny man.
In a word: Pithy.
The “power base” thing was good, yeah.
Hey! Radio – isn’t that the thing that allows me to listen to a concert, baseball game or news program WHILE washing the dishes, driving a car, or reading scienceblogs? Yeah, that IS cool. Is that new?
This is great. I half expected him to bring up “bleedin’ Watney’s Red Barrel”
Thanks for the post. This was hilarious and hit the nail on the head perfectly. Viva Reason!
Richard
http://lifewithoutfaith.com
“Moderates provide a stabilizing force in religious affairs”
No they don’t. They make it more difficult to criticize any crimes made by the faithful.
phat
God has certainly blessed him with talent and intellect.
Now, now. I’m sure there’s an easy way to solve this conflict:
Since, as has been pointed out ad infinitum so many times here,
1)_all_ atheists prize rationality above all else, and would never make any truth-claim based on anything but objective, verifiable evidence- especially one that is as damning, absolute and universally applied as this,
and
2)this claim that “moderate x’s enable extremist x’s” is made insistently and authoritatively, over and over again in these parts,
It follows that:
3)There exists reams of objective, scientifically verifiable evidence that supports this claim.
I’m sure there must exist dozens of studies, covering not just Judeo-Xiananity in America, but all of the big religions- moderate Islam, Buddhism, Animism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sufism- in a variety of cultural settings. I have no doubt that there is demonstrable, totally objective linkage between the Dali Lama and Fred Phelps which has been rigorously tested and peer reviewed.
So, all that anyone needs to happen is for some wise soul to post links to the many, many scientifically rigorous studies that prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the existence of moderate religious views leads inexorably to the rise and perpetuation of dangerous fundamentalist versions of those beliefs.
I’m sure it will only be a matter of time- there must be oodles and oodles.
Its not like a community so universally seeped in a purely naturalistic/materialistic/scientific worldview would base such a sweeping assertion on things like appeals to authority, straw man arguments or a desire to demonize the “other” in an effort to bolster their own needs for importance and privilege.
And it certainly wouldn’t have _anything_ to to with mere opinions or feelings.
That’s the sort of thing only religious types do. I know, because other atheists tell me so.
Uriel, I was just gonna tell them that, honest!
Just kidding. But you’re right, darn it.
Great! You sound like someone who really has a handle on this subject!
I’m sure you’ve thoroughly researched the topic before coming to espouse such a universalist and absolutist deceleration. Using,of course, only the much vaunted objectivity and love of evidence that us atheists are so enamored of.
So, just to clarify, for those of us who question the validity of such blanket condemnations- exactly what rigorous, objective and comprehensive studies and papers are you basing this on? And perhaps you could give us a brief overview of the methodologies involved?
Thanks!
Thanks. Though you’ll probably end up regretting it.
If you could do me a favor, when you do deny me,(and you will) could you do it three times?
I always kinda wondered what that feels like.
Wow.. that was awesome. I love the quick humor that infers further, quick thought. Like when he references “Nazi Youth,” hahahaha! I’d love to see an Atheists’ Comedy Show with this guy, George Carlin, and others. Can you imagine how successful that would be?
Who is he? Oh, only the embodiment of awesome…
No, Kseniya. Radio is that box that blasts braindead contemporary beats and moldy, banal old music at you all day, at least when it’s not blasting the steady soul-rotting guffaws and bellows of morning DJs. And then there’s also Hannity and Limbaugh.
As a non-Brit, let me just add my voice to the chorus: Fucking brill’, mate.
Oooh, is that Australian? Who gives a fuck. The point is, I would gladly give up whatever midwestern American English I speak to buy Marcus a pint down at the local.
A – fucking – men.
There is good radio out there in the states.
http://www.wfmu.org
phat
Religions are often false to the core and rife with con men. Criticism reveals these weaknesses and introduces followers to doubt, thus destabilizing religion. The claim that ‘Moderates provide a stabilizing force in religious affairs’ is thus not in conflict with ‘They make it more difficult to criticize any crimes made by the faithful’ .
As a matter of fact, I have studied the claims made by those that consider themselves “faithful”, moderate or otherwise.
What, exactly, is the foundation of any argument that those who might be extremists are extreme?
The claims of the “moderate” religious are still founded upon the ideas of revealed truths. Anyone can claim that the have a personal understanding of what god is. But you are incapable of explaining how it is that someone else may have a different understanding.
It’s not the responsibility of those who do not believe to disprove the beliefs of others. It’s the responsibility of those who believe to show exactly why they believe what they believe. Furthermore, if those beliefs are questionable and possibly dangerous, it’s essential to the discussion that these beliefs be shown to have some value beyond personal experience.
On top of this, anyone who accepts the value of revelatory understanding has no right to question anyone who makes claims that their revelations are more important or more valuable.
The moderate position allows for interpretation that may violate your rules of good behavior. The moderate position has no right to challenge that interpretation, as it is still, as claimed, to be revelatory.
Revelatory truths are always questionable. I can claim that I should punch the guy who lives next door to me because he plays his music too loud. Religious moderates may claim that that’s bad interpretation of a text, assuming we’re all religious. But religious moderates have no leg to stand on if my neighbor claims it’s a faithful thing to do.
phat
Listened to his second monologue, linked in the comments above. I particularly liked his “healing through humanity” bit.
Curiously, I was on the receiving end of an attempt at faith healing for the first time in my life just yesterday. I had hurt my achilles playing volleyball and was having to sit on the sidelines watching a game when a member of another team came up and asked what was wrong. I explained, and he asked, quite politely, if I would mind if he prayed over it. That was the last thing I expected to hear, and so, almost in shock, I sort of mumbled “Uh, okay” then he bent down, grabbed my heel and muttered a prayer (I couldn’t hear what he said). Then it was over, just like that.
He’s a nice guy, and I’m not the militant type of atheist, so I did not remonstrate with him, though I would have told him exactly what I thought if he had asked me for my opinion. Given the way he flushed bright red afterwards, perhaps he thought he had crossed the line a little anyway.
Needless to say, I’m still limping just as badly as before. Humanity, in the form of RICE — rest, ice, compression, and elevation should do the trick quite nicely (if a bit more slowly). If not, there is a legion of doctors out there willing to attempt a healing in exchange for a bit of cash.
Rey (#42)
What can I say? I’m so sorry. You live in the wrong town, man… there’s some pretty good radio here in Beantown.
As to the Dali Lama mentioned in #36, “I have no doubt that there is demonstrable, totally objective linkage between the Dali Lama and Fred Phelps which has been rigorously tested and peer reviewed.”, why would he be considered a moderate?
Penn & Teller did an episode on the fraud.
Also see their episodes on Ghandi and Mother Teresa.
Yes, I agree.
Any proof for this asertation? Any evidence that religion is more rife with con men than economics, politics, pseudo-science, or just badly applied common sense? Is the pyramid scheme the sole providence of the theist? If not, privileging religion with some sort of particular weakness in this regard is a side issue.
Yes, it does- to a degree.
On the other hand, there is a fair amount of evidence that criticism causes some people to retreat further into their shells and abandon all reason in order to support their bizarrely elaborate preconceived notions of what must be right. Just google “second law of thermodynamics” or “heliocentrism” if you have any questions in that regard. Or consider the rather convoluted appeal to Paley’s watch that is UD.
Point being that pure criticism is a double edged sword- for some it weakens support, for some it galvanizes it. A lot of how it plays out tends to be based on how that criticism is presented. And yes, there is objective evidnece to support this- For example, a number of studies related to the treatment of schizophrenics.
And the statement that “cats are largely terrestrial” is not in conflict with the statement “cats have wings and can fly.” However, that doesn’t mean both are equally true, absent any proof.
Now, there exists a rather large body of proof to support the notion that moderates provide a stabilizing force in religious affairs- all one would have to do is look at the large number of well documented cases where this can actually can be demonstrated to have happened. For starters, you could look at the scopes-monkey trial, Dover, the deist founding fathers, the Popes recent statements regarding evolution, the Dali Lama, thiestic evolutionists, and many of the cases argued by the ACLU.
Or you could consider pretty much any church and state separation case that has come up in the US, ever- all of which, to a statistical certainty, involved large numbers of theists on the “rational” side. (Admittedly, this is a bit of speculation- however, the likelihood that even the barest minority of these cases were presided over, tried by, and decided by nothing but atheists involves probabilities that would make Bill Demski’s head swim.)
Now, on the other hand, the positive claim that any and all moderates “make it more difficult to criticize any crimes made by the faithful,” regardless of their nature, requires far, far more proof than simply shrugging off an apparent contradiction.
It requires, again, not just proof that the existence of any and all moderate xtians in the US provides support for fundamentalists- a contention that is clearly disproven by the counter-examples I’ve already provided – but evidence that _all_ religious moderates _everywhere_ provide support for negative fundamentalist interpretations. Regardless of location, denomination or prior affinity for interventionist tactics.
If you have that evidence, please present it. Otherwise, this is nothing more than wishful projection.
And, in your reply, please remember that the contention is not that some moderates enable fundamentalists. The issue at had is that, again, any and all moderates enable fundamentalists. That’s that point you have to prove, if your statement is to stand.
I rather doubt you can.
Louis: Brigstock doesn’t have a cure for James Blunt, but calls him an ‘Adenoidal goat-faced strum-monkey.’
Yes the Brit regional references would be obsure to outsiders – “scouse” for instance is Liverpudlians, who are ALWAYS percieved as a collection of whingers …
As for the “rife with con-men” bit.
Spot on.
After all, all religion is a combination of moral and physical blackmail ……
Nonsense.
This is no different than claiming that an atheist has no leg to stand on in the face of the UFO-oligist because he has “pictures.” Or claiming the skeptic can’t reject big-foot or faeries because supposedly objective evidence and multiple witnesses of both exists. Or, frankly, questioning string theory because it has some mathematical support.
It is clearly within the purview of any person to evaluate the validity any statement given their understanding of the facts. This applies no less to “reveled” truth than it does to objective fact. The issue in question is how well the “truth” being expressed correlates with common sense and previously decided upon truths. This is true regardless of weather that truth is “revealed” of derived from observation.
To say otherwise is to equivalently say that the random ramblings of Sal Cordova bear equal weight with those of Stephan Hawikins, because both claim to be basing those beliefs on objective reality. Or claiming that the latest screed of your local black-‘copter schizophrenic are as valid as a local police report, because both are based on some sort of observation.
The ability to discern between competing claims is not the sole providence of a naturalistic worldview, regardless of how much you might like it to be.
Marcus Brigstocke is (as others have mentioned) an hilarious comedian here in the UK. He’s doing a tour soon, for the Brits amongst us Pharyngulites.
On a separate note, like the chap who has STOLEN my name (the vile blackguard) I also want a cure for James Blunt. Also I LOVE Brigstocke’s description of David Blaine, which is “Git Wizard”, and of Blaine’s “Above the Beyond” (or whatever it was) trick where he was suspended in a box above the Thames as “Freak Dangle”.
That was one of Britain’s finest moments of recent years. There was this smug Yank magician dangling himself above the Thames and starving himself as some kind of stunt and what do the men and women of Britain do? They fly burgers up around him with remote controlled and shoot paintballs at him and wake him at night by shouting “OI!! Blaine! Wankaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!”. Normally I deplore our more low brow countrymen and their dubious actions, but on this occasion, they got my full support.
Louis
Uriel,
Dissecting in inordinate detail the truth content of a casual remark is surely a waste of your enormous talents.
Reading these comments, I long ago stopped giving a toss whether moderates enable extremists. If you want to argue how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, become a theologian.
Frankly, I never got what the whole point of that was supposed to be. And I have to say, the closest I ever came to being an anglophile was was probably watching the collective finger of the empire that was being waved in that goofs face. Good times.
The two recent religion-based monologues are available at http://www.onegoodmove.org/movabletype/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=brigstocke – it’s a slow search, but luckily the embedded audio is fast enough (assuming you can play quicktime!)
As an aside, I recommend http://www.onegoodmove.org/1gm generally – has a lot of atheist/liberal multimedia on it.
I was lucky enough to go and see Marcus play in London a few months ago – he did a bit on religion, and was asked about his views on Dawkins, who he felt to be a little too extreme – I think he may even have used the ‘fundamentalist atheist’ fallacy. While it’s self-evident he’s anti-religion, he’s still hesitant about some aspects. That said, given what he said over the last couple of weeks, he may be a little more convinced than he was!
I listened to this soon after it was broadcast, and felt an enjoyable little thrill. And just last night I listened to the second recording. Figured it wouldn’t be long before someone put it on YouTube.
Also, Brigstocke did a drama degree and not an art degree.
This is Marcus Brigstocke:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=t6M8-aXLrC
I heard this when it was aired and the “put your glasses back on” “he can see !!” bit cracked me up – brilliant.
I am impressed that it had been listened to up over there in the states too ! apologies, but media flow often appears to be one way – obviously a false impression on my part.
I heard this when it was on as well.
Religion seems to be a fairly recent addition to Brigstocke’s long list of annoyances, which includes David Blaine, BT Broadband, “grammar bullies” who make a point of correcting other people’s apostrophe placements, football (the real kind), personalised numberplates and The Daily Mail.
Ooooh, very funny and he looks a little like a young Michael Palin. Dreamy!
And re Matt Penfold and Warren Terra: There was a fair bit of Monty Python’s Flying Circus we ‘mericans didn’t get, either, but the rest was more than enough to make up for it. Plus, it was an added incentive to learn things about Brits and once I did gain a relevant tidbit of knowledge, prompted more than a little tittering in inappropriate settings when I put 2 ‘n 2 together.
Makes me think that Canadian comedians should do more Canada-centric humor; they seem to “perform down” to Americans because we’re not expected to care about what happens north of the border.
Well, do you care what happens north of the border?
A lot of CBC radio is quite good, as I know from occasional sojourns north of the border, but unfortunately very little of it is available online.
I used to greatly enjoy listening to As It Happens several years ago (around the time of Maher Arar and the Liberal corruption scandal), and I learned a lot about Canadian politics and national issues when it was available online. Unfortunately, a couple of years ago music broadcast rights issues caused the CBC to only stream a version with extensive stretches of dead air, which is quite unlistenable. There is a podcast version, to which I subscribe, but it seems to select more human interest and global (or even American) stories than it does Canadian politics and national life stories. Of course, this may reflect a shift in what is contained in the full version of As It Happens since the time when I listened to it.
That just made my WEEK! THANK you. I haven’t laughed that hard for days. Brilliant, just brilliant. ;-D
Warren, you may wish to give WAMU in Washington, DC a go. They rebroadcast As It Happens weeknights at 11 pm, and they no doubt stream it uncut. http://wamu.org/programs/schedule/
Tacitus.
Sorry to hear about your tendon. In addition to ICE you should add some ibuprophen (acetaminophen I think you Yanks call it). But only just before bedtime. You want it for its anti-inflammatory properties, not the pain killing ones. You take it at night so it can do its goodness when you aren’t likely to take advantage of the numbing and do some more damage.
Take it from a middle aged distance runner, used like that, the stuff is good.
Marcus has done a fair number of things, including a piss-take of history prgrammes called ‘We Are History’. His finest hour on the Now Show was ripping the piss out of the ‘Great Global Warming Scandal’ on Channel 4, something which the British scientific establishment could hardly be bothered to do.
His appearence on the apparently crap ‘News Knight’ http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article1955911.ece is hopefully something everyone will forget…