Quote of the day: "In a quantity of light, you can search for all of your life, but it's finite. From a sudden burst of sound, the recoil may never be found, but it is finite (finite but incalculable)." - Finite
Interview
Home > News from the front
Posted by: admin | 01/29/2008 at 11:35
| 1416 views
By day, Greg Graffin teaches at the University of California, Los Angeles. By night, the 42-year-old biologist sings for Bad Religion, a punk rock band he co-founded at age 15. Some of his lyrics draw upon the language of science. In one song, for instance, he laments about "Modern man / pathetic example of earth's organic heritage / Just a sample of carbon-based wastage." Science spoke with Graffin recently while he was on a tour to promote the group's 14th album, New Maps of Hell.
Q:Where does the name "Bad Religion" come from?
I felt that religion was useless as a way to answer the "big" questions about life. I felt that a "bad religion" was an apt name for a belief system that offered incorrect insights into questions of a scientific nature. Today, I recognize that the name implies that there is a "good religion." I guess a good religion is founded on the principle of truth through observation and verification.
Q: How do you use science in your lyrics?
A lot of scientific words are concisely descriptive, and this can be poetic if they are used carefully. I think that questions about evolution particularly are great metaphors that can be incorporated, because traditionally, our songs deal with social hardship, inequality, and general problems with modern man's lifestyle.
Q: Do you keep your two lives separate?
[People sometimes think] that I'm just using my music to promote my science background and vice versa; I'll use my lecture podium to try and enlist new fans. I [try] to never do that. I never talk about music in a lecture hall. If students come by [during] office hours, some of them ask me [about my music], but you'd be surprised how few. [And that] keeps things nice and clean.
[Source]
Many thanks to Jim for this news!
Q:Where does the name "Bad Religion" come from?
I felt that religion was useless as a way to answer the "big" questions about life. I felt that a "bad religion" was an apt name for a belief system that offered incorrect insights into questions of a scientific nature. Today, I recognize that the name implies that there is a "good religion." I guess a good religion is founded on the principle of truth through observation and verification.
Q: How do you use science in your lyrics?
A lot of scientific words are concisely descriptive, and this can be poetic if they are used carefully. I think that questions about evolution particularly are great metaphors that can be incorporated, because traditionally, our songs deal with social hardship, inequality, and general problems with modern man's lifestyle.
Q: Do you keep your two lives separate?
[People sometimes think] that I'm just using my music to promote my science background and vice versa; I'll use my lecture podium to try and enlist new fans. I [try] to never do that. I never talk about music in a lecture hall. If students come by [during] office hours, some of them ask me [about my music], but you'd be surprised how few. [And that] keeps things nice and clean.
[Source]
Many thanks to Jim for this news!
Reported by: Not specified
Tags: No tags defined
Tags: No tags defined
|
02/05/2008 at 03:18
Well, beliefs are great and cool. I just think one needs to be careful not to confuse these with actual knowledge. We all believe in things - like values and (I hope) treating men and women, black and white respectfully and equal. These are not "truths" nor scientific, just beliefs. :)
|
|
02/04/2008 at 18:01
Libidoanger, there's always a chance that you're right. I just think that a faith system has to be "lived in" to understand its truths, not observed. You can't survey it from the outside and know it's right the way believers do, and then decide to accept it. You have to do that without the verification up front, and that's called "faith." I assure you on the other side though, there are real and valuable personal rewards. I'm not trying to convert anybody, just posing the argument that there is a fallacy in the method (as described in lyrics and posts) Greg/Brett use to find truth regarding spiritual matters.
And BRMB, if you know what you're talking about (a debatable point), you'd remember that Brett used to get bent out of shape whenever there would be a discussion about song meaning and such. And politics. Offbeat's racist nonsense was one thing, but Brett definitely got snide with anyone who argued a contrasting point |
|
02/04/2008 at 15:57
hey dudes, who cares about anything... the point is that BR is the best punk band ever and there's nothing wrong if you listen to them and you are christian, muslim, jewish, scientist or whatever... BR music is for everyone that wants to think a little bit. Cheers from Argentina
|
|
02/03/2008 at 00:07
(Brett Gurewitz gives a flying fuck about your "personality". But that's just me.)
I think brett in the begining really cared what those fans on the brmb thought because he figured br fans would be sort of smarter than to engage in typical moron behavior. I never have seen brett get mad at somebody just because they don't believe in exactly what he believes. the only thing he got mad at was the rascist shit and who the fuck would begrudge him of that?? apparently W. would. hmm |
|
02/02/2008 at 15:17
Deer W!
By your reasoning, would not every psycosis rank as "truth verified"? There is nothing wrong with having "beliefs" - but one should be able to recognise that these are NOT founded on reason, logic nor verification. Beliefs are simply just that - beliefs, not knowledge or "fact". Just "beliefs"... |
|
02/01/2008 at 20:04
Catalina: I thought that aswell but it does not work out...
that I'm just using my music to promote my science background and vice versa; I'll use my lecture podium to try and enlist new fans. I to never do that. I never talk about music in a lecture hall. If students come by office hours, some of them ask me , but you'd be surprised how few. keeps things nice and clean. |
|
01/31/2008 at 22:09
Mr. A, they're referring to a few years ago when several of us, including Brett and Jay, spent waaaay too much time on the official BRMB and had interactions with one another. Mine with Brett were not always so amicable.
|
|
01/31/2008 at 19:25
"Brett and my personalities clash, it's no secret."
With all due respect, but you are just an obscure string of letters in a vast artificial aggregation of binary data. I don't think Brett Gurewitz gives a flying fuck about your "personality". But that's just me. |
|
01/31/2008 at 17:40
BRMB, I'm not referring to the old board at all. I'm speaking about how Brett and Greg treat faith in their lyrics. I have found HUGE value in questioning the beliefs I was taught thanks to BR lyrics. I was just pointing out that sometimes they come across as judgemental and insulting if, after consideration, you don't arrive at the same result. I've never blamed Brett for shutting down the fishtank, and I wasn't one of the ones posting all that hatred bullsh!t on there. Brett and my personalities clash, it's no secret. But I don't hate him or wish him ill. I still give him my money. Stop presuming you know who I am or what I take pride in.
|
|
01/31/2008 at 14:43
(It's only when he and Brett can't accept different for others that it begins to cross over into insult.)
I can't believe you still hold a grudge against brett for shutting down that hate filled mess they called the brmb. It was so long ago and no it wasn't free speech it went way beyond that. brett had every right to shut it down since it was his money paying for it. and yeah go ahead and post about how cool you are because you are the anti-br fan. whatever. |
|
01/31/2008 at 04:44
tape crook: Brackets like that are usually used in quotes when something hasn't been explicitly said by the person talking, but is inserted to make it more cohesive. (Or at least, that's how I've come to understand their usage.) That many's really annoying though.
|
|
01/30/2008 at 23:39
We have more chance to find a civilisation of lava golems than a real ghost or a spirit or whatever.
|
|
01/30/2008 at 23:06
Why the hell are there loads of brackets, can someone explain the reason they're being used like that?? It bugs the fuck out of me
|
|
01/30/2008 at 20:15
Check out the first video about "the holy grail as elusive as the speed of light".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ nova/preview/w_3501_220.html Then check out the second video that goes into the biggest mystery of all (regarding absolute zero). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28F_oPDZHSk |
|
01/30/2008 at 19:42
donald..."And there is this holy nun in france who never deteriorated."
So THAT's what happened to Texas. Native Americans there had long been envisioning a spirit, and when Spaniards came along they convinced the trusting people that it was their "Lady in Blue". Come on, really. How much can the brain interpret of an image that is perceived only through spirit? I am sure that the "Lady in Blue" did not appear to the Native Americans as she would in a photograph. The image was likely all blue and very faint. Anybody claiming to habitually see spirits in this modern age, or new dark age, would be put into a mental institution. When the Christian's or Catholics hear of such hallucinations, why do they not erect a statue in the image of the lunatic? |
|
01/30/2008 at 09:48
Uri Geller is the proof that there is more when you really believe in it. I fixed my broken clock watching the show. And there is this holy nun in france who never deteriorated ( if that's the right word in english) How the hell do you explain things like that?
|
|
01/30/2008 at 04:05
[there] are [a lot] of [brackets] in the [last answer].
|
|
01/30/2008 at 01:54
W!... "But if there were no verifications for believers, the belief would have died out over time."
Does your verification come through your limbic system? When there are overwhelming emotions involved, such as perhaps a love for God or Jesus, it is difficult to turn and walk away. |
|
01/30/2008 at 00:36
No, not an insult at all. I just understand that he's been trained to confirm fact by using a certain method and that's how he's come to his results on the issue of faith. That process of belief makes sense for him. For me though, the verification comes through other things and that doesn't make me wrong just because it's not in keeping with the same way we test biology. Sorry about the redundancy, and yes the beliefs are grounded in faith. But if there were no verifications for believers, the belief would have died out over time. As it is, it thrives in legitimate, non-TV preacher money grubbing George Bush ways. That's why there can be Christian BR fans. Critical, and still spiritual.
|
|
01/29/2008 at 23:35
As I read the interview, I could see Greg's goofy smile :> and imagine the pauses in his speech. It made the interview that much more... uh... interesting.
W!... "Because he can't see God in a petrie dish, it must not be real; and for him I accept that." Was that an insult? |
|
01/29/2008 at 23:16
W! You claimed most Christians would say that their beliefs are founded on truth verified through observation and verification. Let's forget about the redundancy of verifying things through verification. The truth is that no matter what Christians say, their beliefs are founded on faith, not verification. If you truly think you can verify your belief in God, then you create your own reality and leave mine to me!
|
|
01/29/2008 at 22:29
"I don't ever need to prove myself to you." It's not about quantifying emotion, as Graffin assumes. It's about personal relationship between men and God, who sometimes doesn't communicate in the same explicit ways we're used to. I don't discount Graffin's personal beliefs, but I think the instruments he uses to understand others' aren't applicable. Because he can't see God in a petrie dish, it must not be real; and for him I accept that. It's only when he and Brett can't accept different for others that it begins to cross over into insult.
|
|
01/29/2008 at 21:31
"It's wrong to assume that there are no personal spiritual experiences just because they're not on the level of sea-parting."
So the Flying Spaghetti Monster did actually create mankind, right? Fascinating. Once again, watch this: http://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid= 5640093862168820605 |
|
01/29/2008 at 19:10
W! says:
"Most Christians would say that their beliefs are founded on truth verified through observation and verification. It's wrong to assume that there are no personal spiritual experiences just because they're not on the level of sea-parting." Graffin says: "The fallacy of epiphany..." |
|
01/29/2008 at 17:41
I find that yesterday for my research;
GO see: American Scientist, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 294-297, July/August, 2007 Hazard?1? kinda stranger than fiction! |
|
01/29/2008 at 15:55
Most Christians would say that their beliefs are founded on truth verified through observation and verification. It's wrong to assume that there are no personal spiritual experiences just because they're not on the level of sea-parting.
|
