The Infallible Argument from Comedy

I used to be a fan of Eddie Izzard, when he was telling jokes about laundry, cats drilling, Greek mythology. Then I finally got to see him live and, instead of comedy, he started by telling us not to vote for the BNP, then told us God didn't exist. He ended his show telling us we should all work for the same wages (minimum wage, I think he was getting at). I wondered if such an adoption would make tickets to his show cheaper.

The non-existence of God was pretty much his theme for the evening, with such evidence offered as the fact God didn't flick off Hitler's head before he did so many terrible things and the fact God didn't show up to congratulate the human race when they reached the Moon.

Instead, Izzard told us he "believes in us!", in human beings, a state often recognised in theology as what happens when people reject the idea of gods - rather than stopping worshipping, they start worshipping themselves, each other or anything else they can find. Believing in the greatness of humans (except members of the BNP, obviously) would, you would think, make Izzard be grateful God didn't flick off Hitler's head - it gave an opportunity to show how great humans can be in the face of evil. As for the Moon, why wouldn't the supposed Creator of the Universe be impressed that, despite all the atrocities humans committed in the 20th Century, they managed to travel a quarter of a million miles (about 0.00000000000000003% of the width of the universe) and back?

I don't know how long celebrities have been using their celebrity status to sound off their views in public, usually demonstrating they have become celebrities by being great at exactly one thing. It's probably always been that way.

"Rock stars: is there anything they don't know?" - Homer Simpson

Of course, there's always Stephen Fry, who is hailed as a celebrity genius. I've heard the guy really is quite smart, but I can't help feeling most people accept his genius because he hosts QI. (Fewer would reach the same conclusion about Richard Whiteley, late host of Countdown, but there you go.)

Now, I'm not really saying celebrities lack the skills to shine in other areas - there are plenty of examples of comedians successfully moving to acting (and plenty of examples of musicians moving unsuccessfully to acting). There are many cases where someone has become famous for something that wasn't necessarily their passion, but gave them the chance to pursue their passion later (though I can't think of an example offhand!).

So it's entirely possible a show-business celebrity can have deep insight into politics, religion, history, etc. But I think many people listen to and take on board celebrity views only because they like their comedy, their songs, their films, etc. It's a lazy way to form an opinion.

Speaking of lazy, I occasionally stumble across one of Tim Minchin's comedy shows being televised. Talk about preaching to the converted. Last night I heard him do his own take on a refrain Ben Elton and Billy Connolly have done in the past. The bit starts off with something like, "Some people don't like my swearing," and ends with the comedian swearing. Tim Minchin's take was to segue from swearing to religion, with the punchline that he was now going to do a song about "anal sex and God", to which he received rapturous applause, before and after said song. (To my ear, the song used the same technique Russell Brand uses: multi-syllabic words disguising themselves as intellectual content.)

Comedians these days are in a particular position of power in espousing their viewpoints - firstly, their occupation literally is standing up, spouting their thoughts unchallenged. Secondly, they usually have a faithful congregation to preach to. Thirdly, and most powerful of all, if anyone does challenge them, the obvious response is, "It's comedy, get over it."

So I really shouldn't have bothered.

The Newest Religion

Science probably isn't the newest religion, but at times it seems like it. I don't believe (like some claim) that all followers of religions are intellectually deficient, blindly following something just because someone told them to without question, but I'm fairly confident some do.

But when I see followers of "scientism" exhibiting such traits, I have to suspect it's an aspect of human nature, rather than an aspect of religions, that is the root cause.

Exhibit A - Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram
There's something quaint, almost absent-minded professorish, while at the same time exciting, about this investigation into whether the universe might be a hologram. But it's the lead comment I found more intriguing:

Psinet: "I like how my religion means I can wake up one day, and Wired delivers me the message from the science gods on high, and my entire Universe is slightly different from the day before.

"Beats having to think about the same dead guy everyday."

It's refreshingly honest to call someone's adherence to science a "religion". When I first read this, I guess I took it a bit too literally: was this person really saying their "Universe" was slightly different from the previous day, because of what scientists had found out? Let's hope not.

The universe, in some ways, is different every day for all of us, regardless what we believe, while in other ways it stays the same. For this commenter, having a "priest" (or, in their terms, a "science god") tell them what their latest experiments lead them to conclude is enough to give them the jollies and feel their universe is different.

Such adoration of knowledge, while commendable to a degree, is disappointing when seen as the pinnacle of man's pursuits. When one tackles a maths textbook at school, maybe it can be said the universe seems a little different each day as one gains understanding. But it doesn't change the fact the answers are already set, in the questions themselves as well as in the back of the book.

Not sure who the dead guy is, though. Could he be talking about Mohammed? That's just mean.

Exhibit B: Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Time
Again, as interesting as the article is, it's a comment that caught my attention:

Steffen Says: "On #9: Also our grandkids won’t live forever. Perhaps they will enjoy a prolonged lifespan and much higher quality of life in old age, but they will not live forever.

"There is a very good reason evolution invented death. The cycle of life and death ensures that a species adapts much better to changing circumstances. Imagine a society where everybody is immortal. It quite inevitably culminates in an ultra-conservative nightmare, where “everything is like it was forever”. Imagine a society where the industry tycoons of the 19th century still own the majority of money and influence.

"[...] I am glad that death exists, and when my time arrives, I will go, to make place for the young generation. They deserve their chance."

I was surprised and glad to read the denunciation that "our grandkids won't live forever," since it's often a staple of scientism that, eventually, we will defeat death through science. I detect a schism, at least two sects within this religion, where one side pursues immortality (often while chiding religious believers for believing such nonsense themselves) and the other acknowledges limits to the reach of science (almost a heresy, surely - the normal interpretation to such limits is that, anything outside the realms of science does not actually exist anyway).

But it was the sentence I've highlighted that stopped me in my tracks for sheer stupidity. Evolution, a mindless concept that rules out any ideas of purpose in anything, somehow has the capacity for invention, and inventing no less a milestone than death itself.

We know from our schooling that evolution takes millions of years (except for those times when it doesn't - another schism, I suspect) to accomplish something (not that it accomplishes - since there's no goal, there's no measure of accomplishment), yet here it cobbled together "death" to ensure our survival.

When did it do this? One hopes from the beginning (whatever that means), otherwise there are beings in existence that have never died, which surely gives an in for more religious ideas.