Some things hurt my brain.

Philosophy sucks. It hurts my head and finds annoying and unfair ways to win arguments. Arguments are won by being right. Being right is proven by being backed up by facts. Without breaking a sweat, philosophy can tell you that no fact is certain and that there is no possible way to prove you are not merely a brain in a jar being fed electrical signals. Or that some god created everything in the universe exactly the way it is five minutes ago. There is no comeback. However, instead of serving as a reminder not to make too many assumptions about your world, I find it just prevents me from winning arguments, although this might be due to my inability to debate orally in real time. Facts, no matter how irrefutable, become unstable. The certainty that the Earth orbits the Sun melts away a little, because that might be what the nameless scientists want the brain in the jar to think (I do wonder, however, why people who subscribe to this way of thinking don't leave for work via their bedroom windows, if not for the fact that they know they will fall and likely break something).

But that way madness lies, and it is no way to win an argument. The Earth does revolve around the Sun. It is irrefutable, and there should be nothing more than a minor concession to the vanishingly small possibility that we are brains in jars or the butt of a joke played by a bored omnipotent being. It pays to look at my atheism the same way – I don’t know for an utter certainty that one of the vast myriad of gods dreamt up in our history is actually real, but I find the possibility of me being a brain in a jar much more likely.

Sometimes, particularly online, this way of thinking, of disregarding the value of things we know to be true, has a more damaging consequence than annoying me. It creates an environment where a fact is relegated to the status of mere opinion. Where people who simply have a big mouth can command as much attention as genuine experts on a vast variety of subjects and issues. Worse, where those with an agenda are able to take misunderstandings in respect of things we know to be true (yes, yes, unless we’re all brains in jars or whatever) and deliberately use them to foster denial and mistrust and cause conflict. It is that time again, where I sigh wearily, bring out my tin drum and bang on, once again, about two areas in particular where this kind of thing happens: climate change and evolution.

A recent Koch-funded study defied skeptic/denier expectations, confirming that the data in relation to climate change (that it is happening, and that human activity is responsible for much of it) was not only accurate but that the IPCC may have in fact underestimated the effect in some respects. This year polar ice melt is at a record-breaking high. Do you think that this will have anything but a negligible effect on those determined to deny the fact of climate change? Or the Koch brothers themselves? Not bloody likely.

And as for the big E, the very same applies. The fact of evolution is very hard to deny without sounding like a fool. The culprit is usually either a mind enslaved to an outdated religious doctrine, or a determination to stick to a hastily made conclusion and neglecting to look any further. The old erroneous conclusions resurface again and again – if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes, if every living thing on the planet is linked by evolution, why have we never found evidence of a 'crocoduck', why are there no transitional fossils. The first two illustrate the same fundamental misunderstanding of the very concept of the theory – no one living complex species of animal in existence on the planet today evolved from another living complex species of animal in existence on the planet today; they all shared a common ancestor. The third point illustrates the lack of interest in confirming one's own conclusions – there are literally thousands of transitional fossils (fish to reptile). Thousands (reptile to mammal, reptile to bird). Some further reading gives a number of examples of human evolution, too, if you can be arsed to check before talking shite about 'missing links'.

Keeping in mind the philosophy bit, there is, obviously, like every fact, a chance that evolution could be wrong. About as much chance that the Earth doesn’t revolve around the Sun. About as much that all of physics is wrong. The theory of evolution is as sound as the theory of gravity, and like all scientific theories, it started as an idea based on observation. Over 200 years, further observation and testing has established a solid theory that explains, beautifully, the biological state of the world today. Maybe the philosophical brain in a jar approach isn’t responsible for the deliberate and wilful misunderstanding of facts and scientific theories, but it ain’t half an annoying way to bring an argument to a stalemate.

A declaration of undying love for the BBC.

I hate BBC’s Question Time. This is an odd way to begin a declaration of love for the BBC, but I do. I used to watch it and try to think of funny things to say regarding it to post on Twitter. This didn’t work for two reasons. Firstly, I can’t think of funny things to say about anything. Secondly, the programme would never fail to frustrate me and make me angry. It’s completely pointless and is a platform for bigots, politicians and ineffective lefties to spout their opinions, lies and misinformed bullshit masquerading as intelligent debate. So I stopped watching it. I watched one recently because someone I knew at college was in the audience. The show is as bad as it ever was, brought home particularly by Theresa May talking about how she thinks our economy works the same way as a credit card debt and the odious Peter Hitchens spouting the same kind of clueless hatred he fills his Daily Mail column with. In my incoherent rage I managed to make myself look like a dick on Twitter. I mean, more than usual. The lighter final question was about what people need to make them happier. Hitchens proclaimed loudly and proudly that faith in god was his particular remedy. Regular readers of this blog (and I have a few, believe it or not) will already know about my strong atheist opinions. I try my best to draw a line at insulting people who have faith – I try hard to only criticise religion itself. My tweet in response to Hitchens looked, frankly, like I thought he was an arsehole for the contentment he gets from his faith. I don’t, I think he’s an arsehole for his detestable and uninformed opinions on everything from immigrants, through those on benefits to scientists who found that second-hand smoke is harmful. That he clearly has so much contempt for those people he considers beneath him (like the poor or the foreign or, whisper it, the foreign poor) in one comment and then proudly declares his faith in god in the next. Now, is it me or is one of the few redeeming features of christianity the idea that everyone should be compassionate towards their fellow human and help those in need? That he failed to recognise the contradiction in what he was saying caused me to tweet without thinking. Hitchens went on to do what many like him love to do and give shit to the BBC. He criticised the corporation for not believing in god. First off, as Dimbledore rightly pointed out, the question related to a survey conducted by the Office of National Statistics and had nothing to do with the BBC. Also, being a corporation, and not a human, it has no beliefs of any kind. Thirdly, did Hitchens forget about Songs of Praise and Radio 4’s Thought for the Day? Of course he didn’t, he was just ignoring them to hammer home his nonsensical BBC-slagging point.

Frankly, Hitchens and those like him can go eat a shit sandwich, for the BBC is no less than the finest broadcaster in the world and is worth the licence fee a hundred times over. Want some examples as to why? Blackadder, Red Dwarf, The Brittas Empire, Not the Nine O’clock News, The Day Today, The Young Ones, Bottom, Alan Partridge, Alas Smith & Jones, Comic Strip Presents, The Office, Extras, Faulty Towers, Gavin & Stacey, Hancock’s Half Hour, Monty Python, Not Only...But Also, Steptoe and Son, The Thick of It, Have I Got News For You, Never Mind the Buzzcocks, QI ,Shooting Stars. That’s just some of the comedy.

BBC 3 recently had The Fades, an outstanding horror thriller in which the dead came back to take over the world and cannibalise the living – not a terribly original idea, but highly original in its execution (although I was slightly disappointed by the last episode it doesn’t change the fact that it was great). In Fry’s Planet Word national treasure Stephen Fry explored the history and possible future of language, and was wonderful, Fry’s obvious enthusiasm for his subject pleasantly engrossing. As a science-nut, Horizon is like catnip to me, as well as recent documentaries on the history of humankind’s discovery of the elements or the current series exploring our origins (I love the fact that the BBC has no problem with shows that present evolution as fact (because it is) and don’t have to compromise by acknowledging the nutty alternative theories of creationism and intelligent design (which are not fact)). Wonders of the Solar System and follow up Wonders of the Universe were each worth the licence fee by themselves, as was the little-seen three part series All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace, which explored the idea that our economic, environmental and political systems are inspired by the way in which machines work and the disastrous results that have come from it. It illustrated quite neatly how Ayn Rand, that hero of misunderstanding leftists and Silicon Valley moguls everywhere and her flawed ideology (that she couldn’t even live by herself, so frick knows how she expected others to do so) contributed to the recent global economic collapse. It showed clearly how we completely misunderstood natural environmental systems for years but based much of our own social and political systems on our misunderstanding of them and then couldn’t understand how things went so badly wrong. It showed the horrifying human cost that is paid when people who don’t know anything act like they’re experts and meddle. It should be seen. And of course there is Planet Earth, The Blue Planet, Frozen Planet, Life in Cold Blood and all those other Attenborough documentaries that are perfect, wonderful, glorious television.

So, the hateful Question Time notwithstanding, I am proud to love the BBC, and will continue to do so, and will never understand why other people don’t.

Not built for public speaking.

I am pretty useless at debating and arguing in person. I cannot think of appropriate responses to challenges and I can never find the right words to make my point. This is one of the reasons I like to write this blog - I think I write better than I speak, after I've had time to consider what it is I should say to best make my point. My biggest weakness is that I often use a hundred words when ten would do. I've learnt that for me it's often better just to shut my mouth and lose an argument because whatever I say on the spur of the moment will make me sound like an idiot. After a drink, I sometimes forget this and talk utter shite, and I also forget I have a volume control on my voice. I suspect, however, that I am not alone in that particular trait.

I got to thinking about this after a conversation I had with a friend in which I was asked to confirm whether or not I find Professor Brian Cox attractive. I wrote about science and what it means to me here and I have a huge amount of respect for the new poster boy of physics and cosmology. I refused to answer, because any yes or no answer I gave would not necessarily be what I meant. I think they occasionally read this thing, so I'm going to try to answer it here.

At the route of my refusal to answer is my hatred of being labelled, classified and grouped together with others who are similar. I hate it happening to me and I hate it happening to other people as well. I'm not gay and I'm not straight. I'm not bi either. I am physically attracted to the female sex, but there's a range of different types of attraction. I don't want to put myself inside him particularly, but hell yes, Brian Cox is attractive. I may not fancy his arse much, but I do fancy his mind and his enthusiasm for what he does. To instantly reply to my friend's question in the negative would be, I felt, to disassociate myself from gay people, to intentionally distance myself from any and all elements of homosexuality. I find myself extremely intolerant of any form of intolerance and any assumption that there should be any normal way to live, to be or to love. If you've read certain posts on here, you may think I'm fairly intolerant of religious people but that is not true. A religious person that does not attempt to bring me onside or to indoctrinate others in any way is fine. Public displays of religiony things, like praying, is just dandy. The religions themselves I have less time for, but that's another post. The 'I don't mind, just don't bring it near me' is prejudice masquerading as acceptance. It's like the Tories trying to appeal to environmentalists.

As soon as you take it upon yourself to educate yourself, all reasons and excuses for prejudice disappear. You learn that thinking of being gay as a 'lifestyle choice' is utter bullcrap as sexuality is one of the many things decided in the womb and completely outside a person's control. You learn that to deny the truth of evolution is one of the most absurd things a person could do - the biological, genetic and fossilised evidence of the unifying theory of biology (that's a scientific theory, not a regular one - read up on the difference before you embarrass yourself and declare it's 'only a theory') is so far beyond the ability to successfully debate against that the number of people who still genuinely try is bizarre and frightening. How do these people trust doctors and their diagnoses when the diagnoses are based on where the bacteria lie on the phylogenetic tree, which was developed by studying and building on evolution? You learn that Republicans denying the evidence of man made climate change are basically declaring to the world that they will compromise on anything and cross any boundary if it gains them votes, power and wealth.

All these things and more underlie my refusal to answer the question of Brian Cox's attractiveness. Cox's Wonders of the Solar System and follow up Wonders of the Universe speak so clearly to a way of thinking I feel passionately about, that he becomes a person I find extremely attractive in a number of ways, sexually being the least relevant. Anyway, he's not exactly hard on the eye is he?

My mind is like a car crash: there are bits flying everywhere.

Something very cool happened to me the other morning. I did a good deed, and shortly after, something good happened to me. How often does that actually happen? Almost never? I got up early and went to wait at the bus stop to get a ride into work. There was one other person waiting at the stop, who I've seen a few times previously. We politely acknowledge each other, but don't speak. When the bus turned up, the other person got on ahead of me, and showed the driver a travel pass. "No good" he said, a little arrogantly. "Different company, you see. West Midlands Travel, not Arriva. Can't do it." When I've caught the bus with this person previously, the pass has been accepted without a second glance, so no wonder this response comes as such a surprise. I'm standing behind, knowing full well I only have enough spare change for myself. They're getting worried, because they need to catch a train. "What can I do?" "You gotta pay." "But I have no money." "Then you gotta get off." The driver is already looking past them and asking me where I want to go. Apprehensive, they begin to walk off the bus.

Enter: me. Imagine me shirtless if it'll help. If you know me in reality, it won't.

I hand over my change, insisting that I'll be fine and can arrange a lift or get some more cash for the next bus. Gratefully, they use my money to pay and get on. I'm probably going to be late for work, but I actually feel pretty damn good. Like Bill Murray at the end of Scrooged preaches, doing selfless things, even a little thing like I did, feels great. I start walking, trying to figure out a way to get into work, when the bus pulls up and the driver lets me on without paying.

Now, I can't blame a driver for not letting someone on if they can't pay and their pass isn't valid - Arriva is in business to make money after all, and they can't give free rides to anyone who looks at them a bit sad, but I thought the driver could have shown a little more empathy. I don't know if I shamed him or inspired him, but the result was pretty cool nonetheless, and the driver deserves credit for swallowing his pride and overcoming his earlier uncaring attitude.

The whole incident has caused my thoughts to go off at seemingly random tangents (hence the post title, which, if it sounds familiar to you, is from the first Bottom Live tour). This is completely normal for me, and I suspect for a number of you too.

It got me thinking (again) about religion. There's a video on Youtube of a debate between famed atheist Christopher Hitchens and catholic apologist Dinesh D'Souza: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8. Usually, someone like Hitchens is able to demolish any defence of faith with relative ease (known as being 'Hitch-slapped'), but here I was surprised at how well D'Souza held his own. It's long (about ten minutes shy of two hours), so I doubt you'll watch it, but the points D'Souza raises that Hitchens appeared to have difficutly resolving was firstly the explanation of the existence of an inherent moral code; an instinctive knowledge of right and wrong (such as giving up a seat on the bus, or even your bus fare altogether) that cannot be adequately explained by evolution alone. Second was the point that our Universe is perfectly 'tuned' to support the evolution of humans - a quicker expansion following the Big Bang, or a slower one, and it would be impossible for life to evolve as it has done. D'Souza reflected that such a Universe must have been designed this way purposefully. Finally was the inability of evolution to explain the complexity of the cell. Evolution starts with a cell, but doesn't explain how such a thing came to be.

For me, every argument D'Souza made served to strengthen my own atheist standpoint. I have an ingrained moral code. I know that I should help people if it is in my power to do so. I know that some things are right and that some things are wrong. It is right to donate to The Red Cross, the organisation organising relief efforts in Japan, Haiti and New Zealand. It is wrong to dismiss such disasters because they occurred in countries other than the one I was born in. I do not accept that my knowledge of the proper way to act is a gift from a supernatural creator. It comes from a simple ability to put myself in someone else's shoes; to imagine the world from their viewpoint. It's such an easy thing to do, and yet so many people, theist and atheist alike, have trouble with it. I could clearly see the person on the bus this morning was distressed at the thought of being stranded with no money and a train to catch. Imagining how it would feel to be in their position, I felt compelled to help. It's that simple. It's perfectly clear when someone is distressed or unhappy, and it is also perfectly obvious that one does not enjoy being distressed or unhappy, so it stands to reason that you would instinctively offer whatever help you could. No divine intervention required - just logic.

The second point, regarding our 'perfectly tuned' Universe highlights the astonishing arrogance behind faiths of all kinds. If the Universe is perfectly suited to us, rather than considering it proof that the entire thing (of which we inhabit only the tiniest, tiniest fraction) was simply pulled out of god's arse for our benefit, perhaps us evolving like this is the obvious consquence of a Universe 'tuned' this way. Evolution dictates that life will always evolve to fill a niche and adapt to its environment. If the Universe had been 'tuned' differently, a different type of life would probably have evolved. Is this obvious only to me? Am I a brain in a jar being given opinions that are not my own by scientists? Do people really think the entirity of the endlessly incredible cosmos was created entirely for their benefit?

And the cell. Hitchens made a point while addressing something else that seems to fit this rather nicely. D'Souza referred to the evolution of the eye to back up a point about (I think) intelligent design (which, as I understand it, basically gives god the credit for evolution without a single shred of evidence other than pointing out the things science doesn't yet know). Hitchens pointed out how not so long ago catholic debaters such as D'Souza argued against evolution by citing the seeming impossibility of the evolution of the eye (even though it is actually addressed in Darwin's original Origin of Species). Now when there is genuinely no credible arguement against all the proof of evolution written in the very fabric of our DNA debaters like D'Souza use it to strengthen the religious argument. The answer now is that evolution was the big man's plan all along, and the cell and science's inability to yet explain its development is cited as proof.

The most important and the most often used answer to a question asked in science is "I don't know". Taking this initial standpoint allows for the development of the scientific process of gathering evidence to support theories. So science can't yet explain the complexity of the cell. Don't tell me that because the answer is unknown the most obvious solution is an intelligent designer. Nothing in the natural world supports this. The more we learn, the more we realise there is still to learn and the more obvious it becomes that the answers can be found. Eventually. Maybe. Even if they never are, science allows for the possibility of failure. It doesn't make it any less compelling as an argument. It's like Bill O'Reilly telling us in his superior explaining-things-to-dense-children voice that no-one can explain the tides. Ahem. That would be the gravitational pull of the moon, Bill. "OK", he replies, as if he has an unbeatable rejoinder, "so how'd the moon get there?" We're not sure Bill. We weren't there at the time. We can extrapolate a theory from our knowledge of the laws of physics and observing other moons, but we can't say for sure. Not knowing, however, is in no way proof of the existence of god as you infer. It never will be. But you'll keep using it, because there will always be things we don't know.

OK, so now I seem to have clouded utterly my original train of thought. I don't think I ever had a point. But I do know that doing nice things to help people is awesome. Maybe that's all the point I need.

Atheist or creationist? Still human, it turns out.

I read a piece online the other day written by a guy about losing his faith and becoming an atheist. The blog, to me, seemed a little bittersweet - I felt there was grief over the loss of the comfort of blind certainty that usually comes with a faith, and along with it the person he used to be, but it also had the feel of a man who was happy to have woken from a lifelong delusion and is able to see clearly for the first time. He now uses Twitter (@ZachsMind) to debate with people over their beliefs. Overall, he's usually pleasant and respectful towards the faithful and doesn't tend to criticise them personally, but he can get pretty disrespectful over their faith. I do share in his disdain for all religions, but where I occassionally disagree is where he sometimes insults people directly, particularly their (in his view) lack of intelligence. I don't feel that @ZachsMind does this to be malicious, but rather out of frustration when the set-in-their-ways creationists won't debate with him properly. But I do think a small number of Twitter atheists can be dicks. (If you're a Twitter atheist and are reading this: if I follow you, I'm not referring to you - I don't follow the dicks.)

Creationists (and all those of any faith), I can't deny, do believe in what I consider to be superstition and nonsense. As @ZachsMind likes to point out; if god does exist the sheer volume of unnecessary suffering and general shit in the world would prove beyond doubt that he is a dick and not worthy of worship. And yes, all those shitty religions are responsible in large part for many of the hateful attitudes in the world today - America's greed? That's because the bible told them to subdue the Earth. Violent Middle-Easterners? That's down to them being ridiculously caught up in the 'my god's better than your god...so I'm going to kill you' game. Homophobia? That's because god hated the gays. Obviously I'm simplifying a complex issue, and there are many, many people of every faith that don't completely misinterpret the message of their religion and try to live as decent folk. Like my christian mother or buddhist in-laws. And these people are not stupid. They usually have their faith because it's been ingrained upon them from a young age, and they cannot believe otherwise. It's not that believers are stupid, it's that it's human nature to take comfort from easy answers instead of really questioning the whole idea of a conscious, imaginary force providing your reward for you when you die. It's because the fear of death can become so palpable that telling yourself there is an everlasting existence for you in the beyond, or that you get to come back as something or someone else stops this fear from crushing you. Even the homophobic, Earth-subduing suicide bombers aren't really stupid, they're just conditioned from youth to think and to see the world in a certain way. When a person is conditioned in that way, it is almost impossible to break that conditioning later in life (making @ZachsMind's story a rarity, I think). At least, that's how I see it, although I base that entirely upon my own perception and not on anything actually researched, so I'm probably wrong.

So yeah, religion winds me up quite a bit. But it's not the individuals themselves. It's the pope making excuses for serial child-rapists. It's the educational systems that despite the fact that the answer to how we got here was answered completely and absolutely irrefutably by Charles Darwin over 200 years ago, won't teach evolution as the accepted scientific fact it is. It's the continued insistence of some faiths that women are somehow subhuman. It's a thousand other things that continue to hinder the development of a society based on free thinking, reason and true equality. You shouldn't behave like a decent human being because of some supposed god and his promise of an eternity of torture when you die if you don't, you should act like a decent human being because that's what decent human beings do.

However, atheists don't get off scot free either. Many atheists consider themselves superior because of their rejection of religion and have a nasty habit of personally insulting people of faith simply because they think differently. This is a typically human attitude, which is especially disappointing given their supposed rejection of unenlightened superstition and the acceptance of logic and reason. Insulting people of faith won't change them, it will them more stubborn and less open-minded. (Besides, the trend, as far as my limited research indicates, shows a general moving away from faith and towards atheism in the U.S. despite (or perhaps because of?) the idiotic Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and their retarded take on christianity taking centre stage so often, so they might not need to worry about it for long. Oh, and by the way, purveyors of the special Beck 'n' Palin brand of christianity, opposing the ground zero mosque on the grounds that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by islamic extremists is a bit like saying the religion itself is to blame. Which is a bit like saying all muslims are terrorists. Which is a bit like saying all catholics are paedophiles. Which, in direct contradiction to my earlier point (hey, like the bible!), is fucking stupid.)

It's not really surprising that whatever the faith or lack thereof, there are people who are cool and there are people who are dicks. Because, regardless of belief/non-belief, people are still people.

Survival of the ignorant?

I'm worried and aggravated. I'm afraid for my planet and my species. I'm afraid it's squandering its enormous potential.

Somehow, recently, I got into a conversation about evolution. You know: Darwin, natural selection, Origin of Species; all that stuff. Living only 12 miles away from where Darwin was born, I guess it's inevitable he comes up in conversation occasionally. The two people I'm talking to are not religious - not Creationinsts, catholics or any other faith, and yet it turns out that they don't 'believe' in the theory of evolution (the inverted commas are because it's not a matter of belief - you don't 'believe' in gravity or DNA, you accept the obviousness of the truth, and evolution is the same). They don't buy creation either, and claim they are waiting to discover 'The Third Way'.

Some of what they say is tongue in cheek, but the underlying unwillingness to accept the theory is serious. As I begin to question the reasons for this, I soon find that it's because they don't actually know what evolution is - all they have is a vague misconception about what it might be, clearly illustrated by the fact that one of them doesn't understand why apes are still around if humans evolved from them (we didn't is the short answer, and the long answer is far too long to go into here), and the other doesn't know how a fish can give birth to an air-breathing lizard (again, it's doesn't is the short answer). I mention that what they think evolution is actually isn't, and offer to lay out the theory and the proof in a simple written form to help them increase their understanding. Once they have that knowledge, they can then debate it properly and decide for themselves whether or not to accept the theory. At least they'll no longer have the misconceptions. They both promptly decline this offer saying they don't care as it won't change their lives in any way.

Now, this is the heart of the matter - this is why I'm afraid. They would rather go on believing their misconception regarding what evolution actually is than attempt to learn or understand. These people are not morons - they posses both intelligence and common sense. They simply aren't interested in knowledge they can't see a material use for. To me, this is unfathomable. I am amazed every day by the natural world, at the way everything fits together so perfectly. That amazement is possible because of my understanding of how it all came to be - because of my understanding of evolution. That a person of reasonably high intelligence would rather watch Eastenders, X-Factor, Masterchef and any number of mind-numbing TV shows than actually increase their understanding of, well, anything at all is frightening.

Is this the norm or the exception? Is no-one curious anymore? Are we collectively so entangled by the mundanity of everyday celebrity culture, soaps and TV talent shows? If so, then we are lost, doomed to fade away into lethargy and entropy.