On Ricky Gervais' science

Ricky Gervais isn't everyone's cup of bovril. Some love him with a passion, others despise the very ground he walks on. To my mind a lot of this comes down to hype or jealousy. Gervais has made a fortune off his own efforts.

 

Good for him.

 

Now anyone who has heard him talk knows he keeps banging on about his passion for science. Indeed he did a whole standup tour called science, though this was a misnomer as it wasn't terribly scientific. This self-proclaimed love for science is tied with his open atheism and he uses his scientific knowledge to tell anyone with religious belief they are wrong and he is right. Recently however he has become a figurehead of the anti-religious faction writing and debating about the truth of science and how there is no god. He has gone further saying those parents with religious belief who teach their children things he doesn't believe in should be prosecuted for child abuse and have their children taken from them.

 

It seems that Gervais may be a bit of a fanatic.

 

It always miffs me when a celebrity, especially a comedian, has their views on subjects outside comedy/celebrity taken as having more wisdom or worth than anyone else's, even if the other person is an expert in the field.

 

I make no comment on the rightness or other of Gervais' views on god.

 

Science is an important topic. We as a society need to encourage more people to become scientists. More than that I feel we should all take an interest in science. I also believe we should take a interest in art, politics, or history. It's all about being a well rounded person.

 

The thing that gets me about Gervais is the fact that he calls science his passion and has talked about his childhood chemical experiments. He does have a superficial knowledge of science (though he also told the world with confidence that apes didn't have opposable thumbs (they do) so how far it extends beyond the superficial is open to debate).

 

So with this undoubted interest in science why didn't he study anything scientific at university? Why would a man with a love of science forgo the opportunity to really study it and have access to real equipment and facilities. Why skip the chance of making a real contribution to science?

 

How can he say that science proves there is no god when there are many real scientists, including many Nobel prize winning ones who think that there is a god?

 

Gervias is not a scientist. He doesn't have the in depth knowledge and mathematical skills to prove why some real scientists are wrong about their belief in god. Gervais just seems to follow on the coat tails of more popular atheists rather than reaching the decision himself. This happens more and more, and I'm not saying they are wrong by the way. However for Gervias to use the surface appearance of science to 'prove' he is right by shouting down all those other non-scientists is wrong. It reminds me, perhaps wrongly, of the way charlatans use the pseudo-scientific to bolster their wrong notions. It's not real science just using the surface weight of science to browbeat those who disagree.

 

Gervais may be right but he isn't a scientist. His beliefs should carry no more weight than anyone else's.