So why did I want to read David Mitchell's autobiography? I don't know very much about him and I can't have seen more than a handful of episodes of even his most acclaimed TV series. I very much like what I have seen though - and also, I've seen an embarrassing number of clips and highlights from the different TV shows on which he's appeared.
I especially appreciate his "angry logic", these clips are often laugh out loud funny and often incredibly spot on. I was, however, disappointed he didn't extend this logic reasoning to belief in god(s). On the contrary, in the book he goes on a rant against atheists, himself labelling as "agnostic" and claim to have not much of belief in god. Let's look at this logically, shall we?
First of all, belief in a god or gods does not follow the scale atheist-agnostic-theist, that's not what the words mean. Mitchell claims atheists are dishonest and arrogant because they assert that there is no god. This is not atheism, atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) - contrasted to the theists belief in god(s). "But you can't know" - of course you can, you know if you don't believe there is a god (I can't keep up writing god/gods, just put all and any god in there whenever I write "god" - there's 18'000+ that we know about).
Anyway, an atheist is someone who does not believe there's a god. That should be good enough, shouldn't it? No. The "you can't know though" pops up every time. "Logic" in this case would imply we can't ever claim to know anything, can we? I don't know if there's a spot on this planet that does not have gravity. I claim to know that this is the case, though. And this comes back to almost everything we claim to know - a lot of things with much less evidence than the evidence for any gods. "I know my parents love me", "I know I left my car keys on the kitchen table". In the sense we use "I know" - I know there's no gods. People who don't like to be too assertive often use the bail out "I'm 99 % sure that...." Which, in the logic sense, must mean they weighed up all the evidence for and against and had an outcome of 99 out of a hundred of them saying one thing and the hundredth the opposite. For anyone claiming this when it comes to gods, I'd be super interested to hear what that one thing (or two, three, if they considered 200, 300 pieces of evidence) that makes them think, "well maybe..."
When it comes to the Christian god, the god that arose from people trying to make sense of "the world" ("the world" being about as far as they thought it was possible to travel, or around a couple of days march from their home) of Iron age Judea with a population of 50-60000 at the time, is - logically - something we can dispense with without a second thought. Or, we would, if we were to apply logic, but here we are 2000 years later, with all the knowledge gained, trying to make excuses and making nonsense justifications to everything that does not hold up, not to scrutiny, but to even a second of reflection.
Anyway, Mr Mitchell's "logic" missed the mark on this occasion.
The book then, you ask? Well, it's well written, often funny, an easy read. It's also surprisingly boring. I mean, it is a memoir, the author had to work with what's there, but that does not mean it's very interesting, unfortunately. If you feel you just have to know, by all means, like I said, it's very well written and you can almost hear Mitchell's voice in your mind.