DHP Review: Religulous
Posted by Dirty Harry on Friday, October 3rd, 2008
NOTE: This review was originally published in August.
While more entertaining and better paced, director Larry Charles‘ Religulous can’t help but remind of Morgan Spurlock’s dreadful Where In The World Is Osama bin Laden?, especially at the end where both films are undone by their attempts to close on serious points the preceding 90 minutes of antics simply can’t sustain. It’s surprising Charles let this one get away from him. After all, he also directed Borat, and one of the few saving graces of that humiliation-fest was that it never lost sight of the fact that it was nothing more than a sketch comedy.
Religulous is hosted by Bill Maher who, like Spurlock, travels the world in search of unsuspecting everyday folks who can be selectively and mercilessly edited into boobs, rubes, crazies, and the corrupt. More than three-quarters of the run-time is spent on the fringes of Christianity in places like truck stop chapels, Jews for Jesus gift shops, and Holy Land amusement parks — pretty much anyplace Maher would have the least chance of bumping into someone who could handle the game he’s running, the laziest game played by militant atheists: Biblical gotcha!
Because Maher does a good job of hiding what can be a pretty ugly personality, things kick off amusingly with a conversation between him, his mother and sister at the church he grew up in. Raised a Catholic by a Catholic father and Jewish mother, at thirteen Maher’s father became disaffected with the church’s strict rules on birth control and pulled both kids out. Neither ever looked back, and Jesus, as they say, didn’t take.
From here Maher takes off for Raleigh, North Carolina, to the Vatican in Rome, and any place in-between where easy prey might be found. Admittedly, the rare refreshing personality who brings out the best in Maher pops up every now and again, and some chuckles are had, but for the most part things quickly become derivative as an unambitious pattern of ridiculing easy targets develops.
And I use the term “unambitious” intentionally. There have been some fascinating debates between thoughtful believers and thoughtful atheists. I would describe a thoughtful atheist as one who responds to the theologian with his or her own theories to life’s unanswered questions, not Biblical gotcha!, or worse, that strange bitterness too many non-believers like Maher hold towards all thing religious — a bitterness that closely resembles jealousy.
But I suspect that even most atheists will have a hard time with much of Religulous. As a culture, not a religious culture, but as an American one, for the most part we believe in fair play and are more comfortable laughing at ourselves as opposed to at the expense of others. Not content to mock solely through selective editing, frequently a film clip or subtitle is inserted into the interview to further humiliate the subject. This is where Maher’s famously smug mean streak frequently gets the best him and undercuts what little sense of fair play there was.
Religulous isn’t only a cowardly hatchet job because of the deception used to catch its interview subjects off guard, but also because it becomes increasingly obvious that Maher simply doesn’t have the guts or enough self-confidence in his position to sit down with someone as prepared as he is (by a staff) for an honest, open debate. Anyone who’s heard Dennis Prager or Hugh Hewitt defend their religious beliefs with non-believing guests (who aren’t duped and lied to), can’t help but be frustrated by Maher’s glib deflection and refusal to talk to someone at all prepared for what he’s peddling.
Ultimately, the film’s built on a dishonesty that makes it difficult to settle in and enjoy it. According to the holy book of Maher, Christians have only ever spread grief. There’s no mention of the abolition of slavery, missionary work, or the Mother Theresa’s of the faith. There’s no mention that the great mass-murderers of the 20th century, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin were all hostile to faith, or that our Judeo-Christian country is the only one in history to be attacked, wage war, win, rebuild our enemies, liberate them and then turn their country back over to them. To any thinking, reasonable person, these elephants, located in each and every room, will make it difficult to sit back and relax. What’s unsaid is both deafening and distracting.
Religulous isn’t smart, it’s smart ass. It’s also astonishingly dishonest. A game of Biblical gotcha! is one thing, but positioning the thoroughly debunked link between an ancient Egyptian god and Jesus as historical fact is what you might call the film’s Michael Moore moment — the moment so audaciously dishonest and unfair it undercuts any gains the film might have otherwise enjoyed. There’s Michael Moore catching Charlton Heston off guard, there’s Michael Moore showing the Iraqi people out flying kites, and there’s Bill Maher matter of factly presenting a wild conspiracy – that the Gospels are pretty much plagiarized — as fact.
Maher and Charles desperately want Religulous to be about something and this is where they get in over their heads and into the most intellectual trouble. If you’re going to close your film on a dour note, warning that religion will bring about the end the of the world through self-fulfilling prophecy why spend 70 of your 100 minutes with Christians and Jews who barely seem capable of tying their own shoes much less bringing about the end times? More than a cursory quarter-hour covering Islam (the most effective moments of the film) might have better made their point, but also might have helped Bush.
Can’t have that.
By any objective standard Religulous is entertaining and the best left wing film since Michael Moore’s Sicko. I suspect for that reason it might turn a profit. But it’s also an empty-headed exercise, a reality show built on smug and ridicule. If those were the only tools available on which to hang my beliefs, I’d rethink my beliefs. But Maher enjoys his own cult; the cult of personality. No intellect required to join, just a glib, dark hearted contempt for everyone else.
Filed in Movie Reviews |
Christian Totoon 21 Aug 2008 at 11:17 am 1Good stuff. Can you describe how the film critiques/insults/probes Islam? Are punches pulled?
Moon 21 Aug 2008 at 11:18 am 2This infuriates me. I’d love to see this guy go up against the likes of JP Moreland, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Greg Koukl, Josh McDowell - all men who can communicate what Christianity is all about in a knowledgeable, fair, intelligent manner.
Tomon 21 Aug 2008 at 11:18 am 3When he was pressed by O’Reilly way back, Maher admitted that Christianity is good and Christians need to be more Christian.
He is turned off by the hypocrites.
Ratherreadon 21 Aug 2008 at 11:23 am 4He is turned off by the hypocrites.
We all are. But Maher seems to think that hypocrites are the rule rather than the exception.
Dirty Harryon 21 Aug 2008 at 11:26 am 5Maher’s his own hypocrite. The whole film’s about judging others and trying to change their minds and that seems to be what he hates most about Christians.
Carloson 21 Aug 2008 at 11:31 am 6More of that Liberal tooooooooolerance we keep hearing about.
Stephanieon 21 Aug 2008 at 11:32 am 7He is a mean and sad bitter little man. What he needs is a good beating with his own arm. A little bit of humility and reality.
EPorvaznikon 21 Aug 2008 at 11:33 am 8As always, thanks for taking the bullet for us, DH.
Jake Was Hereon 21 Aug 2008 at 11:40 am 9What’s so new about any of this? Didn’t Chris Hitchens write a whole book “debunking the myth” of Mother Teresa?
Carolynon 21 Aug 2008 at 11:46 am 10“Religulous isn’t smart, it’s smart ass.”
Well, that says it best.
PerfectTommyon 21 Aug 2008 at 11:57 am 11So, did Maher ask Richard Dawkins the extraterrestrial basis of earth life in the film?
Splashon 21 Aug 2008 at 12:02 pm 12A review of style and substance. Once again demonstrating that Dirty Harry is the best in the business.
Stickwick Staperson 21 Aug 2008 at 12:03 pm 13It sounds like Maher doesn’t bother with mainstream Christianity, let alone its best defenders. That’s the problem I had with Penn & Teller’s Bullsh*t — a nice idea, and a show that was sometimes funny and on-point. But far too often they went after the softest targets, the very weakest examples of whatever it was they were trying to debunk, and it ended up being a little pathetic.
Anyone who is intellectually honest will take on the mainstream and the strongest arguments in favor of something in order to declare any kind of victory. A really honest person will also take a long hard look at the weaknesses of their own position, too. But that requires the kind of self-confidence that Maher apparently lacks in abundance.
GMKon 21 Aug 2008 at 12:11 pm 14I tell religious people that I deeply believe that life amounts to something and that what we do matters. The vast majority of believers are cool with me based just on that.
I agree this is lazy, and easy. Christians don’t control what is sacred in our society in 2008. You don’t get fired for saying there was no Jesus, but you can get fired for having an irreverent attitude towards an exalted group such as oh, gays, to pull one completely out of a hat. You only get a chance to see real bravery when someone mocks the religion of the powerful, and I don’t see much of that in Hollywood. That’s what makes American Carol so special: it mocks the religion of the powerful.
founderson 21 Aug 2008 at 12:15 pm 15hollywood always ignores the intellectual Christianity(reformed) and puts out the hick version to smear it through there propaganda machine.
RufusTon 21 Aug 2008 at 12:28 pm 16Stickwick,
I haven’t seen the Penn and Teller show, but I have seen a lot of the Amazing Randy’s stuff, and I like his approach to everything but religion. I think Penn and Teller take a similar tact.
The problem I have with the Amazing Randi (and likely Penn and Teller) is why attack religion? I can see taking an aspect that may very well be a hoax, especially if the hoaxer is exploiting or duping folks (charging money to see an image of Mary in a waffle…), but aside from that; when it’s truly religious people using their sincere faith to do good in the world why bother? Randi’s stuff on corrupt televangilists is fantastic, and thanks to him for spending time on that! But then he attempts to apply the same approach to people’s sincere, internal beliefs. At least Randi, unlike Bill Maher, is genuinely interested in finding answers and is unafraid of debating anyone. He seeks the experts in the opposition, rather than avoiding them.
Russellon 21 Aug 2008 at 12:37 pm 17“I would describe a thoughtful atheist as one who responds to the theologian with his or her own theories to life’s unanswered questions.”
Someone who does that isn’t an atheist, or at least not a rational one, but a believer working on their own creedal system, even if it isn’t theistic. The point that the rational non-believer presses is precisely that we shouldn’t pretend to have answers that go beyond the evidence and analysis available to us. If that leaves a lot of questions unanswered, so be it.
Publius804on 21 Aug 2008 at 12:40 pm 18Thanks for the review Harry. Here is an article on sharing and debating faith that is somewhat related to your review:
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4319&Itemid=48
BTW I posted a link to this review on Free Republic.
Stickwick Staperson 21 Aug 2008 at 12:43 pm 19Rufus,
I’ve never seen the Amazing Randy, but I appreciate whenever someone exposes phony and hypocritical Christians, like greedy televangelists. However, to take the position that phoniness, silliness, and hypocrisy is pretty much all Christianity has to offer, as Maher seems to do, is unforgivable.
Penn & Teller took on Creationism in one of their episodes, which is fine, because Creationism is a particularly indefensible position. However, the dishonest aspect of their show was that it seemed to conflate Creationism with all interpretations of the creation story, including very compelling and scientifically-informed defenses, e.g. that of Gerald Schroeder. But it wasn’t just their treatment of Creationism that turned me off. I recall that there were a few non-religious subjects where P&T took the easy way out — even on subjects where I agreed with them — and I remembered thinking it was pretty weak.
Zundfolgeon 21 Aug 2008 at 12:45 pm 20Oh what I wouldn’t give for the hours and hours of footage shot that was cut because some “rube” handed Maher his ass.
I would be willing to bet that there are at least 10 people that rhetorically kicked his butt for ever rube he put on screen (and I’m sure those that made it are edited to look like rubes even if they kicked his butt.)
Stickwick Staperson 21 Aug 2008 at 12:48 pm 21Russell — The point that the rational non-believer presses is precisely that we shouldn’t pretend to have answers that go beyond the evidence and analysis available to us. If that leaves a lot of questions unanswered, so be it.
You would think that, but it isn’t true. Many “rational” atheists, such as Steven Weinberg and Richard Dawkins, believe very strongly in the multiverse idea, which is entirely beyond the magisterium of science — it is untestable, and therefore cannot be falsified — and they admit as much. It’s essentially a religious belief.
JLon 21 Aug 2008 at 12:53 pm 22I have a very low tolerance for Maher and keep my exposure to him under 10 seconds whenever I see him on tv. Sounds like the subject was viewed through the same distorted lens as H’wood views everything else. Not surprised and will not waste my time or money on it.
Going after the soft targets, as mentioned by others here, is the lazy way to prove your point - and likely the only successful way.
I do wonder though if Maher couldn’t get some kind of tax break as a non-profit. Isn’t worshipping yourself a religion?
Thanks Harry for doing the heavy lifting for us and sticking your neck out.
JLon 21 Aug 2008 at 1:07 pm 23“Some” might say that Maher is behind the times, clinging to the lost remnants of religion to prove his point. Many Christians today believe that God wants to develop a relationship with man. He is not interested in religious devotion or an outward form of worship based on tradition. This viewpoint seems to stress belief rather than religion, and let’s face it we all believe in something. Even Maher. In fact, he’s betting his soul on his beliefs.
Does Maher deal with this group of believers? I don’t know, having not seen the movie. I’m guessing, no, however. It would not fit into his definition of religion.
Russellon 21 Aug 2008 at 1:08 pm 24Stickwick, the multiverse is the most straightforward interpretation of quantum mechanics. Most of the other interpretations of QM require a lot of handwaving to explain just how and when wave collapse occurs. Or to put it another way, evidence for QM is evidence for a multiverse. QM says quantum systems exist in a superposition of states. The universe is a quantum system. Ergo, the notion that the subset of states that “we” occupy are the sole states is a break with QM. Those are the only states “we” can directly observe, but only because those are the ones where “we” are.
More to the point, I think you’re confusing how Weinberg, as example, thinks about physics with how believers accept religion. Weinberg takes QM seriously not as a choice or as a matter of faith, but because it has been more tested than any other scientific theory, and he is quite familiar with that. But if there is a revolution in physics in the next twenty years, that supplants QM with some other theory, I suspect he would cheer that as well.
Troyon 21 Aug 2008 at 1:22 pm 25Rufus… the reason these folks — mostly won’t take on Serious — educated Christians is because there’s too much at stake if they’re wrong. Penn Gillette (or it with a J?) is a smart guy, but he’s a rabid materialist. If there is a “God who is there” it means there’s an external standard — a standard that is impossible to meet (by any of us). That thought is uncomfortable to say the least — and anathema to most — throughout history. I know off hand at least a hundred folks who would go circles around Randy, Penn & Telle and Maher — and Dawkins and Hitchens (more literate — though ultimately even Hitchens — whose writing I love — is not a “thoughtful atheist, etc.).
kishkeon 21 Aug 2008 at 1:33 pm 26we believe in fair play and are more comfortable laughing at ourselves as opposed to at the expense of others
That assertion is undercut by the success of Borat.
dappaon 21 Aug 2008 at 1:59 pm 27“that strange bitterness too many non-believers like Maher hold towards all thing religious — a bitterness that closely resembles jealousy”.
Spot on . Atheism is nothing more then a secular religion .
Carloson 21 Aug 2008 at 2:11 pm 28It comes off as jealousy because christianity/religion has plenty to say without ever mentioning atheism (it rarely ever does mention atheism), whilst atheism has NOTHING to say unless it’s attacking christianity/atheism.
mjkon 21 Aug 2008 at 2:11 pm 29I think he should go head to head with the guy I went to Israel with. He speaks Hebrew and Greek, has a PhD in Biblical History, used to teach theology at some Bible college, and man, could he rattle of all sorts of facts about the Bible, the archeology, and the ancient world! Maher wouldn’t have a hope against him.
[IMH]on 21 Aug 2008 at 2:12 pm 30Rufus:
I believe that Randi sees religion — or better, faith — as an epistemological error, and a dangerous one. If you leave room for supernatural explanations in your thinking, then you leave yourself open to being duped, whatever other good may come of that faith. It’s a blind spot that people will exploit against you, if they can. That more rigorous thinkers can avoid obvious scams like the faith healers does not preclude their being taken in by other, more sophisticated scams.
(The above is offered as neutrally, respectfully, and diplomatically as possible by an atheist.)
Stickwick Staperson 21 Aug 2008 at 2:17 pm 31Russell,
I understand the underpinnings of the multiverse idea. However, the fact is that it is untestable. I took a class from Weinberg in graduate school, and have listened to him speak on the subject to a group of researchers, where he said precisely that. He also said that his belief in it is very strong, presumably for the reason you explained. Nevertheless, it is effectively a religious belief, and I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense.
Despite the way I worded my comment, I am not implying that Weinberg is behaving irrationally. Quite the opposite. I am implying that intellectually-religious people behave as rationally as Weinberg. He accepts that which cannot be directly observed or tested, because it is a logical extension of that which is observed and well-tested. This is precisely how your non-rube religious type of person arrives at a belief in God and the afterlife, which many atheists (or anti-theists) don’t seem to understand.
Matton 21 Aug 2008 at 2:27 pm 32Dappa: “Atheism is nothing more then a secular religion.”
If you are speaking of Hitchens or Dawkins, et al., I would say you are probably correct. However, most atheists just aren’t like that.
I am an atheist, but I would not say that I subscribe to a secular religion. Religion requires a belief system supported by ritual and adherence to certain rules and laws, etc. This must be reguarly maintained, lest you “fall from grace.” Atheism does not require any of this.
A devout Christain wakes up thinking about God. He strives to live a life according to specific tenants he believes were dictated by God.
The typical atheist doesn’t wake up this way. I don’t think of ways to deny God’s existence. I really never think about God at all. I sometimes do, but I don’t think religion should be banned (except in science class, Mr. Stein).
Over the course of many years, I left my religion and my belief in deities. I don’t think this makes me a better person, but it has made me a happier person. It has made me appreciate life even more, because I believe this is all we have.
Stickwick Staperson 21 Aug 2008 at 2:35 pm 33IMH — If you leave room for supernatural explanations in your thinking, then you leave yourself open to being duped, whatever other good may come of that faith. It’s a blind spot that people will exploit against you, if they can.
Certainly. However, this is the same tack taken by the anti-gun crowd. Your own weapon can always be turned against you. But does this mean that private gun ownership is inherently bad or too dangerous to the individual and society to be of any value? I suspect you would answer no, because the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. (This skirts the main issue, which is that if you accept the notion of individual rights, private gun ownership is a corollary.) So, in the same spirit, you might ask whether a belief in the supernatural has led to better things overall than no belief in the supernatural, and if you decide yes, then accept that it nevertheless comes with inherent risks.
Stickwick Staperson 21 Aug 2008 at 2:40 pm 34Matt — … but it has made me a happier person. It has made me appreciate life even more, because I believe this is all we have.
Sorry, I just have to comment on this, because it’s so completely the opposite of my own experience. Nothing fills me with despair more than the idea that every person I have ever loved will be annihilated in the end.
Russellon 21 Aug 2008 at 2:44 pm 35Stickwick writes, “He [Weinberg] accepts that which cannot be directly observed or tested, because it is a logical extension of that which is observed and well-tested. This is precisely how your non-rube religious type of person arrives at a belief in God and the afterlife.”
Of what theory, as well-tested as QM, is “God and the afterlife” a logical extension?
Nicol Don 21 Aug 2008 at 2:55 pm 36Can someone, oh, someone please make the point that Bill Maher is affiliated with and is a card carrying member of PETA, an organization that thinks eating a hamburger is akin to killing a Jew in the Holocaust and recently took out an ad in Canada saying that an innocent man who was beheaded in a bus is no worse than someone eating a piece of meat.
In other words, Maher’s intellectual kin, is an organization whose most visible spokesperson is that braniac Pamela Anderson.
Maher is a flake. And if you read the boards on Jeff Wells Hollywood-Elsewhere, it seems that even many of the lefties think Maher is smug and are sick of the Christian bashing. This may turn a profit but it will not do SICKO’s 25 million. Remember, even most leftists believe in a God. Even Barack Obama does.
wanketteon 21 Aug 2008 at 3:04 pm 37Run, don’t walk:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/08/mccain_the_one_road_to_denver.html
Stephanieon 21 Aug 2008 at 3:26 pm 38Matt sure doesn’t seem happier. If he was he wouldn’t be a part of such a sleezy political movement. Matt sorry but your lying. You don’t come off happier. You sound like a whiner. You attack your own country and despise her insitutions. That doesn’t seem like a happy person. But I guess hiding the real issues and then projecting them at others is a leftwing habit. Look at Maher. The man is walking advertisment for issues of the personal kind.
Tell you a story. My oldest brother who was one of the original hippies couldn’t stand atheists not because he was a Catholic but because he saw things in a spirtual sense. There was in his opinion a creator and it was obvious to him through all of the other religions he studied. He was buried the Hopi way. Like it or not. Now I know that you don’t believe in God tahts fine..He waits for you to come to him…
I also find it fascinating taht leftists who are also Athiests don’t really value human life. Look at their freakishness over the environment, abortion, socialized medicine. There is no value at all in their minds when it comes to the very young and the very old. Look at how many of them favor assisted suicide? I mean so when someone proudly declares tehy don’t believe in God I am like cool but when your finally kicking off this mortal coil I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes.
Only a very small minded person can say what Matt says and then add how happy he is. Honestly every one person I have ever met who is an atheist is the most miserable of people. I also don’t buy the God doesn’t exist thing eitehr Matt so don’t ever go there….tehre is a huge difference like I said somewhere else between God existing and not believing. Its like not believing in Obama…he still sadly exists. GET IT?
Stickwick Staperson 21 Aug 2008 at 3:26 pm 39Russell,
It’s not any one theory; it’s an amalgamation of several things. For me, it started when I was an undergraduate in physics and I observed that the universe seemed so well-ordered as to require a designer. During my graduate studies, the big bang and the works of Brian Greene were the clinchers.
Greene, as you probably know, suggests that the somethingness of the material world is actually an illusion. It’s all basically information. I observed that the universe operates more or less according to hydrogen on/hydrogen off, in other words like a binary code. The basis for life, DNA, is just a base-4 code. The evolution of the universe, including the evolution of life on earth, goes decidedly in one direction — from less complex to more complex. So not only is the universe ordered, but it seems to behave as an enormous algorithm with many subroutines. That alone implied some kind of supernatural sys admin/master programmer to me. Furthermore, the universe had a beginning, which requires a creative force. The only question was whether that creative force was conscious or unconscious, and I was compelled by the master programmer idea to choose the latter. Once I became familiar with the works of Gerald Schroeder, I was convinced that the master programmer was the God of the Bible.
As intriguing as the multiverse idea is, it simply pushes the explanation of the universe back one step, like invoking aliens to explain the origins of life on earth (how, then, to explain the aliens?). An eternal super-intelligence is a far more satisfactory explanation to me, philosophically-speaking, than anything else.
Stickwick Staperson 21 Aug 2008 at 3:30 pm 40Oh, argh! Typo. That should read: The only question was whether that creative force was conscious or unconscious, and I was compelled by the master programmer idea to choose the former.
Plissken79on 21 Aug 2008 at 3:55 pm 41“Matt — … but it has made me a happier person. It has made me appreciate life even more, because I believe this is all we have”
Interesting, Heinrich Himmler and Lavrenti Beria were hardcore atheists, but it certainly did not seem to make them value life more did it?
Stephanieon 21 Aug 2008 at 4:01 pm 42My thoughts to the T Pliss.
Buck Turgidsonon 21 Aug 2008 at 4:48 pm 43“at thirteen Maher’s father became disaffected with the church’s strict rules on birth control and pulled both kids out.”
I suspect having Bill as a son would have a lot to do with that.
Russellon 21 Aug 2008 at 5:57 pm 44Stickwicks, the multiverse idea, at least in the form of the MWI of QM, doesn’t push anything back. Given QM, it’s either that, or some mysterious collapse of the wave function from cause not currently described by QM, or some new physics entirely. This isn’t some narrative or metaphor based on subjective perceptions of what must be behind physics, but a straightforward implication of the best physical theory we have.
Let me add that there is nothing to say for it beyond that. If Weinberg believes it in the same way that the religious believe in their gods, rather than in the mere sense just described, then yes, he is being irrational. It is not the conclusion that makes a leap irrational. It is the leap itself.
pandaxon 21 Aug 2008 at 6:10 pm 45Who knew D.C. Cab would be Maher’s best film?
jicon 21 Aug 2008 at 7:05 pm 46That’s ridiculously unfair. Matt was talking about his own feelings, not trying to speak for all atheists.
MadKalnodon 21 Aug 2008 at 7:16 pm 47No, Maher’s best film is Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death. I almost don’t want to strangle him in that.
Audietooon 21 Aug 2008 at 7:27 pm 48Can’t answer the physics questions about the Uni-multiverse but I can relate to what a life without faith will do to you, your children and your family. Maher’s father’s loss of faith
probably had much to do with Bill’s current bitter, ugly take on Christians and America and life in General.. I am not surprised he belongs to PETA, those in that organization have no truble equating eating chicken with The Holocaust. Their religion denies souls to humans and in a sorta, on the other hand way, give a soul to chimpanzees, snail darters etc. It also lets you settle your life questions (is it okay to have an affair with my father’s new wife) by reference to monkey life rather than human life. And monkeys of course have no tiresome tendency to complicate sex or the other enjoyments in ‘this’ our only life. In the end, it can become a pale reflection of Rousseau’s naturalism. That it ends also in narcisissm and hypocray should surprise noone The scientific arguements above seem to show the wisdom of Chesterton’s comment, that ’someone who belives in nothing will fall for anything.’
kishkeon 21 Aug 2008 at 8:22 pm 49Nothing fills me with despair more than the idea that every person I have ever loved will be annihilated in the end.
Or that we ourselves with all our experiences and accomplishments are for naught in the end. When I contemplate life as a non-believer, I find it difficult to imagine how a thinking person could overcome the hopelessness. And I’m not talking about being actively religious, but just about believing that there’s a greater purpose to our lives than just the here and now.
kishkeon 21 Aug 2008 at 8:28 pm 50Matt was talking about his own feelings, not trying to speak for all atheists.
Actually, he was speaking for “most atheists” or “the typical atheist.” To quote:
“However, most atheists just aren’t like that. … The typical atheist doesn’t wake up this way.”
@Matt:
You say: Religion requires a belief system supported by ritual and adherence to certain rules and laws, etc. This must be reguarly maintained, lest you “fall from grace.” Atheism does not require any of this.
But then you say:
It has made me appreciate life even more, because I believe this is all we have.
In other words, your happiness too requires belief in that which cannot be proved; namely, that this is all we have.
Plissken79on 21 Aug 2008 at 8:48 pm 51Thank you Kishke, you saved me the trouble of pointing that out. I am tired on this nonsense that “enlightened” atheism somehow automatically leads to a benevolent worldview, the Soviets, the Communist Chinese, the Nazis and every other totalitarian movement must not have got the memo
kishkeon 21 Aug 2008 at 9:08 pm 52@jic:
What’s the html code for the cool grey box?
trzupron 21 Aug 2008 at 9:24 pm 53Great review DH and I echo EPorvaz’s sentiments re: taking one for the team.
My biggest problem with atheism, as a scientist, is that it is intellectually dishonest. The question “why should you believe in something that you can not prove to be true?” (or the infinite variations thereof) flies in the face of a multitude of things we believe every day.
Consider gravity, for example. We accept gravity as an observable phenomenon. (And, as my brother has said, if you disagree with that statement, I invite you on to take a brief jump out of an airplane with me, during which I get a parachute and you do not). We know that the pull of gravity is proportional to the mass of an object. But do we actually know how gravity works? There are plenty of theories, but nobody has a frickin’ clue. Nobody can prove a thing. So do we discount the phenomenon because we don’t understand how it works? Of course not.
And, for me, the same applies to religion and creation. We know creation exists and we know that nothing in our experience can explain how the universe came into being (pre Big Bang, of course). Whatever happened to cause the Big Bang - and to therefore cause creation - has to be, by definition, beyond our ability to comprehend. There is - has to be - something else “out there”. And if you believe that, as I believe one must, then you do in fact believe in “some kind” of religion. Perhaps your god is an alien who designed some crazy-ass experiment. Perhaps it’s a benevolent God who set creation into motion all those billions of years ago.
Faith exists beyond the five senses? Of course it does Mr. Maher. But if you honestly believe that all of creation can be defined - or explained - by the meager senses that man has been given, you are a bigger fool than I thought.
If that’s even possible.
jicon 21 Aug 2008 at 10:10 pm 54Not in the passage that Plissken79 quoted from:
That was clearly personal, not universal.
For the “cool grey box”, type blockquote.
Jake Was Hereon 21 Aug 2008 at 10:17 pm 55I once got in a debate with an atheist about the supposed meaning of life. He convinced me to consider the possibility that existence was absolutely meaningless…
Five minutes later, his neighbors called the cops to report some suspicious behavior and a possible noise violation — there was a large man lying on his back in the middle of the road, screaming and crying hysterically.
Suffice it to say that I rejected his view utterly.
jicon 21 Aug 2008 at 10:21 pm 56I agree. That’s one of the things that pisses me off about many (maybe even most) atheists. But where did Matt say that his atheism did make him “enlightened”? In fact, he specifically said “I don’t think this makes me a better person”.
Plissken79on 21 Aug 2008 at 10:24 pm 57Sure, jic, and Matt, like all atheists, has never hinted at that atheism automatically makes us all extremely valuing of human life, far more so than if we believed in a deity.
Actually, I would propose atheism actually makes one less likely to risk their own life to help save someone else’s. If this life is all we have, why risk giving it up for any reason whatsoever? If the blank void is all the awaits us, why not indulge in pure hedonism?
Or, as GK Chesterton said, when one gives up belief in God, it is not as if one ceases to believe in anything, it is that they will believe in everything, including totalitarian ideologies such as Stalinism, Maoism or Nazism.
I have debated athiests many times who have made exactly the same claim as Matt, that they value human life more because the blank void is all that awaits them, while at the same time blithely assuming all other atheists feel the same. That simply is not the case, and I am not going to apologize for pointing this out. If you think Matt was merely speaking for himself in this claim, you are sadly deluding yourself
Plissken79on 21 Aug 2008 at 10:30 pm 58“Enlightened” does not mean neccesarily better, just more self-satisfied. Most of the original Enlightenment philosophers in Europe (I am leaving out England and Scotland), were not genuinely interested in using intellectual inquiry to improve themselves, but rather because they enjoyed the idea that humanity was tabla rasa that could be molded into any shape they decreed.
Anyway, I was never comparing Matt himself to Himmler or Beria. I was merely stating Matt’s own belief that atheism has caused him to value life more is not simply representative of most atheists, or of atheist political movements in the last 100 years
Jack Marinoon 22 Aug 2008 at 12:02 am 59There is no such thing as an athiest. The fact that they deny the existence of God is fact that God exist. Who spends a life denying something that doesn’t exist? Do we debate for years the existence of pink elephants? Or maybe Klingons? The fact that GOD does exist is what fuels their rejection of him. If God didn’t exist we would even talk about it. This is like denying our own existence. People want to believe in anything or disbelieve in anything. God reveals his existence in each of us at the moment of conception and in our hearts, those who believe know the truth, those who deny, know the truth but just deny it and spend a lifetime denying something that isn’t true???? Who does that if ‘it’ whatever it is isn’t real? idiee…. “Idiots, God is not on our side because he hates idiots also”
The genius of GOD is he gives us all total free will on this side of the world of nature. When we pass, there is no free will there is only his judgement on how we’ve chosen how to life in this life.
Bloody Samon 22 Aug 2008 at 3:47 am 60Personal distaste for Bill Maher aside, I simply can’t work up much enthusiasm for this one, just as I couldn’t get excited over Jesus Camp, another Christian-smearing doc one of my Lib relatives loves to invoke whenever the subject of Christianity comes up (”Scary stuff!”, they always tell me).
I always have to remind this particular relative that I’m saving my praise and admiration for the courageous filmmaker who documents radical Islamist brainwashing of youths, i.e. Jihadi Camp.
Otherwise, this Maher gag piece seems to be hitting all the same old familiar Lib-Doc low notes regarding Christianity, preaching to the Christian-loathing choir. While I was raised Christian, I’m no longer active when it comes to organized worship, but I still hold the basic beliefs.
Watching this piling-on of atheistic Leftists occur in film after film, whether documentary or fictional narrative, annoys me to no end. The contempt and the disrespect is what I have the least amount of patience for. Disagreement is one thing. Aggressively disagreeing and ridiculing someone for their religious beliefs, I feel, steps over the bounds of decent behavior.
I’m waiting for an irreverent Christian filmmaker who creates a documentary chronicling his efforts to debunk and humiliate militant atheists (via screen captions and biased, comedic editing) for their non-beliefs…all in the name of “good fun”, of course.
Needless to say, I will not be holding my breath in anticipation of that particular documentary.
Kon 22 Aug 2008 at 4:17 am 61I basically just ignored this thread. Yet another self righteous atheist in a desperate search for vindication. Ho hum.
Then it occurred to me this crew was running around looking to destroy people’s beliefs. Not the people who would see the movie, as presumably that group won’t include many religous folks and they’ll know what to expect, but the people they were interviewing. I’m sure they didn’t ask for this attack on their faith.
I consider faith, particularly Christian faith to be a huge blessing and it’s something that’s often a large component in people’s lives that holds those lives together. This crew were out there like muggers trying to take that away.
What a piece of work Maher must be.
Cambiason 22 Aug 2008 at 6:10 am 62Jack:
I have to take issue with your rather odd argument that the existence of atheists somehow proves the existence of God. I’m an atheist myself (though I’m not an ass about it). I don’t spend my time denying the existence of God; rather, like Karl Gauss, I “see no need for that hypothesis.”
There are a great many other things I don’t believe in, and I fail to see how that proves their existence, either. Your argument reminds me of Rene Descartes’s philosophical card-trick in Discourse on the Method, in which he posits that he can imagine a perfect being (=God), and that one of the qualities inherent in perfection is existence, therefore God exists.
But please, everyone, don’t assume all atheists are asses like Maher. “Atheists” like him really aren’t — I’m certain that in the dark hours of the night they are secretly afraid of God, and tantrums like this movie are their way of acting out. I don’t believe in God, which means I certainly can’t have a strong dislike for him.
Moreover, an honest atheist can at least admit the tremendous good that religions have done, which I think more than counterbalances the harm. All our moral ideas — in fact the very idea of morality — is ultimately based on religion. When I say something is bad, I’m adhering to the Western tradition derived from the Ten Commandments.
Cambias
Russellon 22 Aug 2008 at 6:11 am 63truzpr: “Whatever happened to cause the Big Bang - and to therefore cause creation - has to be, by definition, beyond our ability to comprehend. There is - has to be - something else “out there”.”
Maybe. Maybe not. Non-comprehension of what happened is not an argument. It is called “the god of the gaps” when one imagines a god where human understanding currently seems low. It is a very peculiar kind of god, because the gap it fills varies as human understanding advances. In the early 20th century, there seemed an imponderable chasm between the dull forces of chemistry and the purposeful behavior of organisms. That was a favorite place for then for the god of the gaps. Jesus was made responsible for the elan vital. Now that gap has disappeared, and no one any longer argues that Jesus has to bridge it. Which shows the invalidity of the argument. What we don’t know, we don’t know, but that constitutes zero evidence for any god.
“And if you believe that, as I believe one must, then you do in fact believe in “some kind” of religion. Perhaps your god is an alien who designed some crazy-ass experiment. Perhaps it’s a benevolent God who set creation into motion all those billions of years ago.”
None of the above. And “no” to every other god you imagine to fill that gap. The fact that something has happened that we don’t understand does not require me to imagine it as some sort of god.
I find it curious that so many here want to paint non-belief as if it were belief, and to imagine that atheism must come about as an alternate practice of faith, rather than being the end result of rejecting faith. There are, of course, atheist ideologies that are believed in much the same way as religious ideologies, e.g., Marxism. But many atheists are not asserting some alternate faith, but are trying to expose and push aside faith. And that’s a different thing entirely. (BTW, whether that applies to Maher or not I don’t know. I don’t know much about him, and haven’t seen the movie that started this thread.)
Stephanieon 22 Aug 2008 at 6:27 am 64Atheists are hopeless sad people. Truly. So sad. At least find something else…..hopi religion or the old Viking Gods or Jupiter……
Stephanieon 22 Aug 2008 at 6:30 am 65Cambias huge difference between believing something exists and believing IN something. You don’t believe IN something. But HE still exits. No matter what anyone who is a nonbeliever says they have even less evidence of their claims than the people who are believers.
jicon 22 Aug 2008 at 6:40 am 66I don’t particularly like atheists as a group. In fact, I don’t even particularly like Matt. But I don’t think that I’m the one who’s coming across as deluded on this subject…
Stickwick Staperson 22 Aug 2008 at 7:36 am 67Russell,
This isn’t some narrative or metaphor based on subjective perceptions of what must be behind physics, but a straightforward implication of the best physical theory we have.
It doesn’t matter. It is still unobservable and unfalsifiable, and therefore must be accepted on some measure of faith.
And I consider my perceptions mostly objective. I didn’t accept the idea of a creator simply because I wanted it to be so, but because that’s where the logic took me.
Weinberg confessed in a talk last winter that he and others had developed the multiverse idea at least partially in response to those in the religious community who had seized on the big bang as being highly suggestive of a God-created universe. I haven’t been in this game very long, but long enough to know that there is no such thing as a purely rational and objective scientist.
Stickwick Staperson 22 Aug 2008 at 7:43 am 68It is called “the god of the gaps” when one imagines a god where human understanding currently seems low.
You’re being disingenuous. This is a gap that will never be closed. We cannot observe or test that which is outside of nature.
If one accepts the big bang, then one automatically must accept the existence of the supernatural. It’s not a huge stretch for some of us to believe that this supernatural is some kind of consciousness.
akatoshon 22 Aug 2008 at 7:46 am 69Jack was basically utilizing the ontological argument for the existence of God as proposed by Saint Anselm. Essentially, that in order to deny God’s existence, you first need to conceive of a being greater than all else (God). In doing so, you therefore acknowledge the existence of God. Clearly, there is far more to the argument, but even when I was a practicing Catholic I never really bought the logic. Now that I am no longer a practicing Catholic and would basically consider myself an agnostic I accept Anselm’s argument not at all (obviously).
The point, though, is that none of this should make a difference. If you disagree with the atheist viewpoint then simply ignore it. I disagree with most tenets of religion in general, and so I simply don’t live my life by those codes. There exist moral systems outside of the realm of the divine. If you pity or despise atheists, I suggest you worry about your own salvation and let others do as they see fit. I thought that was what “conservatism” was all about.
akatoshon 22 Aug 2008 at 7:52 am 70By the way, I apply this same standard to Maher or Hitchens or anyone else trying to prove the non-existence of God. If everyone kept their belief (or non-belief) private, the world would be a better, less acrimonious place.
kishkeon 22 Aug 2008 at 7:52 am 71jic: I read Matt’s final graph as illustrating with his personal experience what he wrote earlier about “most” and “typical” atheists. But I can see where you disagree.
Stickwick Staperson 22 Aug 2008 at 8:15 am 72If you pity or despise atheists, I suggest you worry about your own salvation and let others do as they see fit.
It doesn’t work that way, because atheism is to some degree an evangelical movement. Every semester I have religious students coming to me asking if it’s OK to believe in God (from a scientific perspective), because one or more of their professors tells them that religion is false and there is no God. So am I to worry only about my own salvation or do I help these kids with theirs?
If everyone kept their belief (or non-belief) private, the world would be a better, less acrimonious place.
Kind of an absurd statement, akatosh, as this is impossible. It’s not human nature.
Russellon 22 Aug 2008 at 8:18 am 73Stickwick Stapers says, “You’re being disingenuous. This is a gap that will never be closed. We cannot observe or test that which is outside of nature. If one accepts the big bang, then one automatically must accept the existence of the supernatural.”
First, I don’t know what gaps cosmology will close in the next century. Nor do you. Your claim would have more sense if you had said: if one accepts the big bang, one has to face that there is something unexplained in current cosmological theories. But unexplained doesn’t mean supernatural, except in a trivial sense that has nothing to do with gods.
“It’s not a huge stretch for some of us to believe that this supernatural is some kind of consciousness.”
It’s not a huge stretch for some people to believe that Joseph Smith received golden plates from an angel, that the Quran was recited to Mohammed by an angel, that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that qi runs through everything. But why stretch? And perhaps more to the point, if you’re going to make such stretches, why work so hard to contain the stretch?
akatoshon 22 Aug 2008 at 8:27 am 74“So am I to worry only about my own salvation or do I help these kids with theirs?”
Ultimately, Stickwick, you have to do what you feel is right. Again, I don’t see a need for anyone to try to change minds about either religion or atheism. It couldn’t possibly matter less to me if someone does or does not believe in God. I do, however, think that science and religion ought to be separate, especially since “religion” in this case really means “Christianity”. If a Muslim student asked you if his religion was acceptable through science, what would you say then? Would you, as a Christian, be obligated to preach Christianity? This is not an attack, it is an honest question.
I also don’t really believe that we can all keep our beliefs private, I just wish that could be the case.
Matton 22 Aug 2008 at 8:51 am 75Some interesting comments, but I stand by my words. I am not—and was not—suggesting that atheism is a better way to live your life than subscribing to any religion.
It’s true that my disbelief in god is a form of belief, but it is not a “secular religion.” As I pointed out, religious belief requires constant maintenance. You go to church. You try to live by the rules and doctrines of your faith. You pray. You reflect on your faith. You celebrate certain holy days. Atheism requires none of this. As I wrote earlier, I hardly ever think about god or my disbelief in him. He is simply not part of the equation in my life.
As far back as I can remember, even in the days when I was shuttled off to church on Sundays and Catholic schooling during the week, I never felt the presence of god. The Bible, for me, was just a collection of stories. Somehow, I managed to avoid a life of pure hedonism.
I can completely understand why a believer would find the notion of having only one life to live despairing. I cannot think of a single faith in the entire history of the world that did not incorporate an afterlife in its teachings. But, as I said, the idea of a single life has made me embrace life even more. When I lay dying (hopefully a long time from now) I won’t despair that it was “all for nothing.” I will be hoping that I left an impact on the world; happy and fulfilled children; a loving wife; people who will think fondly of me. My experiences and accomplishments will live on in the lives of those who I loved and left behind. That matters.
Some one this thread asked: “If the blank void is all the awaits us, why not indulge in pure hedonism?”
Well, why would you indulge in hedonism? Belief in god and an afterlife certainly does not preclude you from hedonism. Believing that there is no god issuing moral proclamations does not exactly mean that values and morals have no meaning. For example, every state has a law against rape. However, most people do not commit the act of rape because they find it morally reprehensible, not because the government says it is a crime. Morals, values and laws exist to keep civilization together. I just don’t believe that god has anything to do with it.
I have no animosity toward religious people. I believe powerfully in the American right to express your faith as you see fit, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others and is not endorsed by the government..
Stickwick Staperson 22 Aug 2008 at 9:02 am 76Russell,
But unexplained doesn’t mean supernatural, except in a trivial sense that has nothing to do with gods.
Whatever is the cause of the big bang, whatever gave rise to the universe and therefore nature, must necessarily be above nature. It is by definition supernatural, and the sense of this is not trivial. How do you know it has nothing to do with gods? What tests have you performed to rule this hypothesis out?
But why stretch? And perhaps more to the point, if you’re going to make such stretches, why work so hard to contain the stretch?
I kept the notion of God very vague by referring simply to a consciousness. We need not ascribe specific attributes to discuss its plausibility. The most important question by far is whether the cause of the universe is conscious or not.
Stickwick Staperson 22 Aug 2008 at 9:15 am 77akatosh,
I do, however, think that science and religion ought to be separate…
Again, impossible. And why would that even be desirable? The greatest scientist of all time, Isaac Newton, was a renowned theologian whose scientific works were influenced by his religious beliefs. Kepler, Copernicus, and numerous others were influenced by their religious convictions. Georges Lemaitre, the father of the big bang — which has turned out to be the greatest scientific discovery of all time — was a Catholic priest who developed the idea because it was consistent with the Bible. This leaves out the fact that we wouldn’t even have the physical sciences if it were not for the counterintuitive notion of linear time, which comes from Judaism and was propagated by Christianity. Clearly, overall, religion has been a positive — even necessary — influence on science.
… especially since “religion” in this case really means “Christianity”. If a Muslim student asked you if his religion was acceptable through science, what would you say then? Would you, as a Christian, be obligated to preach Christianity?
A very interesting question. The part of the Bible that is of the most interest scientifically is the Old Testament, particularly Genesis. Since Muslims accept the Genesis account, it is no problem for them whatsoever. In fact, I have lectured on the convergence of science and faith, using the OT, to religious groups that have included Muslims, and they find it fascinating.
Russellon 22 Aug 2008 at 9:27 am 78Stickwick Stapers: Whatever is the cause of the big bang, whatever gave rise to the universe and therefore nature, must necessarily be above nature.
Until we have some notion of what it is, and then it becomes natural. Just as whatever was behind the processes of life was once considered supernatural, and now no longer is. The problem is that you’re working with two notions of supernatural. The first is simply anything outside what constitutes “the universe and therefore nature” given our current understanding. The second is the gods and angels and every other kind of myth. Pointing to the first gives no evidence of the second. Which is what I meant when I said that the trivial sense of supernatural has nothing to do with the gods.
“The most important question by far is whether the cause of the universe is conscious or not.”
It wouldn’t be hard for most gods that are imagined to manifest themselves in such fashion that no one doubted their existence. Which is why a core part of many theologies is explaining why they don’t do that.
Plissken79on 22 Aug 2008 at 9:45 am 79Matt stated:
“Morals, values and laws exist to keep civilization together. I just don’t believe that god has anything to do with it.”
I will refer to Fyodor Dostoevsky, a great thinker than you or myself:
“If there is no God, than anything is permitted”
The history of the 20th century proved Dostoevsky correct, and you terribly wrong if you think morals, values, laws simply appeared out of some primordial mist as opposed to Judeo-Christian philosophy.
Again, if there is no consequences for our behavior, than atheism can lead itself directly to the philosophy one should engage in any behavior they see fit, including rape and murder. Just do not let yourself get caught, as Hitler and Stalin as well as Mother Theresa and John Paul II all end up in the blank void, so who really cares what we do on this earth besides what we personally enjoy
Stickwick Staperson 22 Aug 2008 at 10:30 am 80Russell,
Until we have some notion of what it is, and then it becomes natural.
Some notion of it or actual falsifiable evidence?
Natural is whatever is in nature. How can we observe that which is outside of nature?
The problem is that you’re working with two notions of supernatural.
I think they are one and the same.
Pointing to the first gives no evidence of the second.
It gives no proof of the second, but it is consistent with it, and certainly destroys the argument that the supernatural does not exist.
Which is what I meant when I said that the trivial sense of supernatural has nothing to do with the gods.
So far as you know. You’ve not offered any evidence to support this.
It wouldn’t be hard for most gods that are imagined to manifest themselves in such fashion that no one doubted their existence. Which is why a core part of many theologies is explaining why they don’t do that.
I’m not sure what this has to do with addressing the nature of the Cause. Are you saying that, because a conscious Cause hasn’t blatantly revealed itself to all of us, this is evidence that the Cause is unconscious?
Russellon 22 Aug 2008 at 10:56 am 81Stickwick Stapers, “Natural is whatever is in nature. How can we observe that which is outside of nature?”
Your first sentence I quote is a bit tautological, as definitions of natural and supernatural tend to be. The problem is that the universe doesn’t come with a painted boundary that says, “everything beyond this isn’t natural.” This causes people to fall back on current theories to define nature, i.e., “nature is all the interactions of these elementary particles,” or “nature is what we can observe.” The problem with that is what I already explained, that it tries to build all sorts of metaphysical importance on the state of our knowledge. And not even on any theoretical limits to that, but just on its current state.
Let’s assume there are some aspects of the universe that man will never observe. A theologically minded individual might be wont to label this the supernatural. It has the advantage over all other gaps into which the gods have been placed that it never will be exposed by prying eye. By definition, it’s where prying eyes never will reach. But this doesn’t prove anything about the nature of the universe, neither of those aspects man has or eventually will probe in some fashion or another, nor of the rest. When I say that reference to “the rest” has nothing to do with gods, I don’t mean that I can prove that they don’t reside there. What I mean is that labeling it “supernatural” doesn’t say a thing about it. We tend to place sea monsters and gods on the parts of the map that otherwise would be labeled unknown. The fact that the map always has some such areas doesn’t say anything about the existence of monsters and gods.
Matton 22 Aug 2008 at 11:12 am 82Plissken: “The history of the 20th century proved Dostoevsky correct, and you terribly wrong if you think morals, values, laws simply appeared out of some primordial mist as opposed to .”
First, some pretty horrible shit was permitted in the 20th century. Second, I never said that morals, values, laws “simply appeared out of some primordial mist.” What I said was that morals, values and laws developed to sustain complex civilizations. Did some of these aspects derive from a Judeo-Christian philosophy? Yes, but they were developed (as far as I believe) by men, not god.
“Again, if there is no consequences for our behavior, than atheism can lead itself directly to the philosophy one should engage in any behavior they see fit, including rape and murder.”
But religious arguments have led to all sorts of vile behavior, especially rape and murder. Yes, there was a strong religious component in say, the Civil Rights movement, but there also were strong religious convictions behind segregation and slavery. Religion, in several cases, has not only permitted great crimes, it also has (in the minds of the perpetrators) justified them. It is simply absurd and historically dishonest to say that belief in god automatically places you on the side of the proverbial angels. Atheists are just as likely to commit grave offenses as believers. Because we are human and it is our nature.
I mean, do you believe that the 9/11 hijackers would have committed their crime if they were atheistic? I don’t. But nor do I suggest that an atheistic Atta, et al., would have been good people. Regardless, all 19 thought they were doing the work of god. Hell, even Robertson and Falwell suggested as much when they said that 9/11 was god’s anger at homosexuals and the ACLU. (I’ve always wondered why some snarky reporter never asked them if by that rational they believed that bin Laden was a holy instrument of god.)
akatoshon 22 Aug 2008 at 12:02 pm 83Saying the atrocities of the 20th century were perpetrated because of the lack of religious belief is, at best, incredibly shortsighted and at worst intellectually bankrupt. It’s as if atrocities were invented by the Soviets or the Germans, when atrocities have been committed by all manner of religious societies and institutions.
Fanatical belief in anything is the main cause for crisis and war. Whether “God wills it!” or “Gaia wills it!” doesn’t matter. It is the belief that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and heretical leads to inevitable conflict.
Plissken79on 22 Aug 2008 at 12:24 pm 84Sure, atheism had nothing to due with atrocities committed by the Nazis, the Soviets, the Communist Chinese, the Khmer Rouge, the Romanian Communists, the North Koreans, the Viet Cong, especially the vicious persecution of every religious group from Russian Orthodox priests to Buddhist monks to Catholic nuns by every single athiest government every founded. Keep telling yourself that Matt and Akkie if it makes you feel that atheism has never been responsible for anything negative.
But that does not make you any less wrong, Dostoevksy accurately predicted what the rejection of God by 19th century European thinkers (particularly Marxist theorists) would lead to the 20th century, crimes against humanity committed on a previously unthinkeable scale, he was right.
Complain all you want about religious believers committing acts of violence during the last twenty centuries. I do not deny they happened. Just keep in mind atheist governments in the 20th century killed more people than any religious movement in the previous nineteen centuries leading up to it.
If we can to go by numbers, the highest estimated number of the victims of the Spanish Inquistition over 400 years is about 2,000 victims. The atheist Soviet government killed 500 times that many people in two years from 1936-1938. So no, the atheist Nazi and Soviet governments did not invent atrocities. But they and the equally atheist Maoist government in China committed mass murder on a scale that dwarfed anything committed in the name of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam from ancient times to the present day. It is intellecutally disengenous to claim that “fanaticism” as opposed to “atheism” is what caused this.
One would think given the fact atheistic governments killed over 100 million people in the 20th century atheists such as Bill Maher, Matt, and akkie would not be so quick to pounce on religion as the primary cause of violence in human history . But I suppose that is not the case
akatoshon 22 Aug 2008 at 12:57 pm 85I never remotely said religion was the primary cause of violence in human history. I think I pretty clearly stated fanaticism is and always has been the biggest perpetrator of death, whether it be religious, communist, democratic, or in conquest.
No one is defending Soviet Russia or the Nazis. But, let’s not forget about the religious warfare that tore Europe apart during most of the Middle Ages (including the Crusades), Muslim conquests causing untold deaths, religious justifications for slavery, and (of course) 9/11. It doesn’t matter if “atheism” or “religion” is responsible for more death. It does matter that fanatical adherence to either results in death.
Plissken79on 22 Aug 2008 at 9:03 pm 86“It doesn’t matter if “atheism” or “religion” is responsible for more death. It does matter that fanatical adherence to either results in death.”
That second part is certainly true, but of course with the numbers were reveresed and religious rather than atheist governments killed 100 million people in the 20th century I am sure you or Matt would have pointed it out. The problem is most atheists deny that atheism has been responsible for ANY atrocity ever committed, hence my need to point out the rather massive imbalance in the number of victims
Yes, some Christians used the Bible to justify slavery, but then the abolitionist movement in the United States and the United Kingdom was founded and led by Evangelical Christians, not Atheists. By the way, were are the atheist-run hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, and charity wards throughout history? Were is the atheist equivalent to Mother Theresa’s work in India?
The Crusades were of course a very violent and destructive event (by both sides, I might add). They still have nothing compared to the loss of life and destruction caused by the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the Great Leap Forward, or many other such projects brought about by atheistic regimes
MovieBobon 22 Aug 2008 at 11:09 pm 87Genuine big-scale “Atheism” has only existed as any kind of identifiable ideology for about the last few centuries. Given that, just about every society that EVER did anything wrong was cheifly governed in some way by some form of religion - so no matter how you want to split the number “the faithful” will ALWAYS have a big, big head start on the body-count chart. But even then, why go there? “We murdered FEWER people so far!” isn’t a ringing endorsement of anything.
Also, the Nazis weren’t atheists - the decision-makers were largely obsessed with the occult, which would disqualify them from the lable.
Plissken79on 23 Aug 2008 at 7:56 am 88That is not true MovieBob, concerning your point about the Nazis. The occult obsessed group centered around SS and SD leaders Reinhard Heydrich, Ernst Kaltenbrunner and some of Heinrich Himmler’s other subordinates, althouh not Himmler himself. Most of the other senior leadership of the Nazi regime, Hitler, Martin Bormann, Joseph Goebbels, Hermann Goering, Heinrich Himmler, were atheists.
Besides “we murdered fewer people” is not my argument, nor am I claiming religious faith automatically make someone a good person, nor does atheism automatically make someone a bad one. I am merely pointing out atheists have no buisness attacking religions for fostering violence given the not-entirely shiny record in the 20th century of atheist regimes
Stickwick Staperson 23 Aug 2008 at 9:22 am 89Russell,
The problem is that the universe doesn’t come with a painted boundary that says, “everything beyond this isn’t natural.”
Not a tangible boundary, perhaps, but a boundary nonetheless. We don’t observe things in nature giving rise to themselves with no cause. The universe has a Cause. So we know that whatever that is, it must, by definition, be above nature and therefore beyond direct scrutiny.
We tend to place sea monsters and gods on the parts of the map that otherwise would be labeled unknown. The fact that the map always has some such areas doesn’t say anything about the existence of monsters and gods.
You’re missing the point. The point isn’t that we don’t understand something therefore it must be gods or monsters. I don’t know a single intellectually religious person who even remotely thinks that way. Anything in nature that is currently beyond our understanding still falls under the province of science to explain. However, the universe, i.e. nature itself, was created by some Cause that is beyond our direct scrutiny. That much is fact. You suppose, rationally from the laws of physics, that the Cause is something directly related to observable and tested phenomena in nature. To the theologically-minded, the universe looks very much like a purposeful creation. Since we humans purposefully create, such a person rationally decides that the Cause must be conscious, like us. It has nothing to do with the so-called god of the gaps (a term I despise) or superstition or any other silliness with which atheists try to write off intellectual theology.
Stickwick Staperson 23 Aug 2008 at 9:29 am 90Bob,
Given that, just about every society that EVER did anything wrong was cheifly governed in some way by some form of religion - so no matter how you want to split the number “the faithful” will ALWAYS have a big, big head start on the body-count chart.
Not true. First, communism has led to the slaughter of far more people than all religions combined. Second, because most people in the world are religious — in some parts of the world, virtually everyone is religious — it means that whenever there is a conflict, religion is involved and divisions will occur along religious lines. It doesn’t mean religion was the cause of conflict. In most cases, the conflicts were disputes over land or self-determination.
But even then, why go there? “We murdered FEWER people so far!” isn’t a ringing endorsement of anything.
When violent conflict is a primary component of human nature and human history, it is a ringing endorsement.
Blancon 23 Aug 2008 at 11:25 am 91Just a couple of things to add (please keep in mind that I would never deign to consider myself anywhere above ‘Rube’ status):
The amalgamation of modern Christianity has led to a (politely described) misrepresentation of many things Scriptural. One of the foremost is the concept of ‘faith’.
In the Bible, faith is described in much the same way as Russell’s explanation of his scientific high-priest’s (sorry, I mean ‘instuctor’) explanation of QM theory. Hebrews 11:1 describes faith as something discernible by it’s actions and results. According to the Biblical description, faith is looking at moving leaves and believing that wind exists. Atheists and their enablers in so-called Christianity view it as saying, ‘the leaves are moving so there must be a little elf under each one pushing it up and down’.
I have a lot of sympathy for those who call themselves atheists based upon Christianity’s representation by so-called believers. I watched a handful of Olympic athletes today invoke God and Jesus as the force behind their individual successes. Like the Deity represented in the Bible, the one who’s followers are told in inspired scripture ‘for a certainty I perceive that God is not partial’, wanted the women born in the center of North America to best those born in Australia.
Guys like Maher may be bad guys, but rejecting many of the self-serving fantasies of certain ‘believers’ makes me understand where some atheists start from. I like Stickwick’s point: Take an objective look at the universe; Be honest with yourself. Is there evidence of order? Of design? Can you be honest with yourself even if the ultimate answer means that you may have to accept a moral standard different from what you feel is right? (Don’t feel picked on. It’s the same deal laid out in Genesis - Listen to the source of your all life, or decide for yourself what is right and wrong.)
And for those who look down on us ‘rubes’, do you ever fly on airplanes? Can you describe in detail the physics that allow a large, heavy object like an airplane to get up in the air and safely get you to Vegas or Palm Beach? No, that’s not enough, can you build such a conveyance yourself? If not, you’re no more educated than the humble person who sees the positive effects of belief around him (or her), or more likely, to him or her, and decides to accept certain basic principles (which are all most of us could supply about flight) as a proof of other realities.
Blancon 23 Aug 2008 at 11:41 am 92I’m sorry. This is the reason that I rarely post here (especially about the subject most central to my life).
I wrote (speaking of those who distort scripture through ignorance or a desire to manipulate others) as ’so-called believers’ when I meant ‘SOME so-called believers’.
The Truth is out there! (Hey, that would make a neat tag-line for a movie).
Sorry.
Russellon 23 Aug 2008 at 3:56 pm 93Stickwick Stapers:“Not a tangible boundary, perhaps, but a boundary nonetheless.”
The problem with your argument is that it isn’t even a fixed boundary.
“Anything in nature that is currently beyond our understanding still falls under the province of science to explain. However, the universe, i.e. nature itself…”
..is not something whose limits you can identify. And your argument requires that, since you’re relying on the nature of nature in your argument. While there no doubt are aspects of the universe that we’ll never observe and never explain, you don’t know and can’t know what those boundaries are. Which makes it pretty silly to try to draw a line between the two and act as if have some notion of what it “inside” nature, and can be explained only in certain ways, and therefore justifying what you want to place “outside” of nature.
“You suppose, rationally from the laws of physics, that the Cause is something directly related to observable and tested phenomena in nature.”
No. I have no idea how future theories will look. I’m not supposing anything about what they may or may not explain.
“To the theologically-minded, the universe looks very much like a purposeful creation.”
Of course. And it looked that way as much to the ancient cultures who thought the gods hauled the sun across the sky as it does to modern believers. And none of the advances of understanding in the universe makes a bit of difference to that. This isn’t a fact about what the universe looks like, but a fact about how believers see things.
“It has nothing to do with the so-called god of the gaps (a term I despise) or superstition or any other silliness with which atheists try to write off intellectual theology.”
Well… so far, that’s all I’ve seen. You may not like the fact that you’re making a god of the gaps argument, with appeal to entirely subjective notions of what the universe looks like. That nonetheless is what you’re doing.
Bart Wangon 07 Sep 2008 at 7:04 pm 94“There’s no mention … that our Judeo-Christian country is the only one in history to be attacked, wage war, win, rebuild our enemies, liberate them and then turn their country back over to them.”
Oh, you Americans. Your country is as ‘Judeo-Christian’ as Jesus is based on the Osiris-Horus myths. Your country is probably more Masonic than Judeo-Christian. I’d love to hear a factual account of these countries you have defeated, rebuilt, liberated (wouldn’t you be liberating them from yourselves, if you were the ones that defeated them?) and given them back their country. You could claim that there has been one attack on American soil. One. Your country is responsible for attacking dozens of countries, destroying them directly or indirectly, reducing them to rubble and walking away. Oh, wait, I guess I should also add ‘installing U.S.-backed leaders to serve American purposes’. Don’t fool yourself. Jesus does not support violence in any form but America loves it. Hardly Christ-like.
There will be no saviour on Capital Hill. Stop focusing on American politics and start worrying about how Jesus would have you (and me) live in this world. We’re supposed to be citizens of Christ’s kingdom and we’re charged with living it here on earth. Let’s get to work and Bill Maher will shut himself up.
eric’s underground » Bill Maher Film “Religulous” Barely Laughableon 26 Sep 2008 at 2:51 pm 95[…] with someone as prepared as he is (by a staff) for an honest, open debate” (see film review here). Maher said to Larry King, his goal in making the film was to “make people laugh,” but […]
Germ Theorulous « Recrudescent Religionon 29 Sep 2008 at 5:51 pm 96[…] to like wasting money foolishly. All the same, others have, including conservative film critic Dirty Harry. What he has to say isn’t pretty. Religulous is hosted by Bill Maher who, like Spurlock, […]
Dirty Harry’s Place… » NYT: ‘Religulous’ Funny Until The Whole Islam Parton 01 Oct 2008 at 8:15 am 97[…] 500 screens Friday. My review is here. I found Maher’s intellectual cowardice pretty much the same across the board of all […]
maatkareon 01 Oct 2008 at 9:59 am 98Hey lookit that! Maher’s film started a thoughtful discussion on faith! That bastard!
Johnny Ed's Babyon 03 Oct 2008 at 2:54 pm 99Hey looking at the pictures, I didn’t know it had anyone from Z Z Top in it.
Jeff Baileyon 03 Oct 2008 at 3:18 pm 100Another movie in which Hollywood can feel superior by looking down it’s exhalted nose at mainstream America. No wonder they can’t figure out the popularity of Sarah Palin.
jrmon 03 Oct 2008 at 3:20 pm 101Maher’s actions and attitude is not only indefensible; he’s a smuck. And he looks like a ducks.
Jimbo2on 03 Oct 2008 at 3:44 pm 102Don’t let anyone fool you. Atheism is a faith. I respect Agnostics, who simply say that they do not know. Atheists have a faith, a faith that there is no God. Good Luck proving that.
Bennett Marcoon 03 Oct 2008 at 4:59 pm 103jrm,
I’m a Catholic boy, but also a New Yorker — please, the word is “schmuck.”
Emilyon 03 Oct 2008 at 5:24 pm 104DH, I know you’ve explained how about 90% of the film is Maher going after Christians as a whole, but I’m curious if he ever specifically went after Mormons? I am one, and I know that he called my religion a ‘cult’ on his crappy show, but I was just wondering, and since there’s no way I’ll go see the movie…
Jeff Baileyon 03 Oct 2008 at 7:30 pm 105When it comes to Maher, I think of what Barry Goldwater said about Bill Moyers: ”Every time I see him, I get sick to my stomach and want to throw up.”
a. acaciaon 03 Oct 2008 at 9:18 pm 106Two stars??? Oy vey!
Jeff Bailey pretty much summed up my feelings about that ugly little man.
jpon 04 Oct 2008 at 1:36 pm 107Maher has to present the media cartoon version of Christianity, they never touch the actual true and intellectual side(and for good reason).
Andrew Klavan was quite impressive in telling how he came to faith.
Randy Milleron 07 Oct 2008 at 4:46 pm 108This is a dishonest movie by Maher, obviously, because it is hardly a debate between two between an average believer and an average non-believer trying to elucidate differences and perhaps arrive at some truth. Maher is the athiest (movement) equivalent of the televangelist, with the collection plate replaced with book sales.
We should pit Maher against a Billy Graham or a Biblical Scholar like Dennis Prager or my own pastor Bill.
Or take another track and compare an random “kooky” or “fringe” religious person with an athiestic college student. I doubt either will tell you that they believe what they believe, or disbelieve what they disbelieve because of exhaustive study of various religious texts, history, achaeology, cosmology, and current events. You are likely to get similar answers from each, I expect, roughly equivalent to either “I had a bad emotional experience with God/I felt empty without God” or “I believe what I do because it helps me lead the life I want to live.” The believer might say that belief in God helps them be a better person, while a non-believer might say that something about unrealistic rules.
In other words, while religions (and critiques thereof) make truth claims, they offer more than that, and many or most persue or flee them for guidance in behavior rather than just belief. And while you could find plenty of believers on unsolid intellectual grounds, there are just as many athiests who simply never think about and couldn’t defend athiesm better than making juvenille comparrisons to leprachauns.
Randy Milleron 07 Oct 2008 at 4:54 pm 109@ Bart Wang:
Thank you for that! Until reading your post I had assumed Jesus would want Iraqis & Afghanis to be able to live in freedom, safe from Saddam and the Taliban respectively. Now I realize I was wrong, and as well surely he smiles when he thinks of the suffering of the North Koreans, and wishes the South was similarly yolked.
I bet Jesus cries when he thinks of all those the Nazis could have killed but didn’t get a chance to, thanks to American & Allied men & munitions, right? It would have pleased God much more for us to turn the other cheek and offer Hhitler Britian as well, surely?