…and this is a 
Some people are quite rightly appalled that Bill Maher won the Richard Dawkins Award from AAI, and is at the top of the list of speakers at the AAI conference. I sympathize; Maher certainly has some wacky ideas, and I even gave him a mixed review on his movie, Religulous. (I also must repeat a clarification: the Richard Dawkins Award is not given by Richard Dawkins or the Richard Dawkins Foundation: it is an award by Atheist Alliance International, named after Richard Dawkins.)
However, let's be clear about the obvious. He is being given this award for making a movie this year that clearly promotes atheism and mocks religion, and that's all that is being endorsed. Not many people have done that, and it's especially unusual in that it was a movie entirely about ridiculing religion, and it was a mainstream movie with wide circulation. That's it. It would be difficult to ignore, and it's something AAI would like to promote.
Let's be clear about something else. This is atheism: we have no dogma, we have no infallible leaders, everyone is naturally flawed, and we recognize that within our ranks there is a huge diversity of opinion. Our strategy for dealing with these ideas is the same as the scientific approach — constant, relentless criticism. There is no Atheist Supreme Leader. There is no Atheist Pope. There is no Godless Ruling Council, no Atheist Inquisition, no Freethought Dogma.
What that means, of course, is that it is open season on everything and everyone. Everyone going to the AAI convention should be enthusiastically prepared to cheer wildly when Maher says something right and reasonable and even funny about religion, and if he brings up anti-vax woo or anti-research fluff, you should be equally prepared to pull out the rhetorical knives. I think anyone speaking at this convention should be aware that they are not there to receive unthinking hugs and kisses from an adoring audience of fans — they should come with ideas to make everyone think, and they should know that they will get arguments.
So that's our answer to the other, most unfortunate idiocies which Maher espouses. Let's make him uncomfortable. Don't be shy about asking pointed questions and making him squirm. It'll be fun. It'll also be safe, because a majority of the audience will be feeling the same way about him.
This is also true for all of the other speakers*. They're supposed to make you think, and you're supposed to make them think. Keep 'em all honest.
*Well, except for me. You can just show up for my talk on militant atheism (title so far: "Don't Tread on Me") and blow me kisses.
Medicine & Health
Comments
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 23, 2009 12:19 PM
Nobody expects the Atheist Inquisition!
Posted by: T. Converse | July 23, 2009 12:21 PM
I want to be an Atheist Pope! Can I? PUH-leeeeessss?
No?
Darn.
Posted by: Alex Besogonov | July 23, 2009 12:23 PM
"There is no Atheist Supreme Leader. There is no Atheist Pope. There is no Godless Ruling Council, no Atheist Inquisition, no Freethought Dogma."
Blasphemy! The Supreme Atheistic Exquisition condemns you to death but not burning for this egregious violation the Central Unholy Dogma!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 23, 2009 12:24 PM
Maybe throw squids?
/ducks
Posted by: Lynna | July 23, 2009 12:25 PM
My thoughts exactly, PZ. I agree that it will be great to have Maher as an on-site target for questions about anti-vax -- but at the same time one can cheer for the attention he brought to some of the more ridiculous aspects of religion.
I'm truly wary of people getting into the Purity mode when it comes to questioning religion. There is no Ideological Purity in the atheism/agnostic alliance, no need for it, and many reasons to eschew it.
Posted by: Travis | July 23, 2009 12:25 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment here. I would be very interested in how Maher responds to criticism, sadly there seem to be many people who love to criticise but are unable to understand or handle criticism of their own views. I can only hope he does not act like the anti-vax, and denialists people I often see. Lets hope he is better than that (though I do not know how he has responded in the past, maybe he has proven himself unreasonable).
Posted by: tsg | July 23, 2009 12:26 PM
Sure you can. No one else has to believe you though. Like George Carlin said, "I have just as much authority as the Pope. Just not as many people believe it."
Posted by: Moggie | July 23, 2009 12:27 PM
I swear I didn't see that last word at first...
Posted by: debaser71 | July 23, 2009 12:29 PM
Not that I'm a Bill Mahr expert or anything but IMO Mahr seems to be anti-pharmecutical company. So even though he sometimes goes a bit whacky during these sort of rants he's still right about the general idea that these companies are there to make money and that they aren't as open and trustworthy as they should be. He also rants about how food makes people sick, and I think he's atr least partially right about this. Food companies are there to make money not provide us with healthy choices. I wouldn't harp too hard against Mahr. I've never heard him talk about vaccines but again I am not a Mahr expert so it's likely I missed some of his whacky rants.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 23, 2009 12:33 PM
You forgot to add something about not trusting pharma shill doctors.
You've missed plenty.
Posted by: JD | July 23, 2009 12:34 PM
What about a posthumous lifetime achievement award for George Carlin and Bill Hicks?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 23, 2009 12:37 PM
debaser71,
See the Orac link (first one). Maher has said:
He has also said:
I've been a fan of Maher for over a decade, but I'd like to see him challenged on some these claims.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 23, 2009 12:44 PM
I didn't think the movie was particularly fair, although I realize that a sober discussion of the issues would make for a boring movie.
We faulted Expelled for misleading the people who were interviewed, and I see no reason to do that while ignoring Maher's tactics.
I'm not going to complain about the Dawkins award becoming his, then, because at least it probably got some people thinking. I can hardly be enthusiastic about it, though.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Jack
|
July 23, 2009 12:46 PM
Word, PZ. I said pretty much this on another thread involving discussion of Maher and his award. "Religulous", for all its flaws, was a pretty full-on lambasting and mockery of religion and it was pretty funny too. Maher is a reasanably well-known (in the US, at least) figure who had the balls to go after the big sacred cow pretty hard. That deserves some recognition.
You don't have a to pass a whole lot of test of ideological correctness to be an atheist or an agnostic: you just have to disbelieve in or seriously doubt the existence of deities.
Posted by: debaser71 | July 23, 2009 12:47 PM
yeah I checkecx out one of those links and you are right, Mahr has said plenty of stupid things. Still though, I think the main thing in his argument is how big business doesn't care about health or people, they care about money and profit. This sentiment I agree with. But, of course, I disagree with the idea that vaccines are bad or that people need cleasers and (even strongly) that people should not take their medicines. Again though, we do live in an age where some people think there are magic pills and such. Mahr (I think...and perhaps rationalize) want s to shatter this idea. Me, I don't trust big business drug comapnaies and such, and IMO Mahr should stick with that sort of shtick and no go off thye deep end.
Sorry my posts suck, I have lots of real life over here.
Thanks for the info though.
Posted by: Attila | July 23, 2009 12:48 PM
I unfortunately can't make it to the convention. I wonder if this might be a good opportunity for some medical professionals to try and reason with Bill. It seems like he would be more receptive in changing his views than many people, and no stronger force than to recently converted.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 23, 2009 12:52 PM
debaser
How do you suppose we go about "not-trusting" pharmaceutical companies?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 23, 2009 12:54 PM
propose not suppose
sheesh
KoT
Posted by: debaser71 | July 23, 2009 12:55 PM
Hey just wanted to put here, since I'm thinking about it, how wrong Dawkins is regarding "Under God" and such. I was at his his lecture in NYC and someone challenged him on these points and Dawkins backtracked a little. But then I saw Dawkins on a video (which was taped after the lecture I was present at) and he talked about the same stuff. About how some atheists waste their time with "In God We Trust" and such. I know PZ talked with Dawkins about this in the video at the hotel. Hopefully Dawkins can 'get it' one day.
I wonder what sort of oddball beliefs or ideas PZ has.
Posted by: Ferre | July 23, 2009 12:55 PM
I had a long talk with Bill Maher when he interviewed me for his movie (I'm the Dutch guy who's hair got on fire) and I've seldom met a person so full of himself. he's the kind of guy that laughs at his own jokes all the time. Although we had a long talk, he didn't use any of it in his movie because what I said made too much sense. I was the only person in that movie who represented a religion without beliefs in gods btw, we believe in modern science and the properties of Cannabis. I'm a born atheist, and so are my parents and their parents.
Reason I founded that religion is to display the absurdity of the laws that were made to protect religion, but even though that's why Maher interviewed me there's no mentioning of any of it in the movie, only a mentioning on the website made for the movie;
First Universal Church of Kantheism (F.U.C.K.)
http://disbeliefnet.com/article.php?page=effed_up
Reason I founded that religion is to display the absurdity of the laws that were made to protect religion, but even though that's why Maher interviewed me there's no mentioning of any of it in the movie, only a mentioning on the website made for the movie;
First Universal Church of Kantheism (F.U.C.K.)
http://disbeliefnet.com/article.php?page=effed_up
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
July 23, 2009 12:56 PM
It won't be spun that way, though I suppose there's nothing we can do about that now.
What if the AAI had given a "best picture award" for Religulous itself, instead of a personal award to Maher?
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 23, 2009 12:56 PM
Adding another voice to that roar with my
*******NEW BLOG*******
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
(OK, so not quite as exciting as that other launch being commemorated this week, but...)
Posted by: Sarah Trachtenberg | July 23, 2009 12:56 PM
Bill Maher has many flaws and probably wasn't the most deserving candidate, but I agree with PZ when he says that the movie Religulous was important and the first of its kind. It illustrates that new atheism is now mainstream.
Also, as a fellow comedian, I think it's relevant how comedians such as Bill Maher, and Louis Black, George Carlin, me, Julia Sweeney, etc., are so much in the forefront of new atheism. I think it takes a comedian. We can say shocking stuff and get away with it. We can play devil's advocate (almost literally, here) and get away with it. Comedy truly has a function in this sense.
Posted by: criswell | July 23, 2009 12:56 PM
"This is atheism: we have no dogma, we have no infallible leaders, everyone is naturally flawed, and we recognize that within our ranks there is a huge diversity of opinion."
This is a good rebuttal to the oft-used canard about how we are all acolytes, sycophants, or a horde following a leader - mostly recently of course levied by Chris and Sheril during the "PZ is a meanie/buy our book" boredom fest at their blog. This has since mutated into a side thread that "erv is meanie who, gasp, is an acolyte of PZ and uses l33t speak and should be - wait for it - expelled".
Of course PZ does occasionally refer to commenters and readers as 'minions' but to quote various dictionaries and sources (and lazily I use Wiki here) "Unlike a henchman or lackey, although of subordinate rank to his patron a minion is likely to be of noble birth or to be raised to the nobility, and is more of a companion and confidant to him than a servant or bodyguard."
Cue 2nd python reference in thread:
"We're knights of the table
Although we live a fable
We're not just bums
With royal mums
We've brains that are quite a-ble
We've a busy life in Camelot."
Posted by: Debra | July 23, 2009 12:59 PM
I'll take Bill Maher and his "wacky" ideas over that nitwit Penn Gillette and his conservative lunacy any day.
Posted by: Mike | July 23, 2009 12:59 PM
Way off topic:
Mice from iES cells
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072301786.html?hpid=topnews
If someone were to clone a human (why anyone would is the big question, but what if), when do you suppose the soul is imbued? Even a fundamentalist Christian wouldn't have any trouble recognizing that the skin cells are alive. Do the skin cells have a soul, or is the clone a soulless human? Is the scratching I just did murdering a baby?
Posted by: bullfighter | July 23, 2009 1:10 PM
I like Maher's show, but was somewhat disappointed in Religulous. It seemed to me that Maher saw The Root of All Evil? and decided to make a funny and commercial version of it. And funny it is, but it is also shallow, which is a problem when you have such a well-done original to compare it to.
But I agree with Debra that Orac is not making sense when he puts Penn and Teller in the "good guys" category and Maher in the "bad guys". Both are generally good guys tainted by certain wacky ideas; it's just that Maher's wacky ideas happen to be Orac's pet peeves, while P&T's don't bother him.
Posted by: Dan | July 23, 2009 1:14 PM
I thought Religulous promoted agnosticism more that atheism.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 23, 2009 1:15 PM
I'd like to know which wacky ideas of Penn are on par or worse than the wacky ideas of Maher that would keep him from deserving this award?
I'm unaware.
Posted by: cynickal | July 23, 2009 1:15 PM
There is no Atheist Pope.
Does this mean I have to give back my giant hat?
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
July 23, 2009 1:19 PM
None. Our Dear Leader was formed out of the left tentacle of the Supreme Cephalopod God, and as such, is free of any imperfections.
Posted by: Rev Matt | July 23, 2009 1:20 PM
Wait, I thought one of the benefits of not being a religion and of not having any sort of hierarchy or authority structure meant that we can ALL be the Athiest Pope if we want.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 23, 2009 1:21 PM
Penn is a ....*whispers* L-word.
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 23, 2009 1:22 PM
Maher is definitely going to have to be put to a good grilling before his wacko ideas start to erode his atheism. What the hell, did he have these ideas before he professed his atheism, or did he develop them after he turned atheist from a life of religious muck and some of the residue is hitching a ride on to his rationalism for old time sake? Come on Bill, straighten up and get the crap out of your system. Don't give atheism a bad reputation by latching onto wacko and woo baggage.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 23, 2009 1:23 PM
You can keep the giant hat IF you receive a majority of votes from the College of Atheist Cardinals.
Posted by: Jack
|
July 23, 2009 1:23 PM
Rev BigDumpChimp writes:
Well, he's fervently anti-gun control and P & T devoted an episode of "Bullshit" to the fact. And it was embarrassingly irrational.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 23, 2009 1:26 PM
While Maher is undeniably a tool, I have to admit that it was his monologue at the end of Religiulous that inspired me to start becoming more vocal about my atheism, and finally read Dawkins and Hitchens. As PZ said... for all its flaws, it was an important movie.
Posted by: mattand | July 23, 2009 1:28 PM
The arguments for giving Maher the Dawkins Award are eloquent enough. I still think that giving him an atheist award when he's on record as stating atheists are as unyielding as the religious doesn't make sense.
It's like "Hey, we like that you bashed religion for 90 minutes. Take this award even though you think we're full of shit, too."
If he's changed his tune since then, I stand corrected.
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
July 23, 2009 1:29 PM
#11 JD:
Bill Hicks wasn't quite an atheist. He gleefully espoused a strange panentheistic cocktail that evolved from too many shrooms. (I mean, if there's a such thing as too many shrooms.)
He was one of the funniest men to ever live, and was *almost* an atheist, but I don't think he should qualify for any award named after Dawkins.
Posted by: Troy
|
July 23, 2009 1:31 PM
LOL, I hope atheists won't alienate the only mainstream atheist propagator they have.
That would be DUMBNESS OF EPIC PROPORTIONS!
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 23, 2009 1:33 PM
Yup -- not all atheists are secular humanists (though they should be.) At most atheists conventions I've been to, I run into at least a few people who either believe in psychic powers, think space aliens visit earth, advocate "alternative" medicine, or argue that 9-11 was a controlled demolition. Yes, they're in the distinct minority. But "atheism" is a large tent term, and well there they are.
It being an atheist convention, though, people argue with them. Not many there who pussyfoot around for fear of causing "offense" (with the exception, perhaps, of standing respectfully back from those who seem to be either technically mentally ill, or really, really old.)
The AAI convention will be fun. More fun because Maher will be there. The movie Religulous broke the kind of barrier that Dawkins wants to break on openly and publicly criticizing religion. Thus the award (there's no 'movie of the year' award.) It's a reasonable choice. Maher is a comedian, and being distinguished for comedy. Thank you, Bill. But he's not being awarded, thank FSM, for science and medicine.
Maher won't even have to bring it up. The rest of us will... bwahaha.
Posted by: Troy
|
July 23, 2009 1:33 PM
LOL, I hope atheists won't alienate the only mainstream atheist propagator they have.
That would be DUMBNESS OF EPIC PROPORTIONS!
Posted by: Bob L | July 23, 2009 1:35 PM
#33 @ "Penn is a ....*whispers* L-word."
That's an interesting question; are you really an atheist when you substitute Any Raynd and The Fountainhead for Jesus and The Bible? Were is the no gods, not masters in that?
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
July 23, 2009 1:37 PM
Sastra:
Maybe there should be? Along with "book of the year" and such. Accomplishments can be more praiseworthy than people, often enough. . . .
Posted by: Rorschach | July 23, 2009 1:38 PM
Thank you PZ !
My sentiments exactly.
The only reasonable argument Ive heard so far against him speaking is that people have pointed out some quotes of him that seem to make him an agnostic rather than an atheist,but I guess its not that important,as you say,he mocks religion,and makes people think,and thats good enough for me.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 23, 2009 1:38 PM
Ugh, but I put that in a different category than woo. Still idiotic, but not in a way I would say should go against his receiving this award.
Again, something I consider a stupid position to take, but not in the same category of woo and not something I would think should count against him getting the award he did.
Posted by: Paul | July 23, 2009 1:41 PM
Can you be an atheist when you substitute Richard Dawkins and The Selfish Gene for Jesus and the Bible?
You make no sense. Atheists don't believe in gods. That doesn't mean they can't idolize humans or think certain ideas are good.
I dislike defending Libertarians here because it ends up in not-so-subtle jabs about how I must really be one, but that really was a silly question. Atheism has no intellectual purity test.
Posted by: Jaik | July 23, 2009 1:41 PM
You know, I really admire Maher for his comedy and most of his political and cutural insight. Just because I don't agree with him on the vax stuff doesn't mean I should poo-poo him. The point of the award was that he brought the insane notions of religion to the forefront of the movie biz, which is something for which he should be appluaded.
Whenever someone doesn't follow the party-line of us atheists, we tend to dismiss them as outcasts too quickly. Some people aren't as well informed or well read on certain subjects. Can we welcome them to the fold and comment on their opinions over time, instead of dimissing them at the outset?
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | July 23, 2009 1:42 PM
"He was one of the funniest men to ever live, and was *almost* an atheist, but I don't think he should qualify for any award named after Dawkins."
Bill Hicks was hardly religious though, in the American meaning of the word. And, he was more based on science and reason than Bill Maher ever was.
Since most of his jokes were in the wake of the Christian Conservative movement, he still had some of the sharpest criticisms of such beliefs (that ALL still apply),if Bill Maher qualifies, Jesus Haploid C. Bill Hicks qualifies.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 23, 2009 1:48 PM
I nominate Blake Stacey to head the committees!! (my subtle response to your reasonable suggestion.)
By the way, I need to say this again.
The NEW IMPROVED SCIENCE BLOGS is NOT improved. It is very very BAD! It will not allow previews and revisions. I cannot write without previews and revisions. BAD scienceblogs! BAD!
They better damn well be working on this. The "problems" I had before now, in retrospect, seem like harmless little nothings, minor pauses in life. They never really bothered me, a matter perhaps of aesthetics. But now, if you preview, you're screwed, and have to cut 'n' paste into a brand new window. And don't preview again, or you're screwed again.
Grrrr.
Posted by: Paul | July 23, 2009 1:48 PM
I saw the episode in question and thought the main arguments they put forward were reasonable and arguable, whether or not the main reason for them holding the belief was due to L-word-ism or not. The more blatant ideologically-driven examples for me were the Second Hand Smoking and Recycling episodes.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
July 23, 2009 1:53 PM
Sastra:
That's probably the only way I can win. . . . :-P
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 23, 2009 1:54 PM
Second hand smoking could be one that would fit in with the Woo as well as some AGW denial that apparently he dabbles in.
But again, I think Maher's woo is purely driven by his irrational need to support his own smugness. The medical / science denying woo he spouts off about shows how deep his irrationality is. I really think it's a product of his ego more than anything though.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 23, 2009 1:55 PM
At one of the TAMs, Penn Gillette admitted that they'd changed their minds on the matter of second-hand smoke, because they'd been given new evidence after airing their episode. They then talked about doing a "Bullshit on Bullshit." which would debunk their own errors.
(Sorry for any typos or errors in the above, or lack of style or continuity: I cannot preview and correct. Apparently none of us can. And yet, we are fallible, and as science-oriented humanist atheists recognize our tendency to err. It is an inherent contradiction in the space-time fabric of scienceblogs. Oh, the huge manatee.)
Posted by: Robocop | July 23, 2009 1:56 PM
As the cliche' goes, you're so open-minded about Maher that your brains have fallen out. The award is designed to honor an atheist for contributions relating to science and reason yet is being awarded to someone who isn’t an atheist, who is clearly anti-science and, at least in that respect, utterly irrational. Okay, he made a popular movie that vigorously attacked religion, but in doing so he lied to people in the same way that Ben Stein did, for which you (quite rightly) ripped him a new one. I guess it's okay to lie if the cause is just? It's hypocrisy of the first order, but good publicity I guess....
http://ww.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081003/news_1c03maher1.html
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 23, 2009 1:57 PM
See that's a sign of someone willing to be corrected and willing to trust the scientific process (at least to a point).
Maher is not one of those people judging from anything I've seen from him.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 23, 2009 1:57 PM
I have to say, I'm lucky in that regard, as I'm used to preview and proofread in the original comment window, so this doesn't bother me that much.
Good to have gotten rid of the submission errors,though,they were a real pain !
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 23, 2009 1:58 PM
I am skeptical about how hot Maher's seat is.
Posted by: Ranson | July 23, 2009 2:00 PM
(I see that others have made similar points in the time I've been typing and forgetting about the new preview bug. Here I go, anyway...)
I think one of the differences I've seen between Maher and P&T is that P&T will occasionally admit that they were full of shit and change their minds. I watched the magic and skepticism panel on the TAM stream this year, and someone brought up the issue where he had previously said he "wasn't sure" about AGW. He still says he's not sure, because he doesn't have the time or interest to study it in-depth, but that the preponderance of evidence weighs against in favor of that hypothesis, and that he's probably wrong. In fact, he qualified every sentence of the response with "...and I'm probably wrong". A previous example is when P&T backtracked on secondhand smoke.
Sure, they look at the world through an "L"-shaped filter, but they do tend to go where the evidence leads, especially if enough people call them on it. Unfortunately, economics is a bitch of a subject where people can interpret the same data in wildly different ways. I think a lot of what they say on that end is wrong, but I can understand how they got there. Then again, P&T also have said on repeated occasions, "Why the fuck are you listening to us? Go and find out for yourself."
I can live with that more readily than someone who denies the germ theory of disease.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 23, 2009 2:04 PM
What Ranson said.
Posted by: mattand | July 23, 2009 2:10 PM
@Robocop 55:
I tend to agree with that. As I posted over at Orac's, I'm worried there's a "Well, he's the best we can do" mentality regarding the AAI decision.
@Ranson 59:
I can live with that more readily than someone who denies the germ theory of disease.
Beautiful line.
Posted by: Evil Eye | July 23, 2009 2:26 PM
I just wish we could get Maher to flip all the way to the light-side and become an accurate skeptic. (Using the scientific method, rather than incongruities as his basis for his beliefs.)
Posted by: MScott
|
July 23, 2009 2:34 PM
Given that one of the criteria for the award is someone that "advocates increased scientific knowledge" (at least according to some old quotes; I can't actually find a current statement), I think that Maher clearly fails on that score. Even just looked at within the narrow confines of just his movie, and leaving his woomeistery aside, it still seems short on any advocacy for increased scientific knowledge.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
July 23, 2009 2:43 PM
Right on target, P.Z.!
And now, for the quote most likely to be taken out of context by wacky theists, I nominate:
There is no Atheist Pope. . . . What that means, of course, is that it is open season on everything and everyone.
Dontcha go tellin' us atheists have no morality! Look at what P.Z. Meyers himself said on his own blog!
;)
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | July 23, 2009 2:44 PM
While admitting to complete ignorance on Maher's views, on face value, the above sounds like a satire on the creotards who deny the ToE and believe in Darwin's deathbed recantation.
If he meant it seriously, then he is a nut.
Posted by: mb | July 23, 2009 2:47 PM
My main problem with Maher is that he is a PETA fanatic.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 23, 2009 2:50 PM
He does, and he repeats it any time he sees an opening to do so.
Posted by: Ranson | July 23, 2009 2:54 PM
Yup, he's a nut. The "Pasteur recant" is a standard talking point for germ theory denialists. I'm amused that they think nobody else has done any work on the subject since then.
Posted by: Betsy | July 23, 2009 2:56 PM
that's one of the things I really admired about Sam Harris' speech to the AAI convention in 2007 (I think). He brought up a topic we could think about and challenge him on. Most people didn't agree with him, but that was okay. In contrast to Christopher Hitchens who got really pissed when challenged on his neocon pro-war views at the same convention. Love Hitchens when he talks about religion, but he's got some messed up political views, and not just on Iraq. Hopefully Maher will be more in the mould of Harris and not Hitchens.
Posted by: Carlie | July 23, 2009 2:57 PM
Alright, SC! I always wondered what those initials stood for. :)
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
July 23, 2009 3:05 PM
debaser71 @ 9:
Not that I'm a Bill Mahr expert or anything but IMO Mahr seems to be anti-pharmecutical company. So even though he sometimes goes a bit whacky during these sort of rants he's still right about the general idea that these companies are there to make money and that they aren't as open and trustworthy as they should be.
There is nothing necessarily wrong with arguing that large pharmaceutical companies have become corrupt. Likewise, however, there is nothing necessarily incompatible with the profit motive and healthy products. However, it is wrong necessarily to connect moral and political corruption with empirical and scientific flaws.
Indeed, pharmaceutical companies enjoy political advantages in the U.S. that they probably should not, and our system of health care allocation is deplorable. And sure, people in charge of making money for pharmaceutical (or any other) corporations are often tempted to, and probably do, lie. These are reasons to reform our politics, not to abandon science.
Like so many, Maher seems to conflate a person's motive for providing a product with the science that demonstrates that the product works. I had a landlady who did the same thing. She did not trust "western" doctors because they were out for money. Her "healers," on the other hand, were caring nurturers, who would even give her discounts. "But do your healers' products actually work?" I would ask. Her mind seemed unable to comprehend why I would even ask the question.
It's one thing to conclude that there are corrupt companies/doctors. There are corrupt people in every business. But an artificially generated chemical proven to cure a disease cures that disease, while an herb not proven to do so has not been proven to do so. And vice versa. Period.
He also rants about how food makes people sick, and I think he's at least partially right about this. Food companies are there to make money not provide us with healthy choices.
I have little doubt that a better diet will keep Americans healthier than the one we currently consume. And I have no problem remaining skeptical of the empirical claims imparted to me by anyone who wants to sell me something.
But that's why I want food and nutrition scientifically researched, and why I ask my doctors and nutritionists about what I eat, and why I will do my own research to vet even them and their words. What I don't need is someone like Bill Maher telling me that my medical problems (and I have some serious ones) are all my fault, since if I stuck to "natural" products, instead of corporate ones, I'd be able to meander invincibly through ground zero of the Ebola virus without so much as sneezing.
I wouldn't harp too hard against Mahr. I've never heard him talk about vaccines but again I am not a Mahr expert so it's likely I missed some of his whacky rants.
I have heard him say that he need not take any preventative shots before going into the heart of third world countries, since he can't get sick. His immune system is just too good because he follows the proper diet. For someone who purports to understand evolution and the survival of the fittest, this is a curiously irrational position. Bacteria evolve. Viruses evolve. The human body is not equipped on its own to combat every single strain just by eating the right fruits and veggies.
All that said, I love Bill Maher. I think he's hilarious, and I enjoy his shtick. His program generates far better round-table discussions than the supposedly serious news stations, and he has a lot to add to many discussions.
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 23, 2009 3:08 PM
Thanks, Carlie! Actually, the initials originally stood for something else; when I set up the blog I wanted to choose a name consistent with the established 'nym.
Posted by: A Recovering Catholic | July 23, 2009 3:11 PM
"There is no Atheist Supreme Leader"
Now you tell me!
* damn it anyways *
Posted by: progressive homeschooler | July 23, 2009 3:22 PM
Bill Maher has always seemed mean spirited to me. I expect that's how he'll react to criticism -- with meanness. As an earlier poster said, he can dish it out, but...
Still, I think he needs to be confronted on his woo-ness.
And by the way, since unlike religious groups, atheists aren't anti-women, I'd like to be the first woman pope. I want a pope-mobile. And an office with a computer so I can draft the Official Freethought Dogma. /
Posted by: Sili
|
July 23, 2009 3:25 PM
Thank you. I was one of the grumpy voices. I'd obviously not done any research - didn't realise Dawkypoo had nothing to do with the award, for instance.
Give 'im hell!
Ooooh - new blog (as if I wasn't reading too many already). Now get Sastra to make one too!
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | July 23, 2009 3:42 PM
#50 Sastra
Double, triple hate this comment form.
Posted by: Michael | July 23, 2009 3:46 PM
Congrats to Maher on the award!
Unfortunately I can't make the convention, but if I could, I'd ask him:
A)Are you against vaccinations?
And if his answer was yes,
B)What would you do if you got bitten by a rabid animal?
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 23, 2009 3:54 PM
I get that the AAI are acknowledging Maher because of his film. To me that's a reason to invite him to speak. I didn't see it (obedient minion that I am), but I agree that a mainstream film designed to openly challenge religion is a rare thing and worthy of recognition.
The award is another story--as the criteria so clearly spell out a motivation for promoting science and reason, I can't see how he makes the cut here. Richard Dawkins's response is,basically "loved the movie, don't know about any of the other crap he's into". That's Richard's prerogative, of course, but if it were my name on the award, and my face atop the AAI banner, cheek-to-cheek with Maher's, I daresay I'd take more of a personal interest in all the wackaloonery Maher has peddled from his celebrity pulpit. I hope Maher does get called out on his anti-science views at the convention, and I hope Richard is one of the people putting his feet to the fire, especially as Richard is such an effective voice against the alt-med brand of pseudoscience.
OT: Congrats on the new digs, Blogmistress SC, I'll be stopping by regularly. And yes, another vote for a Sastra Blog. Do it!!!!!
(insert 'no preview available' disclaimer here)
Posted by: MrFire | July 23, 2009 4:02 PM
I would also like someone to ask him what exactly it is that he sees in the certifiable Ann Coulter.
Posted by: John H.
|
July 23, 2009 4:03 PM
"Freethought Dogma" would make a good blog name. Or rock band name.
Posted by: MrFire | July 23, 2009 4:05 PM
@79:
Bill Maher, that is.
Posted by: V | July 23, 2009 4:18 PM
I am flabbergasted. This is an extremely poor choice. In the past, Mr. Maher has professed belief in a god and ghosts - on his ABC show with none other than guest Michael Shermer Has he ever denounced this?
As others have noted he has, to put it mildly, some strange ideas about food, toxins, vaccines and pharmaceuticals. He frequently commits the naturalistic fallacy on his current program indicating he isn't so atheistic after all, but more of a Post-Christian Spiritualist. Not surprisingly, he has aligned himself with notorious anti-science individuals and organizations - PETA and the Huffington Post for example.
It appears that someone over at RDF didn't do their homework. Does all one have to do is make a piss poor movie about religion, claim to be an atheist, crack some jokes and be marginally famous to be recognized? Seriously, what gives?
Posted by: Mark B | July 23, 2009 4:19 PM
Inviting a guy to receive an award for promoting atheism and then jumping him about the anti-vax bs seems to me to be rude and bad form. I am very disappointed that he holds the views he does about vaccinations, but I am not convinced this is an appropriate tactic.
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 23, 2009 4:20 PM
@Mr. Fire. You mean this Ann Coulter?
(I'm required to supply this link whenever Ichthyic's not around to do it himself)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 23, 2009 4:33 PM
It's such a lovely hat. The cape, gloves and stole are a nice touch.
Posted by: mattand | July 23, 2009 4:39 PM
@mark B #83:
Read Orac's post about this subject. Orac posted the AAI's criteria for giving the award. Maher fails miserably on most of those points.
The argument can also be made that he's not so much promoting atheism as he is slamming religion. As has been stated ad nasuem, he's denies being atheist and views it merely as the flipside of religion. If you had to categorize him, he's at best agnostic. Maher calls himself "apatheist."
As Blake Stacey and many others have said, it would have been more appropriate to give him a "Movie of the Year" type award.
Posted by: JThompson | July 23, 2009 4:45 PM
I'd have no real beef with Maher for believing in woo if he said he was an atheist. After all, all atheist means is "lacking a belief in god/gods". The label would still apply.
What Maher actually calls himself is a "rationalist".
I'm not sure what lacking belief in gods but believing in magic makes you, but "rationalist" probably doesn't describe it.
Penn and Teller are a mixed bag. They often present a rational view with lots of good evidence to back it up. Then about every fourth episode they go off on a tangent. They proceed to cherry pick and distort evidence to such a degree that the only reliable way to tell it wasn't put out by the GOP is the use of profanity. (See the episodes on enviromentalists, secondhand smoke, Wal-Mart hatred, NASA. Just off the top of my head.)
@Sastra: Yeah, broken preview is driving me nuts. My comments are screwy enough without being able to revise them properly.
Posted by: shonny
|
July 23, 2009 4:50 PM
Eh hm, any aspect of religion is among 'some of the more ridiculous,' - just that so many are totally ridiculous.
Posted by: zaardvark | July 23, 2009 5:16 PM
PZ said:
Yet, the convention is being held "in partnership" with the Richard Dawkins Foundation. Look at http://www.atheistconvention.org/ and there's Maher sandwiched between the RDF logo and Richard Dawkins himself. Ew.
Posted by: Mark B | July 23, 2009 5:21 PM
@ #86
Fair enough. I still think going after Maher is the wrong approach. It seems to me your real argument should be with the AAI, not the recipient of the award.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 23, 2009 5:23 PM
debaser71 writes:
[...] these companies are there to make money[...]Food companies are there to make money
Making money seems to be an evil thing to some people; presumably they inherited theirs.
The question is whether some person or company is making money by doing fair and honest business or not. I find the "anti business" trope to be pretty popular among woo-woos, though there's not a 1:1 relationship. They complain about big pharma trying to make money (eek! teh ebbil!) and it never seems to occur to them that the folks selling herbal remedies aren't in it because they're exactly humanitarians.
I guess I'm a cynic - I assume everyone is looking out for their own interests. Even the nonprofits. :D
Posted by: DLC | July 23, 2009 5:28 PM
Re: Bill Mahr: The guy's a kook. He gets paid to be a kook, and to spout nonsense. Unfortunately he actually seems to believe the nonsense.
Re: Penn and Teller: you might disagree with their economics or politics, but their skepticism is usually correct, and when the evidence is shown to them that they are wrong, they change their minds.
Re: "Big Pharma" (or Food)
yes, those companies are in business to make money.
But, how long would any of them remain in business if they decided to deliberately sell poison ?
"Big Pharma" spends billions annually proving to the FDA that the stuff they sell is safe and effective.
how much testing went into that saw palmetto extract?
How about that homeopathic water you just took 5ml of?
The answer is: not damn much.
Posted by: DLC | July 23, 2009 5:32 PM
and... I could have sworn I typed it Maher. skipped an 'e' there. I blame Cardinal Big Dumb Chimp.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 23, 2009 5:36 PM
Mike writes:
If someone were to clone a human (why anyone would is the big question
Scarlett Johansson
Any questions?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 23, 2009 5:53 PM
JThompson writes:
Penn and Teller are a mixed bag. They often present a rational view with lots of good evidence to back it up. Then about every fourth episode they go off on a tangent. They proceed to cherry pick and distort evidence to such a degree that the only reliable way to tell it wasn't put out by the GOP is the use of profanity.
Here's a way of wrapping your brain around their bullshit so that it doesn't hurt you so much: they're entertainers. What they are trying to do is produce an interesting show that amuses, and presents ideas that sometimes contradict the popular consensus. Sure, their evidence is corked, but I don't think the intent is for the viewer to just sit back and adopt P&T's views whole cloth. All they need to do is get you to engage your brain - otherwise, if you want pre-digested "truth" then tune into Fox News or CNN.
One thing I always find odd about skeptics is that they are shocked and dismayed when one of their skeptical heroes (or a well-known skeptic/atheist like Maher) disagrees with them. But it's inevitable that occasionally people will disagree with us; it's part of the challenge of skepticism - it is demanded of us that we form our own opinions based on the evidence as we understand it. P&T are a great example - they have sometimes re-assessed things and said the all important 3 words "I was wrong."
Posted by: mattand | July 23, 2009 5:56 PM
@Mark B. #90:
I think most people who have posted (myself included) *are* complaining about the AAI and their inability to Google, as someone described it over on Orac's site.
As for going after Maher: if I'm parsing what you're saying correctly, it'd be rude to call him out at the award presentation. I'd have to disagree and cite PZ's opening post on that.
It may be socially awkward, but Dawkins has staked his career promoting reason and science. The stuff that Maher espouses isn't even close. That's the 800 pound FSM in the room that can't be ignored.
Again, if I'm misreading what you're saying, let me know.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | July 23, 2009 6:29 PM
PZ wrote: "everyone is naturally flawed"
Are you saying we are all sinners? Are we "naturally flawed" because of something somebody did in some garden in 4003 BC? Maybe atheism isn't so different from fundagelicalism after all...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 23, 2009 6:44 PM
Was this serious? The fog of the internet is keeping me from determining so.
Posted by: Mark B | July 23, 2009 6:45 PM
The main reason why I think attacking Maher at an award grating ceremony is bad form is that he is an invited guest. You may not like/agree/respect him, but the fact is he has been invited to receive an award. If no award or invitation had been offered, and he was simply there to give a talk then I agree he is fair game - let him have it. But because he is a guest, I just think it is simply bad form to organize an attack against the man. I think your unhappiness would be more effectively addressed by going after AAI leadership - withholding funds, or working to take over the leadership so that you could prevent such problems in the future. In the end I don't see how attacking Maher helps. I am not a particular fan of Maher and I am not a member of AAI. I simply thought that attacking an invited guest was not likely to accomplish much. Again, I suggest going after AAI instead and working to ensure such an unacceptable recipient is screened out in the future. But, what the hell, do whatever you like. I just wanted to suggest an alternative to the approach suggested in this thread.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 23, 2009 6:59 PM
4003 BC
that must be some exacting archeology you availed yourself of to arrive at such a precise date for something that is entirely fictional.
I do hope your intent was to amuse?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 23, 2009 7:02 PM
I'm required to supply this link whenever Ichthyic's not around to do it himself
*hattip*
your check's in the mail.
;)
Posted by: catta
|
July 23, 2009 7:15 PM
I don't think simply promoting atheism in some form or other is A Good Thing in itself. Atheism is A Good Thing because, if arrived at by critical thinking, and logic, and all that good stuff, it will lead to more critical thinking and logic, unimpeded by dogma. Hooray! Disagreements are good, agreed -- but I want to see them justified and supported by evidence.
On the other hand, as pointed out, atheists are not homogenous or hierarchically organised. Fair enough. They may very well be atheists because the fairies at the bottom of their garden have told them to be. Fair enough, but if that's the case, do they deserve an award? Not in my opinion. If the latter is the case, the things that potentially make atheism a Force Of Good (TM), and that deserve rewarding efforts to promote it, are missing completely. And no, lack of belief in a specific religion does not automatically count as an improvement - critical thinking does. I see no evidence that Maher has arrived at his agnosticism by any sort of reasoning, nor do I think he would be able to successfully argue for his position (we'll see, I guess).
I have no problem with awards for promoting atheism. But in this case, I would very much like to hear why the organisers think atheism is worth promoting. If any of the reasons include supporting reason, science, critical thinking etc., Maher is the wrong choice, period. He hasn't just made a few flawed arguments, he's knee-deep in woo. If, on the other hand, none of the above are among the reasons, why bother?
Also worth pointing out: as much as we may point to the diversity of the atheist community, part of that justification is invalidated by the fact that Maher is not just a speaker, but an award recipient - that tends to imply a certain level of consensus. Remember how (justly) appalled everyone was at Ben Stein being lined up for an honorary degree? He wasn't going to touch on "Expelled" at all at that event, iirc. But an award (hon. degree) from a place of learning, for Stein? That caused protest, and rightly so.
Just my individual opinion. But if the majority of atheists thought giving Maher a pat on the back just for accidentally stumbling into agnosticim, I'd be surprised and a bit shocked. Awards tend to give that "majority" impression, which is why I'd have preferred it if a little more thought had been put into this.
Posted by: Paul | July 23, 2009 7:22 PM
@97
Nice one. You almost had me until I decided to check your link so I didn't make an idiot out of myself. Fundagelical was close to giving it away, but literacy isn't always a high point for some YECs...
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 23, 2009 7:35 PM
Well said, catta.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | July 23, 2009 7:42 PM
"I think anyone speaking at this convention should be aware that they are not there to receive unthinking hugs and kisses from an adoring audience of fans"
Hold it right there, PZ. I'm sure I that was promised unthinking hugs and kisses from an adoring audience of fans. Evidently you were, too. Maher may not so much, but this "anyone" bit is a little too generalised for my taste.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | July 23, 2009 7:44 PM
Dammit, "that I was promised..."
Posted by: Lynna | July 23, 2009 7:53 PM
Just heard a news report on NPR that noted that PHARMA spent about $40 million dollars lobbying Congress in the three months leading up to most intense debate on the heathcare bill. So, in April, May, and June, PHARMA spent about $3 million per week. There are more people representing PHARMA than there are people in Congress working on the healthcare bill.
When prescription drugs were added to Medicaid, PHARMA was successful in having removed from the bill:
1. drugs imported from Canada
2. Government negotiations with PHARMA for lower drug prices (government can negotiate with doctors, but not with PHARMA -- in fact, the bill made it illegal for the government to negotiate with PHARMA for lower prices).
Source at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106899074
In this admittedly limited way, Maher may be right in complaining about PHARMA.
Posted by: Coran | July 23, 2009 8:00 PM
There's probably a reason there's no Atheist Inquisition - I can see it now.
[Scene 1] Python-esque, the Atheist Inquisition bursts into the room.
Atheist 1: No-one Expects the Atheist Inquisition, our chief weapon is surprise!
Atheist 2: Look, I agree with you that surprise is one of our weapons, but I don't think it's our chief weapon.
Atheist Inquisitor 1: I was going for dramatic effect. I keep getting told I need to capture the public's attention.
Atheist Inquisitor 2: Perhaps, but is lying to the public the best way to go about it?
Atheist Inquisitor 1: It wasn't lying, it was hyperbole used for dramatic effect. If I'm bursting in to a room in a surprising manner, I think in the context I'm perfectly entitled to state, at that time, that surprise is our chief weapon
Atheist Inquisitor 3: Oh for FSM's sake, will you two concentrate on what we're here for - enforcing the Atheist Dogma.
Atheist Inquisitor 4: You know that "FSM" thing's not helping, don't you. People will never engage with us if we're mocking them.
Atheist Inquisitor 2: No! We must ridicule the ridiculous, laughter is one of our greatest weapons. Not our chief weapon obviously, that would be rationality.
Atheist Inquisitor 4: No, our chief weapon is Framing.
Atheist Inquisitor 1,2,3 to Atheist Inquisitor 4: Piss off!
[exit Atheist Inquisitors]
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | July 23, 2009 8:19 PM
Someone please nail him on his continued "Restless Leg Syndrome was invented by Big Pharma" lie.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | July 23, 2009 8:30 PM
"What Maher actually calls himself is a "rationalist"."
Keyboard, meet coffee.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
July 23, 2009 9:04 PM
Well we're apparently militant, so the next logical step is for us to have inquisitors.
Much more fun than framing.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | July 23, 2009 9:07 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp (#98) asked about my comment about fundagelicalism: "Was this serious? The fog of the internet is keeping me from determining so."
I don't think any of the assorted sub-species of fundagelicals refer to themselves as such, so, no, I wasn't serious.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD
|
July 23, 2009 9:19 PM
Coran #108 FTW.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | July 23, 2009 9:23 PM
Ichthyic (#100): Re: 4003 BC - that must be some exacting archeology you availed yourself of to arrive at such a precise date for something that is entirely fictional. I do hope your intent was to amuse?
Bishop Ussher's scientifically precise creation date minus a little time for fooling around led me to the hypothesis that the Fall occurred in 4003 BC. Prove I'm wrong.
Of course my intent was to amuse. Sheesh.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | July 23, 2009 9:27 PM
Mark A. Siefert,
Seriously, you mean it wasn't? I just kind of assumed it was a fake disorder... I mean, if I or a loved one was diagnosed with it, I certainly wouldn't go "oh that's just Big Pharma lying to me and I shouldn't take my medicine," but... hm. Really?
Posted by: ckitching | July 23, 2009 9:58 PM
Do some research, and you'll find a lot of the companies providing herbal remedies are the same companies who make conventional pharmaceuticals (although obviously marketed under a different brand name). Without the government requirements to prove these herbal remedies are safe and effective, these companies are laughing all the way to the bank. They can make all the unproven claims they want, and part foolish people from their money.As for the idea that there's more money to be made from treatment instead of cure, there may be some truth to it. However, someone who dies in their thirties doesn't live long enough to need remedies for incurable age conditions. No income from selling viagra (and similar), back pain medications, vitamin supplements, etc. It might be more profitable to treat the symptoms in the short term, but in the long term, a customer that lives longer is one that will pay longer. Unfortunately, there does seem to be too much emphasis on treating symptoms, and too little on curing conditions, but I don't think it'd be in any company's best long-term interest to suppress a cure. A dead customer doesn't pay.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 23, 2009 10:08 PM
yeah I was making it more complicated than that, as in a not fundy non-PZ fan..... bah nevermind
Posted by: Quixotic | July 23, 2009 10:26 PM
I cooked up some Copypasta for my friends here at Pharyngula, as i was just watching this movie today, and i was positively giddy, seeing it referenced here. Also, on second thought, lets not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place.
Soldier #1: You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.
Arthur: So? We have ridden since the snows of winter covered this land, through the kingdom of Mercia, through--
Soldier #1: Where'd you get the coconuts?
Arthur: We found them.
Soldier #1: Found them? In Mercia? The coconut's tropical!
Arthur: What do you mean?
Soldier #1: Well, this is a temperate zone.
Arthur: The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?
Soldier #1: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
Arthur: Not at all. They could be carried.
Soldier #1: What? A swallow carrying a coconut?
Arthur: It could grip it by the husk!
Soldier #1: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.
Arthur: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?
Soldier #1: Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?
Arthur: Please!
Soldier #1: Am I right?
Arthur: I'm not interested!
Soldier #2: It could be carried by an African swallow!
Soldier #1: Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European swallow. That's my point.
Soldier #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that.
Arthur: Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at Camelot?!
Soldier #1: But then of course a-- African swallows are non-migratory.
Soldier #2: Oh, yeah...
Soldier #1: So, they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway...
[clop clop clop]
Soldier #2: Wait a minute! Supposing two swallows carried it together?
Soldier #1: No, they'd have to have it on a line.
Soldier #2: Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of creeper!
Soldier #1: What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?
Soldier #2: Well, why not?
Posted by: Bomias | July 23, 2009 11:53 PM
It's an OK choice to give Maher this award I find it to be a little sensational and uninspired buy maybe it's the best we can do this year.
Posted by: Skepacabra | July 24, 2009 1:23 AM
This is going to be one of those times where I have to disagree with PZ. I wanted to believe that Maher was only a little wacky when it comes to modern medicine but I really had no idea how much of that Kool-Aid he drank. Orac makes a really, really compelling case against Maher, quoting past comments he's made over the years. And Maher's anti-medical comments have been about as bad as they get. I had no idea he was that delusional. PZ, please read Orac's response and reconsider your endorsement. I loved Religulous too but the amount of pseudoscience he promotes does not reflect well on atheism or on Dawkins' name. Maher's represents everything Dawkins' debunks in his Enemies of Reason special. Maher really needs to be challenged on his BS, not rewarded.
And I agree wholeheartedly with Rev. BigDumbChimp that while there may be some issues that I strongly disagree w/ Penn & Teller on, no position I've ever heard them defend comes anywhere near as bad as Maher's denial of germ theory and vaccines. I'd rather a person believe and promote the view that the Earth is 6000 years old than have them promote germ theory denial and anti-vaccinationism. It's not even close. I would rather actually prefer it Maher just believed in a young Earth than his current beliefs on science and medicine.
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | July 24, 2009 1:42 AM
@Angel Kaida # 115
Yes, really. If memory serves Steve Novella gave Mahr's conspiracy theory the debunking it so richly deserves on a episode of the SGU. I can't recall which one, so any help from the fans in the peanut gallery would help.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2009 4:54 AM
Even if we don't have an Atheist Pope, we are all certified Discordian Popes, so we're alright on the pope department.
Posted by: John Morales | July 24, 2009 5:21 AM
Skepacabra @120, good points all, but PZ wrote: However, let's be clear about the obvious. He is being given this award for making a movie this year that clearly promotes atheism and mocks religion, and that's all that is being endorsed.
The award is already given, that's fact.
Reconsider his endorsement?
So that's our answer to the other, most unfortunate idiocies which Maher espouses. Let's make him uncomfortable. Don't be shy about asking pointed questions and making him squirm. It'll be fun. It'll also be safe, because a majority of the audience will be feeling the same way about him.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 24, 2009 5:46 AM
How silly, we don't have popes and leaders...we have squid overlords.
And where is the fun in being pope if everyone can be one. Unless the prada slippers are complimentary.
Posted by: MrFire | July 24, 2009 8:54 AM
@ Jennifer/Danio #84:
Can only use teh workplace intarnetz right now...but cheers.
Posted by: defiantskeptic
|
July 24, 2009 9:28 AM
Can we just adopt Dara O'Briain as Official Atheist Comedian instead?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo
Posted by: David | July 24, 2009 3:15 PM
I've suspected for some time that Mahr is a wackadoodle when it comes to medical science, and maybe a few other areas, but after reading Orac's post my suspicions have moved into the "firm and reliable" category. The worst part about this for me is just how massive a hypocrite Mahr really is. I can't laugh loudly enough when he's poking the ribs of deluded dolts like Ken Ham, but the truth is that the views Mahr holds are just as wacked, and arguably much more dangerous. I loved Religulous, but Mahr is simply being disingenuous when he paints himself as more skeptical than most, and that damages his overall message, at least for anyone who cares about consistency of thought.
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 24, 2009 4:10 PM
MrFire@124
Yes, it would be difficult to pass that particular link off as 'work related', to be sure. This being Pharyngula, though, I always think it would be ridiculously prim to add the 'NSFW' disclaimer to these links. Unless it's got obnoxiously loud, rude audio (and thank goodness the link in question doesn't!)
Posted by: Irene Delse | July 24, 2009 5:19 PM
I like very much Blake Stacey's suggestion of rewarding achievements instead of people. So, Bill Maher made an important film: ok, give the Richard Dawkins Award to the film, not as a person!
Maybe the AAI could rewrite the name of the award to prevent a similar gaffe next year. Something like the "Richard Dawkins Award for Best Achievement in Raising Public Awareness of Atheism, Rationalism and/or Free-Thinking".
Note the "and/or"... Obviously, Bill Maher's Religulous was important in raising awareness about free-thinking and rejection of organized religion. But his record in promoting all kinds of irrationality and pseudo-science makes him a poor choice as someone who "advocates increased scientific knowledge".
It's embarrassing to see Richard Dawkins and the IAA associated with that kind of absurdity.
Posted by: Ryk | July 24, 2009 8:49 PM
I was a little surprised about the Maher/atheist thing. I thought he was a scientologist. I guess I really do learn something new every day. Todays lesson is that anti-scientific douche fountains don't always worship Bog.
Posted by: Everbleed | July 24, 2009 10:01 PM
When the award was given to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, it brought honor and respect to the award itself and the organization behind it. Miss Ali is worthy of the fucking Nobel prize for Petes sake. Now, with Maher, it does the opposite. We compromise for more bs crap. Woo is the word and it is a bad one. Woo sucks. Woosters suck worse than woo. Maher should not have been given this award. The AAI are simply selling out.
The only reason I would shell out 300 bucks to see Maher in Vegas is to HECKLE THE CRAP OUT OF HIM! Bring a freakin' bullhorn and call him on his crap. But together with transportation and hotel it doesn't seem to be worth the money or the trouble.
And to those in here who think Maher deserves this award, you are idiots. Yep. Idiots. Get a grip. Get a backbone.
Posted by: Erik Smith | July 25, 2009 2:42 AM
1) Awards don't mean shit.
2) He's there to be laughed at anyway.
3) Do you all reeeeeeeeeeeally care that much?
Posted by: Dolemite | July 25, 2009 5:36 PM
What about his views on HIV/AIDS? Maher's views are ignorant, anti-scientific and actively dangerous (the nonsense he espouses certainly doesn't promote proper health). Shouldn't we be applying the same standard to him as we do to religious idealogues and other cranks? I mean, come on...
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | July 25, 2009 6:33 PM
Posted by: Erik Smith | July 25, 2009 2:42 AM
1) Awards don't mean shit.
Oscars don't mean shit. Nobel Prize don't mean shit.
Gotcha.
2) He's there to be laughed at anyway.
That's not how he's presented in the conference web page.
Maher's the headliner, with Richard Dawkins. His picture
is front and centre.
3) Do you all reeeeeeeeeeeally care that much?
I, for one, reeeeeeeeeeeeeeally do, sneerboi. See
Dolemite's comment 133 for one of the reasons why.
Posted by: AnnaMay | July 28, 2009 11:24 PM
Frankly, it just bothers me that someone like Bill Maher can be associated with or compared in any way to someone like Richard Dawkins. If you want to give him an award, give it a different name.
Also, part of the award is that one "advocates increased scientific knowledge", which I must say, Bill seems very disinclined to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Alliance_International#Richard_Dawkins_Award
Posted by: Sheldon W. Helms | August 2, 2009 8:47 PM
If only this article had come out when Richard Dawkins was receiving the "Richard Dawkins Award." But then, since you're friends, I wouldn't expect that of you, P.Z.
If there IS an Atheist Pope, it's certainly Dawkins. People's admiration of him borders adoration, and it's disgusting to watch people fawn all over him like he's some sort of god. I liked his book, I think he's a magnificent, eloquent speaker, but I'm not going to rush over and kiss his feet like 99% of the attendees at the last AAI convention I attended.
I see the same behavior at "The Amaz!ng Meeting" in Las Vegas each year. A few years ago, the two most wildly popular celebrity speakers there were Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of "South Park." They began the Q&A session by stating emphatically to a group of mostly Atheists that they were NOT Atheists, and that they "want(ed) to be very clear about that." Rather than challenging them on it, people simply ignored the statement went right kissing their asses. Also absent was any mention of the fact that their show has popularized gay bashing in the form of calling people "fags," saying that things are "gay" or "queer," etc. There was no critical thinking or challenging of ideas whatsoever. People simply wanted to be noticed and recognized as "huge fans" of the show, and their questions were worse than softball. It was sickening.
Let's hope we can improve ourselves when Maher receives his award, but also retain some decorum and not come off as acerbic.
Posted by: Orac
|
September 7, 2009 10:43 AM
Actually P&T do bother me, and I have criticized their libertarian looniness in the past.