Bill Maher's mockumentary Religulous opens in theaters on Friday. Judging by Maher's media interviews, it's more of the same type of sophomoric ridicule that has been so self-defeating to the atheist movement and that I have written about at this blog and in recent articles. Watch the trailer of the film, directed by the high minded genius who brought us Borat.
As this NY Times review describes, Maher chooses the easiest of targets to interview in his film, such as an amusement park Jesus. In the process, Maher makes fun of fundamentalist religion while seldom addressing the moderate dimensions that many Americans find so meaningful.
Maher's claim, like Dawkins and others, is that the goal of his film is consciousness raising among agnostics and rationalists, lending them the strength to speak out against religion. But if Maher's and Dawkins' rants become the model for our own Borat-like conversations with friends and neighbors, as atheists we are likely to be scoring a lot of self-inflicted wounds.
I discuss the impact of the New Atheist movement in this recent video interview with Big Think.
- Log in to post comments
Matthew C. Nisbet:
In pretty much every single post you've put out decrying the 'New Atheists' and their statements, one or more commenter has argued that this uncompromising speech moves the Overton Window in a direction enabling increased public acceptance of the ideas espoused by both Science and Atheism over longer time scales.
This appears to be a valid criticism of your claims - at least to an outsider to your field of communication, such as myself. Can you point me to a link where you defend your theories against this criticism?
"In the process, Maher makes fun of fundamentalist religion while seldom addressing the moderate dimensions that many Americans find so meaningful."
So if many Americans find something meaningful, it's wrong (or in Nisbet's foggy, narrow, and querulous view, counterproductive) to deride it? What, then, about people who believe "moderately" in ghosts, astrology, psychics, alien contributions to civilization, the viability of Sarah Palin's fitness for the vice presidency, and other palpably nonsensical things?
There are veritable armies of these waterheads in this fair land, but they operate much more quietly than religious folk do, because they do not enjoy the same tradition-based safety in numbers and thus the same protection from rightful criticism that booboisie-lurers like Nisbet aim to assure. Should their views be shielded from Maher-like derision as well? Calumny!
It is incumbent upon real people of science (and Nisbet qualifies to the same degree as a canary does) to tear apart bad ideas, not coddle them. Nisbet either rejects this fact or fails to understand it, and in either case is a fool. (The fact that he has not viewed the film is mere icing on the urinal cake of his opinion.)
The more Nisbet brays about atheists being the problem, the more you reveals himself to be a tiresome contributor to the real problem. Fine with me, as the transparency of his futility and of those like him will ultimately expose to greater and greater degrees that pro-religionists--be they proudly bawling yokels or stealth apologists like Nisbet--are pathetic laughingstocks. Once this becomes common knowledge, even the backwater ignoramuses in the thrall of hick pastors' endless turd-sermons will turn tentatively toward reason.
"In the process, Maher makes fun of fundamentalist religion while seldom addressing the moderate dimensions that many Americans find so meaningful."
So if many Americans find something meaningful, it's wrong (or in Nisbet's foggy, narrow, and querulous view, counterproductive) to deride it? What, then, about people who believe "moderately" in ghosts, astrology, psychics, alien contributions to civilization, the viability of Sarah Palin's fitness for the vice presidency, and other palpably nonsensical things?
There are veritable armies of these waterheads in this fair land, but they operate much more quietly than religious folk do, because they do not enjoy the same tradition-based safety in numbers and thus the same protection from rightful criticism that booboisie-lurers like Nisbet aim to assure. Should their views be shielded from Maher-like derision as well? Calumny!
It is incumbent upon real people of science (and Nisbet qualifies to the same degree as a canary does) to tear apart bad ideas, not coddle them. Nisbet either rejects this fact or fails to understand it, and in either case is a fool. (The fact that he has not viewed the film is mere icing on the urinal cake of his opinion.)
The more Nisbet brays about atheists being the problem, the more he reveals himself to be a tiresome contributor to the real problem. Fine with me, as the transparency of his futility and of those like him will ultimately expose to greater and greater degrees that pro-religionists--be they proudly bawling yokels or stealth apologists like Nisbet--are pathetic laughingstocks. Once this becomes common knowledge, even the backwater ignoramuses in the thrall of hick pastors' endless turd-sermons will turn tentatively toward reason.
"In the process, Maher makes fun of fundamentalist religion while seldom addressing the moderate dimensions that many Americans find so meaningful."
So if many Americans find something meaningful, it's wrong (or in Nisbet's foggy, narrow, and querulous view, counterproductive) to deride it? What, then, about people who believe "moderately" in ghosts, astrology, psychics, alien contributions to civilization, the viability of Sarah Palin's fitness for the vice presidency, and other palpably nonsensical things?
There are veritable armies of these waterheads in this fair land, but they operate much more quietly than religious folk do, because they do not enjoy the same tradition-based safety in numbers and thus the same protection from rightful criticism that booboisie-lurers like Nisbet aim to assure. Should their views be shielded from Maher-like derision as well? Calumny!
It is incumbent upon real people of science (and Nisbet qualifies to the same degree as a canary does) to tear apart bad ideas, not coddle them. Nisbet either rejects this fact or fails to understand it, and in either case is a fool. (The fact that he has not viewed the film is mere icing on the urinal cake of his opinion.)
The more Nisbet brays about atheists being the problem, the more he reveals himself to be a tiresome contributor to the real problem. Fine with me, as the transparency of his futility and of those like him will ultimately expose to greater and greater degrees that pro-religionists--be they proudly bawling yokels or stealth apologists like Nisbet--are pathetic laughingstocks. Once this becomes common knowledge, even the backwater ignoramuses in the thrall of hick pastors' endless turd-sermons will turn tentatively toward reason.
Matthew C. Nisbet:
In pretty much every single post you've put out decrying the 'New Atheists' and their statements, one or more commenter has argued that this uncompromising speech moves the Overton Window in a direction enabling increased public acceptance of the ideas espoused by both Science and Atheism over longer time scales.
This appears to be a valid criticism of your claims - at least to an outsider to your field of communication, such as myself. Can you point me to a link where you defend your theories against this criticism?
Claim: "...has been so self-defeating to the atheist movement..."
Proof? Any quantitative analysis on the position of the Overton Window?
Concern noted. Again.
Say, do you have any links to anything by you?
I think perhaps you are underestimating the sheer volume of crazy with extra insanity on top that passes for religion in the US. It seems like you figure that most religious folks are some variety of lukewarm Lutheran/Presbyterian/Episcopalian/Reform Jewish, people who are moderate in their beliefs and not very...uh, let's just call it passionate. There are many parts of the US where the folks you are characterizing as "easy targets" are the regional majority, not a minority of wackos--to the point that religious persecution is alive and well in those states, and non-Christians find their homes vandalized, receive death threats, are assaulted, lose their jobs, etc.
I actually would like to see the movie. I don't think it will unduly irritate religious moderates--religious moderates are as able as anyone else to see that some people are crazy, and surely they realize by now that there are serious nutters out there who feel [Yahweh avatar] is talking to them. Just because they happen to share a vague similarity in one respect doesn't mean much. In any case, most religious folks DO believe already that their (whatever particular sect or splinter group or credo) is magically different from everyone else's and therefore exempt--I think it's much more likely that they will laugh at all those crazy buggers and go right back to church on Sunday, secure in the knowledge that their religion is best of all because it's theirs.
And who says that Bill Maher is obligated to address moderates who quite enjoy their faith? From the trailer and the NYT review, it seems like he is just going around interviewing entertaining people and random people off the street, not constructing a dissertation. The point is to have fun with a heavy subject; as you well know, having fun often makes demonized people (in this case atheists) more likeable and humanized, and I think that's a very worthy goal.
I don't think any comparison can me made between Dawkins and Maher. Are you suggesting that Dawkins is also sophomoric?
Every time that someone presents what they call 'evidence for the existence of God' a careful examination reveals that they do not have any evidence for 'God'. How many times do we have to reveal that 'the Emperor has no clothes' before people stop insisting that we believe nonsense?
That, right there, is the entire basis of atheism. Believers make a bunch of claims, treating those claims seriously results in them being proven false. Why is attempting to separate truth from fiction controversial?
Also, Dawkins did a two-part TV special debunking alternative medicine. Maher is a big time booster of alt-med, an antivaccinationists, germ theory denialist, and a believer in "detoxification."
So the issue here is that he only makes fun of the most ridiculous aspects of religion?
Some other things that review says:
"documentary that doesnt pretend to be a serious cultural or scientific exploration of the roots of faith."
"In a small journalistic coup Mr. Maher interviews a Roman Catholic priest in front of the Vatican, who laughingly agrees with him that the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church are nonsense that are not to be taken literally."
A town in Northern Flordia just had an antigay witch hunt.
http://www.gayagenda.com/2008/07/florida-principle-guilty-of-gay-witch-…
It is charmng how you think such nuts are the minority. Fact is, the nuts are at least a third of the population.
So...er, what's the point here? Preaching non-belief to the non-believers? Winning converts over to non-believing? Asking big questions and avoiding answering them? Running around the streets with a microphone trying to be a cool gonzo-journalist?
I'll wait for the DVD and then...probably not rent it.
Thanks anyway. Have a nice day.
Maher is NOT an atheist.
He always disavows that label when talking about the subject of belief and instead describes himself as agnostic. His central thesis in this movie (I'm going by interviews and like you have not seen the full film) is that humans cannot KNOW the answer to the question 'what happens to you after you die?'
Is it really wrong to point out that its irrational to believe anyone who claims to absolutely KNOW the answer?
With one of those crazy easy targets running for vice president it seems to me that we need all the ridicule we can get!
"Is it really wrong to point out that its irrational to believe anyone who claims to absolutely KNOW the answer?"
Uh, yes? You are familiar with the concept "burden of proof"? It is why it is okay to say it is all false and disbelieve it.
"In the process, Maher makes fun of fundamentalist religion while seldom addressing the moderate dimensions that many Americans find so meaningful."
Why should he address them? Not everybody gets his livelihood from dead-serious study on politics. Comedians, for one, earn their living commenting (and inventing) special and extreme events. "Moderate dimensions" are a very unlikely topic for satire.
I see no reason why religion should be less fair game for comedians than f.ex. politics. No one expects satire on extremist politicans to contain "balancing" statements of politics and politicians beeing absolutely necessary for a working democracy. Why expect such "balanced" behaviour from people who make fun about extremist religious movements?
Are you feeling threatened Mr. Nisbet? You should be because finally a lot more atheists, agnostics and other assorted non-believers are coming out of the closet because they no longer feel threatened by Christianity. They have known all along that there is no magical entity making all the rules for mankind. You should feel threatened especially if you are in the business of religion, that is, if your collar is on backwards and you depend on the collection tray every Sunday. Good luck with that.
Aspentroll, Nisbet isn't a theist. He isn't afraid of atheists coming out of the closet, but rather afraid of them making fools of themselves as they come out.
That said, the Daily Show interviews of Bill Maher make Religuous look more promising than I would have otherwise thought, and bear in mind that when Jon Stewart doesn't like what the interviewee is shilling, it shows, as Chris Matthews can attest.
"Are you suggesting that Dawkins is also sophomoric?"
He may not be sophomoric, but his arguments in The God Delusion certainly are. It is obvious he hasn't done much research, if any, into religious philosophy or even plain philosophy. His sharp reasoning skills also abandon him as he leaps from juvenile premise to a non-sequiter conclusion. The arguments in his book would have received a very low, maybe failing, grade in any 2nd or 3rd year university philosophy class.
Should we atheists attempt to use Dawkins' arguments around a knowledgeable person, we'll find each of our arguments shot down. Dawkins is no more qualified to write on Christianity or religion than the pope is qualified to write about cell biology.
Thanks for the attempt, Dr. Dawkins, but please leave the theism/atheism debate to the professionals.
#16 D.J. Andrews wrote:
âDawkins is no more qualified to write on Christianity or religion than the pope is qualified to write about cell biology.â
......And yet Popes makes legalistic pronouncements directly effecting the course of research in cell biology.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf…
Ever since Terry Eagleton pulled that irredeemably absurd argument out of his frogâs belly white flat ass, it has been used as some sort of accomodati impeachment that truly defines their utter worthlessness.
I am more qualified than Eagleton, and most Catholic clergy to discus the current position of the Roman Catholic Church on teleology, ontological naturalism and certainly the historical path through the mine field of heretical and apocryphal propositions etc. and I really donât have a problem with Dawkins not investing energy in the gnosis of Teilhard de Chardin.
You are the sort of jackass that refuses to pay his bricklayer because when pressed, you find he is ignorant of the 1406 roof tile specifications promulgated by the court of Imperial Yongle Emeror Zhu Di.
The theological ignorance argument attains all the altitude of a hippo in a tar pit unless the person promulgating it imagines himself an authority on ALL theologies.
Are you preposterous enough to claim such authority?
I think the problem is that a lot of atheists -- and I know, I used to make the same claim -- make the statement that if you say science, or even to some degree rationality -- can't address certain kinds of quesitons, then you are saying religion does.
False choice. Science, for instance, has proven a poor choice of methods for addressing ethical questions, because ethics doesn't have a whole lot to do with the way the world functions. Rocks still fall at 9.8 m/s/s whether or not you are as serial killer or a saint, and you won't want to jump off a building in the hopes you can fly no matter what your ethical stance.
Another issue I have is what I call the Clarke argument (because he makes it so often). That is if you are religious you are stupid or insane. Again, false dichotomy.
One of the problems is not acknowledging that that religious people aren't all stupid, and not understanding that religion, believe it or not, has served an important function in many movements that were and are important. For instance, the American Indian Movement took the position that not only were treaties violated but that it is important to treat one's environment a certain way; that was a religious position, fundamentally. The idea that you should, say, not do brain-sectioning experiments on people has no scientific justification whatever. In fact, you'd probably get a lot of useful data. But we don't do it.
This isn't to say that you have to have religion to have ethics, but its where a lot of people start. And you have to offer something in its place. You have to say more than "God doesn't exist, and you're stupid to believe it."
it's more of the same type of sophomoric ridicule that has been so self-defeating to the atheist movement
Perhaps it doesn't appeal to those who are older (and I'd agree), but, then again, perhaps it appeal to those who are the (physical or mental) same age as sophomores? ;-)
More seriously, there is such a thing as a target audience for a film. It's pointless "measuring" the success of a film by looking at a group who aren't it's target audience, surely?
Comparing Maher and Dawkins is silly, apples and oranges, etc.
Jesse: A bigger fault is many religious people try to claim that their religion "owns" ethics. The silliness and self-justifications that follow these claims are bad enough to question if religions bring anything positive to the picture.
Excuse the typos: I've no time for editing...