Religulous
Bill Maher is a jerk. Or at least I think he is. The trailer for his new film, entitled Religulous, has hit the web recently and I can’t help but be reminded of Michael Moore. This looks like the most one-sided, over the top look at faith imaginable. Once again, a documentarian is not looking at something with honesty. He’s looking for the most extreme cases and grabbing ridiculous sound bites from the biggest loons he can find - and probably taken out of context as well. In other words, he’s deliberately skewing the big picture to further an agenda.
This isn’t to say one shouldn’t have an opinion and portray that opinion, but to cover something as controversial and important to people as faith, and then mock the entire idea of spirituality with manipulated film, seems to me to be just plain ugly. At least find a few people who are semi-intelligent and can talk about faith honestly rather than a bunch of cultish rednecks who can’t see past their own ignorance. And maybe this is in the film, but I don’t get the feeling from this trailer.
Still, I’m sure this will be a pretty entertaining movie; which is ultimately what Maher is all about - entertainment. But I can’t shake the feeling he’s doing it in an underhanded way that’s full of cheap shots. I guess I’ll have to wait to see the film in its entirety to make that judgement though.
source: worstpreviews.com
Comment by Andrew James — June 9, 2008
You are like the fifth person to rag on Maher thus far, I know he is polarizing but I am still kind of surprised.
I listen to the podcast of his real-time show every week and I have watched him do the circuit on Larry King and Bill O’Reilly, and I saw him talk for an hour with Larry Charles at TIFF last year and they showed lengthy clips of the film. those are my credentials.
I do not agree with Maher on everything, I am not a libertarian and he is so there is going to be some differences, but on the whole and in particular with respects to his opinions of religion I think they are entirely accurate and entirely earnest. What he continually asks for is evidence of doubt, of deliberating the pros and cons and being able to articulate a sensible reason for why someone not merely believes something privately but that he feels the need to convert others, that they feel the need to be seen as indisputably right with their convictions. These are not fringe individuals, I mean the institutions are founded on this premise that believers need to convert those around them, he challenges the encroachment of ideologies.
I think if religious people wanted nothing more than the freedom to conduct their faiths privately, or in specified public places without requiring the conversion of state, or even their pagan neighbor, there would be no problem. This is hardly the case especially in the U.S., where there is a calculated campaign particular by the Christian Right to turn the states into a theocracy. You say fringe again, but let us remember this is dogma for believers, democracy is something of an inconvenience to complete obedience to the word of God, it requires the acceptance of shared political powers with atheists.
I am pro-faith, tempered with reason.
Comment by rot — June 9, 2008
I don’t care to debate religion (existence of God, etc). What I care to debate is Maher’s motivations and methods. While he rips the “Christian right” for trying to convert everyone, his own hypocrisy is baffling in that is what he does on his show everyday - try to convert everyone to atheism. And the way he goes about it is just pompous and mean spirited.
I don’t go to church much anymore, but up until I was about 18 I went almost every Sunday and to several different churches in several different states throughout my life. Most of my close friends are Jewish, so I’ve also been to several synagogues around my area. I have never met a person in these circles who acts or talks like the way the fanatics in the trailer above behave. They are all normal people with normal lives who go to baseball games, browse the internet, drink beer, etc. None of them jump around in a trance or go door to door trying to convert everyone to their beliefs. The people portrayed in the trailer above ARE, as you say, fringe and represent a very tiny minority of the church going populace. Not a mass conspiracy that want to “turn the government into a theocracy.”
So when Maher mocks people (my grandmother, my aunts, uncles, friends, i.e. pretty much everyone I know) in a condescending way because they believe in a higher power and don’t gel with what he thinks is right, I cry asshole.
Comment by Andrew James — June 9, 2008
Hypocrites? If you were to take a look at their lifestyle, do they really follow the dogmatic teachings of their respective books? If they don’t, they’re hypocrites, and you should ask them why they even bother claiming to be christian/jewish/whatever.
People who are religious are gullible and afraid.
Comment by Henrik — June 9, 2008
I would also agree with Henrik, as unpleasant as it sounds, anybody who says they are of a particular organized religion and yet arbitrarily observe it are arbitrarily religious. I would say the vast majority are probably of this kind, more taken with the culture than with the rituals.
I wouldn’t call evangelicals evil people, but perhaps easily swayed by any machiavellian that wants to use the word of God for political purposes. The one complaint Maher makes of the believers is their gullibility, which sure can be construed as mean-spirited, and I guess I see your point about him being a hypocrite, but there is also a grain of truth to the fact that someone who believes in things beyond the realm of reasoned deliberation, on faith alone, are perhaps susceptible to a kind of gullibility that in a political democracy makes the unbelievers frustrated because people are making decisions that pertain to the state of your government within the context of an eventual rapture. Most of Maher’s attacks are based on this frustration, in effect, democracy doesn’t work if the masses are not making educated decisions about life on Earth.
I understand his frustration, but also I know that there are people who believe in all sorts of things that can also compartmentalize and be valuable citizens. Should we just focus on them and give a blind eye to the fanatics?
and as my filmjunk comments clearly state, my concern is more with the rational fanatics more so than the religious.
Comment by rot — June 9, 2008
Comment by Andrew James — June 9, 2008
Just because someone takes comfort in a religious tradition does not make them either gullible or afraid. People turn to religion for any number of reasons. Not all religious people are conservative wing nuts, just like not all aethists are Left wing environmental douche bags.
Comment by Colleen — June 9, 2008
Quotes: “believe in a talking snake,” “a man hearing everyone murmur to him at the same time” - these are the kind of statements that are counterproductive and just make him look like an asshole (i.e. mocking people right to their face for a belief system that he doesn’t share).
It seems to me that sitting down and having a dialogue with them and truly discussing why they believe what they believe and why he doesn’t believe it, would be a FAR more interesting film. Also, as I said, talking to some people who actually have something intelligent to say would also make for a better film.
Frankly, I bet Campea’s movie will ultimately be more constructive and interesting than Maher’s, which generally has the same thesis, but actually discusses instead of “mocking from the pulpit.”
Comment by Andrew James — June 9, 2008
While a more investigative movie may be more interesting to somebody who has respect for religion and religious people, I definitely think that this movie is justified, because it is ridiculous and deserves to be mocked.
Comment by Henrik — June 9, 2008
He certainly doesn’t “try to convert everyone to atheism” on his show.
I also don’t think he’s attacking people who take personal comfort in the various gods. It’s easy to say that religious extremists are an obscure minority. But how do you explain away things like the Intelligent Design movement? A ‘moderate’ strategy with a dangerous theocratic end game. Or what about the “war on christmas” lunatics who are convinced that the phrase “merry chrismas” is being criminalized by a politically correct gestapo of gays, jews and secularists.
@ “Frankly, I bet Campea’s movie will ultimately be more constructive”
Haven’t seen it but I bet you’re right. The problem with the anti-religion movement going on right now is that most of the people are completely ignorant about religion in any form. We atheists are always claiming that we’re more knowledgable on the bible than devout believers but I find this to be a pretty empty claim.
I wish the atheist movement would be more Carl Sagan and less Richard Dawkins
Comment by Rusty James — June 9, 2008
I refuse to be part of any movement. It’s up to each person to decide how they behave in the world, some people will be more Carl Sagan-esque and some will be Richard Dawkins-esque, I really don’t think there is a movement dictating how to behave. I like to think of myself as being Henrik-esque.
Comment by Henrik — June 9, 2008
luckily my comment wasn’t a specific description directed at you.
Comment by Rusty James — June 9, 2008
Comment by Andrew James — June 9, 2008
Movements don’t have a leader and they certainly don’t tell people how to behave.
So if you are an atheist, then ipso/facto you are part of the atheist movement. sorry.
Comment by Rusty James — June 10, 2008
Comment by Henrik — June 10, 2008
Try that statement on for size when you are 30. 40. 50. 75? Social and spiritual interaction and beliefs are pretty integral to the human existence.
Comment by Kurt — June 10, 2008
Maher almost always associates these remarks with the idea of “would you allow someone who believes in a talking snake have a say on how to run your government”… his agenda is largely political. And in that context they are very valid questions. Would you let people who believe in a coming rapture make decisions that have to deal with the welfare of our lives on Earth?
They can believe whatever they want to believe but should that excuse them from proper deliberation on points of social reform? I can believe an eggplant is talking to me and that we should burn down all forests, would that be okay too? There is a point where you want to make sure that while people can have their faiths and participate in them to an extent that they also do not cross a line and enforce their beliefs politically… at least not in a democracy, not with the Constitution.
I wouldn’t want Friedman free-market ideologues imposing their beliefs into politics either, because there is no pragmatism to their views.
Balance and moderation need to be upheld in a democracy, and religion, no matter how benign it may appear, has at its core a trigger for a sense of superiority, a profound sense that you must lead the world in a particular direction… at its core Christ is not democratic.
Its the fusion of patriotism, business, and Christianity that truly baffles me because they do not easily gel together.
Comment by rot — June 10, 2008
Comment by rot — June 10, 2008
That said, the rapture is literal.
Comment by rot — June 10, 2008
My wife used to world for World-Vision Canada, and oi, there were some strange behaviors from ‘Christians’ going on there. Business and Religion is a poison brew. Which is why church politics can often get ugly (there is a business aspect to the upkeep and maintaining of a house of worship. And sometimes the business and ego get swirled in the mix.
For the best illustration possible of this, I highly recommend the documentary “Audience of One” to see someone take his faith and ego to new business goals. With tragic results.
Certainly one of the many reasons why I have no love for Walmart and its supposed Christian slant on their business practices.
Politics + Religion. They have no place together. I am sad that they do. God + Country do not belong in the same sentence.
Comment by Kurt — June 10, 2008
Seriously, did you even read my comment. “not necessarily affiliated”. I don’t care if you’re part of some “movement” or not but it makes me resentful that you respond to tell me I’m wrong without bothering to read what I wrote.
Comment by Rusty James — June 10, 2008
Social interaction obviously. What the heck is spiritual interaction? As for spiritual beliefs, I definitely don’t agree with you that they are somehow important, let alone integral, to the human existence.
Comment by Henrik — June 10, 2008
Rusty, I must have missed the ‘not’ when I read it. Slip up. I don’t agree with you that there exists an atheist movement, but I think it’s the definition that we differ on. If you define movement as any agreement between any number of people, then fine, call it a movement.
Comment by Henrik — June 10, 2008
A religious fanatic relies solely on intuition, a rational fanatic relies solely on reason. Both are dead ends when it comes to making things work in reality. You need to offset your opinions by taking into consideration the other qualities, allowing them to work off one another a make a sound judgment of what works best.
Henrik with your last statement on the filmjunk thread that there is no point to life but the expansion of knowledge, even if that means the extinction of the human race… you are the kind of zealot you are chastizing.
Comment by rot — June 10, 2008
My bad grammar, should have read: Social interaction and spiritual beliefs are pretty integral to the human existence…
Intuition, Emotion and Spirituality drive society forward as much as any other qualities. Your blanket writing off of spirituality is a tad ignorant. At the risk of sound smug myself. I’m curious what your thoughts and values will be as you get on a bit more in life.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 10, 2008
And Henrik, if you really wrote what rot said you did on another thread, how/why exactly do you go through life? If there is no point to anything, why bother? This is why I can’t accept this as “fact.” I refuse to believe that life is meaningless.
Comment by Andrew James — June 10, 2008
Comment by Marina Antunes — June 10, 2008
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 10, 2008
It is utterly meaningless though Andrew. What could possibly lead you to believe that there was any sort of meaning to our existence? The only way we can actually give it meaning, is by pleasuring our bodies and minds, trying to give everybody the best possibilities so that they may enjoy themselves as well. Expansion of our common knowledge is a way to at least use what we have to do something worthwhile that may (but in all likelihood won’t) lead to some sort of existence different from what we have now.
Refusing to believe anything is ridiculous. As for why I personally go through life, I find the idea of not existing way less appealing than the idea of existing. I may think this world is a cesspool of horrible ideas and people, but I’m not quite done with it yet!
Comment by Henrik — June 10, 2008
Old people also seem to get more conservative. Why? Fear. Same with ’spirituality’, all it is, is seeking comfort.
Comment by Henrik — June 10, 2008
Comment by rot — June 10, 2008
Comment by rot — June 10, 2008
And the only reason you find existing more appealing than not existing is because you exist! If you didn’t exist, it wouldn’t matter to you anyway.
And I don’t think people necessarily turn towards spirituality just because they’re afraid or seek comfort. That’s YOUR assertion. Maybe some just grow curious and look for answers to life that aren’t really answerable, but maybe are answerable through some sort of faith or belief in a higher power. That’s not really me, but I don’t fault people or call them names for wanting to do so (like you and Mr. Maher). Just like I don’t mock people for being atheist or Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or agnostic. How is that constructive and how does that fit into your “give everyone the best possible life experience possible” belief?
You talk about expanding knowledge and doing something worthwhile. How can something be worthwhile if everything you know and everyone’s lives and ultimately the entire universe is completely pointless?
Comment by Andrew James — June 10, 2008
From the looks of the trailer, I’m not going to learn a damn thing. Just learn that it’s okay to ridicule people.
Comment by Andrew James — June 10, 2008
“I just don’t like”
Fear.
“And the only reason you find existing more appealing than not existing is because you exist! If you didn’t exist, it wouldn’t matter to you anyway.”
Most definitely.
“Maybe some just grow curious and look for answers to life that aren’t really answerable, but maybe are answerable through some sort of faith or belief in a higher power.”
This would be great if there actually was answers to be had. As it is, it’s simply lies being used to keep people acting a certain way that certain felt was better for the world. I may not disagree with alot of the rules, but I do disagree with the tactic of using fear of an allpowerful ruler of space to get people to do what you want them to. Religion is hurting people, it has hurt the world, the dualistic worldview is a disaster to humankind.
“How can something be worthwhile if everything you know and everyone’s lives and ultimately the entire universe is completely pointless?”
If it makes you feel good. Who gives a shit about purpose? Also, scientific research MAY in fact (even though it is as I said extremely unlikely) lead to a new way of existing, a new understanding, a way to actually reach some sort of higher level of consciousness currently not available to us. It probably will never happen though, ever since it was discovered that light moves, the planet seems more and more isolated.
It’s okay to ridicule people who are ridiculous. It’s not okay to go up and bother people and talk about their dirty moms or ugly faces or something like that, but challenging ridiculous views and laughing at it is perfectly fine, because with something as ridiculous as talking snakes and allpowerful space lords, how can you do anything BUT laugh? The only thing spoiling the joke is all the idiots thinking it’s true.
Comment by Henrik — June 10, 2008
He is also a comedian and he defuses some of the tension by making jokes, but I would hardly call it publically humiliating people. Maybe the difference is I have seen lengthy clips from the film and it was dialogue with people, with the occassional joke.
Comment by rot — June 10, 2008
And that is the difference between you and me.
Comment by Andrew James — June 10, 2008
Comment by Andrew James — June 10, 2008
I’m down with that statement. No argument here. May folks don’t like to have their beliefs poked at though.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 10, 2008
…Everybody was Kung-Fu Fighting. Those Cats were fast as lighting… Argh, I throw up my hands.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 10, 2008
Particularly when, as Kurt said, it’s something as touchy as a person’s spiritual beliefs.
Comment by Andrew James — June 10, 2008
Comment by Andrew James — June 10, 2008
then they shouldn’t sign release forms when doing interviews with Bill Maher.
It is a generalization but I gotta say it: religious people tend to be overly sensitive. Maybe it has something to do with continually having to defend your right to believe something without demonstrable proof, but I believe scientific realism is a fallacy and whenever I say that I get attacked and I give my points and focus on the point of contention. when you make fun of a post-modernist its tolerable maybe even fashionable, when you make fun of a religious person its bashing or maybe even a hate crime.
then again people seem to like bashing scientology, even the other religious people, yet when you get down to it, is it any less plausible? these are the sort of confrontations with sensibility that Maher should provoke.
Comment by rot — June 10, 2008
I really do not get it. its not a direct attack on you as a person but on the belief, if your belief is strong what does it matter what someone thinks of it? A true believer should be able to laugh off any joke of their faith, if the joke is funny. so is this a matter of what is funny?
Comment by rot — June 10, 2008
Apart from the fear:
“I just don’t like and frankly can’t fathom the idea that the universe is pointless. If you can, and you’re fine with that, then good for you.”
and denial:
“I refuse to believe that life is meaningless.”
Comment by Henrik — June 10, 2008
Comment by rot — June 10, 2008
Comment by Andrew James — June 10, 2008
I quote Matthew McCaughnahey in Contact…
MM: “Did you love your father?”
Foster: “Very much.”
MM: “Prove it.”
Comment by Andrew James — June 10, 2008
Have faith to nurture yourself, to lead you in your day to day life, but do not compel others to abide by your intuition without requiring demonstrable proof for why we should do so. That is the distinction. Political decisions require proof… something Bush neglected to care about in that unholy war on Iraq.
Comment by rot — June 10, 2008
Just thought it’d be appropriate to point out one of the songs playing in this trailer: Gnarles Barkley’s ‘Crazy’. Sort of supports the entire idea of the film in this case.
Comment by Jay C. — June 10, 2008
Wether or not life is meaningless can not be proven, but refusal to believe is denial. You apparently already made your mind up.
Comment by Henrik — June 10, 2008
Comment by Andrew James — June 10, 2008
Comment by Henrik — June 10, 2008
MM: “Did you love your father?”
Foster: “Very much.”
MM: “Prove it.””
I think I can use this quote to illustrate how I feel about religion. Let me try a bit of a re-write:
INT. HOUSE - DAY
Jodi Foster insists that her Father, a man whom Matthew McCaughnahey has never met in his life, is trustworthy enough to look after McCaughnahey’s newborn baby for one week.
MM
Before I leave my child with your
Father, can I meet with him? I
just want to be sure that I’m doing
the right thing here.
Jodi Foster
Sure, you can meet with him whenever
you want.
MM
OK. How bout now?
Jodi Foster
OK, let’s put our hands together
and speak to my Father.
MM seems slightly unsure, yet follows Jodi’s lead and puts his hands together.
Jodi Foster
Go ahead and speak to him.
MM
Huh?
Jodi Foster
My Father is always listening.
MM
OK. Um…Jodi’s Father…are you
certified to perform CPR on my
child in the case of an emergency?
No answer.
MM
Hello? Have you ever been arrested
or currently have any warrants?
No answer.
MM
(To Jodi) Why Isn’t he answering?
Jodi Foster
You must understand, my Father
works in mysterious ways. Just have
faith that he knows CPR and has no
outstanding warrants.
MM
Are you serious? You expect me
to leave my child in the care of
someone who won’t even tell me if
he knows CPR?
Jodi Foster
Just have faith Matthew. Just have
faith.
SCENE.
This is how I feel about religion.
Comment by Jay C. — June 10, 2008
http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2008/06/how_journalism.html
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 10, 2008
that said we do about a thousand faith-based things a day, so it is also foolish to isolate yourself from any implication in taking things on faith. The difference would be that in your faith-based rituals you do not conjure up the notion of an omniscient being.
Comment by rot — June 10, 2008
Like I said before people that are overly confident in their views are fair game to be ridiculed, you can be Hitler or a Jew. If what they bring to the table is that what they know is greater than what unbelievers know, if they presuppose a position of superiority without meeting half way to discuss the hows and whys of it, then fair game. Maher may revel in his superior position too much to, but you will notice even in this trailer he is asking questions, and he is constantly being told he doesn’t understand.
I mean look what you do to Henrik, the guy rarely meets you halfway and you make fun of him. thems the rules.
Comment by rot — June 10, 2008
From the trailer, Maher is clearly examining and poking fun at belief itself. This is a pretty relatable and universal theme and I don’t see why anyone should feel personally attacked by it.
Comment by Rusty James — June 10, 2008
I guess it goes beyond this trailer for me Rusty. This guy is on a crusade to just constantly rip people for believing in God - isn’t it getting old yet? He’s been doing it for years. And it’s not just the fanatics he goes after. It’s everyday, good people who also happen to go to church on Sunday - i.e. almost everyone I knew growing up. So yeah, I take offense to that.
I just think it’s funny how both sides KNOW they are right. And the only way to prove it, is to bash the other viewpoint. Sad really.
Comment by Andrew James — June 10, 2008
Comment by Big Scott — June 10, 2008
“The pope is a nazi.” - Yeah, you’re funny Bill.
Comment by Andrew James — June 10, 2008
“At least find a few people who are semi-intelligent and can talk about faith honestly rather than a bunch of cultish rednecks who can’t see past their own ignorance. And maybe this is in the film, but I don’t get the feeling from this trailer.”
Give Maher his due. He brings people he disagrees with on his show all the time, and gives them due time to make their case. I mean, he’s close friends with Ann Coulter for fucks sake. I’m sure he wont shy away from people who can defend themselves… but even if he does confront major players, if they look stupid people are going to claim that he edited things to suit his purpose. This is what happens whenever anyone looks bad.
Comment by Goon — June 10, 2008
with enough time, i have now found something to agree with rot on 100%. maher’s comebacks here were on point, but pretty lighthearted and friendly with his subjects. He’s been this way on his show lately too, even though he’s an Obama guy teasing people for buying into personality politics and ignoring issues. I can defend Maher’s ability to offend all comers equally. He doesnt look the other way when people supposedly on his side overall are doing things he finds silly. He’s anything but an apologist.
Comment by Goon — June 10, 2008
My ex-boss at a store I worked at several years ago was a fundamentalist christian (and later, a convicted pedophile, but thats another story), and he would take a minute almost every day to condemn and attack the salvation army and its business policies. yep, its a sour mix.
Comment by Goon — June 10, 2008
“He certainly doesn’t “try to convert everyone to atheism” on his show.”
Agreed. Watching Maher’s show, I think I know better to judge his intentions than those who only view a trailer. Maher very much believes in critical thinking. Like Bill Hicks (who Maher actually often has ripped off), Maher has managed to attack the institutions and superstitions of religion while maintaining the right to his own amorphous, everchanging, often conflicting, spiritual or theistic beliefs.
Comment by Goon — June 10, 2008
BTW, I’m pretty sure that atheism isn’t really classified as a belief.
This thread is too long;didn’t read. Sorry if my comments are irrelevant at this point.
Also, in re to #48., atheists don’t believe in god right? Ok, so that’s the definition. So, is there any way to prove that god doesn’t exist? Is there any way to prove that purple dolphins don’t live beneath the surface of Venus? What?!?!
Comment by stump — June 10, 2008
I’m an atheist and life isn’t meaningless to me. Life is what you make it. I simply think that my meaning is subjective - it means more to me than it does to you, and I don’t base its meaningfulness on the standards of a hypothetical big brother watching over me. Atheism does not equal nihilism. Atheism is a lack of belief, at best a reaction to belief. You can go in reverse and say most of X are atheists, however atheism itself is simply a lack of commitment to any theistic religion thus presented to you. you yourself may be an atheist and not even know it.
Comment by Goon — June 10, 2008
I’m assuming by your question you understand the ridiculousness of the first question. What’s to say what created the universe isnt god but a series of Eon Aged Pixies or a Committee of Gods who couldnt give a fuck about any one of us. Its just as likely as anything else. The possibility is there but at the same time I don’t have any faith in any of them/belief in them. But its not my onus to prove the Eon Aged Pixies don’t exist. if someone has an extraordinary claim, such as a God that just thousands of years ago directly contacted people and gave his son to die for us, that listens to prayers and will return - I expect extraordinary evidence. If it cant be provided, I feel justified disbelieving as if it were Santa Claus and dont feel I have to go out of my way proving a negative.
Comment by Goon — June 10, 2008
MM: “Did you love your father?”
Foster: “Very much.”
MM: “Prove it.””
I’m not sure Andrew, you really understood what you’re quoting, considering the author of Contact, Carl Sagan, is one of the most famous atheists of all time and the father of the ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” quote I have already referenced. Sagan recognized that you can’t disprove gods’ lack of existance, shown in that quotes snarkiness to represent how people often respond to him, but believed it wasn’t the disbeliever’s job.
And by the way, while I’m not quite sure its definitive just yet, there has been research mapping the brain showing the difference between lust, romantic love, and long term attachment. So Jodie Foster may have a better means to prove her love than anyone could prove a god
nyah!
Comment by Goon — June 10, 2008
This is actually part two to a massive site spanning topic started over at filmjunk.
This is actually the more mature level headed of the two.
Comment by Rusty James — June 11, 2008
Again, a refusal to believe. It just can’t be that way, it simply can’t.
I’m pretty sure there has been research done proving that eating a big enough amount of chocolate, will cause the same brain activity as the one that is apparent in people when they first fall in love. Chemical stimulation is all it is.
So Goon, “Life is what you make it”? How is that not presupposing that life itself has no meaning, and it’s all up to you to do whatever you want with your own existence? It seems to me obvious that there is no purpose and no set goals to life. I’m pretty convinced humans will die out and nobody will ever miss us.
Comment by Henrik — June 11, 2008
see Goon, you have proven that anything is possible, therefore God may exist.
Comment by rot — June 11, 2008
Andrew, you don’t really want to open up that can of worms again do you? I was on the side arguing about our hubris in thinking we can dictate what the universe is made of everywhere. Last I recall I set out my case point by point to be refuted and everything conveniently left the table. The same sort of argument popped up on the filmjunk thread of religulous, the position was posed again and after some preliminary challenges, when getting to the meat of it, people can’t be bothered thinking that deeply about things. I am use to it, but then they show up every so often and say its nuts… I love it.
Comment by rot — June 11, 2008
Comment by Henrik — June 11, 2008
I will walk anyone curious enough to question through my argument point by point that reason is no more important then faith, and in fact its gets its strength by a mixing of the two, and of the true idolatry of America, that scientific realism is a fallacy you believe with as much blind faith as kids do Santa Claus.
Further to that point, that this faith is more dangerous then even the most fundamental religious fervor because it is more pervasive and it comes with powers that religious groups only dream about.
Honestly if you want to challenge these views and be serious about it, I will come to the table… but the table tends to empty out fairly quickly once we start talking details.
my views as concise as possible on Scientific realism
http://www.thepaganagenda.com/2005/03/06/the-fallacy-of-scientific-realism/
my views on the differences between reason and faith
http://www.thepaganagenda.com/2005/04/19/faith-and-reason/
otherwise keep your snide remarks to yourself, and heh, we can always talk about films too.
Comment by rot — June 11, 2008
So why bother? Because it’s fun, and it’s the best we’ve got. Having faith in it is completely the wrong way of putting it.
What unnatural phenomena are you seeking predictions for?
I suggest you take your ’science-is-fallable’ regurgitations to some ministers and other people who think it’s news. Or maybe come up with something better yourself. It’s very possible that the answers science seeks, are completely impossible to understand for the human brain. Does that invalidate trying? Not if it’s fun, because what else are you going to do? Just say “we don’t know, so we’ll go by whatever we feel is good”? Sorry, but I’ll rather have the struggle.
In the end, what is it about science that scares you? That it will kill us? I think there are more dangerous things out there than science. That reason is the enemy of human growth? I think the bigger the base, the higher the zenith.
Afterall, our brain is the only thing we can rely on in the world. If you think the brain is fallable (it very could be in infinite ways) that’s cool and deep and all, but ultimately academic and without any sort of real value to anybody. It can be thought of, but it ends there. Your ‘born-again-believer’ mentality seems to me to be a sort of fence-sitting, trying to create a unique perspective but ultimately failing to produce any real new perspective.
If your point is to tell people that the human race is fallable, that our simple ways of measuring and determining things might also be extremely fallable I agree, but I find it hard to see any real alternative, other than bong-smoke, which I’m all for, but would probably kill us off long before science gets the job done.
Comment by Henrik — June 11, 2008
I’m agnostic.
I know exactly what I was quoting from “Contact” within the context of the film.
With the aliens thing, no I don’t want to open up that can of worms again - I was being facetious. But Henrik, it’s not a refusal to believe. As I said before. It’s not IMpossible, just EXTREMELY unlikely and not enough to defend an entire film with.
“Maher is close friends with Coulter” - that’s weird in and of itself.
Lastly (and this where I drop this discussion) - someone above had the gall to say that life means more to them than it does to me. I don’t know how you can make that blind assertion.
Comment by Andrew James — June 11, 2008
Science has a practical instrumental use, and I would also say faith has a practical instrumental use, you believe something to get something… but it is the overarching conceptualizations of both what science does and what faith must be that is the problem.
science being fallible is not my point, the pervasive belief regarding what it is doing is wrong, is itself unscientific. I know this blows peoples minds, but you can predict phenomena without knowing what the hell it is in a qualitative sense. We live and breathe and yet none of us can agree on what is going on, yet pragmatically we can get along without that knowledge… well science is an extension of that… but scientific realism, the belief that essentially the world is like a mechanical clock has no formal authority the same way the boiling point of water does… its not the same kind of proof. I have not taken a poll but I would think most scientists understand this, the problem is that the laymans adopt the simplest ideas of what they are told from science and construct fantasies about what it means and assume the same ironclad validity that the actually experimented scientific findings have.
“In the end, what is it about science that scares you? That it will kill us?”
well we know where you stand on that. and yeah, the hubris of science scares me shitless. its like having a loaded gun in the hand of a toddler. They have the power but they do not have the conceptual foundations for using it.
Comment by rot — June 11, 2008
We win!
Comment by Rusty James — June 11, 2008
‘Scientific realism’ seems like a philosophical label, I’m pretty sure anybody who’s not a gullible idiot (some of them are atheists, plenty of those around here as well) would agree that the universe is beyond our complete understanding as of yet.
Comment by Henrik — June 11, 2008
Personally I was too preoccupied with thinking about what you said to post a response. And reading about the Hadron Colider.
Comment by Rusty James — June 11, 2008
Indeed. You have just described pretty much everything accomplished via science, if you get right down to the ultra-minutae of things. Quantum Mechanics is still baffling in its extremely anti-intuitive nature. Everything is ultimately just a model of one sort or another. They are pretty good models, enough to get us into outer-space, inner-space and cyber-space. But not enough to fully explain ANYTHING.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 11, 2008
I haven’t jumped into this discussion simply because I am a devout agnostic. For me personally, I can understand why people have such strong beliefs on either side but I have a problem with anyone saying either side is a the “truth” simply because you can not prove it one way or the other. I am all for people believing in what they want and I do not believe anyone is being a jerk or an idiot for believing one way or another. What I have a problem with is people who believe without a doubt that they are right and other people are wrong when it comes to religion and they are somehow better because of the way they believe.
That is the problem with Religulous in my mind. Maher is saying I am right and you all suck for believing in how you believe.
Comment by John Allison — June 11, 2008
and Henrik, its not just that Science cannot explain everything, the scientific realism belief would just say there is this seperate universe like a mechanical clock (taking analogies literally) and what we don’t know is just that we have not got to that point of understanding, but that at some end point we will know, and every action we take now operates with the understanding that it is all uncoverable. it exists outside of us and is not affected by us, it keeps ticking, and eventually we will understand it through science. THAT IS THE FALLACY. its as eschatological as the rapture in Christianity.
its a useless addition to an otherwise useful endeavor.
we think up ideas and let the ideas determine what we do, forgetting that we thought them up in the first place!
Comment by rot — June 11, 2008
Comment by rot — June 11, 2008
I think you’re parsing, dude. When people have said to me they think life has no meaning, I think they are thinking in the grander sense, a meaning imposed upon us, that we have fate and purpose assinged by god to carry out his will. I believe we make our own meaning. Like I said, its subjective. If you think my end equals ‘meaningless’ i’m not going to stop you, however from my end, the word “meaning” in the dictionary as “the end, purpose, or significance of something” certainly applies to my way of living life.
“see Goon, you have proven that anything is possible, therefore God may exist.”
I’ve said many times anything is possible
- however again, its a matter that I have no good reason to believe anything presented to me, I don’t claim full knowledge but I don’t don’t have any commitment to anything. Therefore, by definition, agnostic atheist. I usually drop the ‘agnostic’ part because for practical reasons so many fence sitters say ‘agnostic’ because they’re either afraid to say ‘atheist’ because they think thats a commitment, the “ic” and “ist” thing, it confuses people. also ‘agnostic’ is again, so broad and can even describe theists, and saying that was in the past an invitation to be preached at. with ‘atheist’ those types of people usually now just swear at me and call me Hitler, which is almost a helpful way to expose who i can deal with and who i can’t.
Moving on:
If this has become a circle jerk, and going back to some science = atheism thing, I’m out. I’ve already said my peace about that fallacy on the FJ board.
Comment by Goon — June 11, 2008
theism/atheism is about what you believe
agnosticism/gnosticism is about what you know.
they are NOT mutually exclusive terms.
You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. You can be a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist. Only the gnostics have made the full commitment to a side and are in danger of fundamentalism, and even there there are subjective definitions of what it means to “know” something. if you are without a commitment to any theistic belief (belief in a god or gods, not a “maybe” or “sometimes” belief in god or gods), and yes, even if you’ve conjured zillions of silly theories about the nature of our universe, evolution or creation (I have), you too are an atheist. Sorry to break it to you, but thats the way it is, you are a member of a hated untrusted club.
A recent Canadian poll showed 1 in 4 Canadians don’t believe in god, yet far fewer people will tag themselves ‘atheist’ - I think some people see the word as a commitment to anything from humanism to satanism to science textbooks, that they will throw away their morality and start killing people, stealing and end up in jail. its this sort of thing that gets me to write such long screeds.
Comment by Goon — June 11, 2008
that is the point of my scientific realism rant… people need to address just why they believe what they believe, not merely about God, but about everything.
Comment by rot — June 11, 2008
you cant say something like this without projecting what you think atheists and agnostics actually believe, onto them. You are making a declaration onto a broad group of people who only share in common that they do not have a subscribed belief of knowledge in regards to a specific dogma. Your statement is flat out… absurd.
“people need to address just why they believe what they believe, not merely about God, but about everything.”
Yes, and in my specific case, growing up, the ‘why’ questions led me to the conclusions that the theistic religions I have been presented with are almost certainly not true. “Why” is just one question though, there’s also how, when, which, where - which are absolutely relevant to examining the truth in everything.
“that is the point of my scientific realism rant”
What I got from it, which isnt much considering frankly, you presented it very uinterestingly, was you equating science with atheism, working in reverse to put the yoke of scientific blunders on atheisms shoulders, which is just as unfair as the reverse thinking LD had except using Hitler and Stalin. I’m not going back to that area of discussion rot, because LD filled my quota for the week of such unfair attack.
Comment by Goon — June 11, 2008
Comment by rot — June 11, 2008
Comment by Goon — June 11, 2008
Ov vey…
In case you haven’t heard, comedian and Politically Incorrect/Real Time host Bill Maher has a new film headed to theaters: a com-ockumentary of sorts called Religulous, in which he sets out to explore, and generally ridicule, the si…
Trackback by The Bad Idea Blog — June 15, 2008
Comment by scatterbrain — July 3, 2008
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117938034.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
“The only recent comparable example of entertainers venturing into such serious cultural-political territory is Penn & Teller’s Showtime series, “Bullshit!,” which skewers sacred cows from a skeptical-libertarian perspective. Charles’ previous smash, “Borat,” used funnyman Sacha Baron Cohen to make satirical/political points, but the particular intensity and seriousness of Maher’s project are nearly unprecedented. Indeed, its arrival shortly after the death of George Carlin — a profound influence on Maher’s standup act and politics — suggests the kind of film Carlin might have made in his prime.”
…
“To the film’s credit, Maher never engages in Michael Moore-style gotcha tactics, but rather asks questions that raise more questions, in the form of a Socratic dialogue. To believers expecting a blind hatchet job, this will prove both thought-provoking and a bit disarming; skeptics may be surprised (as Maher is) by the occasionally smart replies to his queries.”
Comment by Kurt — August 21, 2008
Comment by rot — August 21, 2008
Meh.
Basically, it’s like this. Most of the things this film does well, is giving me information I already knew. Even the weird examples Bill was trying to show the world, like Ken Ham, are people I’m already familiar with. Richard Dawkins already did this film on BBC through a couple specials, and its better than this film. I just wanted this movie to be a funnier, more sarcastic, assholeish version of the same thing. It’s somewhat funny, its smug but I think Bill is honest. It’s just not enough of what I wanted.
And the real flaws I’d have to lay on Larry Charles’ end. The little cutaways and sound effects were used to replace humor from the people being spoken too far too often, and I’m sorry, I’ve gotta side with whoever rags on the ending. I’m betting there’s a lot of reviews out there that went from 3/5 to 2.5 or 2/5 from it alone. It wasn’t anything Maher said that was particularly wrong, it wasn’t the seriousness of it, but the zillion cutaway there, the angles into Maher’s face, which looked awful, it was just too much, it played like a negative political ad.
If that whole thing had been a setup to a one liner or final joke, you could have maybe gotten away with it. if you had lined the credits with further joking interviews you could have probably gotten away with it. You could have put that in the middle of the film and people may have gotten over it by the end. but ending like that, its the only part of the film that feels preachy, and people don’t like that. Moore is preachy but even he knows to end on a more hopeful or jokey note.
The film in general is a whole lot less mean spirited and preachy than most people would have you believe. Maher is blunt and argumentative but gets along fine with most of the people he’s accosting, and he goes out of his way to claim the whole thing is about doubt, but the ending - the ending itself - can lead reasonable people to accuse this movie of being the same thing as “Expelled” when it is most certainly not.
3/5 for me
3.5 without the ending
4/5 maybe if most of the stuff in the film was news to me
if i had walked in with higher expectations, like at say, TIFF, i may have even given this a 2.5/5 as it is. mixed reviews had me not expecting anything grand.
Comment by Goon — October 5, 2008
Comment by Goon — October 5, 2008
“if i had walked in with higher expectations, like at say, TIFF, i may have even given this a 2.5/5 as it is.”
holy shit we agree on something. 2.5 was my rating and I did see it at TIFF.
and the ending IS shit, but the film couldn’t have ended strong, it never aspired beyond its very low standards of investigating what a bad thing religion is. The same would go for something like those Hate Michael Moore films, they have a very rigid agenda without much else and stick to it, or Kurt and Courtney too, that was another kind of thin layer investigation, looking at the lowest common denominator of possibilities and making a documentary out of it. Of course Cobain’s death is a conspiracy, of course Michael Moore is an elitist, of course religion is believed by people with no grasp on reality…. lame, lame, lame. It is apt that Maher poses at one of those speakers corners, and rages on… that is in essence what his documentary is, dealt with a smile. Just another one of those self-involved solipsists who make obscenely one-sided arguments, under the presumption of rational integrity no less… that integrity that usually depends on at least some effort at dialoguing, but no, lets cut those parts and just have the funny bits and make the presumption that something meaningful has been stated worthy of a third act call to arms. again, dealt with a smile.
ugh.
and I am a fan of Maher.
Comment by rot — October 5, 2008
“it never aspired beyond its very low standards of investigating what a bad thing religion is. ”
A big problem is Maher starts off talking like this when its clear he just wants to make a movie about doubt and how ridiculous common religious beliefs are. Instead of keeping it simple and funny they felt it had to have more meaning, hence that opening and ending bookend at Ammageddon. Is it so bad to simply make fun of the talking snake and Joseph Smith, Bill?
I actually like Kurt and Courtney. Yes, its trashy lame journalism, but its rife with enough strange ‘moments’ that as, frankly, a big Kurt Cobain/Nirvana fine, I like having around. I hate conspiracy theories, but the Kurt one is so minor that I don’t mind it as simple entertainment.
Those anti-Moore documentaries are aggravating not because I have some hardon for Moore or anything, but just because they counter a movie that actually DOES ask questions, with a movie that simply attacks the messenger. Why don’t they make their own rebuttal movie about health care or guns? Instead we have a dozen anti-Moore movies on shelves saying “DID YOU KNOW THESE MOVIES ARE BIASED? HERE’S ANN COULTER TO EXPLAIN WHY!”. i mean, look, this weekend some shitty conservative ’satire’ where Moore is made fun of as having movies with titles like “Die You American Pigs” came out. Sure nobody saw it, its around 4 years too late from it being marketable anyways, but its such shallow satire and can only again, attack the messenger and strawman the message. You’d think instead they’d make some satire of say, weirdo environmentalists or activists, like King of the Hill often does, but I guess that wouldn’t be blunt enough for who they’re targeting?
I mean seriously, some of the best, most savage satire I’ve seen of the left, has come from other leftists. David Cross’ wimp character on the Colbert Report, Tim Robbins’ pussy can’t-fight-back liberal and cant-present-himself-as-a-proper-journalist reporter in Bob Roberts, Patton Oswalts anti-hippie bits… I could keep going.
oh wait, we were talking about Religulous…
back on track:
“It is apt that Maher poses at one of those speakers corners, and rages on… that is in essence what his documentary is.”
See it didn’t have to be this way, and I think in many places that isn’t what the movie is at all. its clear Bill was able to get along with a lot of these people, and that stuff actually happened. If we were to see full deleted scenes, I’m convinced there’s stuff there. The problem is with all the ground he wanted to cover, and the desire of a comedian host to make the movie funnier, a lot of the natural interactions get cut into easy to bite pieces. Bill Maher isn’t scared to let dissenting views get their licks in, he’s been doing it for a long time now, its simply that in the movie medium his ambition simply didn’t make right with the output. Just didn’t do what it could’ve. Even though I can point at what is bad here, I don’t think its particularly… embarrassing or anything. I can watch his show next week and not think “man that ending sucked”. Over. Done. Next.
Anyways, I watched Bigger Stronger Faster* (the steroids doc) the other day, and it has Moore-ish elements to it as well, in style - the way he frankly, exploits some of his personal relationships, the entertainment style of the doc, the way he uses narration, his ‘average guy’ schtick, its all there. Like Bowling for Columbine at its best it asks a lot of questions that make you leave the movie feeling the issue is more complex and nuanced than what you thought before. Overall, its the other side of the coin, a movie that had the desire to be entertaining and funny but never lost sight of its overall focus and let the footage and interviews drive. It’s a great doc, second only to Man on Wire for me this year, and I gleefully recommend it to keep the convo going. hit DVD last week.
Comment by Goon — October 5, 2008
I hate how this film becomes a placard for people who have long ago had their minds made up about religion, and they point to it like it has anything significant to say about their position. fringe behaviour the likes of which are depicted in Religulous are not limited to people who believe in God, nor can it be prescribed to everyone who fits that description… humility and doubt, is about being open to the possibility, thats doubt…
doubting rational certitude is equally important, more so, because it goes unchecked.
Comment by rot — October 7, 2008
Comment by Goon — October 7, 2008
funny.
Comment by Andrew James — October 7, 2008
Comment by Goon — October 8, 2008
Between his years of shamelessly shilling any product, to defying the WGA and lying to pretend he was the good guy, to the homophobic shit he’s let fly over the years (ie the Ryan Philippe mess), to his own Larry King-esque ass kissing of anyone including Ann Coulter, to sub-Mike-Myers-in-Love-Guru-unfunny material for the last 10 years, there’s a reason Bill Hicks made him his no. 1 target of spite and hypocrisy.
Baby toys have more edge than Jay Leno.
Comment by Goon — October 8, 2008