Religulous - Bill Maher's Holy Terror

What happens when a Jew and a Catholic go to see Religulous? They spend about $20 bucks. Whether it was well spent is the better question. I figured that between the director of Borat and Bill Maher we'd have a pretty funny couple hours and while that's true, the last five minutes really drove home the point that Bill's a bit off the mark.

His crusade to condemn religion is an interesting one. His entire point of view hinges on whether you take the Bible/new/old/Koran/etc. literally. And many people say they certainly don't take it literally, even though it seems that they surely do. No matter which religion you focus on there are endlessly funny scenes where people get absolutely unhinged over their certainty in their own belief-system. Interview enough people and you'll find what you're looking for. But to limit the world's religions to that sample of folk for anything other than humor is pretty shortsighted. As soon as he does that, the movie loses its steam. Luckily it's at the very end.

A question I've been asked by my Catholic friend is what's Jewish Dogma? While he keeps insisting it exists, my answer is that there is none. Now not only do Jews not believe in Hell, but while we have lots of commandments, we simply don't follow all of them. It's not that literal. Bill has the same P.O.V. He grew up with Dogma. Learn the rules believe that they are real and follow them or go to Hell. It seems like Bill's applying the concept of Dogma to the world's religions. For the record my friend's still a Catholic ... and no he doesn't take religion literally either. Nor do several good interviewees in the movie.

However, many people in religious communities these days are simply there answering the question, "What does it mean to me." They aren't trying to define the it to each other, only to themselves. If they were in the movie they might soften Bill's message too much or let the air out of his hypothesis. Instead the movie covers plenty of zealots and makes very good points about how power corrupts, whether it's religious or political power, and how governments run on religious foundations can be very dangerous.

I'll admit that I am interested in concepts of faith and religion and purpose and the self and free-will versus destiny and all that goes along with it. Existentialism, Taoism, Numerology... they all make for interesting contemplation. Especially since they're all, as concepts, on equal ground. You don't have to know what you don't know about, you know?

But a non-religious dismissal of Maher's "religion-is-bad" premise could simply be that it's really forsaking culture and community. Culture, like it or not, is tied to religious groups. Religion has influenced civilization from art to food to migratory patterns. On a smaller level, many people join religious communities for child care and to meet neighbors. Faith may help get you through things but from what I've seen, faith can be a synonym for family and community.

Instead of an option of religion needing to grow and develop into something else, which it certainly has done and needs to continue to do, he closes with a montage of nuclear war and very ominously suggests that we need to abandon religion or we're all gonna die in a holy war. That seems like a fear tactic from the side of religion that Bill Maher detests. Ironic.

Comments

[metropixie]

Everyone here seems to be missing Bill's point, that he professes, "he doesn't know," versus the certainty in the absurd claims of believers. I also wonder which of the commenters have seen the movie. I have, and I thought Bill did a pretty good job of pointing out through meetings with believers of various religions that while he respected their beliefs the things they actually believe (in varying degrees) are pretty ridiculous. His thesis as I understood it is that religion has become folkloristic holdovers from our primitive tribal days that is as odd as the once common way of binding off women's feet in Chinese culture"it is crippling and keeps us from seeing things for what they are and moving forward. The influence of aggressively marketed brand-name spirituality helped bring Bush to power, because once you believe some ridiculous crap, it's easy to sell you more ridiculous crap. Stop believing, Bill says. Start knowing, and if you don't know just say so and be comfortable in your not knowing.

[Zanti]

As you can see, it's impossible to talk about religious beliefs as they actually exist, at least when the audience is packed with doubtful fundies (like maher) and neo-atheists of a dawkins bent. Because these folks will simply come back and relentlessly repeat the fallacy that fundamentalism is the default faith for humanity. Never mind all the evidence to the contrary--if they say it's so, then it's so.

Bottom line--the requirement for proof doesn't apply to them. They don't have to prove THEIR assertions, because they're asserting on behalf of logic, reason, and science. Ohhhhh-kay.

Very odd sorts, but the good news is that most are tax-paying Democrats.

[frant52]

I was very excited to see this movie and was very pleased to have seen it. As only Bill Maher could he opened the doors and asked basic questions. The problem people seem to have is that Bill was equipped with enough knowledge to counter the fables that some people put all their 'faith' in.
I would suggest people see this movie with an open mind and then make informed decisions as to whether their ticket dollars were well spent. Mine were, and I'll see it again to be sure.

[hartkid]

I miss God. I wish he would come back and kill you all. What happened to him? Why doesn't he indiscriminately kill anymore? I think he's sick. If we all just worshipped him more, maybe he'd get better. Who's with me? I love you God... You're so awesome! I think you're super cool! .... Nothing. My boss is still sitting over there unsmote. Hey, Satan, you busy?

[RedDogBear]

Maher's movie looks funny, but for a serious critique of religion I would recommend Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion and the BBC video he made based on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StBYzCFeNjM

[TStone]

"Faith may help get you through things but from what I've seen, faith can be a synonym for family and community. "

Then what you are talking about is family and community - secular concepts and not religious ones. To say that faith means those things is to fudge yoru way through by changing definitions.

Faith is not Family and it is not Community.

As with all moderate religious people - you justify your relgious position by using secularist concepts.

What you are is a secular humanist though you can't find it in youself to admit it. But these are great ideals, these are things which should guide public discourse an dpolicy, these are areas you will not find as areas of argument between you and a non-religious person.

Articles of faith and even of dogma, articles that Maher critiques or are critiqued by others like Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, the editors of Free Inquiry etc are areas which have caused dangerous instability of the world.

Having been raised a Catholic i've seent he dangerrs of dogma first hand. To excuse relgious belief by saying that dogma isn't followed then justify it with good steming from Secular Humanist ides defined by you as religion.

There can be no denying the fundamentalists are made valid by the tacit support of moderates who practice secular humanism but refuse to admit it is anything but their religion.

Fundamentalists should be riduclued for the danger they place humanity in.

[Zanti]

"Fundamentalists should be riduclued for the danger they place humanity in."

Interesting. Your view of "moderate religious people" is precisely that of a fundamentalist. I can't think of any other reason you'd label mainline Christianity (that of the past 40 or 50 years, no less) as secular and/or secularist. Sorry, but the norm is determined by the middle, not the extremes. In fact, in keeping with the dictionary, the norm IS the middle.

And let me get this straight--you believe that fundamentalist are placing humanity in danger. Okay. Therefore, your plan of defense consists of... ridiculing them?

Let me suggest that you don't really see any danger to humanity. Or else we have to conclude you're someone who considers ridicule an effective line of defense against a danger to humanity. As a favor to you, I'll assume you're greatly exaggerating your concern.

[TStone]

Mis communication is the boone of the internet isn't it?

i'm saying that people who justify participation in, or the good of, religion by suggesting it is analogous to Family or Community aren't religious at all. they are secular humanists to cowardly to break away fromt eh shackles of their religion.

All religions have the inherent risk that they give rise to fundamentalism, and all fundamentalism is, for want of a better word, bad.

Essential to life is change and growth. Change and growth comes from critique and review. Socratic Questioning and Critical Thinking are the essential life skills everyone should be taught.

So wouldn't it be better if the closeted humanists who pretend their religious and say that the fundamentalists aren't the norm cause they don't repsent the good in religion etc etc should throw off those shackles?

And riducle is effective, it is effective in taking the perception of power away from the fundamentalists. If we choose to give in to their dogmatic bleating and self censor isn't that worse?

Anyway, lots to say and only a few hundred words.

[Henry]

My great grand parents were immigrants who homesteaded. The church was their effective "country club" as well as the source of social barn raising etc. The descendents have some honor for the faith as culture but the tolerance for the creation on throught Noah and on and on separates at a level which is distinguished by awareness and education. The politicization of the church does a lot of damage to the notion of religion and the humor hits only if it is true at some level of realization. It is quite simple to realize that each religion cannot be correct without discounting a range of the others. How do you get people to wise up and realize that it is all allegorical? Is this such an insult to the truth? You know that the truth that the universe is controlled by Mother Nature and she is in the nature of physics.

[noralou]

organized religion is just an attempt to institutionlize spirituality.

It is used an excuse to kill those who believe differently. There have not been many wars in the last millenium that did not have religion at their base.

As for belief, I go with the late Carl Sagan on that: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs"

That is why science is so cool, if an idea cannot withstand examination or is later disproved, scientists accept it and move on. Prove to me that "god" exists.

[Zanti]

Anything to offer that relates to the blog post? Just wondering.

[paulita]

While your points are good, irrespective of what organized religion one has, the existence of God has withheld examination for thousands of years. Moreover, said existence has not been dispproved and many scientist, including Darwin did not deny the existence of God.

I think you just proved your own Hegelian hypothesis.

[Gidster]

It has never been disproved.....It has never been proven either!
Stories told by Bronze Age men to explain where the Sun goes each night, and to explain the life cycle are called mythology, Why is Odin or Zeus less real than God?

[Zanti]

"It seems like Bill's applying the concept of Dogma to the world's religions."

I think you summed it up nicely, there. It's the standard neo-atheist error--to them, all religion is fundamentalistic, somehow. An odd, absolute point of view, and one typically accompanied by lectures on logic and reason. Try to point the guilty parties to their own use of the all-or-nothing fallacy, and they invariably respond with variations on, "You believe in the three-horned spaghetti Goddess (chuckle, guffaw), and you're telling ME about logic?"

Fundamentalists believe in their religion absolutely; neo-atheists reject absolutely. Same mistake, just flipped.

Oddly enough, two of the most aggressive exponents of the all-or-nothing fallacy--sam harris and richard dawkins--claim to understand that faith exists in degrees. Then they carry on as if it didn't. Disclaimers, of course, mean nothing if the disclaimer ignores them.

Sorry to see Maher jump on the faith-bashing bandwagon, but I suppose it makes sense, from a ticket-sales perspective, to exploit the trend while it's still hot. If only he could understand that what religion means to him is not what it means to most other people.

[GregJL]

Jump on? I coulda sworn Bill Maher BUILT the friggin bandwagon! I've never seen the little weasel do anything BUT bash religion AND spirituality constantly, except for when he was agreeing that it was good that we were in Iraq.

[Zanti]

Hm.... Good point.

[paulita]

I think Maher´s reduction of all religions to dogma as you indicate-- is the same as the overly religious, but not so Christian Right Wing ideology and their absolute morality. It´s the same bad.

I don´t think it´s true as he [Maher] suggests, that only weak minded people need religion. He seems to confuse organized religions with spirituality.

Real spirituality accepts that the world is not perfect and that corruption may be found in the church.. witness the overturning of the table of the money changers by Jesus. Real spirituality-- theology also accepts that the existence of corruption in these organizations does not negate their existence or the existenceof a Creator.

Unfortunately people in the middle usually keep their spirituality private so you only hear from extremist of either side.