Bill Maher's Fundamentalism
Bill Maher declares at the outset that he's just a reasonable man who seeks to raise the status of "doubt." While religion sells a silly/dangerous "invisible product," he says, "my product is doubt."
But by the end he declares, with fervor that would make Jimmy Swaggart proud, "Religion must die if mankind is to live." There is no doubt, no shades of gray. There are no examples of religion ever doing anything good, ever. He casts his opponents as not merely mistaken but grotesque and dangerous to your very existence.
Maher's product is not doubt. It's certainty -- a black-and-white world view that demonizes religion in the same way that some religious fundamentalists demonize those who differ from them.
Maher is a secular fundamentalist.
Now, I also happen to think t he movie was often funny and scored some direct hits on religious snake oil salesmen. But on balance, he undercut his case by ignoring history that didn't fit his narrative, taking quotes out of context, and generally engaging in some of the same deceptive practices he excoriates among religious zealots.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
+ LoveComesInSpurts:
No.
wow what a thoughtful & well-reasoned objection.
What a load of BS... This false equivalency is like saying that there are two sides to the shape of the Earth issue, and that those who steadfastly maintain that the Earth is round are fundamentalist Round-Earthers.
Simple fact: There is no evidence at all that God exists. Ergo: Until and unless such evidence is presented, I claim the right to call religion a delusion.
Sorry if you don't like it, you don't have to. But putting the burden of proof where it belongs, on those who make the extraordinary claim that there is a Big Man In The Sky Who Controls Everything And Everyone is not fundamentalism: it's common sense.
How about this.....*you* prove that God *doesn't* exist. Because when someone says there's no "evidence" or "proof" that God exists, what that means is, there's nothing that anyone can say that the atheist will call evidence or proof. They'll simply wave their hand and say, "sorry, not good enough." Because they have a vested interest in maintaining their disbelief, there's no argument that anyone can make that will sway them. And of course, they'll claim that THEY'RE the ones who are more open-minded than people who believe in God.
So here are some time-tested proofs (i.e. no atheist has ever completely repudiated them) of God's existence; the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the argument from morality and the existence of Christ.
None of these will mean squat to you because you've already decided that you're not going to believe in God no matter how much evidence there is.
So now it's your turn; convince me that God does not exist.
I'm a non-theist - not an atheist, because I see atheism and deism as two sides of the same coin. They argue with each other because they are so much alike.
The problems with religion are obvious, but obvious only to those who don't need it, so what does atheistic proselytizing get us? Not much, because atheism is a criticism, not a solution. Its primary charactistic is its envy at the success of religion. I got over that during my adolescence. Why didn't Maher? Why didn't the rest of you?
No one who so angrily denies the existence of God actually believes that God does not exist. People like Bill are angry at God, so on some level they have to believe in him.
Put it this way -- if there was an international cult that believed that the Kool-Aid jug (you know, from the 70s) was a god, I would not share their faith. I wouldn't get angry about it, like Bill does, I would simply not believe as they do. Everyone on planet Earth might believe that artichokes are animals. So, do I run around angrily trying to convince everyone otherwise? No, I just shake my head, assess that everyone else is nuts, and I move on.
Bill does not quietly choose not to believe. He does the most hurtful thing one can think of to do to God -- not believe in him.
Bill definitely does have faith of a fundamentalist sort -- an absolute certainty that everything that can be known IS known, by him. To posture as a "doubter" he tries to make himself sound more humble, more savvy, and more tolerant all at the same time. But he is not any of these things. He's arrogant enough to think he knows everything, he's ignorant enough to lack a full understanding of philosophy, and he's intolerant enough to think that anyone who disagrees with him is simply stupid.
It's actually sort of surprising that he doesn't pal around with the Christian Right.....
It is pretty easy to demonstrate the horrible, ravaging effects organized religions have had on humanity throughout history, what with vicious crusades, witch burnings and Inquisitions, exclusion and bigotry of all varieties, rampant sexual abuses, many, many “holy wars,” and their worst crime of all – the promulgation of guilt for feeling normal human desire.
Organized religions, almost by definition, invariably distort the teachings of the spiritual teachers they were founded upon. But here’s where Bill Maher’s Religulous falls flat. While Bill rightly nails the destructive absurdity of religion, he demonstrates no genuinely spiritual perspective at all. And so his critique comes off as sarcastic, curmudgeonly and hostile, and therefore less credible. Real spirituality isn’t superstitious - it’s quantum physics, it’s non-dualistic reasoning. It's Einstein! It’s understanding what Carl Jung called “meaningful coincidences,” which pointed to a “collective consciousness” at work in the universe. I would go so far as to say that Bill’s premise that any belief in the unseen is ridiculous, if not “religulous,” is potentially as destructive as religion itself. Believing that statistically impossible synchronistic events are merely coincidence is as superstitious as believing that a parental god-figure is dictating everything.
Peter Loffredo
http://fullpermissionliving.blogspot.com/
I completely agree. I have said myself many times. If you don't agree with Bill Maher on religion he thinks you are delusional. It's his way or the road to stupidity (hell).
Maher is a know-it-all--but one thing he doesn't know is the limits of his, or any man's, knowledge. In fact, he grants himself the status of God, and that's why he doesn't like religion.
You mean, he grants himself the status of an entity that he thinks does not exist?
See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
You see, "God" can function as a http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor
See both entries. Contemplate. Return if you have any questions. Thanks.
There is a war on between atheism and religion, and the atheists didn't start it. I am not a joiner by nature, but when Dubyah started his "Faith-based Initiative" nonsense, I was so disgusted I joined a local secular humanism group. Whenever I spoke against religion at the meetings, I was told that this was not an anti-religion organization. I found this odd, because the religious are very proudly anti-atheist. Their avowed mission is to eliminate atheism. Most Christians consider it their sacred mission to convert the unbeliever, and the Christian community produces thousands of films a year with that intention. Finally, an atheist is tired of turning the other cheek and strikes back, and what is the reaction? Near universal condemnation of his certainty that he is right. To say that this represents a double standard is an understatement of British proportions. Where were these critics when Ben Stein released his ludicrous anti-evolution film? Why do they feel the need to soothe the bruised feelings of the religious who, unless constrained by secular law, gleefully murder those who disagree with their worldview? Don't tell me that American Christians wouldn't murder their atheist neighbors if allowed to. I'm from Louisiana, and I know better. When an atheist publishes a book that urges the murder of Christians in the same way the Bible urges parents to murder their unbelieving children, then you may throw the first stone. Not before.
Off the deep end indeed.
I would simply ask you to take a look at the good things that religious charities and organizations are doing. I've been in and out of religion myself; I have trouble with the supernatural beliefs but the core message of Christianity is one that even and perhaps especially secular humanists can embrace.
Atheists usually put stock in things such as empirical evidence and rational argument. It's just my guess, but I don't think you have the data to back up these assertions as to what "most Christians" think and do.
At the very least, let utilitarianism and pragmatism play a role in your decision making; your personal indignation is not going to turn people away from religion. Like the extreme fundamentalist preachers who go to college campuses and insult everyone who walks by, you'll simply end up reinforcing their convictions. I ask you to at least consider the possibility that there are things you'd like to see in this world - universal healthcare, an end to imperialist wars, low unemployment, and so on - that many religious people want as well. What is more important at the end of the day? That everyone knows exactly how much you loathe the beliefs of the vast majority of the population, or that we make progress on some of the most serious problems of our time?
Think about it.
The United States would not be in the mess it is now if it were not for Christianity. It was far-right evangelical fundamentalism that put George Bush in the White House.
We need to regulate religion as much as we need to regulate the financial markets. No tax-exemption for churches. Limits on how much religious predators can accumulate. Allowing megacults to acquire billions gives too much power to far-right fascist entities.
In other words, basically throw out the first amendment. I would have no problem with removing tax exemption, but that would mean that you would have to remove tax exemption for all charities, otherwise you would be treating religious groups unfairly (and yes, there is a lot of abuse of the tax exemption by unscrupulous people, but a lot of charity work gets done because of church involvement). Better to have the government out of religion altogether.
" Where were these critics when Ben Stein released his ludicrous anti-evolution film? "
Mostly ignoring it. I haven't bothered with either one, although I've gotten a lot more people claiming that I "need to see" the Maher film.
Maybe he's just been told he's going to hell one to many times simply because he can't unplug his brain and blindly believe in the fairytale.
I feel my own aggression toward religion, but again, it's from being told that I'm going to burn in hell every time I'm asked about my "beliefs".
No, Steven, Maher's fundamentalism is not as dangerous as Religious Fundamentalism.
I don't think anyone's saying his fundamentalism is as dangerous (first of all Maher doesn't have droves of followers and thousands of years of tradition to influence people with), I interpreted the author as simply pointing out that his view is, as you said, fundamentalist. And that there's a certain irony in that.
Listen, we all see things from where we sit. And it's difficult to become educated and evolved enough not to succumb to the environment around us. We've seen this down through history, from Rome to the Salem Witch Trials, to Nazi Germany and so on. Fundamentalist behavior is born out of fear. God has nothing to do with it. Bill is certainly right in one respect, people need to chill out. But hey, if you have a personal relationship with Jesus, or Buddha, or Krishna, or Mohammed- good for you. Just keep it to yourself.
"But hey, if you have a personal relationship with Jesus, or Buddha, or Krishna, or Mohammed- good for you. Just keep it to yourself."
If Gandhi, King, and hell, John Brown followed your advice, the world would be a lesser place.
"And it's difficult to become educated and evolved enough not to succumb to the environment around us."
Right. And you haven't been influenced at all by richard dawkins, bill maher, sam harris, or any number of faith-bashing rock numbers, TV shows, comics, etc. Or, especially, by Internet neo-atheists, who write posts that sound uncannily like yours.
Must be nice not to give in to influence from the environment around you.
Bad news, though--public expression of religion is allowed. You'll just have to put up with ideas and sentiments you don't agree with. I'd call that the American way, but I'm starting to fear it's no longer so.
There are a lot of religious people doing a lot of good in the world. Most of the people slamming religion here are probably also voting for Obama, as I am - Obama is also a Christian. Bill Maher hopes that Obama is "lying" about being a Christian because he can't comprehend a version of religion that isn't hostile to most progressive ideas.
Secularists rarely complain when religious people, by chance, happen to be on the same page as they are on issues ranging from the death penalty to nuclear proliferation to addressing poverty and workers rights. Not only do we see alliances being formed, but we discover from secular progressives that, after all, religion DOES have a place in the public square - provided it support what I support, denounce what I denounce, etc.
Everyone talks about America "going socialist" - would that it were true, it isn't. But we can apply Marxist insight here; religion is, in a word, superstructure. Beneath the secular/religious conflict is usually the progressive/conservative conflict. When people rail against religion, they are really railing against reactionary politics. As soon as religion divorces itself from reactionary politics, 99% of progressives and secularists fall into line and stop the attacks. It isn't about religion. It is and always has been about politics. And political conflicts in turn have always been about which class will dominate society.
Very good point!
To be honest, and I have said this before, the issue for me isn't people wanting to believe in a magical fairy guy in the sky. That's their business.
However, when they start shoving it down everyone's throats via trying to ban abortion, telling me I am Satan's righthand man because I am an atheist, endeavoring to put prayer back in public schools and compelling kids to say, "under God" during the pledge of allegiance then it starts making me peeved.
How about a little of "rendering those things unto Caesar's which are Caesar's and rendering unto God what is His"? That is, pray to God and follow the Bible on your private time. But in a polyglot society, try to accommodate all of society in a pragmatic way that will keep it moving forward and beneficial for everyone.
Just stay out of people's private business. If there is a Heaven, it will be less crowded for you if I am wrong and you are right.
I notice most comments are in a backlash of the author and defense of Maher. Just to play devil's advocate (poor choice of words perhaps), I think the argument here is less about religion vs. atheism than it is the ability to separate "my beliefs" from "the truth for everyone"; pre-modern (fundamentalist) thought vs. modern thought.
If what makes fundamentalist religions harmful is their forcing their views on everyone else ("I know the absolute truth, anyone who disagrees is bad & evil, let's purge the world of the non-believers"), then couldn't atheism be twisted to the same end ("I know the absolute truth, anyone who disagrees is wrong, let's purge the world of religion")?
Though it's not what we often associate, some people are religious yet modern (no inclination to force their views on anyone), and someone could be atheist and pre-modern (on a righteous quest to eliminate all religions).
Based on the context the author has placed Maher's quote in, doesn't "religion must die if mankind is to live" come awfully close to suggesting just that?
What makes fundamentalist religions harmful is that they elect Really Bad Presidents.
I see. Only fundies vote, right?
I don't know which fantasy world is scarier--that of the fundies or their bashers. Tough call.
Religion is "dangerous to your very existence." Gee. did Bill go too far?
Let's see. "I have an imaginary friend who is never wrong. And he tells me what to do. And what he tells me should apply to you and the rest of society."
Yep. Dangerous to my existence.
I see. For every person who thinks that way, you cease to exist a little bit more? I take it that you're semi-transparent at this point?
Wow--I'll bet you can see your desk through your hand! Awesome.
Sorry, you would be wrong.
Your statement about Maher's "black and white" religious beliefs inherently justifies the existence of all purported religions, be it Christianity, Zoroastrianism, the Rev. Moon as a new improved version of Jesus and even a religion that I want to start using Harold Robbins novels as our holy text. Hey, if a bad science fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard, can do it, I can too.
How about you give me some seed money? The more religions the better, right?
Look, religion provides comfort to people who are afraid of death because we all want to believe that after we use up our corporeal shells (is that redundant?) we will somehow carry on anyway. And it has also mostly been used as an instrument of governmental control (go to Wikipedia and look up "the Verdict of Verdun," to see one such atrocity early in Christianity that illustrates my point). Our Constitution is partly a reaction to what occurred in the English Civil War brought about by Cromwell and his buddies.
To not look at religion in this way is pure delusion. And Maher is thus much more on the right side of reality than you are.
religion is used as a tool to control. until we speak out about how ridiculous these myths are and make people uncomfortable with them, this will not end.
bill maher is not ignoring history. he is paving way for a better future. the time for religion is over. spirituality is a different matter.
religions die with progress and progress is unstoppable.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
