And the most amazing moment is when the Jesus actor gets Maher to actually concede a point about the tangibility of faith.

And the biggest thing Maher leaves out is ANY discussion with people in Africa or Native America and try to needle their beliefs. Even Maher knows he would look stupid trying to convince a tribesman that his spirit animal god doesn’t exist…

I’m glad that someone like Bill Maher can speak his mind and make a few religious fanatics look lame in the process. People on news channels and talk radio call people out on stuff and try to make people look foolish all the time. Nothing new.

Somebody in the comment stream made the point that Maher is as intolerant as those he decries. That’s a good point: I’ve watched him on his HBO show and he often can’t keep himself from injecting religion into completely unrelated discussions. It’s like he’s responding to something within himself that he can’t control, something deep within where mania lives.

Andrew Sullivan (the gay, conservative, Christian columnist) called him a bigot on his show, and I think that he is. Bigotry comes from fear and doubt and self-loathing.

If you ask the question honestly, you’ll find that it necessarily leads to an endless deconstruction, e.g.: Why is faith good? Because it gives people meaning (e.g.). Why is meaning good? Because it helps people enjoy life. Why is the enjoyment of life good? Because it encourages peace. Why is peace good? Etc., etc., etc…

In order to definitively state that anything is “good,” something must be “good” inherently. (And interestingly, to declare anything to be so would be an act of faith…)

I like that you brought up the “crazy” look of Larry Charles. And why that may be as unfair a thing for me to point out as it is when Maher & Charles mock the costumed people at “The Holy Land”, it does make one think that Charles belongs to a religion of his own, one that hides behind a mask (ie the camera, & his shades, beard, and hat) because he’s too cowardly to go after opponents one-on-one. Borat is even worse, of course, b/c it’s Maher in that film is wearing a mask as well.

Larry Charles, you are a despicable man. Michael Moore should thank you for making him look like class act for once.

And thanks for the encouraging comment, Brandon. I have to confess that in my earlier years I was something of a firebrand, and I probably burned some bridges with people because of my “enthusiasm.” Time has mellowed me out a bit, I think, and engendered a deep respect for those who believe differently than myself. I might disagree with them, I might even think they are flat out wrong, but I try not to let that color the discussion – I can always learn something from others. Being open minded is a virtue, but most conservatives don’t understand that. They see being open-minded as a sign of defeat, as if the only way to proceed is with dogmatic certainty. One can be open minded without giving up one’s deeply held beliefs.

Eh, I’d better stop yapping before I put my foot in my mouth. A wonderful discussion that I’ve thoroughly enjoyed. Thankyou, Bill Maher, for that.

And yes, Brandon, the Church of Speed will be getting off the ground soon. I hope that God doesn’t get too mad at me.

Plus, in the interest of full disclosure, I am still a member of the religion of Speed Racer, which was formed shortly after Evan’s beautiful review sometime ago.

I really thought Mahrer’s question of “Why is faith good?” to be outstanding. Unfortunately, he often laced the delivery with disdain, as if to imply the person he is asking is an idiot before ever answering the question. That is one clear example of where he simply kicked dirt in the face of religion, instead of actually trying to learn something and open a dialogue.

It also would have been nice if he asked that question to people other then those who either agreed with him, or were clearly wack jobs.For someone who claims to despise certainty, he never opened up his own views to be questioned during the course of the documentary.

And I agree with you, Andrew, that Maher does provide a number of personal moments that I think add a lot to the film. And going back to my review, I think he makes some exceptional points – it just ticked me off that those good points weren’t used to open a dialogue, just attempt to shut it down.

The problem is, none of the writer’s of the Gospel’s was actually an eye witness. They were all written decades after the fact, by men who never met Jesus, nor whom actually saw any of his acts.

That is a great point as well, Matt, which I could provide a response to, but then we’d just swirl down the rabbit hole of who-can-bring-the-bigger-evidence-stick, which doesn’t get us anywhere. If I’ve learned anything through my studies and doubts, it’s that there’s always another answer, either for or against you. At some point it has to come down to faith – but that’s another discussion entirely.

And I’ve seen your final thought repeated around the blogosphere, between atheists, agnostics, and believers – Maher didn’t build any bridges, although that power was certainly within his ability.

A criminologist will tell you that if you have four eyewitnesses who agree on 90% of the details, then you can trust their account, even if that last 10% is contradictory.

I think this is a valid point Ethan. The problem is, none of the writer’s of the Gospel’s was actually an eye witness. They were all written decades after the fact, by men who never met Jesus, nor whom actually saw any of his acts. While I’m quite open to people using the New Testament as allegories and metaphors, once you get into Bible literists you begin to march down a very slippery slope.

Now I should admit I am an atheist, raised by very devout Methodist parents. I don’t hate religion by any means, and in fact mind most religious individuals to be truly wonderful and reasonable people. I do have a dislike towards religious heirarchies, but that is another discussion for a very different thread.

I was fairly mixed on Religulous. I found Mahrer pretty caustic and abrasive, and while I think that was quite fine when he was confronting total douchebags like the head of the ex-gay ministry, it made me incredibly uncomfortable when he was talking with the group who setup a ministry in their trailer, and other people who clearly were only trying to do good. His attitude and questions typically acted as a carpetbomb no matter who the individual, and I really think a better use of tact would have made for a more compelling film. But then Mahrer has never been tactful, and its probably why I’ve never been much of a fan of his comedy or his shows. Religulous had its moments and was pretty consistently funny, but I think it merely widened the divide rather then built any bridges.

I think maybe you’re painting Maher’s positions as a bit more open-and-shut than the way they were conveyed in the film. I didn’t really get the impression that Maher was presenting his arguments to his subjects as if they were “foolproof,” and then daring them to wriggle their way out. (“The Gospels contradict one another. So there!”) I think Maher, like many outspoken atheists, was trying to make his opponents aware of information they perhaps didn’t have and challenging them to think critically about their deeply held beliefs. (Maher does this in a caustic manner, but then again, he’s a comedian.) It’s a fair question to ask: How many Christians are actually aware that the Gospels are inconsistent, and on what points? Maher might have treated it as a throwaway quip, but it’s particularly significant in light of the prominence of biblical literalism in American Protestantism, and—as Maher pointed out—given that some inconsistencies deal with essential aspects of Christian doctrine (such as the virgin birth).

I’ll agree that Maher succumbs to a facile atheist argument when he appeals to atrocities like the Crusades and modern suicide bombers as a sweeping justification for religion’s evil. But I don’t think the equally facile anti-atheist refutation—Stalin and Mao killed lots more!—addresses the fundamental objection to religious belief and its toxic effects. Immoral acts are always going to be a problem, even if everyone in the world woke up atheist tomorrow. I don’t think that anyone, even Maher, is suggesting that shining peace will emerge the day religion vanishes from the earth (if that days ever comes). I just didn’t get that message from Religulous. Maher is tackling what he sees as a particularly anti-modernist and insidious kind of evil, the evil born of magical thinking and deeply held irrational beliefs. I also think that for Maher it’s as much an intellectual objection as much as a moral one. His repeated comparison of religious belief to a juvenile worldview—“You don’t believe in miracles?” “I’m not ten.” –is evidence of his distaste for naïveté, fantasy, and small-minded tribalism. (This attitude is strongly represented in his stand-up from the past decade or so.)

As you say, we probably shouldn’t get too bogged down in specifics, lest this thread evolve into a religious discussion forum. It sounds like we both recognize Religulous for the polemic product it is, even though Maher’s reasoning and demeanor may sit differently with us depending on the side of the fence we happen to be on. I guess I was somewhat pleasantly surprised by the personal and genuine notes that Maher struck; where you might see a cynical dig at his Catholic upbringing, I see him trying to articulate where he’s literally coming from, and to try to mesh his family’s experiences with those of the people he meets. I also think that Maher nicely conveys a sense of authentic flabbergasted wonder at just how many people believe such crazy things. I don’t get the sense that he’s faking it, and I think a more misanthropic writer might have reacted with more rank ugliness towards the people he interviews. (I can see Christopher Hitchens spitting a whiskey-soaked loogie in the face of the Muslim hip-hop artist.)

In any case, great discussion, and, again, a very tight, pointed review. Keep up the good work.

To address your point about intellectual dishonesty, Maher’s arguments have gaping holes just like Stein’s do. For example, the brief point that Maher puts forward that the gospels disagree with one another on key issues is a spurious one. They do differ in certain regards, even contradicting one another on timelines and some events, but if you were to match them up across the board you would find they agree about 90-95% of the time. A criminologist will tell you that if you have four eyewitnesses who agree on 90% of the details, then you can trust their account, even if that last 10% is contradictory. Again, I’m not saying this to get into an argument about specifics, just that there are legitimate answers and rebuttals to some of Maher’s apparently “foolproof” arguments.

Additionally, I find his central thesis to be extremely problematic. Maher wants to eradicate organized religion because 1) it produces suffering and 2) it begets genuine evil. He seems to be saying that if we could only get rid of the people in power who take their orders from a higher power (Bush, Achmadenijad) we would remove the roadblocks to world peace and unity. In response I would point to avowed athiests like Lenin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Hitler (I mentioned this in my review), who have left a wake of human misery in their path. So if we get rid of organized religion, what about those guys? They didn’t take their orders from a higher power, but they had little trouble killing off untold millions of people. I would posit that the problem isn’t religion itself, that the problem is much deeper than that.

So, again, not to get into specifics (which, ha ha, I’m already doing), but just to illustrate that there are flaws (at least from my POV) in Maher’s thinking. Whether there are more or less than Stein’s I don’t know, but if I’m going to fall on my sword, it won’t be over evolution, so I could care less about all of that.

I have more to say on your thoughts on the editing, Andrew…I’ll respond to that in a bit.

My wife and I caught it last night, and we enjoyed ourselves, although she a bit more than me. I was a bit biased going in, because A) I share Maher’s viewpoint on religion, and B) I generally find him funny anyway (especially his stand-up).

My full review.

I think the distinction that atheists such as myself would draw between Maher and Stein is the fundamental intellectual dishonesty we see in the latter’s arguments. Both films are polemics, and both rely on the smug style that drives the personality-driven documentary polemic lately. I think one can fairly take Maher to task for his attitude and Charles for his technique, but that’s different from saying that Maher relies disingenuous, spurious, or outright false claims, which is how I would characterize many of the pro-ID arguments advanced by Stein and his ilk. (Lest this erupt into talk.origins group of the twenty-first century, I suppose we can agree to disagree on such points.)

Your comment regarding Charles’ editing, however, raises a fascinating question about these types of documentaries. Are false statements–presented by a narrator, say–equivalent to film-making techniques that cast the film-maker’s viewpoint in a positive light? When a narrator voices a patently false claim, is that morally worse than, better than, or the same as editing interviews to make the interviewees appear more foolish? I tend to think that the former seems “worse” because it’s so easily digested, internalized, and repeated, but is the latter just a medium-specific way of lying, one that’s more dangerous because it’s more subtle?