.


HA!

freudian slip?

> "I appreciate a god respectful dialogue..." <

should have been: "I appreciate a GOOD respectful dialogue..."




.

Hey Tom-- I sympathize with your reaction to the movie, though I had a different reaction. I'm not very familiar with Bill Maher in general-- I've not watched his shows-- but I have to say that I thought Religulous was hilarious. The movie used many of the same techniques as used in Borat (same director), another flick I found very funny. As in that movie, one of his frequent techniques was to make people look foolish, which is not always the fairest way to make a point. I agree with you on that point. I thought the examples he used were too extreme and non-representative to fairly indict religion as a whole. Maher interviewed many people, but he didn't talk to the sharpest of theologians, or the most thoughtful or moderate of believers. If you look at his movie as an argument against religion, per se, you'd have to conclude that his argument was not strong. (Interestingly, he admits to having some religious feelings himself).

On Maher's behalf, you have to grant that he was going as much for comic effect as he was for a serious point (until the very end, that is, which has a five minute dialogue/ montage on his thoughts about politics and religion). By that measure, I thought the movie was very successful. Even if you were religious, you'd likely find many parts of the film quite funny (that is, if you are among the people who can both laugh at something and find if offensive at the same time-- the sign of a strong mind and character, IMHO).

As I saw it, the strongest argument you could draw out of the movie was this. Regardless of how enlightened or reasonable religion might be in the hearts, words or practices of its smartest or wisest or most compassionate believers, it is inevitably not so in most followers of religion around the world. By the very nature of religion, believers of different faiths unvaryingly come to contradictory views that can rarely be resolved, and often enough lead to violent conflict. When people allow their religious beliefs (particularly the beliefs most popular around the world) to influence their political beliefs and actions, our world will be far more irrational, shortsighted and warlike than otherwise. Unfortunately, this is precisely what most believers do. This attitude makes extreme tragedies like nuclear terrorism and environmental devastation much more likely. In this sense, I think Maher made an effective case (not to mention an amusing one) against organized religion (as opposed to religion at its best).

This is just one interpretation of the movie; I'm sure others have interesting interpretations, too. I imagine Maher would agree with much of what I've said.

One could argue against Maher's claims, and I've heard people do so, but I think it's tough to refute. For example, many claim that religion has done more good than bad in the world, though I think it's very difficult to come down clearly on one side or another of that claim. For that to be true, though, I think you'd have to believe that religion has done a very large amount of good. Maybe it has. But even if that's the case, Bill Maher could respond, reasonably I think, that the vast majority of the good done by religion has been at the level of individuals and churches, and that religion has done the least good, and most harm, at the level of politics and statecraft.

By the way, I say all this as someone who's not anti-religious. I don't identify myself as an atheist, and I think there is value in religion (as well as danger). I think the value in religion comes mainly from partaking in its rituals and practices, and the sense of meaning, spirituality and compassion religion can give. Its main danger is in the beliefs in engenders. Using religion to arrive at factual beliefs about the world or about the supernatural is a misuse of religion, in my opinion; that's precisely what is so dangerous and irrational about religion. Religions cause people to believe unsupportable and harmful things they'd never otherwise accept. Unfounded beliefs lead directly to misguided and often harmful actions, whether in the realm of politics, science/ medical/ environmental policy, education policy, or personal interactions. In short, use your religion to inform your good character, not your beliefs.

Religion appeals to both the better and the worst instincts humans have-- both of which is (part of) why it's so popular, I suspect. One example that comes to mind, and that Maher's Religulous touches on, is the following. One of the worst instincts that religion magnifies is the in-group versus out-group feeling of antagonism that every person and group already inherently has, and finds all too pleasurable. Religions engender beliefs that distinguish us versus them, and these beliefs typically justify and encourage a religious duty in US to discriminate against or dominate (or worse) THEM. We have these instincts anyway, even without religion, but religion typically makes them more extreme and more irrational (notwithstanding the teachings of "turn the other cheek" and the like, which doesn't seem to trickle down to people as efficiently as does the us-against-them sentiment).

It's an important film because everyone else in society is just pandering to collective hysteria and delusion. He has created something smarter than the alternative--the faiths themselves. :)