Incredulous

October 3rd, 2008 10:02 am · 6 comments

So I see Bill Maher has released his film — let’s not dignify it by calling it a documentary — “Religulous,” poking fun at faith, which seems to be his shtick lately. Mostly he’s poking fun at Christianity, rather than Judaism or Islam — possibly because it’s politically correct to laugh at Christians but not at other faiths.

It’s intellectually cheap to make fun of the other side’s position without seriously addressing its arguments, and since that’s where Maher has gone, I don’t intend to fight fire with fire.

But it might be helpful to note that Maher’s disbelief, and his idea that it’s simply irrational and ridiculous to believe in anything, is itself a faith position — a belief. It’s a presupposition, something that can’t be proven, that’s part of Maher’s Weltenschaaung — worldview.

I can’t prove God exists. Maher can’t prove he doesn’t.

I can’t prove there’s anything beyond this material world. Maher can’t prove there isn’t.

We’re each operating from the presuppositions of our respective worldviews.

For self-described agnostic Maher, and some of the other prominent “New Atheists” out there, the problem really isn’t irrationality. Christians throughout the last two millennia have presented rational arguments and evidence for faith (e.g. Aquinas, Lewis, Zacarias).

The problem, as even Richard Dawkins has conceded, is that they don’t WANT to believe.

Because if you accept the existence of a transcendent God who created everything — including you — that has implications for your life. It means you need to accept that you are not the god of your own life; that you are a creature who is accountable to its Creator; that you need to submit to the will of that Creator.

That refusal to bend the knee to God has been humankind’s problem since the beginning, or almost the beginning, anyway. There’s nothing original about Maher, or Dawkins, or the rest.

But God loves Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins just as much as he loves me. Maybe someday they will find that out. I was once — sort of — one of them. And that’s what happened to me.

In the end, it’s the relentless, extravagant love of God that is incredible, and that blows away disbelief.

(And if you’d like to read a good critique of the Gray Lady’s coverage of Maher’s film, check this.)

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

6 comments Tags: Uncategorized

There are currently 6 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog

cammy_obscura
10/6/08
11:03 AM

"Mostly he's poking fun at Christianity, rather than Judaism or Islam — possibly because it's politically correct to laugh at Christians but not at other faiths."

That is absolutely not true. I wish people would actually SEE a film before making sweeping statements about it. Maher covers all kinds of religions in this film -- he spends a large amount of time in the film on Judaism and Islam, in addition to Christianity, Scientology -- even a guy whose "religion" seems to consist of smoking pot in Amsterdam. The Catholics actually come off pretty well in the film; he interviews a couple of very cool, very open-minded priests who speak about how one can be a Christian and still embrace science (and not have to accept, literally, every word of every Bible story).

The film often does have a mocking tone; Bill Maher is a comedian, and mockery is his stock in trade. But there's a lot to think about in the piece -- particularly the parts that serve as meditations on all of the killing and other frightening things that have been done in the name of organized religion and on those who would try to run the government (or educational programs, etc.) according to the principles of a particular organized religion. There is a fabulous segment in the film, featuring PBS journalist Ray Suarez, on what the Founding Fathers -- whom some would paint as the super-Christians of all time -- actually felt and said and wrote about religion. And, of course, there's the requisite look at the flashy megachurch leaders who preach Christ's message while draped in $2,000 suits, lizard-skin shoes and gold bling -- all while not really being able to talk about what is REALLY written in the Bible.

Maher has done his homework; though arrogant, he's a very bright man who knows a great deal about various religions' holy books, and about the history of various religions. I can see why some would be intimidated by this film; it shows how the story of Christ echoes, in many ways, the much-earlier stories of gods embraced by earlier cultures -- the virgin birth, the healing of the sick and raising of the dead, the eventual death and resurrection of the deity 3 days later; the announcement by women at the tomb, etc. etc. Very interesting, thought-provoking (and discussion-provoking) stuff.

This is DEFINITELY a documentary; all of the best documentaries present their material from a specific point of view. "Documentary" doesn't mean "journalism." I was glad to see that the movie theater was full this past weekend; those who were there can discuss the film having actually seen it.

Oh, and just FYI: I'm a believer. And my faith in God was not shaken in the slightest by seeing this film.

Scout
10/9/08
8:35 AM

Two thoughts:

If a person of faith, upon seeing a movie, begins to question or lose their faith, it was not all that strong to begin with. I enjoy watching the documentarys on the History Channel (and others) that contain opposing/non-Christian views. They don't cause me to doubt; to the contrary, many of them have made me dig deeper into why I believe, and what I believe.

If a person not of faith watches it, it may cause them to actually look into things, to begin an examination of what faith is, who God is.

Films that cause us to question are not always a bad thing; it is our own internal character traits that cause us to question our faith, our beliefs, outside forces have no more power over our faith than we choose to give them.

JMO

Matt
10/22/08
12:01 AM

If, upon being presented with compelling arguments, you don't even CONSIDER doubting your faith, then you are not considering those arguments very carefully.

Helen Colwell Adams is an intelligent woman but she achieves that remarkable schism between her rational instincts as a reporter.. and her "faith."

She is wrong when she says that atheists or agnostics must DISPROVE god in order for their skepticism to be justified. Bill Maher is quite explicit in taking the position that he doesn't know. He says that atheism mirrors the certitude of religion. So you cannot state with absolute conviction either that there is a god or that there isn't. (But this certainly doesn't mean that the likelihood or nonlikelihood of the existence of God is therefore about 50/50. It is no such thing and I dare say that the Christian God is just as ridiculous as zeus and apollo, ghosts and goblins, elves and leprechauns).

Sure Aquinas, Augustine and others have put forward arguments for the existence of God. And there is a pretty much a consensus among philosophers that none of these arguments have been particularly successful in arguing for the existence or probability of such a God.

It is certainly true that Bill Maher does not pick the best defenders of their respective faiths. He pics easy targets. easy to make fun of. He's a comedian. But I think that his overaching points are overwhelmingly valid.

This idea that Christians are persecuted in this country is just bizarre. Try being an atheist. Try to run for public office as an atheist and tell me how that works for you.

And I think conservatives in general these days. it's curious.. they adopt these populist, anti-intellectual positions.. and then complain that they're being persecuted and discriminated against when their "views" aren't given equal time.. or taken as seriously.

Over 200 years ago, David Hume and Immanuel Kant did an excellent job of refuting the arguments for the existence of god. And Darwin put the nails in the coffin for the design argument.

I would submit that no one's faith is honest unless it is genuinely questioned. unless you take the objections of skeptics seriously.. and answer them honestly.. your "faith" amounts to a wishing.. a persistent belief for the sake of belief.. which others might call credulity or gullibility. What ever happened to the Kierkegaardian notion of faith as something really really shaky and tenuous... faith as saying.. I'm probably wrong.. I know this goes against all common sense.. but i'm going to take a chance anyway. Faith is not saying.. I know I'm right.. the existence of god is obvious.. that's the end of it.

In any case, I don't think faith is an admirable thing. Faith has been made into a virture. Faith as.. we can't really prove it to you, but we want you to believe what we say. The Heaven's Gate people had a lot of "faith" that the mothership was behind that comet, didn't they. The Greeks had a lot of "faith" that the priestess at the Oracle of Delphi was channeling Apollo. Many had a lot of "faith" in a president who told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Another point is that the gospels of the New Testament were not written by eyewitnesses and most probably not by anyone who even knew an eyewitness. They were written in Greek based on oral traditions that had been in circulation for decades. And then they went through multiple handwritten versions with many alterations both accidental and intentional. They're not historically accurate documents. Why don;t you believe that jack and the beanstalk happened? Why don't you believe in tinkerbell? THis is what drives me bonkers about fundamentalists is that they're terrible readers of literature. Not everything is meant to be taken literally. Helen Colwell Adams should know better than anyone to evaluate her sources of information.. and to read literature with an awareness of all the different tones, styles, and devices that might be employed. Not everything is meant to be taken so literally.

Christianity is so incredibly ridiculous, when you step back and really examine it, that it deserves ridicule from every intelligent person. Not inquisition stuff. Not anything physical. But when someone says something bizarre in public.. an appropriate response follows. I know I rish provoking a baclklash here. People balk at such skepticism enagge in this cognitive dissonance to shore up ther beliefs. But I urge you to take a step back from it all.. really think.. really question.. without fear. Have you ever really considered the possibility that Christianity actually qualifies as a myth?

I think that both posters before me are bluffing that their faith in god was not shaken in the slightest or was made even stronger. Doubt is not a sin. You should try it some time. If your faith wasn't shaken in the slightest, I don't think you were seriously grappling with the issues. It all comes down to probability. Whether you think there probably is a god or whether you think there probably isn't. If y ou are absolutely certain of the existence of God, you're wrong. You're just wrong. And your own priest should tell you that you're wrong.. that these things are not matters of fact.
I find it suspiciously and extremely arrogant.. that we should, from our tiny little corner in a vast universe.. declare that the whole of it was created by.. or is governed by some human-like agency. It's so damned presumptuous. A human-like agency who cares about the things that we do.. who shows such petty human emotions. It's a sky god. It's a projection of a father figure... it's the same anthropomorphizing of nature that led the ancients to posit gods for lots of things they didn't understand.. fire, storms, earth, the sea, etc. All Bill Maher is asking you to do is admit that you don't know. We're all in the human condition. We're all in a state of not knowing. And certain people pretend to have answers. But do they really have some special access to "God" that you don't? Do you really believe that?

Anyway I've been on here far too long.

Shawn
10/22/08
9:08 AM

QUOTE (Matt @ Oct 22 2008, 12:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, very well said. I couldn't agree more.

Later...Shawn

cyberscribbler
10/22/08
9:25 AM

I'm absolutely certain that the U.S. is not better served by having a political party and religious movement merging and dominating domestic and foreign policy.

Maher's movie Religulous - (is playing at Penn Cinemas) , as someone mentioned earlier, there were two segments in which the founding father's comments on organized religion (Franklin, Adams & Jefferson) IIRC and the commonalities between Jesus, Horus & Mithra also covered in the Zeitgeist movie

Kevin Phillips' American Theocracy made a strong case for how empire's embrace reglious zealousness when they're in the final phase of decline

QUOTE

..the unfortunate precedents. Militant Catholicism helped undo the Roman and Spanish empires; the Calvinist fundamentalism of the Dutch Reformed Church helped to block any 18th century Dutch renewal; and the interplay of imperialism and evangelicalism led pre-1914 Britian into a bloodbath and global decline.... God would decline to rescue his chosen peoople-is the precedent that needs to be kept in mind

pg 375

I am not against religion itself. I strongly support the right for people to practice whatever faith they have found. My concern begins when decisions of government are made on the basis of religious belief. I do not believe that there is one true path to enlightenment.

QUOTE (Matt)

certain people pretend to have answers. But do they really have some special access to "God" that you don't?

Well said. Top 10 post of the year in my book.

clanker
10/22/08
10:01 AM

Brilliant, Matt.

I wish that those that claim to be of faith would read your post without reservations and take a moment to reflect on what it is that makes them identify with a particular religion. There are plenty, who like me, went to church at an early age because it was understood that that was what was done. I was openly indoctrinated by the church to believe certain things and not question them because it was God's word. But as I got older, I was faced with conflicts. The stories in the Bible started to seem more and more like folk lore, often contadicting itself or not holding up to simple logic. I soon found that I had been cursed with a curious mind and found logic and reason better served with science. Church indoctrination didn't take and I was able to look at it all from the outside. I admit that I was a little resentful of those who, from a position of authority, set out to indoctrinate the young and impressionable before they are fully equiped mentally to sort things out for themselves. We stand aghast at the extreme Islamic indoctrination used on children in the Middle East, but it's not much different. There are many children here who went on and after much self reflection decided to remain believers, which is great. Religion provides a good moral base and is a comfort in all kinds of situations. However, I fear that there are still many who were indoctrinated and never bothered to give any serious thought about religion. They simply accepted that it was truth and subsequently went on to base all their views from that. They are more likely to be unaccepting of other points of view, even those based on reason or logic. We see that now in what is called the far right. In spite of Christ's teachings, we see intollerance and a singular drive to accomplish goals that they view are God's wishes even though it's not the same as the majority. I wish more people could hold views similar to the Dalai Lama, but that would not be like his view. His view is acceptance of all views, even intollerance.

View Topic | Comment on this blog

Words and Sacraments

by Helen Colwell Adams

Incredulous

October 3rd, 2008 10:02 am · 6 comments