[jgredline]

Hi folks....I just finished watching Religulous with Bill Maher.
I wonder how many folks here have watched it. If you have, I would love to hear your thoughts.

How I wish I could have been interviewed by him.
A few random thoughts of mine. I thought the show as a total was pretty good. I thought many of the questions he had asked where very fair. I thought he asked many of the very questions I have read here and many questions I have been asked and debated over the years. I thought his questioning of ''all'' the religions was fair. In fact there was very little I disagreed with him on.

I believe his attack on the word of faith movement was very accurate as it was with the false Jesus....I believe he was spot on with his views on the mormons, Islam, scientology etc..

However, the biggest problem was that the ''Christian'' people he interviewed where not Christians, or for the most part uneducated Christians. He should have interviewed an apologist like Lee Strobel, Norman Geisler, Dave hunt. I would have even done a better job...But give him credit, he went after the weak....

Thoughts?

[GeneV]

It has been a while since I saw the movie, but I seem to recall that a Catholic priest came off the best in the interviews IMO. That is ironic considering how brutal Bill Maher has been on the RCC and pope lately.

[Ratmagiclady]

Well, Javier, I don't think the point of the documentary was 'Can Christianity (or any other religion) be 'defended,' ....but rather to illustrate how ridiculous people can be about religion.

ie, it's not about your own priorities as an Evangelical type: I don't think it supports a claim that "Religion (or any religion) cannot be sensible," ...the point of it is to show up how, at least in Maher's opinion, it can and does get ridiculous. Insisting there are 'better educated' Christians, presumably 'getting it right' out there doesn't mean that that number seems to end up being a lot smaller than that of those claimed as being represented by the political and religious authorities involved.

Denying it exists out there is kind of... How the political and social problems... even the erosions of the people's very ability to cope intelligently with real-world problems, just keep intensifying, I think.

[MRRiley]

Havn't seen it but how do you mean

"the ''Christian'' people he interviewed where not Christians"

???

[Ratmagiclady]

I thought his questioning of ''all'' the religions was fair. In fact there was very little I disagreed with him on.

Thoughts?

I think one of the pitfalls of this survey approach is, it may seem 'fair' to some, but it usually leads to claims from everyone involved that "All religions are like this, all have the same problems as (usually, the most familiar one to the speaker, be they atheist or supporting their own view of an abstract human-like authority.) This usually has the effect of being kind of colonialist, in the guise of 'even-handedness:' by projecting one's own priorities onto other people one may not know.

Certainly, in my own Catholic upbringing, the claim was often, "Oh, all other world religions have the same 'problems' as we do, and can offer no better, so dismiss them and their unique perspectives. "

There's also a reverse of this, more positive-sounding, "They all lead to the same place: many paths up the same mountain:" Very nice in some ways, but as much as the top of a mountain is a spectacular place to visit, not everyone thinks that's where you want to live.

When drawing conclusions about 'all religions' or 'any religion,' a lot of atheists really give short shrift to the differences: for instance, they may disbelieve the dogma they were raised to, but tend to not-question what that dogma told them about other faiths and cultures.

Which is poor logic, I should think.

There *are* differences, something which I think can be lost on those used to the vast diversity in the Abrahamic traditions, which nonetheless share the same kind of structural problems that can come from, basically, what they believe about belief itself. What they believe belief "does," in fact, and what's *important* about it.

Or not-so-important about it, from other points of view.

The old false dichotomy between religion and faith, and reason and science, for instance, in which the latter two and the former two are presumed to be in a state of existential conflict, is taken as a constant in 'all religions,' when really that's just structural to a certain group of related religions that essentially make that assertion, when others may simply be filling in gaps in knowledge or even actively-encouraged *by* faith to find out about the manifest world. To wit, it's usually an argument between, say, Christianity or Islam's own believers and disbelievers, which they then project on the entire world. Usually ignoring all other options.

Religions *don't* all have the same problems or priorities: this diversity is actually a goodness on us, not a threat. (It's only a threat if someone believes anything but a singular 'one true way' must be abolished in the first place.) When people are all competing for the same 'niche' in the world, well, conflict arises. But this is where hierarchies and all that can come with them have a problem. Not all religions have quite the same kind of problem of 'authority.'

(My own faith community doesn't believe we're all here to interpret and enforce and be judged in terms of interpretation of 'divine authority:' our real-world problems aren't the same as those of churches that believe only one interpretation of authority can be 'right' or that 'authority is God.' Our real-world problems are those of the responsibility of freedom, the responsibility *of* power, ...of having some and being a small creature, anyway. Rather than 'how to submit to it, and which idea of absolute power, anyway?'

Problems that have vexed Abrahamic monotheists for centuries are ....not a problem to us: Problems that civilization never finished working out in ancient days are still with us, and some that were created by people in fact, rejecting real and in-built human diversity in hopes of 'unity' and control. There's that whole 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance,' and that means *paying attention.* )

No one should ever think they're immune to blind spots. You can sneak up behind a whole parade, ...even an army.... when they're marching in order, quite easily, even as they think they're being mighty. Cause they're all looking the same way.

When people see diversity *as a problem, as a threat,* in fact, it infects even the language we use. It all seems threatening, and any change seems threatening, and even obvious solutions seem threatening.

The whole world just can seem too big and conflicted, when in fact we each carry a piece of the solution. These huge problems aren't of 'how to control everything with one absolute thing,' ...in fact they have much to do with divisions, control, demanding absolute answers or no solutions will be tried, ...in fact, displacing the practical needs of life and civilization onto some wild belief that 'if only everyone obeys as if they were the same, everything'll be magically-fine.'

The *real* way people learn to get along isn't by demanding or pretending 'sameness,' ...it's actually by *being* different and *doing* things together. Not as a means to an 'end,' but as a means to *being and doing together* itself.

We aren't entirely abstract creatures, neither by rationalizing holy books or rationalizing reason itself. We're dreaming creatures, feeling ones, walking, dancing, *looking,* laughing, yes, even ritualizing ones, too.

Sharing needs no excuse or permission. And that's where we all have something to bring.

"All the same?" Ain't gonna happen, anyway. "All living together?" That, to one degree or another, is how we're going to get through these challenges, or what we'll learn again harder later.

May as well pay attention now. It's been a rough ride so far, and we could all use a look forward.

[bombo]

Hi, I watched that film. Here are my thoughts:
I enjoy a lot Maher's usual comments, most of the things he says are based on common sense after all, but I was not that excited about that film. I was expecting a more strident exposition of how ridiculous religion is as a concept that still shapes our lives. I guess I wanted him to make more fun of the whole subject.
Regardless, I am happy that this type of criticism is becoming more frequent, as a scientist myself I am for anything that moves the world out of the age of religion and towards the age of reason.
As for the topic brought in the OP a closer examination can reveal that no dogmatic belief can be efectively 'defended'. Indeed all gods (Abrahamic or otherwise) have the same epistemological status: none. Talking about Allah, Yahweh, etc... is the same when talking about Zeus, Poseidon or Thor. All cultures have created gods of one sort or another as a means to understand the unknown, to answer those questions that present the most anxiety. As opposed to religion, science is a constant struggle of men to understand the world by rational inquiry, refining previous explanations with new ones as more empirical data is available. Sure science may not explain everything today but it is reasonable to think that someday it might come pretty close: after all, it is because of science that infectious disease is well understood, smallpox has been erradicated, it produced the computer you are looking at now, and most importantly it created that Pentax toy next to you, all of these among a plethora of examples.
Instead, look at the news, religion is still bothering our lives: gay people are still fighting for their rights, in 21 states in the US corporal punishment of children is legal in a classroom, the pope helps child molesters get away with their crimes, idiots killing themselves thinking they will become martyrs and get 72 virgins in some sick paradise... the list goes on and on...
So yes, it is religulous.

[Ratmagiclady]

As for the topic brought in the OP a closer examination can reveal that no dogmatic belief can be efectively 'defended'. Indeed all gods (Abrahamic or otherwise) have the same epistemological status: none. Talking about Allah, Yahweh, etc... is the same when talking about Zeus, Poseidon or Thor.

Not all of these figures represent 'dogmatic beliefs,' actually. I(And I notice you've chosen some figures out of various polytheisms that are often taken to *most resemble* the dogmatic religions' God to claim 'Religions are all the same,'

That was kind of my point.

'Epistemelogical status' as the 'only important defining thing' has to do with the priorities of particular forms of monotheist belief, whichever 'side' you take on those forms of religions' "Big Question."

All cultures have created gods of one sort or another as a means to understand the unknown, to answer those questions that present the most anxiety.

Again, you accept this as dogma... From whom? Those who say, 'One God is best, more views must be even worse!'

It's projecting back a view of certain priorities of your own, and assuming a lot of people were 'more stupid and afraid back then.'

As opposed to religion, science is a constant struggle of men to understand the world by rational inquiry, refining previous explanations with new ones as more empirical data is available.

The simple fact is, "Religion" as you lump them all together, is *not* inherently *opposed to science.*

Only dogmas which oppose science are opposed to science.

Assuming that 'all religions claim to explain everything, regardless of knowledge or conflict with observed reality, ' ...well, it's not even *true.*

Frankly, it's just a noisy few that still kind of start all the arguments that want to override reality. Who believe that believing the observably *untrue* is a virtue.

For most religions in human history, it's not about a drive to 'explain away ignorant fears,' ...it's about relating as humans in our human experiences. Only a very few are actually *based* on 'Believe this book over reality, or suffer!'

Instead, look at the news, religion is still bothering our lives: gay people are still fighting for their rights, in 21 states in the US corporal punishment of children is legal in a classroom, the pope helps child molesters get away with their crimes, idiots killing themselves thinking they will become martyrs and get 72 virgins in some sick paradise... the list goes on and on...
So yes, it is religulous.

Frankly, the people who do this are certain *absolutist authoritarians.* They don't have to get to define *any* religion, never mind get to define Religion. Unless you let them.

We're *allowed* to have myth and story and wonder and mystery. The universe is *alive* to me, in my experience, even through a spectrometer.

Frankly, it's the *literalism* that seems to beset both atheists and suicide bombers, obviously to different degrees. Actually, you're fighting over the same things, in a way: what's allowed to be called 'Reason.' What is, and what is not. What can be called 'Real.'

The abuses come from there. 'Religion' doesn't actually have to be that way, as many people of many faiths are finding out, and some are the more terrified therefore, of letting go of. After too long a hard time about it.

Don't let the parameters be defined to the convenience of the same people who insist 'Religion' must be such a big *problem.* We do have dreaming minds, too. I've seen the scanner images.