This weekend I had the immense pleasure of viewing a film that quite frankly, I can’t believe made it to theaters. Religiousity stars Bill Maher, outspoken comedian/self-proclaimed activist of pretty much anything against the norm. The film has the once half-Jewish/half-catholic and now prominent atheist, interviewing many different zealous followers of different religions.
If there’s anyone out there that has any major doubts, questions, or problems with any major religion they follow, or you just have a pretty cynical sense of humor, then go see this film. I recommend it highly.
The film displays Maher’s unrelenting “in your face” style at its best. If you are easily offended or extremely close-minded than don’t go anywhere near this film, it will only piss you off. Now with that said, it doesn’t simply offer an “I hate religious nutcases” mentality. The way in which he synchronizes intense music alongside very dated clips of instructional religious propaganda for children had me rolling in my seat more than once. He also makes references to certain images throughout the film that he mirrors with current pop culture. My favorite moment in the entire film was Maher referencing a “chubby, bad at sports Jesus, sporting a jew-fro” followed by a clip of Jonah Hill from Superbad.
I would like to mention that I completely agree with Bill’s tactics, for the most part. He has a good knack for putting religious gurus on the spot and pointing out all the major plot holes and consistency errors, as well as calling them on all their “copouts”. The one problem I had was the way he seems to constantly cut people off throughout the film. Whenever they begin to defend themselves he interrupts and discourages them from doing so by simply becoming frustrated and screaming out his own point. I would like to have seen more of the other side, because I have had many of the same questions in my own experiences. However, one of the best scenes is when he gets into it with a Rabbi who insists upon making his own point just as much as Bill does. Doing so prompts Bill to get up in mid interview and say, “I’m done” without finishing the interview. I think this may have ultimately hurt his cause, but it is pretty damned funny to watch.
Also try to keep in mind this is a documentary, not a concise display of facts. Many people tend to forget that all documentarians, no matter how much they may love and agree with them, are putting forward a point, which is in the end their point, not one of the majority. The facts may or may not be unbiased, but ultimately it is their own point they wish to convey, not an equal-sided display of information. Some tend to forget that. However, even if you are a total religious nutcase, it doesn’t hurt to laugh at yourself every now and then. Don’t worry, God won’t hate you for watching it.
Either way it was worth my green, go watch and start up a conversation about any and everything that was said. It would sure as hell be a lot better for the world than another conversation about the latest episode of The Hills…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I don't think I'd see it. It's not so much the material, its the way its presented. He's not trying to make an intelligent, cohesive dialogue; just the brutish "I'm right and you're an idiot" harping he's known for in regards to both religion and politics.
To be fair, it's hard to be "open-minded" on the subject of the film watching Bill Maher "interviewing" zealous followers of religions, when he's just as zealous in what he believes. It diminishes any credibility he may have hoped to portray.
Should people question their beliefs and religions? Absolutely! No one should whole-heartedly follow something without something significant to back it up. History, science, etc..., should not be something problematic if something is true. Cases should be made, presented and then an intelligent conversation should follow in an effort to exact truth. I think the film simply doesn't do that.
I think you got it exactly right when you defined it as a documentary "not a concise display of facts" and "their own point they wish to convey, not an equal-sided display of information". I've got a good sense of humor and I can take jokes aimed at different beliefs or my own, but I disagree with the method of the film. It doesn't come off in a way that I think makes a point in a humorous way. It's just kind of...well, mean.
I guess I'll leave it at that for now, I'm trying not draw the discussion away from the subject; which is opinions of the film. However I would offer in retort to this documentary, another: "EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein. While you may not agree with the idea of creationism, it does expose a very sad trend of scientists and educators being forced out of their profession for presenting an alternative to accepted theories.
Humorously, I think both of these films show that being dogmatic is not a problem that is exclusive to religion or atheism. Its a problem with humans.
PS: The Hills will be the end of us all...
PSS; Sorry about the previous deleted comments, I'm so bad at spelling and proof reading.
I was wondering about this movie.. I'm sad to hear he didn't organize the discussions/arguments in the film fairly. I would be angry to see him just yell over someone else trying to describe their point of view, if anything that makes him look just as bad, if not worse than those he his trying to prove wrong in the first place.
While I am harping on the way he cuts people off, I do think it's important to raise the questions he did seeing as how we live in a nation where the vast majority would toss his views aside as some lost crackpot on the fast track to hell anyway. There's really no one who has raised the questions and called people out on all of their mishaps the way he has done here, and whether one agrees with him or not, it should be done at the very least to shake things up. And first and foremost, while he is very well-informed and opinionated, he is a comedian. The movie did make me laugh hysterically several times, so in that regard mission accomplished.
On the creationism comment, I don't think that the scientific community has a problem with creationism being taught in school so much as they do with creationism being taught in a science class, which is ultimately what those right-wingers are trying to do. It just makes absolutely no sense to teach something religious in a class that is otherwise dominated by scientific laws and principals. If anything there should be 2 separate classes, evolution and creationism, in which both would have to tell the children to make up their own mind. But since these people want to replace evolution within the context of a class which teaches science, this is where the problem lies. It really shouldn't even be up for debate to any sane human being, but because they are fighting so hard to do so it is a clear cut case of attempted brainwashing and rolling back of separation of church and state.
And that is part of my point. Science is supposed to be the search for truth through observation and testing. However that is not currently allowed in any public institution, the answer must come from a naturalistic base and deny the existence of supernatural or special creation or it will not be taught, facts be damned. Evolution is taught in schools as accepted science and fact and all other science must be analyzed with this base concept despite the lack of evidence or scientific proof. Isn't that the same argument as to why creation can't be taught in schools? Because in their eyes it lacks scientific merit?
The Scientific Method traditionally requires experimentation through observation and replication. Evolution cannot be observed, tested or recreated. It disobeys the laws of thermodynamics, thus causing contradiction from a naturalist point of view. No vertically evolved, or new “basic kind” of species, has ever been produced through experimentation by any mechanism. Fossil records are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution following a continual state of motion, if evolution was and is always happening, logically there should abundant examples of transitional forms.
My point isn't to disprove evolution, I think it does that pretty well on its own. I object to the idea that all science MUST be naturalistic simply because Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. We must base all science on one unscientific, unproven theory...why? That sounds pretty close-minded to me. Should we believe in something we can't prove just because we can't prove or disprove it's anything else? How is that different from any of the so-called religions that must be separated from our classrooms? Why can't all arguments be brought up so everyone can make their own informed, independent choice? Instead we are left with a biased institution of “science” with flawed methods and inconsistent theories that are the only accepted medium for no other reason than the “logical opinion” that there can be no creator. If you wanted a true separation of church and state in schools it would be better to answer the question of the origin of life with a simple“it cannot be known or proven through scientific methods so we don't know”.
Love it or hate it, but it takes just as much “faith” to be an evolutionary atheist as it does to be a creationist. The origin of life cannot be proven by scientific means, thus belief in evolution is a pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism. In other words, this film is indeed a documentary of zealous followers of religion, and Bill Maher is one of them.
Btw: this is open dialect is what I would encourage. Even if we may disagree it should remain civil.
I had the pleasure of seeing Religulous (not "Religiosity") with Mr. Workman, here. I enjoyed the film quite a bit.
I can see Josh's point of view about Bill Maher often interrupting to get his point across-- however I never felt that it was quite as obtrusive as Josh did. I am sure, though, that like any interview-based documentary, editing was key in making light of the opposition's point of view, and making Maher's look better. For example, Maher would ask somebody some sort of question that their dogma just couldn't answer for them-- and we would get a quick cut to show a close-up on the dumbfoundedness that sweeps the interviewee's face. Was that reaction shot legit? Hard to say. Seems entirely plausible that it wasn't. Although I actually agree with Maher nearly all the time, I understand the faults associated with trying to make an actual intelligent argument through this medium. (Not to mention that it is a comedy-- and it was fairly funny.
Now, while staying civil, here's my 2 cents:
For the most part, I understand and sympathize with Maher's point of view, his tactics, and his lack at trying to have an intelligent debate to arrive at exact truth. This is something I have battled with personally for a LONG time, and keep coming back to the same facts: Nobody knows undoubtedly how we were created, or what will happen when we die. So the fact that people will wholeheartedly believe something one way or the other, is, well, illogical. The only thing there is to believe is that "we don't know, and at this point, we have no way of knowing." So to believe anything else, in all honesty, seems to negate this person's ability to use logic in this capacity. I know it sounds elitist, but I just keep coming back to that point over and over again. It's hard to have an "intelligent" discussion with somebody who's stance on the issue defies logic from the start.
So a logical question that arises from that, is, "then why are people who believe wholeheartedly in evolution any different?" I guess if they "believe wholeheartedly" in evolution, they really aren't any different. The difference is that most of these people don't believe wholeheartedly in evolution as a specific dogma-- they believe in science, in the fact that evidence and the study of that evidence will lead us to answers, and for this particular question, the only plausible answer we have at this point is evolution.
Let's get something very clear here: in one sense, evolution is a fact. It is a reproducable FACT that speciation has and does occur. We haven't seen it in anything but smaller insects with high rates of reproduction. But it has been seen in both nature and laboratories. Now in another sense, evolution is a scientific theory-- just like the theory of gravity is. The theory of evolution attempts to explain how and WHY animals evolve, because the fact is, they do evolve. (Just like the theory of gravity explains a scientific fact: there is a gravitational pull toward the earth's surface.) Is the current modified Darwinian theory without questions? Of course not. At this point in time, it seems impossible to ever believe there would be a way to really KNOW what happened. But evolution is supported by an OVERWHELMING majority of the scientific community because plain and simply, it just makes the most sense. Given the evidence we have at this point, it is the only theory that fits. And I understand, it doesn't fit 100%, but it fits enough for even the Catholic Church to officially accept it. And the fact that the average American is so dumbfoundedly stuck on these dogmatic contradictions, and is so openly uneducated and ignorant is amazingly appalling.
The reason creationism shouldn't be taught in schools is because the entire theory, backed by all religion as a whole, places emphasis on magic and fairytales to explain the unanswerable. There is absolutely NO reason for a human being to believe this without the undeniably strong force of culture behind it. Before any form of modern day science existed, people created stories and theories on how we were created, what our purpose in life is, and what will happen after we die: The three most pressing, problematic, fearful, and yet, unanswerable questions that pose mankind. And now, thousands of years later, there are a handful of the more politically successful dogmas still in existence because of nothing more than culture, and the drive for mankind to find answers to something they simply can't know.
Saying that we exist because something, or somebody created us is a cop-out. It is an easy answer to quell a simple mind that doesn't want to look too hard. It's a nice package that is VERY easy to swallow, because it gives us meaning and purpose. And on top of that, its easy to defend, because guess what-- you're aloud to toss whatever "evidence" you want out the window to satisfy the belief.
So I guess to wrap this up-- that post got a little more mean-spirited toward the end than intended. But that is the condensed version of my Bible, and why Bill Maher is my Mesiah. (Note sarcasm in that sentence lending itself to the "Bill Maher's a zealot" argument...)
I really like where this is going so far. However, those of us discussing seem to have gone off on a tangent. The original comment was simply that I laughed at a clearly one-sided documentary that was made by an albeit clearly one-sided documentarian, yet he is also very well informed and also a comedian. So in that sense I laughed at the comedian backing up his views for what my part seemed very well done. So whatever.
On the other part, this seems to be a debate now about religious creationism versus atheistic evolution. Listening to both your sides I have to say I agree and disagree with both of you.
The fact is that the four pillars of civilization (science, philosophy, religion, and art) all attempt to answer the ultimate question from completely different angles. "What does it mean to be human?" They all get points, but none have a for sure end all be all answer, and that is after all the point. To search for the answers yourself.
In this regard I believe religion can offer good things such as morality, hope, and healing. However, it does stifle the search for truth by offering up a doctrine and dogma, stating that no other answers are needed for the all lie in these old words and dated rituals. That is the exact opposite of what is in our very make up. There is no denying that humans are born with an endless curiosity and a need to search for the truth. And I'm sorry but it is simply a cop out to point at someone with that mentality and say that they are "lost" and that the devil is filling their head with evil thoughts and that they need to pray and have more faith. I'm sorry but that just doesn't hold up in the modern world paradigm.
With that said on the issue of evolution. Evolution is in fact taught as a theory, not fact. And the gripe about teaching it in schools is completely ridiculous. Scientific theory should be taught in a science class, and religious theory should be taught in a theology class, end of story. To teach creationism in a science class is a clear indication of a religious interest being upheld. Also, I was never taught evolution in a science class until I was in college, a class I paid for and was completely free to choose and pay for a theology class instead if I desired. So science did not have an unfair advantage over me.
With that said it is my belief, as it has always been that all belief systems seem to have a bit of truth in them, and because we are all human and imperfect it is ridiculous to say that any one of them is completely true. Why would it make any kind of sense for us to be given the answers as a child and then stop all growth? It simply makes no sense within our nature.
However, I believe if one truly searches it is pretty hard to not believe in a higher power. I definitely don't any form of religious God. No that god is far too human. After all, religion is a human construct and doesn't really serve God at all, but the men in power behind the religion. And if you can't see that, than you are definitely "lost".
Evolution is a much grander idea than the naysayers give it credit. It's much more than atheists pissing on a bible saying we're just upright monkeys. The cycle of evolution is in fact right in front of our eyes, even at microscopic levels. The human life is a cycle of evolution. We start out as tiny fragile mush that cannot function or survive alone. We grow, we learn, we specialize, we adapt, we reproduce, we give our offspring our givings and misgivings, and we die knowing more than we have the rest of our lives. That is what the basic concept of evolution is.
So my 2 cents is this: science and religion, do not single handedly have all the answers, but together alongside philosophy and art can give some of the answers and it is our job to look into all schools of thought rather than constricting ourselves to simply one. I believe that in order for both to come together it would only make sense that there is a God, a much less human looking God than religion provides, but a God no less, whose hand at work is in science. For me that is what works, I can take what works from both sides and be free to look for more without the fear of either burning in hell or simply decomposing in the ground after my death. And I encourage all to look outside of their own bubbles.
Okay-- now I'm going to officially ban Josh from my Bill Maher religion, because I don't agree with some things he said.
I want to touch on these 4 Pillars of Civilization: Science, Philosophy, Religion, and Art. My argument is that only 75% of those Pillars are making any functional contribution to society. The 4th is nothing more than an archaic institution left over from a time before the other three really existed.
Let's look at the constructive things that religion gives mankind:
- It answers questions of what we are as human beings and where we came from.
- It answers questions to hopefully guide people to live a moral, ethical life.
- Through faith, it gives people hope, and a reason to persevere through difficult times.
Now let's examine those one by one:
- Questions about who and what we are as human beings, and where we came from? In modern day terms, we call this science.
- Questions about morality? We call that discussion philosophy.
- The comfort that faith in a higher power brings somebody? That one isn't as easily answered. But it basically comes down to the idea that if you aren't handed these things to have faith in from the beginning, the human spirit can and will find other avenues to accomplish this. For example, art: communication of knowledge, emotion and experience through sensory means. Art can elicit hope, can elicit change. Knowledge can do the same thing.
I'm not going to argue that people do good things in the name of religion. Or that during some people's darkest moments, they will use religion to help get through it. But what I WILL argue, is that it is completely unnecessary, and in today's world, does more harm than good. The argument can be made that people who devote their lives to helping the less fortunate would do so regardless of if religion is the backing force. There is no rule that one must be religious to be a humanitarian. And in fact, MANY people are able to help out others without a reliance on a specific dogma. Further, it is true that people use religion as a hope to get through their more difficult times. My interpretation: they use religion as a crutch to get through their harder times. And if organized religion didn't exist, there is nothing to say that these people wouldn't find something else to lean on when necessary.
And on the same hand, the same argument can be made that religion causes intolerance, closed-mindedness, and a belief system that penalizes the population which does not agree with you, thus, resulting in violence, war, famine, hunger, poverty, etc... People have been persecuted for their religious beliefs for centuries. The most volatile region of the earth is just that because three of the world's largest religious institutions are fighting over it (two of them much more directly than the third).
And all of this is based on nothing more than man-made fairytales. Stories that began centuries upon centuries ago that attempted to answer the most important questions before science and philosophy were capable of ever doing so. Not that science and philosophy are capable of doing so know-- but mankind must be able to understand that there are some things that can't be fully understood. By the very nature of the question, we can't ever expect to know what happens when we die... because guess what... WE'RE DEAD.
And that is why it is okay to say that there "could be a god..." But not to base your life, or your beliefs on anything. I guess I can understand Josh's point of view that some"thing" created what we are in some form or another. I don't believe that thing was a conscious being. But I will at least admit that I don't know what it was, and am open to that possibility that it could be. I think the entire problem lies with Josh's next to last sentence:
"For me that is what works, I can take what works from both sides and be free to look for more without the fear of either burning in hell or simply decomposing in the ground after my death."
The fear of burning in Hell I understand-- that is what it is meant to do, elicit fear.
But the fear of decomposing in the ground? That is the exact concept that allows religion to thrive. If you don't look at that as a fear (which I admit, is hard), and instead look at it as if this is your ONE AND ONLY opportunity to do something worthwhile with yourself, you should relish that chance, and make it all that it can be NOW- instead of relying on the crutch that there will be something better in the future, or in another life...
The point I was trying to make is sorta of half of what you (Danny) were saying. That is that the "truth" and not to be confused with "the right answer" (which would presume that one person or group is correct making everyone else wrong, which let's face it is ridiculous) is to be searched for, and that in itself should be at least one of the meanings of life.
It almost feels as if you're saying that you are as sure that all life/consciousness/meaning ends (in the nihilistic sense) after this short life, as Mike is that there is a Christian God, Heaven, etc. To me that's almost the exact same belief system, just different set pieces.
I am arguing, and this is going back to my earlier thoughts about what is the foundation of civilization, that the "truth" in itself is not even really what is the truly important thing, but rather how that supposed "truth" affects us as people. There really isn't or at least shouldn't be a right or wrong answer, just people. And the point is that either or both of you could be wrong, but it really won't matter until each of you dies. What matters is that we grow, learn, and experience as much as we can while we are here.
While I agree with you on pretty much all of your points about Religion, I again would restate that (and I see this as a problem for most people on both sides of the fence) Religion and God are actually completely separate entities. And while I do believe that Religion could function in the modern world in a positive way, yet most likely never will, if nothing else it should still be considered a "pillar" because of it's massive history. And I believe that a proper balance should be struck rather than a complete shift in the opposite direction. I think I would be as fulfilled in a world ruled entirely by science as I would by one ruled entirely by religion.
And I never said that I necessarily believe that there is something "better" in another life, I'm simply stating that it is a possibility and that does not sway me at all from the desire to make this life worthwhile.
Hmm... I think I may allow you back into my Bill Maher religion. I think we're saying fairly similar things, just different ways.
You said that the way I present things, I seem just as sure that there is nothing after death, as Christian's are that there is Heaven/Hell afterwards. And that in turn, seems like the "same belief system, just different set pieces."
Let me try to explain. I am agnostic, with admittedly atheistic tendencies. My main belief system is that we do not know, cannot know, and will not know what happens after death. So I will not subscribe to a belief system that tells me they have the answer. However, if I had to make my own educated guess as to what happens, I would use the evidence around me. And that evidence around me doesn't give any signs that our "souls" continue living after our bodies do. The evidence is that we are just another living being, part of this earth's cyclical nature, and our only difference from other animals is our ability to reason, and think. And that ability to reason gives us a conciousness of self, which in turn leads to the HOPE that there is something more and something better. The evidence and logic behind why man would WANT there to be someting more is undeniable. The evidence for that actually being the case is non-existent. Which is why having to choose one direction, that would be what I would go with. But I will be the very first to admit: I don't know. Nobody knows. That's just my best guess based on what I see around me.
And I guess the part that I agree wholeheartedly with what Josh is saying is that it shouldn't necesarilly be about the truth-- or even trying to find the "truth," but instead about the impact, the experiences and the choices made through a life lived.
I guess this is where I start to get bogged down in the logistics of how this can all work: it's a kind of endless cycle that there is no clear answer on.
Our ability as humans to question who and what we are is a defining trait that is undoubtedly a MAJOR part of the human experience. A curiosity, and a thirst to discover ourselves, where we came from, and our place in this universe. What that thirst for knowledge brings as undeiably culturally positive in the way of art, philosophy, science, etc, etc... Being an artist myself, I can't imagine how sterile the world would be visually, artistically, philosophically, etc., if we didn't have those questions on our mind at all times.
However, we also have a natural tendency to create order: to organize things. It is an undeniable trait that we see in the animal kingdom, notably with the societal structures of our closest relatives, Chimpanzees and other great apes. So it is only common sense that given enough time to ponder these questions, to come up with hypothesis, to create ideas, it is unavoidable that sooner or later, we begin trying to organize, and thus, justify this thought. Which through generations of political necessity, evolves into what we know as modern organized religion.
I guess I am looking for some utopian answer where we can have the first half, but not the second-- and in reality, that may just defy human nature.
Hmmm... guess its just more to think about...
I can completely see and understand where you (Danny) come from when you say that you rely on the evidence around you in order to draw hypotheses and conclusions but I believe as we evolve and grow that there are certain universal components that become "fuzzy" with this notion as we move forward in history. And this is essentially the basis of my "Grey area" stance that somehow fits between Mike and Danny here.
Now this can easily be argued as man creating truths out of the need for them as you stated before but based on my own personal observations and experiences I believe it goes beyond that which is the basis of why I believe that we cannot be truly "alone" in the universe.
That is to say, I believe that there are certain universal (humanistic and beyond) paradigms that transcend the human experience and cannot be simply chalked up to God's Law (that is the human/religious depiction of God) or human developed notions of ethics or morality either. These things such as love, truth, justice, the pursuit of greatness, free will, etc. transcend what we think of as being a part of human life.
If I were to buy into pure atheistic nihilism, meaning we die and then that is the end of our story, then these things would have no meaning. Furthermore if that were the case not only would our possible afterlives be meaningless, but so would our lives. While I cannot believe in a world that is ruled by a clearly man made or at the very least man re-made God, if life were on the opposite end of the spectrum, we would simply be organisms buzzing about ruled entirely by the physical laws of nature and our own flawed biochemistry, and nothing more. And I simply find that as believable as the first.
I believe that the proof of this notion lies in the very rare truly "great" person that comes along and makes leaps forward for humanity, showing what is quite frankly possible to achieve for every person alive, yet no one does so because they succumb to fear, doubt, etc. and give up on themselves. Such rare people i.e. Albert Einstein, Socrates, Lance Armstrong, William Shakespeare, Bruce Lee, etc. show a clear indication of human beings transcending what we generally except as normal limitations, yet at the same time are no more special than you or I other than they actually achieved "greatness".
This is essentially where I see a link between the human and the divine. Now like I said you could call that Angels, God, Demons, a Muse, Inspiration, just old-fashioned talent and drive, or a someone digging for answers that aren't there, but I see this as a connection to the divine(for lack of a better word) and that is why I cannot lean completely toward atheistic nihilism.
In essence to me that's what "God" is, the "higher forces" if you will that few and far people in between tap into, but that we could all tap into, from time to time to achieve true greatness, which to me is evident by certain individuals throughout history.
I didn't know where else to post this. Just wanted to show you what I discovered today: what a simple typo can do while trying to find your informative blog: http://nerdcynicism.blogpsot.com. I honestly thought it was a joke at first.
Post a Comment