Religulous

[Verde]

Am I the only one who has seen it? I loved it. It was hilarious.

I haven't had a chance to see it yet, and like most movies I'll probably wait for it to appear on DVD.

Based on the trailer (which seems to be getting a lot of play these days) it looks like a limited version of the John Safran classic series:

http://www.australiantelevision.net/johnsafranvsgod/

OK, that was a multi-part TV series, so there was more time to develop the stories. I'll certainly be interested to see the movie audiences will accept 'Religulous'

V.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You know what, I can't remember who it was--I remember the argument, but not the interlocutor. So...you would say that you are 100% absolutely certain that it is impossible that our universe could be the creation of a deity? Would you say that you have evidence that that is the case, that the concept of a deity is inherently self-contradictory, or that it's just an article of faith?

I don't want to hijack the thread because that is what this discussion does. So let me state my views and post a link to two threads which the discussion most recently has been going on in.




I have no issue with the uncertainty principles of science. I understand the concept that theories are not considered proven and proofs are generally restricted to the field of mathematics. The Universe is an incredible place and its mysteries enormous.

I can, however, separate those principles from the god question. While some might argue ad nauseum that one cannot disprove gods exist, in reality, most of those same people do not feel the same way stating, "we cannot disprove flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns or JK Rowling's Harry Potter". We know the latter three are the result of human imagination. There is overwhelming evidence god beliefs are also the result of human imagination. There is no evidence that god beliefs arose from any interaction with real gods.

The uncertainty principle in science can be and often is misapplied. If the intent of the uncertainty of conclusions in the scientific process is to allow every bit of nonsense one could possibly imagine to be left on the table, how is that any different from those who describe the Universe as influenced by magic. Maybe the sorcerers are tricking us. Maybe we are all in the Matrix. At some point you lose the value of the scientific process to reveal the Universe.

We draw many conclusions and in most cases we do say, according to the rules of the scientific process, we can't be certain. But at some point one reaches the tipping point and declares certainty for some things. I am certain the Earth is not flat. I am certain the Earth is not 6,000 years old. The evidence is so completely overwhelming for these facts that one no longer needs to maintain an uncertain conclusion just because that is a principle in the scientific process.

Where do you then put fictional characters and aspects of the Universe? Do you put them in the, 'if you can imagine them they are possible' category? Or do you separate them from the category of things you imagine when you contemplate the Universe?

I can separate nonsense and fantasy from what is possible. I think it is just as wrong to use the claim one cannot disprove something as de facto evidence we must therefore claim we cannot rule it out. Do you seriously claim you cannot say with certainty that JK Rowling's fiction is fiction?

I understand the scientific principle. I just don't hold to its being applicable to everything one can possibly imagine. As for how I came to my conclusion there are no gods, if one follows the evidence rather than fitting the evidence to the conclusion, 'one cannot disprove the existence of gods', the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion, god beliefs are of a fictional nature generated by human imagination. It comes down to asking yourself, are only arguing the semantics of the uncertainty principle in the scientific process, or are you really arguing we can never be certain of anything ever? I get the scientific principle, I just don't think it is compromised if my Universe is not quite that uncertain.




To continue this discussion, take your pick of the following threads currently discussing the matter:

"I lack belief in any god." vs. "There is no god."

You Can Neither Prove Nor Disprove the Existence of God

 

[Pardalis]

I disagree with a lot of what Maher believes so the fact he thinks my atheism is not any better than someone else's theism doesn't bother me. I don't respect all his opinions anyway. But I still like a lot of what he has to say and he does do some funny stuff.

I like him too, you don't have to agree 100% with someone to enjoy them. I think as long as it's funny, I'll watch. You probably won't believe me, but I sometimes enjoy John Stewart when I stumble upon his show. Humor is probably the only true and honest reaction you can have, when you laugh it's instinctive, you don't really think about it, and when you do you can't deny it happened, this means there must be something that hit a nerve.

I probably am going to wait for the DVD though, I reserve the big screen for movies that are visually grandiose like those of Ridley Scott. Maher is funny, but he's no Keira Knightley.

 

[Smarter Than U]

I'll probably watch it but I have a bad feeling it will claim that "religious" and "stupid" are synonymous.

Which is basically true.

If you believe in unicorns, you are stupid. If you believe in Santa Claus, you are stupid. ...Need I go on?

 

[dudalb]

Which is basically true.

If you believe in unicorns, you are stupid. If you believe in Santa Claus, you are stupid. ...Need I go on?

You will have to do a LOT better then that to make the grade here.

 

[dudalb]

I like him too, you don't have to agree 100% with someone to enjoy them. I think as long as it's funny, I'll watch. You probably won't believe me, but I sometimes enjoy John Stewart when I stumble upon his show. Humor is probably the only true and honest reaction you can have, when you laugh it's instinctive, you don't really think about it, and when you do you can't deny it happened, this means there must be something that hit a nerve.

I probably am going to wait for the DVD though, I reserve the big screen for movies that are visually grandiose like those of Ridley Scott. Maher is funny, but he's no Keira Knightley.

He is funny on occasion. but I admit his full scale assault on Modern Medicine and advocacy of Woo medicine has really turned me against him. that is not just a harmless woo belief, that is a dangerous one.

 

[Kopji]

I heard a rumor that this is playing in a double feature with Kirk Cameron's 'Fireproof'.

 

[Lonewulf]

You will have to do a LOT better then that to make the grade here.

Yeah, I agree with you here...

but I admit his full scale assault on Modern Medicine and advocacy of Woo medicine has really turned me against him. that is not just a harmless woo belief, that is a dangerous one.

That would worry me, too.

Although I think his attacks on religion and his attacks on medicine are two separate issues. Hopefully they don't cross lines, at all, in the film he's helped make.

I also admit, the bit where it says "by the same people that made Fahrenheit 9/11", gives ME real cause for pause.

 

[Puppycow]

When I posted the link to Metacritic yesterday, the reviews were "mostly favorable" but since then a lot more reviews have been added and it's down to "mixed reviews" now. Here's one of the more negative reviews.

But one of the rules of satire is that you can't mock things you don't understand, and "Religulous" starts developing fault lines when it becomes clear that Maher's view of religious faith is based on a sophomoric reading of the Scriptures and that he doesn't understand that some thoughtful people actually do believe in some sort of spiritual life.

So there. (Just knew someone would eventually come with that hoary old chestnut.)

I was not aware of Maher's other woo beliefs about vaccinations. I'm not really an especially big fan of his and I don't watch his TV show, so I didn't know about that.

 

[westprog]

Which is basically true.

If you believe in unicorns, you are stupid. If you believe in Santa Claus, you are stupid. ...Need I go on?

I really should be collecting these. I wonder do the "Christians are stupid" people operate on that basis out in The Real World?

 

[Lonewulf]

I really should be collecting these. I wonder do the "Christians are stupid" people operate on that basis out in The Real World?

I wonder if I should start collecting the extremist religious quotes I hear, or the anti-atheist quotes. But then, I'd probably overload my system with too much data.

And we certainly know that some extremists certainly do operate on a scary basis in The Real World.

 

[Vanda]

We draw many conclusions and in most cases we do say, according to the rules of the scientific process, we can't be certain. But at some point one reaches the tipping point and declares certainty for some things.

Thank you for this post. I’ve always gone back and forth, getting confused between the usage of the terms “agnostic” and “atheist.” Your elaboration is very helpful.

Instead of using the terms that represent the concepts, just using the concepts helps me.

There seems to be the concepts of “not knowing” (as in “not proving”) and “not believing” and the two philosophies seem to often be conflated or intertwined and repeating back to each other.

To the question, “do you believe in gods?” my answer is no for the reasons Skeptigirl espoused. I am an atheist. My lack of belief is certain and absolute at this time based upon the complete lack of evidence for the existence of gods.

To the question, “do you know (can prove) there are no gods?” my answer is no, I cannot prove there are no gods. I am an agnostic because I do not know for certain and cannot prove for certain that there are no gods.

So, since I can’t prove, I have to decide on my position until there is proof. I return to atheism, and my reasons for being an atheist (as described by Skeptigirl) will remain my position until there is new evidence.

So when people ask me, I respond that I am an atheist, and then I say “I do not know, but I definitely do not believe.”

 

[westprog]

I wonder if I should start collecting the extremist religious quotes I hear, or the anti-atheist quotes. But then, I'd probably overload my system with too much data.

Until I visited this site, I don't think I'd heard anyone saying something like "Christians are stupid". Anti-atheist quotes are two a penny, from the president on down. And there are plenty of proselytising atheists out there, Dawkins being the main example. But they tend to be averse to repeating the same kind of things the religious fundamentalists say.

And we certainly know that some extremists certainly do operate on a scary basis in The Real World.

Which is why it's always worth pointing it out when it happens.

 

[Yoink]

To continue this discussion, take your pick of the following threads currently discussing the matter:

"I lack belief in any god." vs. "There is no god."

You Can Neither Prove Nor Disprove the Existence of God

Hi Skepticgirl. I've replied to your argument in the "I lack belief in any god" thread. See you there, perhaps.

 

[Dunstan]

The Onion AV Club just gave Religulous a D+. There's also a Q&A with Maher posted on their site.

 

[wolfgirl]

We're going to see it tonight. I'll be wearing my Darwin-fish T-shirt that says "Science Not Superstition" on the back. In Missouri! Wish me luck...

 

[fls]

I have no issue with the uncertainty principles of science. I understand the concept that theories are not considered proven and proofs are generally restricted to the field of mathematics. The Universe is an incredible place and its mysteries enormous.

...

The uncertainty principle in science can be and often is misapplied. If the intent of the uncertainty of conclusions in the scientific process is to allow every bit of nonsense one could possibly imagine to be left on the table, how is that any different from those who describe the Universe as influenced by magic. Maybe the sorcerers are tricking us. Maybe we are all in the Matrix. At some point you lose the value of the scientific process to reveal the Universe.

I have to admit that I am a bit confused about what is meant by certainty/uncertainty. The only uncertainty principle I am familiar with is Heisenberg's, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this discussion. While I have heard scientific ideas discussed in terms of the extent to which they are supported by evidence (among scientists and the science-minded), I must admit that it is only in these religious discussions (and I guess also in various paranormal discussions) that I hear about science discussed in terms of certainty/uncertainty. Is this a real scientific principle, and if so, can you direct me to some reading on this topic?

Linda

 

[dudalb]

Although I think his attacks on religion and his attacks on medicine are two separate issues. Hopefully they don't cross lines, at all, in the film he's helped make.

The film is a vehicle for Maher. The other people involved are pretty much the hired help.
The problem is that a lot of people think that because he is anti religous, Maher is immune to woo, and therefore there might be something to his medical opinions, particularly since the peddlers of this woo are careful to use Psuedo Scientific terms.
The sad fact is a lot of Athiests are not really rational thinkers. They hate religon for basically emotional reasons, and just use a few reason based arguments to back up their viewpoints. They have no real grasp of the scientific method, and are very vulnerable to woo as long as it is not religious in nature.
Just because somebody does not beleive in God does not mean he is a rational thinker.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I saw it today and liked it well enough. It would get a 7 out of 10 from me.

Jim Emerson gave it a bad review but Roger Ebert granted it 3 and a half stars and said he found it very funny.

I'm a fan of Bill's and still regularly watch his show but he's not the best fit for a Michael Moore or Borat style documentary. His monolouges about religion on his show are interesting and funny but explanded to a 2 hour movie, they do come off as mean, cheap and a little relentless.

I think he intended his movie to be a Bowling for Columbine for atheists and agnostics or accomplish some of what Richard Dawkin's books did and it certainly doesn't do that. The movie is certainly watchable and entertaining and it is well-made but minor.

 

[Tumblehome]

You know, I've been an atheist all my life, and hung out with a lot of other atheists, and I've only ever met one person who claimed to "absolutely know that there's no god" (admittedly that person was on this forum). I wonder if you could name a philosopher or prominent public figure who holds that position? In my view it's an almost empty category; theists and self-described "agnostics" love to impute that view to atheists, but there's hardly a single real atheist who espouses it.

The atheists I know personally all agree that it is possible that some kind of God exists, they simply hold that the god-hypothesis has, as yet, no supporting evidence. They're all happy to accept that it's impossible to rule out the future discovery of evidence for a deity's existence--just as they are happy to accept that it's impossible to rule out the future discovery of evidence for the existence of unicorns or leprechauns or magic. What they don't see is why nobody gets accused of "arrogance" or "rudeness" for saying "unicorns are mythical animals" or "there's no such thing as magic" (when it is clearly shorthand for "all the evidence we have suggests that unicorns are mythical animals" and "so far as we can tell there is no such thing as magic") but immediately get jumped if they say "god doesn't exist" when that is clearly shorthand for "to the best of our knowledge god doesn't exist."

Sorry to rehash a done-to-death talking point. But the fact that despite being done-to-death people keep on bringing up these near-mythical "absolutist" atheists may be sufficient excuse.

Religions describe specific gods that can be accepted or rejected on their own merits. When you start talking about some undefined, incomprehensible force or whatever that might have created the Universe, that isn't religion.

When I say I'm an atheist, I'm not talking about a wildly speculative possibility that can't be defined. I'm claiming that there certainly is no god as spelled out by Jews/Christians/Muslims or any religion that claims it has the answers.

Just because we don't know how or why the Universe began doesn't mean we can't outright reject fanciful inventions for it.