... and I was both impressed and disappointed.
Impressed, because Bill Maher was able to give credit to Rick Warren for being a serious Christian. Maher said he appreciated that Warren was so earnest in his personal journey to be Christ-like, that Warren felt poverty and global warming were serious issues.
Impressed, because Maher will say something so blithely stupid*, piss you off, and then chum up a silly smile and make you forgot he ever offended you at all.
Impressed, because Maher brings North Americans to attention about the problem of Islamism in Europe and secularism's inability to confront it.
Disappointed, because Maher brings North Americans to attention about the problem of Islamism in Europe and secularism's inability to confront it, and then says only secularism can confront it.
Disappointed, because Maher spent a lot of time explaining his self-described fact based, rationalist atheism, and then threw the rationalism out the window when it suited him. In response to Francis Collin's claim that the Gospels are eye-witness accounts, Maher countered that they couldn't be because the earliest written copies didn't appear until several decades after Christ's death. Maher, an educated man I assume, should be aware of the historical veracity of the Gospels and the Jewish oral tradition - two things which make Collins look like the one going by academic consensus, and Maher look like the coo-koo making up stuff.
Disappointed, because Maher speaks highly of Europe's secularism, but doesn't (or chooses not to) realise that secularism is itself a Christian - specifically Catholic - political concept. He lauds Europe's atheism, but fails to see its philosophical and practical limitations.
Disappointed, because Maher makes a point of saying that Europe hasn't collapsed because of atheism and atheistic secularism. Maher must have heard something about World War Two, where the Nazis - who were atheists - killed off over ten million people. And he must have learned about Communism, which is of course atheistic, and has lead to the killing of tens of millions of people since 1917.
Maher would make a lot more sense if he simply sought out irrationalism regardless of whether or not it comes cloaked in religious terms or cloaked in irreligious terms. Atheistic regimes of the last 90 years alone have been more murderous, more anti-science, and more authoritarian than any religious regime so far in history. Yet this intellectual, social and political history is completely ignored or quietly dismissed as aberrations. Maher wants to convince people to join his cause, and like Coke and Pepsi, he just might find new customers in the post-Christian circles of North America and Europe. But to create an honest and serious critique of 'organized religion', he needs to do a lot more than just repeat the talking points of the New Atheist movement and engage the history of anti-religion and atheism.
::postscript:: Maher's co-interviewee, co-producer of Religulous Larry Charles, didn't fare as well. He isn't blessed with the same charisma, or better yet, puppy-dog charm, that lets Maher get away with saying offensive and stupid things.* Charles looked like the type of guy you wouldn't want your children standing near in a Starbucks, and surprise, his answers were equally suspicious and repellent. His was a sidekick effort to Maher's, and the less time he spent talking, the more credible the premise and argument of Religulous remained.
*Maher says that he doesn't believe in vaccinations. Yes, he says that he doesn't believe in vaccinations. So, if we really listened to this herald of rationalism, we'd be much more enlightened toward atheism, but mostly dead or sick as a result.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Disappointed, because Maher brings North Americans to attention about the problem of Islamism in Europe and secularism's inability to confront it, and then says only secularism can confront it.
Technically we could simply endorse the Shep solution but I believe the correct framing is that secularism is the only solution that doesn't result in large scale violence.
You see, the alternative to secularism is supporting a state religion... which to combat Islam would be Christianity. However, this isn't whitey vs everyone else (despite what the Bavarian nut jobs think)- this is about the way of life they have. Adopting their enemies position defeats the entire point- it is equivalent to surrendering.
Disappointed, because Maher spent a lot of time explaining his self-described fact based, rationalist atheism, and then threw the rationalism out the window when it suited him. In response to Francis Collin's claim that the Gospels are eye-witness accounts, Maher countered that they couldn't be because the earliest written copies didn't appear until several decades after Christ's death. Maher, an educated man I assume, should be aware of the historical veracity of the Gospels and the Jewish oral tradition - two things which make Collins look like the one going by academic consensus, and Maher look like the coo-koo making up stuff.
So is the Koran. And the Iliad... oral records are notoriously bad sources. There are people with great and extremely accurate memories. Sadly, they tend not to be the individuals who record things in the first place.
It is worth noting you are misusing the term "rational". It IS rational to doubt a source. It wouldn't be rational to doubt it if it was corroborated multiple times (like the existence of Alexander the Great), but things that do not have a good on the spot records are reasonable to doubt. A good example would be Archimedes's mirror defenses... especially sense it turns out they are impossible.
Disappointed, because Maher speaks highly of Europe's secularism, but doesn't (or chooses not to) realise that secularism is itself a Christian - specifically Catholic - political concept. He lauds Europe's atheism, but fails to see its philosophical and practical limitations.
Which explains why the first secular state was founded 1776 years after Christ, right?
You need to show how secularism depends on Christianity. I could make a good argument that Burkina Faso had the first secular state (the political leader and religious leaders were separate AND the religious leaders weren't involved in politics).
Disappointed, because Maher makes a point of saying that Europe hasn't collapsed because of atheism and atheistic secularism. Maher must have heard something about World War Two, where the Nazis - who were atheists - killed off over ten million people. And he must have learned about Communism, which is of course atheistic, and has lead to the killing of tens of millions of people since 1917.
The Nazis were Catholic. Well, mostly Catholic since they were composed of Christians. Unless the religious population of Europe changed dramatically between the two world wars. The Furher himself was a good Christian who defended the sanctity of marriage, fought Godless communism and attacked gays- exploits the religious can all get behind.
http://members.tripod.com/rationalrevolution0/images/nazibelts.gif
The fact they considered God to be on their side is a bit of a clue to.
Communism isn't atheistic. I don't remember how many times I have to repeat this. The Incas were commies and were theocratic. MARXISM is atheistic.
Is Marxism responsible for the mess? Oh yeah. Is atheism responsible? Nope. Take a look about what Marx's position was
"Karl Marx predicted that religion would fall by the wayside with the advent of the Age of Reason. To be fair, he was hardly alone in this belief, and he didn't explicitly advocate the forcible elimination of religion. However, since he described it as a mandatory aspect of a communist state, real communist states have inevitably attempted to meet his expectations through force. As a result, his recommendations tended to result in the elimination of freedom of religion. The situation is simpler with the elimination of the family, which he did explicitly call for (most specifically in the areas of marriage and inheritance)."
Wow, Marx didn't call for the bloody elimination of religion. Communist states did that on their own. Why would they do it? I suggest you look at the French Revolution where they do the same exact thing (hint- the church is supporting your enemies).
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
Here is Marx on religion:
"The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?
What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
When people speak of the ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.
The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to communism."
So, no- he isn't for destroying religion. This isn't a hidde message- in the previous statement he declared they would destroy the family. Marx was nothing is not blunt.
"Maher would make a lot more sense if he simply sought out irrationalism regardless of whether or not it comes cloaked in religious terms or cloaked in irreligious terms. "
That would be a rationalist. Of course, this is also distration, not a rebutal of his cause.
" Atheistic regimes of the last 90 years alone have been more murderous, more anti-science, and more authoritarian than any religious regime so far in history."
Not really. The Huns, Mongols, Timurands and others easily beat them out- the Red Army didn't burn Berlin to the ground for example. As for anti-science... varies. Worth noting that the USSR won all the space race but to the moon.
Also, they weren't more authoritarian- they were more totalitarian. Comes from regulating all economic concerns- it can be expanded to include... everything.
" Yet this intellectual, social and political history is completely ignored or quietly dismissed as aberrations."
It isn't- it is the inevitable result of adopting a worldview immune to disproof and seperated from reality.
Which also describes religion.
" But to create an honest and serious critique of 'organized religion', he needs to do a lot more than just repeat the talking points of the New Atheist movement and engage the history of anti-religion and atheism. "
Rebut them then.
"*Maher says that he doesn't believe in vaccinations. Yes, he says that he doesn't believe in vaccinations. So, if we really listened to this herald of rationalism, we'd be much more enlightened toward atheism, but mostly dead or sick as a result. "
Than Mahers is an irrational idiot. Still an atheist though. This is why we use science instead of listening to idiots.
But Mr. Skinner, secularism is exactly why Islam is on the rise in Europe. Simply put, secular Europeans stand for nothing, because they don't stand for anything. They give ground to a robust, procreative bunch of people with very different, incompatible ideas. Europe is committing suicide.
Is there any real doubt that Mohammed existed? I mean, people may doubt a lot of what's in the Koran, but few think it's made up out of whole cloth, right? Even the Iliad, coming at a time on the frontier of history, actually had a historical basis.
The Nazis were Catholic? Actually, the Nazis were Marxists who held by all the typical Marxist garbage ideology, adapting it to their nationalist, rather than international, ends. If the Nazis used pre-existing institutions to further their ends, it was because their brand of Marxism recognized the power in couching revolutionary ideology in ancient forms. Thus all the weird Teutonic mythology.
Also, they were Catholic? Wasn't Germany mostly Protestant, on account of Martin Luther?
Hitler was not a good Catholic. This is mere historical ignorance. As for fighting "godless" Communism, Nazism was simply another form of Marxism. Nazis and Communists were ideologically very similar, but since Communism was a competing revolutionary ideology, the Nazis couldn't tolerate it at all. It wasn't that they were opposed to Communism, as they were espousing nearly the same thing, but there was a lot of advantage in fabricating an "us vs. them" conflict with the Communists. Because the Communists didn't take advantage of German tradition like the Nazis did, they were less successful.
Communism is a type of collectivism. The Incas could not have been Communist because Communism didn't exist, despite whatever nonsense Marx wanted to imply. Communism was always atheistic, because it's materialistic and cannot admit the veracity of any bourgeois traditions, like institutional religion. Communist ideology requires atheism, or else the State is not supreme after all.
Communist Manifesto: "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." That's gg there. Further, given that Communist nations have always achieved their ends by force, why would it be any different with the elimination of religion? Why would Communists murder the rich, but merely hope religion would go away on its own? Non sequitur. But then, Marx's own words refute you, so why bother with innuendo?
The Huns, Mongols, and Timurids beat out the Communists on a pure headcount? On authoritarianism? On being anti-science? First, cite the numbers. Were there even 100 million people for the Huns, Mongols, or Timurds to kill, in the areas where they held sway? A quick check suggests it's not even close. But then, it's your fact to cite.
Were the Huns, Mongols, or Timurids as authoritarian as the Communists? Well, Communism by its nature rules every aspect of life. It's totalitarian. I don't think any of the empires you cited had the bureaucratic apparatus to do anything like this. In fact, the Romans were more authoritarian, in a way.
Science didn't exist in any reasonable form during the times of the Huns, Mongols, or Timurids, so it's hard to credit them with being anti-science. But the Communists, now there were some opponents of good science. They did well in the space race, sure, but what about Lysenkoism? What about their adherence to a blank slate theory of human nature? Ideology was more important than mere facts for them.
Totalitarianism is, of course, merely the absolute maximum on the authoritarianism scale, so it's hard to give Communists a point for being as authoritarian as possible.
If religion is immune to disproof, why all the theological and philosophical texts hoping to explore and criticize theological knowledge? Catholics have been especially good at this. In fact, I've been meaning to pick up the collection of Anselm's writings I bought some time ago. But if religion isn't concerned with that sort of thing, then what am I reading?
Saying that religion is separated from reality is begging the question. Here - "Religion is untrue. I know it's untrue because it's separated from reality. Things separated from reality are untrue, therefore &c." Way to assume the conclusion to be proved as a premise.
Rebut me, slugger. Rebut the collected wisdom of Western religion and philosophy, and do it in a blog comment. I demand it.
Science != metaphysics. You'd think after a few centuries people would learn that. Guess not.
Post a Comment