Doubt is the absence of certainty. It is a middle ground. There is God vs. NO God and in the middle of those two is doubt. To say that “Maher’s product is not doubt” is untrue. It is competely possible to stand in the middle of those two ideas and state that neither side is correct. Bill seemed to say in Religulous that ANYONE who says they KNOW the truth is WRONG.
Secondly, belief in God is different than a belief in Religion, which is a man-made institution and way of life. Religion is an entity unto itself that has molded God into many forms and assigned Him, through no fault of his own, to carry out other people’s will. It is entirely possible to believe in God without religion and many people call that spirituality.
Bill Maher was dead on. The Movie – Fabulous.

I saw the movie and its great. He doesn’t mock any of the people he interviews, he just asks simple questions. I can see why its hard for a religious person to like this movie because its like telling a kid that santa clause doesn’t exist. But Bill Maher isn’t doing that, he is just saying that we don’t know what is out there. I gave the movie a A+.

Ever notice how little resemblence there is between the Bible literalists and A.J. Jacobs who acrtually lived the Bible as literally as he legally could do so?

I actually agree with Steve on this one, and I think the preachy, dogmatic ending was something of a surprise, and was disappointing. I still thought the film was great, and it did my soul a lot of good to watch it.
It’s not a true picture of religion in that it neglected to mention all the positive things religion does in the world (hospitals, orphanages, etc.), but I’m glad someone had the guts to present a scathing view of the dark side of religion, which is on full display throughout the film.
People who buy into the religious establishment in America hate Bill Maher and are declaiming the film. Wow – what a surprise.

I’ve been thinking about the movie for a few days, since seeing it. It seems to me that part of Maher’s complaint stems from religious people making many assumptions, not the least of which is the path religion is the better choice. Perhaps we need to look at his argument like that of a sixth grader (or Homer Simpson) wanting to know WHY he has to go to church (Ironically, this is the point in Maher’s life his family stopped going). From an outsiders (like an alien from another planet) perspective – there does not seem to be much positive to say about religion.
It is from this stand that Apologetics could step in. But this cannot be from some lofty stance with a particular (and peculiar) lingo. It must be plain and clear – see Habbakuk for a description of how plain. This is no time to employ your best SAT vocabulary. Camouflaging arguments with lofty images and ancient formulas does nothing for someone who has no context – and a limited interest – in your response.
I liked the movie and I think it as done a valuable service. Rather than defend ourselves I think it is better that we listen to his points and respond clearly – without appeals to authority (“Beacause — – - said so” does not make it) or celebrity endorsements. If we cannot do this than I think Maher, the sixth graders, and Homer Simpson may not be far off track.

I saw the movie Sunday in a semi-rural area of Virginia not far fron Jerry Falwell country. Much to my surprise the largely senior citizen audence,not Bill Maher’s expected fan base,laughed and appaplauded. I was mildly disapointed in the movie.It used almost ambush teckniques which were distracting form the point he was trying to make.It reminded me of Ben Stein’s “Speechless” without the Gobles like propoganda overtones. If Maher’s tv shows were this poorly done he would be cancelled. The only people that I would recommend this film to would be who disagree with this posting. I look forword to seeing a film rationaly stating the point that theistic religion is irrational.
VaTraveler

I was surprised that Maher and company did not bring up Socrates and the dielectic of doubt that has provided a foundation for the human pursuit of truth. His refusal to submit to the dogmatism of his day was his death sentence. Not to mention all the other death sentences that followed his own, including that of Mr. Jesus H. Christ. Maher is more christian than the christians.

You can not claim that religion must be acceptable because it does some good things, when these are things that could be done by any secular group. If you can find one good thing that only could be done through religion, you might have something there.

I was mostly pleased with this film. As an atheist, I thought his film consolidated a lot of my own findings (mythological “coincidences”/out of step with scientific discoveries). Unfortunately, he didn’t stay consistent to his original goal of “just asking questions” in his championing of doubt. As moving as his concluding monologue was, it didn’t fit with the rest of the film. Also, this was more a comedy than a documentary, which is why they went to truckstop churches and drilled a theme park Jesus. As much as I wish it had been more analytical and the interviews had been with more important people, such changes would have created a totally different film. It’s not a visual talking-point for the Atheist community, but it does bring up many good questions while making you laugh. I’m glad Maher made this film. For many religious people, it is a testing of their faith and I’m glad to read so many intelligent and well-thought rebuttals. A truly faithful person will probably have their faith strengthened by Maher’s questions (such as which should be asked by religious people from time to time).

every complaint ive heard about this movie is about how he’s condescending to people and their beliefs.
first of all he doesnt say anything that is not true – exaggerated truth? possibly… and if any religious person is offended THEY SHOULD BE!
clearly maher was only reaching out to the religious freaks that take things LITERALLY in the bible -
and how people use god for war – so if you’re offended by that… guess what.. YOU’RE ONE OF THEM!
no religious person that uses god for excuses to do good, and give charity or as the reviewer said, “did not show one good example of religion.” well obviously if he didnt show the good side religion he wasnt referring to the good side of religion.
thats like a charitable religious person complaining that someone is making fun of a war or terrorist religion – DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE, you’re just mad because it was an atheist complaining about your religion – but as soon as you get to your church on sunday you’ll all be deeply debating “are mormons really christian?”
he’s only doing WHAT YOU’VE BEEN DOING FOR YEARS… JUDGING OTHER RELIGIONS.
so go bitch and complain when he comes around to your church and makes fun of your beliefs cause your church is no different than any other.
and if it means that much to ya why dont you pray maher away?
but be sure to pray aloud for fear you’re god is sleeping, or on a voyage and cannot hear you.

There is no contradiction between preaching/selling doubt and declaring that “Religion must die if mankind is to live.”
Maher is not teaching doubt about everything. He’s not saying we should doubt that 2+2=4. He is saying we should be humble and doubt whatever is claimed for which there is no evidence. He is preaching and selling doubt only in that context.
If you accept that Religion claims certain things are true (god exists, for example, a virgin gave birth for another) without providing basis (much less evidence) for these claims, and actually discouraging doubt, then it’s consistent for a doubt-seller to reject Religion for that reason.
As far as declaring that “Religion must die if mankind is to live”, let’s just saying that there is much more evidence supporting that claim than there is supporting any of the important claims made by Religion.

Funny thing is that none of this is new. Jesus himself thought religion was questionable. What he did not question, however, was the necessity of faith. Faith and religion are two very different things. Jesus also knew that people of wealth and intelligence, those who demanded evidence for his claims were most likley to be the ones who would never understand them. That’s why he favored the broken, the sick and the opressed…the very people that religion still tends to overlook. For many people of deep faith Maher’s comment about the death of religion might be taken as welcome (and accurate) news.

Just saw the movie this afternoon (Oct. 6). On the drive home my thoughts turned to some of the introductory comments Moyers made, particularly about his childhood in the church. So it seems to me that he is not running from God so much as from the boredom and fear he experienced. It’s natural to want to avoid that sort of thing. This can be a reminder to the Church on earth that making disciples means being relevant, meaningful, age-appropriate to the listener, and letting the proper sense of fearing God enter hearts through relationship WITH God. Moyers clearly was not in the mode of relationship with God.

Moyers? Moyers? That’s a good one!

I feel for Bill Maher. He went to a lot of trouble to put on the big screen some of his pathology. It is evident that he was tainted with bad theology and bad church while growing up. I wonder about the good he could do if he only understood the true meaning of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?

I don’t follow.
What is Bill’s pathology?

From the looks of the movie, I believe he DOES have an understanding of what it means to have a personal relationship with Jesus. It is tantamount to walking around in your Star Trek jumpsuit everyday waiting for a message from from Captain Kirk about what we should do with these strange unconvincible life forms. If you follow either doctrine, you get pretty much the same results. Most of the stuff you have to rationalize away or make up yourself. But make sure to get some other people to follow along so you don’t look so insane.

I don’t think a lot of people understand “the true meaning of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ”
I was raised Catholic, and religion tended to be more of a chore than anything, something your parents taught you you have to do.
I am not religious now, and all over I see people who still have this childish concept of Jesus as a finger pointing nether being.
I applaud Maher’s attempt to show the other side of the coin. And I agree with him…religion can most certainly be dangerous.
As for those who disagree with the film’s message, I understand he didn’t show the positive aspects of religion.
But that wasn’t the movie he was trying to make. It is an opinion piece, not a case of straight reporting.
But does that mean his POV deserves to be dismissed because he didn’t show both sides?
We already know the religious side!

Amen, Petri!

WCL,
“You can not claim that religion must be acceptable because it does some good things, when these are things that could be done by any secular group. If you can find one good thing that only could be done through religion, you might have something there.”
—I’m not trying to make the argument that only religion causes good. I’m trying to rebut Maher’s argument that religion is inherently bad. If his “documentary” argued that religion is too often hijacked by crazies, or if his goal was merely to poke fun at the excesses of religion, that would be an entirely different matter. He goes MUCH farther than that, arguing that religion is inherently wrong and dangerous — that it must die if we are to survive.

To Steve Waldman,
You missed the point on Maher’s use of the word ‘doubt’. What you are doing is classic equivocation. The doubt he is selling is doubt concerning what we can and can’t know about any higher being; not doubt in everything.
What he is absolutely certain about is that religions that claim to have everything all figured out, really don’t. Here, I’ll detail it out for you:
1. We don’t know if any god exists, and if god exists, we don’t really know the nature of this god. This is Maher’s doubt.
2. People that claim their book explains it all, and thus believe all sorts outrageous stuff listed in their book, should question their book and go back to step one. Maher is certain of this.
Believing both 1 and 2 is perfectly reasonable. In fact, if you accept #1, then #2 kind of follows.
I think he came across very clear with this concept.
You can disagree with Maher if you want, but I think his logic is consistent.
- Lance

Steve Waldman, I wonder if you’ve heard Bill Maher in other contexts, or even in the movie itself. He often speaks of his positive feelings about religion, about his disappointment that he couldn’t find meaning in his Catholic beginnings, and about making bargains with God, as recently as age 40. What I hear him saying is that feelings are legitimate, but feeling and logic just aren’t the same thing. Even in the movie, he noted that the Bible could never be scientific, because it was written in non-scientific language nearly 1800 years before the scientific era.
And while Maher conveniently leaves out references to Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and Kim, I attribute his moral indignation not to fundamentalism but to the fact that emotionally healthy individuals, believers included, are appropriately outraged by some of the things done in the name of Jesus, the Torah, and Allah.

Rob, I dont think i have seen him talk about his positive feelings about religion. He didn’t really in the movie. For the most part, my problem with the movie is not what he included but what he left out (oh, and the slippery way he went about getting info).

I agree with you that there was a great deal left out in the movie, and Maher was far from up front about making his contacts. But if you listen to Maher in enough context, you will find that he, although not as fervently as Hitchens reported of himself, did look to religion in something of the same way as a child looks to Santa Claus. He just didn’t move past that kind of faith experience.

I only know of him what I’ve seen on TV and in his book and now the movie. I think he DID move past ‘that kind of faith experience’ and is bitter about being duped.

Faith and religion are 2 completely different things. Religulous made me laugh and also made me hurt, primarily because people should use stories and teachings of all religions to better themselves and the world around them not as complete fact but as lessons. Sometimes in life individuals fail to realize that others are different and should be allowed to do so as long as they aren’t harming anyone or themselves. Bill Maher brings to light that maybe we shouldn’t believe everything we are taught or everything that has been written down, especially if it includes destroying our neighbor.
Also, there is nothing wrong with saying you believe in a higher power and it’s fine to not understand why, but for indviduals saying its because of some old fable that was written down hundreds and thousands of years ago is a bit of a stretch.

If organized religion can throw their weight around with issues that affect the lives of many people, then Bill Maher is free to express his disdain for said religions. The borderline bigotry that mainstream religion encourages often leads to inequity in our society. Proposition 8 is a good example. Religion opposes any sort of non-conformity or free thought. It’s sickening how docile and weak-willed billions of people in this world are, never questioning, never looking for diverse viewpoints on anything that might challenge their faith. It’s also sickening how much influence religion has in politics, especially in America. I don’t imagine atheists or agnostics have much of a voice in our “democracy”. Until scientifically proven FACT and common sense prevail, we will continue our long slow spiral down the drain.

Most of the comments read above chastise Bill Maher rather than address the main topic: religion. Basically Bill is a Secular Humanist which means intelligent thought is a result of reason, fact, and science. In this day and age it is ridiculous to be wasting mind and energy on mythology. So many people have not advanced beyond what the ancient Greeks, Romans, indigenous peoples and others of those centuries whose mythologies were invented by unscientific beliefs passed for generations verbally, not from books since the masses were illiterate. Belief in GODS were also a means of population control by both political powers and churches. I encourage more serious thought as written by secular humanists in FREE INQUIRY and published bimonthly by the Council for Secular Humanism, a nonprofit educational corporation, P.O. Box 664, Amherst, N.Y. 14226-0664.