I was initially impressed that Bill Maher interviewed Francis Collins, the brilliant scientist who led the human genome project and who has written eloquently about being both a believer and a scientist. But in the movie, Collins seemed uncharacteristically confused, as he discussed the accuracy of the Bible, a topic I'd not seen him comment on before. I suspected some slippery editing so I asked Collins about the interview. He emailed me:
"I thought my interview with him was going to be about the so-called controversy between science and faith, and whether someone could both believe in God and evolution. I was willing to discourse on that.But in a rambling discussion, Maher migrated into other territory where I am hardly an expert (like the historicity of the Gospels). As you could see, that was the part he chose to include, though he presented a very limited excerpt.
If Maher were seriously interested in hearing a discussion on this topic, he might have lined up an interview with someone like N.T. Wright.
So yes, I felt a bit misused. But I guess no one would claim this was an attempt to find the real truth."
I wonder whether we'll hear about other examples of deceptive editing besides this one and the misleading John Adams quote I mentioned earlier. Religulous is a comedy based on making believers look foolish. Yet while he attacks the intellectual dishonesty of religion, his movie seems to be chock full of it.
UPDATE: The original proposal from Maher's production company said the "documentary" would be a "journey toward understanding," focusing on the "human genome and its relationship to his faith. Not really the way it turned out.
Full email below the fold.
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:02 PM
To: Metcalfe, Heidi
Subject: Bill Maher Interview Request - Dr. Francis S. CollinsThank you for taking the time to speak with me earlier.
I wanted to detail the project for you further and now I have the most up to date information.
Ideally, we would like to secure an hour or so of Dr. Collins' time in DC on either January 25th or 26th. This interview does not necessarily need to be at the Institute as we have decided to focus on "The Language of God". The interview will likely be in the same vein as his interview on the Colbert Report - but as I"m sure you are aware, Bill has a unique style and wit. Also, as a documentary film, we are approaching this project as a journey toward understanding during which it is crucial to consult experts from a variety of fields.
Dr. Collins' explanation of the human genome and its relationship to his faith will express a key point of view on the subject. We are very hopeful that he may have some time to sit down with Bill during the 25th or 26th. We will do our best to work around his schedule.
We are in talks with distributors and intend on a theatrical release internationally. Please let me know as soon as possible Dr. Collins'
availability and contact information so that we can secure the interview.Thanks so much!
Best,
Chelsea
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
These comments are fascinating.
I don't think that Maher will "cry at the utter waste he made of his life," as Reaganite claims. But then, that's just Reaganite being Reaganite. Maher is an entertainer and a comedian, and he has spent his life doing what he enjoys. To call him a "silly" man is "silly" itself. He is always looking at a satirical way of approaching subjects on his show, but there is a great deal of "seriousness" in everything he does. For someone to fail to acknowledge this shows either he/she hasn't spent much time watching Maher's show, or has an ideological axe to grind him/herself.
After seeing the film this afternoon I felt that it was a pretty hilarious romp on religious stupidity and hypocrisy, of which there is plenty of in our land (and in the world). His choice of targets was more about shock value and comic effect than it was about getting a "fair and balanced" look at these big questions he was asking. He avoided people like Taylor Field, a devout Christian who has spent his life helping the poor in NYC, and focused instead on people like Jesus Miranda, who claims he is the descendant of Jesus and who has made a fortune at playing this role. And Maher's peroration got very dark and "preachy," which ruined the light-hearted tone of the rest of the film. So it wasn't a perfect film. But he does ask many excellent questions, and I think the film as a whole is entertaining and should help spark some much-needed discussion. Everyone should see it - especially those who consider themselves "religious."
I saw Religulous last night. Excellent subject matter. Stellar entertainment. No other comedian could have pulled off such a serious subject with that kind of delicate balance between gravity and wit. He used humor to disarm people, who were then left to question their own peculiar and ridiculous miscalculations. It seems that his goal is just to open peoples eyes and ask them if they care that they are being shepherded off a cliff. It can't hurt to ask, Right?
An atheist's critique of Religilous:
http://www.peaceinearth.com/?p=18
Sure Maher was deceptive. It's the norm in this mockumentary game. I'm not here to defend that. But I do have to point out that he made Collins look bad and it was perfectly justified. If Collins wants to believe in God and evolution that's fine (in fact, as I'm sure he'd appreciate, his belief in a God is partially rooted in his genetic makeup). But why does he insist on believing in this mythical Jesus figure and all the strange religious trappings of the Catholic Church? There's no good reason a scientist like him should, and Maher nailed him on it.
Dr. Collins argued for the historical validity of the gospel story's supernatural claims in near absolute terms. Mr. Maher merely asked him to back up that assertion given his own understanding there was no evidence. Collins was perfectly incapable of adequately rebutting Maher's doubt, confirming that Collins claim was a lie he told even to himself, i.e., that Collins faith did not stand on evidence, contrary to his original assertion, it instead stood on mere faith alone.
This segment of the interview is very worthy of inclusion into the movie given it's my perception this sort of dialogue is very representative of evangelicals, which also runs directly counter to the methods of science. As a leader within the scientific community, Dr. Collins should know better than to misrepresent the basis of his faith and promote an explanation with no empirical evidence to support it. In addition it's newsworthy that even a scientific leader succumbs to religious faith without possession of evidence.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.