Whenever criticizing the religious opinions of someone, I think it's very important that the readers know where the cricism is coming from. So FULL DISCLOSURE: I am an atheist. I don't believe in the God of traditional theism, nor any other God. As such you may expect that I love the Bill Maher's and Richard Dawkins of the world. I don't. I think they do as much disservice to the religious dialogue in this country as those on the fringe of the religious right.
Bill Maher has been making the rounds on talk shows, promoting his new mockumentary of Religion in America. Last night he was on the Daily Show:
Part 1
Part 2
To the untrained atheist/agnostic Bill Maher's words make intuitive sense. But as a philosophy of religion professor told me, people like Maher are like, "deaf people writing reviews of musical performances".
Let me start with the low hanging fruit, and demonstrate the intellectual poverty of Maher's arguments:
- Maher seems to suggest that Christianity is implausible because, if we had never heard the story of Christianity, that it would sound ridiculous to us, just as the tenets of Scientology sound ridiculous to us now. While this may be true, this certainly is not a convincing arguement. Anyone who seriously believes this must also admit how absurd Quantum Theory, the theory of the Atom, the Germ Theory would sound to us if we didn't already accept them as true.
- Maher declares Religion is to blame for almost all of human suffering, including Wars, Famines, Terrorism etc. This assumes of course that Religion was the underlying cause of all of these happenings. Does anybody seriously believe that if there was no Religion that we wouldn't still fight wars?
Now let me tackle one of his main points though, namely, that those who believe in a higher power are delusional and are in need of mental help:
First I would argue that this is just plain rude. Secondly I don't think it's true.
Again for the low hanging fruit. Maher is an agnostic. He decries those who are "so certain" about the afterlife. How can he be so certain, that he suggests that Religious beliefs are dellusional? But I digress.
I would argue that to many people Religous belief is not irrational or not justified because it is just that--belief.
Belief has nothing to do with rational thought process. It's outside the realm of evidence based reasoning. Webster defines belief as:
Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty;
I believe in the reality of my senses, though I have no basis for doing so. I may believe my girlfriend, over some bum off the street, regardless of the merits of their claims. Those beliefs, much like the belief in God, are not necessarily justified, but I fail to see why they are necessarily unjustified as Maher, Dawkins and many atheists would claim.
To those who are atheists, or religious, our goal should not be to prove the other side is wrong, stupid, misguided, damned to hell etc. The goal should be to collectively raise the bar for the nation's religious dialouge. Now more than ever it's important that beliefs are challenged not ridiculed.
I believe that if we raise the bar of religious dialogue, fringe beliefs will become less tenable. Unfortunately, for progressives and the country/world, pop-atheism, rather than challenging the beliefs of the status quo with respectful dissent has riduculed religous beliefs without adequate philosophical understanding.
Those like Maher, exploit the religous divide in this country for money, just like the televangalists they claim to despise.
UPDATE: I am most certainly an ATHEIST!
Here is a link to an article I published in my university newspaper a year or so ago. Attacking the messanger is always a weak argument guys. I expect better at dkos:
http://media.www.diamondbackonline.c...