Religulous - review

[jamesq]

I just saw Religulous. It was good, but could have been better.

I don't usually go in for movies that make fun of real people - I always hated Candid Camera and its ilk. I avoided seeing Borat for that reason. I may have to conclude that I'm a bad person though, because when it came time to see this treatment applied to people I don't like (as opposed to people I'm merely indifferent to), I was there, popcorn in hand.

There was a difference though. People were not tricked in this movie. Bill Maher is who he s and is quite upfront about his views. He wasn't Sasha Baron Cohen pretending to be a clueless foreigner. It wasn't Allen Funt setting people up with staged scenarios. The format was simple. Bill would interview people about religion, then try to apply logic to their views. Surprisingly, the Roman Catholics came across the best (Apparently there are Catholic Priests who take a surprisingly ecumenical view of the world, don't like hypocrisy even when it's in their own backyard, and understand that the Bible is not Science. Now if they could only get Benedict XVI to agree). For the most part he dished it out evenly to the major Abrahamic religions. Jews, Christians and Muslims all got a chance to make their beliefs look foolish. He took a few minutes to go after Mormons and Scientologists.

Mostly it was a matter of him pointing out that their beliefs were not supportable and if they applied their skepticism of other religions to their own, they'd realize that.

Here and there, Bill also reminisced about his personal beliefs and how they got there. His Mother and Sister joined in on some of this.

Where the movie breaks down I think is in its turn to the serious towards the end. For most of the movie it's pretty light-hearted. The very end however turns to why atheism is important, and why having a majority of people believing in make-beleive is a unhealthy for all of us.

Short version: If you expect your reward in the afterlife, and you think God is going to end the world, perhaps in our lifetime, you're not going to be making rational decisions in your long-term planning. Why make peace if it's god's will to come back and smite the unbelievers in the next ten years? Why engage in any sort of conservation if you believe God made the world for us and gave us enough resources to meet our needs?

A better movie would have kept coming back to this point over and over again throughout, mixed with the humour of the situation - sugar to the nasty (but necessary) medicine of the message.

Comments

[tyroticon.livejournal.com]

Surprisingly, the Roman Catholics came across the best (Apparently there are Catholic Priests who take a surprisingly ecumenical view of the world, don't like hypocrisy even when it's in their own backyard, and understand that the Bible is not Science. Now if they could only get Benedict XVI to agree).

I've known a lot of Catholics who seem to treat popes as just one more of God's little trials.

Mostly it was a matter of him pointing out that their beliefs were not supportable and if they applied their skepticism of other religions to their own, they'd realize that.

Possibly. Could be they'd learn to be less skeptical about the beliefs of others instead. Could also be that they'd examine their own faith in more depth and shore up its foundations.

It's not like Aquinas avoided skepticism toward his own beliefs, to cite one example. Flawed proofs or no, he put a lot of thought into it.

If you expect your reward in the afterlife, and you think God is going to end the world, perhaps in our lifetime, you're not going to be making rational decisions in your long-term planning.

No more true than the likelihood of atheism leading to the goals of living fast, dying young, and leaving a good-looking corpse.

Why make peace if it's god's will to come back and smite the unbelievers in the next ten years?

I don't see much of that happening. Most fighting is still based on the areligious view that, "They gots what I want."

Why engage in any sort of conservation if you believe God made the world for us and gave us enough resources to meet our needs?

For a Christian, that would be because humanity were set as caretakers of the Earth, not its owners. It's not like conservation is a recent idea in Judaism (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/jew_env.html) either, or within Islam, or to the Ba'hai.

The very end however turns to why atheism is important, and why having a majority of people believing in make-beleive is a unhealthy for all of us.

Fear-mongering is a poor argument.

[jamesq]

Oh no you don't. I've danced this dance with you before.

Before I get into some Bob is right because he keeps moving the goal posts on James argument with you I want to know what the hell you're arguing. If you think irrationalism is better then rationalism, then come out and say it and be prepared to make your case.

[tyroticon.livejournal.com]

I assume this focuses on the fear-mongering comment, since you're the one advocating that rationalism is superior to irrationalism, or that atheism is the only rationalist (and healthy) possibility. Having reviewed both terms, it seems you've stacked the argument on an unsound premise.

If it sounds like I'm starting out by trying to change the goalposts again, it's because you set them to inequal lengths by insisting it's either rationalism (reliance on reason) or irrationalism (emphasis on intuition or faith). Polarizing the argument has shown itself to be an effective political tool, but it doesn't seem to serve the patient's best health.

I acknowledge that reason is important, but must it be at odds with intuition or faith? I believe reason makes for the stronger foundation, but I'm not sure it's the best material for the entire structure.

For the rest, you asked the questions. I answered them. An atheist has no more reason to be responsible than a religious person, and a unique subset of reasons to be irresponsible. If that was moving the goalposts, I need you to explain how. I don't see it.

How do you get, "Bob is right," out of "Bob disagrees with your conclusions," anyway? I hope to avoid arguing past you, and apologize for how difficult that gets. All I can tell you is that I rewrote yesterday's post three times, and am on the fourth draft of this one. I'm trying. (Yes, in both senses of the word.) This is going to take lots of time, and it's going to be frustrating -- yes, for you as well.