I have mixed feelings about Bill Maher's Religulous. There is, I think, something of a tension running throughout Maher's documentary. In an opening scene set in a Trucker's chapel and he gives some pretty standard questions. When challenged he responds that he has one agenda: doubt. His gospel, Maher explains, is the gospel of "I don't know".
However, before long the critical agnosticism morphs into acerbic incredulity at all religious belief. Religion is quickly portrayed as being synonymous with talking snakes and humans having dinosaurs as their next door neighbours. Even when Maher does get more reasonable interviewees such as Francis Collins (who has been in the news for other reasons recently) it appears that we do not have a interview so much as an hack job, the Catholic Herald has more on this angle of Maher's effort. In other words, the gospel of I don't know like so many of the interviews seems to have been left on the cutting room floor. In it's place one is left with an apologetic rant. And, Maher does this well with a great deal of humour.
Maher picks his targets well, we have the second coming of Jesus (apparently), the creation museum detailing the science behind human-dinosaur cohabitation and talking snakes, and ex-gay ministries etc. As James Mcgrath has noted some of the argument is as incredulous as his subjects. However, on reflection I find myself more ambivalent regarding the film.
Like many Christians on viewing the film I had the same reaction to many. This is nothing but a parody of the faith of millions, it does not reflect the the actual beliefs of many, it is a straw man critique. In this sense Matthew's comment reflected my belief:
It’s because they make all of these arguments that defeat what they perceive religion and the case for God to be. Meanwhile, anybody who has studied philosophy or theology in the slightest sits back, listens, and at the end are left thinking…so what? They never even touch the real questions. They just set up these juvenile straw men and then convincingly knock them down in front of their own cameras. Very impressive. All the while they reveal their total misunderstanding of the theists case.
Matthew continues by linking to one catholic priest's critique of Religulous which I included below:
In terms of broad brush-stokes he is obviously right, the religion of Religulous is not the same as the religion of so many of Christianity's adherents. It is not a big stretch on Fr Barron's epistemology to say that faith is in a symbiotic relationship to doubt - the certainty against which Maher takes aim is not intrinsic to faith. But the difficulty is while all this is true it does not excuse the fact that for many of those interviewed in the film the mocking description of their faith Maher puts to the audience was an accurate description of their belief and I don't think one would have to search too hard to find similar views nearby.
And this is where I am somewhat more sympathetic to Maher's presentation. While the dominant motif of Religulous is an all-round anti-religious piss-take the minor and more humble facet which I alluded to earlier does re-appear at the end. It is here I think that Religulous does raise a valid point.
Here's Maher's closing sequence:
Watch Religulous - Ending Montage in Activism & Non-Profit | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
It is easy to criticise Maher's characterisation of faith as anti-rational as "making a virtue out of not thinking" but there is still an argument to be had. In particular I thinking of Maher's characterisation of moderate religious people as being "mafia wives" (c. 4m 15s onwards) . Those who through acquiescence allow the terror in the name of God to perpetuate.
Sam Harris in his illiberal diatribe on religion argues in a similar vein:
Harris goes on to suggest that the religious moderate is intellectually dishonest and Maher, although not going so far argues in a similar fashion. They're wrong for it suggest that traditionally fundamentalism is the norm from which moderates are rebelling. But, as I think Dan itimated a few days ago, there is a line at which boundaries of identity are crossed. So, here's the question: unlike Maher analogy I don't think we should be resigning in disgust but perhaps we should be asking some other to leave?
Perhaps, notwithstanding the crass manipulation of sources, the first responce to Religulous should not be defence but acknowleding maher may have a point.

Surprisingly Rotten Tomatoes, usually a key guide for me to movies gives this a rating of 23%, with the rating of just the top critics coming to a whopping 0%! However, I thought it was a pretty decent, if slightly overblown little film.




Recent Comments