?

Log in

No account? Create an account
an albuquerque not animate be armada. [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Okrzyki, przyjaciel!

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Religulous [Oct. 6th, 2008|02:39 pm]
Okrzyki, przyjaciel!
Some impressions:

1. Bill Maher needs to figure out how groom his hair so it doesn't look like greasy seaweed. Seriously, on the big screen it's really an uncomfortable distraction.

2. All of the interviews were very dishonestly edited. Several times I saw cuts after something Maher said to a reaction shot of the interviewee, where the interviewee wasn't reacting to what Maher said. Any time there's an edit like that, it's just to make the interviewee look like an idiot.

3. You can always have the last word if you're editing the interview. You can also cut out any part where the interviewee makes a reasonable rebuttal to Maher's premise.

4. His whole thesis in this movie -- that religion is bad -- can be refuted thusly:

Everyone from Paul of Tarsus to Gödel has shown that all knowledge is incomplete, that all models of the universe are provisional. Religious people have their imperfect models of the universe, and atheists have theirs. You can make an effective argument (as Maher does, up to a point) that a scientific empericism is closer to describing the 'real world' than religious faith.

But you can't make an effective argument that an atheistic or agnostic world view is 'better' -- for two reasons: 1) Assuming that you can objectively judge the outcomes of decisions, in both the religous and secular can you argue that one is 'better'? 2) Can you even judge anything objectively?

This is a functional argument for religious faith -- even if some of the things you believe are silly, you may in fact be a better person for your faith. The same thing goes for atheists -- you can argue atheism meaning there is no a priori morality. Atheists can choose to be go wild on the world, since nothing has any particular meaning. Or you can work from human tradition, common sense, and come to a human idea of moralty.

But what you can't say, scientifically, is "those people over there are nuts." Which more or less is what Maher's movie is all about. You don't know enough about the universe to make that judgement!
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: hypnotyza
2008-10-07 04:21 pm (UTC)
having religion cloud that up is probably more harm than good IMO since by believing in one, you are discounting believers of all others as well as atheists flat out.

that's painting with a fairly wide brush, don't you think? simply because i was raised Catholic does not mean that, now that I am a man of 32 years, i feel that Judaism is a farce. or that i do not respect and appreciate the teachings of Mohammed.

there is an element of self-preservation in every action that a human being performs. religion is a man-made institution, ergo...it's going to inherit some of those characteristics. but, it isn't a foregone conclusion that every Catholic is a card-carrying anti-Semite.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: pipecock
2008-10-07 11:19 pm (UTC)
i am not saying that it requires straight up hatred of people of another religion, but obviously if you thought their religion was legitimate you would have joined that one instead. it conveys this, even without stating it at all. respecting the philosophies of these guys is fine, i see no problem with that. but i wouldnt pray to Nietzsche even though i tend to agree with him most of the time.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)