Bill Maher on John Stewart -- New Movie

[Rule]

When people ask me who Bill Maher is, I often explain that he's sort-of like Jon Stewart.  It's not a great description, since Maher is more intellectual and more often writes long monologues geared towards humorous social commentary.  But they really are the two main, "political comedian guys" -- they are like two literary magazines that are both great at what they do, and though they have a different approach, they are both the bigtime literary magazines.  For this reason, I've often thought it unlikely that they would be brought together.  They probably have good will towards one another, but having them together would be somewhat like having Tom Brokaw on Anderson Cooper -- maybe awkward for both of them, since they have their own followings, and do similar things.  But I've long thought it would be extremely interesting to see a discussion between them -- I thought that Stewart would make a great guest on the Maher show, or vice versa.  What do they really think about each other? They must watch and judge one another frequently.

Well, it happened! Maher came onto Stewart's "Daily Show" to talk about politics, and his new movie "Religulous" (opening Oct. 3).

Here it is:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh6--zN0oCI 
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DffUWssrK2s

[Sidoh]

Heh, that was great.  I liked Bill Maher before, but I like him a lot more having watched that.

[Rule]

Ah, both are gone now. :(

[Sidoh]

It's on Hulu!

http://www.hulu.com/watch/37149/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-tue-sep-30-2008#s-p1-so-i0

Looks like his interview with Maher begins around 9:40.

[Ender]

I haven't seen the film, or seen much else of what Maher has to say on religion, but I feel like it is a complex subject of which he makes too little. He doesn't talk about the historical advantages of religion, only the disadvantages, and does not say what system of thought would fill the role of religion were it forgotten. As he said in the interview, he is only asking questions, but these questions are banalities; they are stock phrases of free-thinking agnostics who are uninterested in researching the issues that will be left gaping open without the support of religion.

For one, he mentions how religion comes at a high price, citing the religious wars of nonsecular times. But what he does not mention are the benefits of the alliance of Church and State that were of great value before the close of the 18th century. Pre-industrial Europe may have been worse off without the Church. The main benefit of this alliance was that it made the European people into good political subjects, a task which was not easy in pre-industrial times, when peasant uprisings and rebellion were the main concern of kings. The acknowledgment of these benefits and acceptance of such an alliance is evident in the ideas of Locke and Priestley, which served as an impetus for the revolution of liberalism and democracy in both Europe and America. There is a reason why "In God We Trust" is our national motto; religion was necessary for the granting of civil and political liberty.

In my mind, the ideology that replaced religion at the close of the 18th century was Nationalism. This was made possible by the Industrial Revolution, which made people aware of the advantages in living under a strong central government. It was of course also influenced by the American Revolution, the French Revolution, Locke, Priestley, etc., but I think that the Industrial Revolution was the ingredient that made the shift in ideology first possible. Nationalism answered the question of "How can we make good political subjects out of the people?" which required attention before any other ideology should be accepted. People were motivated to become good political subjects out of self-interest like that non-iniquitous kind introduced by Smith; this self-interest being a result of the Industrial Revolution.

But it has been over two centuries since 1776 and 1789, over 60 years since WWII, and Nationalism is slowly fading, especially after our indulgence in unnecessary and disastrous wars like those of Vietnam and Iraq. We have already landed a man on the moon; we have already become the world's superpower. What ideology then would make the American people into good political subjects? The Christian religion has evolved over time to meet the incumbent political need; this is seen in Henry VIII's usurpation of the Catholic Church, and his establishment of the Anglican Church, which allowed himself more power over matters as simple as divorce. It is seen in the Puritan movement as a response to corruption in the Church of England. But the Christian religion has not had the chance to evolve since Nationalism took precedent; it is not out of the question to consider that maybe another major reformation in the Church could fulfill the need to make better political subjects of the American people. This is certainly an issue we are facing today.

Bill Maher's political ideology seems to be the exercise of reason in relation to national interest, but as I said, Nationalism is fading, and it is not an argument or ideology that would convince the American people as a whole. This is especially true in this corporate world where self-interest has usurped national interest, where the two are no longer the same. It seems the new ideology will be a corporate ideology, which appears to be at odds with the reason, Nationalism, and self-interest of the middle class, those very same motivations by which Maher votes Obama.

[Rule]

I haven't seen the film, or seen much else of what Maher has to say on religion, but I feel like it is a complex subject of which he makes too little. He doesn't talk about the historical advantages of religion, only the disadvantages, and does not say what system of thought would fill the role of religion were it forgotten. As he said in the interview, he is only asking questions, but these questions are banalities; they are stock phrases of free-thinking agnostics who are uninterested in researching the issues that will be left gaping open without the auspices of religion.

For one, he mentions how religion comes at a high price, citing the religious wars of nonsecular times. But what he does not mention are the benefits of the alliance of Church and State that were of great value before the close of the 18th century. Pre-industrial Europe may have been worse off without the Church. The main benefit of this alliance was that it made the European people into good political subjects, a task which was not easy in pre-industrial times, when peasant uprisings and rebellion were the main concern of kings. The acknowledgment of these benefits and acceptance of such an alliance is evident in the ideas of Locke and Priestley, which served as an impetus for the revolution of liberalism and democracy in both Europe and America. There is a reason why "In God We Trust" is our national motto; religion was necessary for the granting of civil and political liberty.

In my mind, the ideology that replaced religion at the close of the 18th century was Nationalism. This was made possible by the Industrial Revolution, which made people aware of the advantages in living under a strong central government. It was of course also influenced by the American Revolution, the French Revolution, Locke, Priestley, etc., but I think that the Industrial Revolution was the ingredient that made the shift in ideology first possible. Nationalism answered the question of "How can we make good political subjects out of the people?" which required attention before any other ideology should be accepted. People were motivated to become good political subjects out of self-interest like that non-iniquitous kind introduced by Smith; this self-interest being a result of the Industrial Revolution.

But it has been over two centuries since 1776 and 1789, over 60 years since WWII, and Nationalism is slowly fading, especially after our indulgence in unnecessary and disastrous wars like those of Vietnam and Iraq. We have already landed a man on the moon; we have already become the world's superpower. What ideology then would make the American people into good political subjects? The Christian religion has evolved over time to meet the incumbent political need; this is seen in Henry VIII's usurpation of the Catholic Church, and his establishment the Anglican Church, which allowed himself more power over matters as simple as divorce. It is seen in the Puritan movement as a response to corruption in the Church of England. But the Christian religion has not had the chance to evolve since Nationalism took precedent; it is not out of the question to consider that maybe another major reformation in the Church could fulfill the need to make better political subjects of the American people. This is certainly an issue we are facing today.

Bill Maher's political ideology seems to be the exercise of reason in relation to national interest, but as I said, Nationalism is fading, and it is not an argument or ideology that would convince the American people as a whole. This is especially true in this corporate world where self-interest has usurped national interest, where the two are no longer the same. It seems the new ideology will be a corporate ideology, which appears to be at odds with the reason, Nationalism, and self-interest of the middle class, those very same motivations by which Maher votes Obama.

First of all, whether or not something has a calming influence does not affect whether or not it is sensible or likely to be true.  Believing in Santa Claus may have a stabilizing influence but that doesn't mean it isn't ridiculous.  I think Bill Maher's primary intent is to make a case that religion is ridiculous in many ways.  However, he is also right in pointing out that it has caused a lot of destruction in response to the "calming influence question".  In the five minutes he thought he had to answer a series of questions, do you honestly think he should have presented the information in your rather long post, when he has been invited as a critic of religion?  Of course he acknowledges that religion has done good, but overall he believes it to be a negative force; his response was sensible under the circumstances. To quote Richard Dawkins, "Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers', no Northern Ireland 'troubles', no 'honour killings', no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money ('God wants you to give till it hurts'). Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it." 

Can you be more specific about what he said in the Stewart interview, and what you disagree with? It seems like you've written a lot about something you feel he neglected to mention in a 12 minute discussion. 

Here is another Bill Maher clip in a debate on religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYW2xXxFVtU

[Ender]

I can't watch that YouTube clip in your last post right now, since I am in my school's library.

My post wasn't so much about Bill Maher as it was about the ideologies employed over time to make good political subjects of the people. What I did have have to say about Maher was that on this issue he sounds like the typical free-thinking agnostic, which is very trite, and thus a little boring.

As to my criticism of the clip, he dismisses religion as an arbitrary set of implausible stories, which it is not. There are both essential and inessential parts to every religion, the inessential parts providing a gateway for the common man to embrace the religion, and Maher dismisses religion based on inessential parts. What is most interesting about religions like Christianity are their morals and their views on life and on the possibility of an afterlife, not their rituals or holidays. And he by no means debunks the morals of any religion, at least not in the clip.

[Rule]

I couldn't disagree more.  You can't "pick and choose" and then call yourself religious, in most circumstances.  The bible demands complete faith in a number of completely absurd stories. 60% of Americans believe literally in Noah's ark.  Does that not show an extremely dangerous willingness to abandon reason in the name of religious faith?  Does it not seem extremely dangerous that in order to become elected into an important political office you have to profess such faith? 

Debunk the morals? That's ridiculous.  What morals?  The idea that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death? Or morals like the Ten Commandments?  I hardly call that religion.  Not to mention this short-list of fundamental morals includes things like "thou shalt not create statues in the names of other gods".

You're going to have to be more specific.  Quote from the segment.  He does not say the stories are arbitrary.   What are the essential parts to religion?  Your division seems arbitrary.  "All this crazy stuff doesn't matter, and a few good suggestions (of my choosing) should be considered essential religion".   Is the bible, basically a collection of myths, a non-essential part to religion? I'm not impressed. :P

I also think it's interesting, in the beginning, how it shows a large group of people laughing at the principles of Scientology.  This group includes Sikhs, etc., who hold equally absurd beliefs.

[Ender]

It's not picking and choosing, it's separating the essential from the inessential. If I were to take the set of all scientific theories, there would be many incorrect theories in that set. The correct theories are the essential ones, the ones that should represent science. Likewise, the values of Christianity and their defenses should represent the religion.

A good example of an understandable Christian system of thought is that expounded by Kierkegaard. It could perhaps be defined as a theistic existentialism that pre-dated the coinage of the word. And I should also mention that Kierkegaard disdained all the inessential formalities of the Danish Church at the time. He did exactly this separation of features that I advocate above.

You cannot argue that Christianity is foolish because there are some Christians who pursue empty practices; you may as well argue that all rich people are stupid because you found a certain group of them who are.

[Rule]

It's not picking and choosing, it's separating the essential from the inessential. If I were to take the set of all scientific theories, there would be many incorrect theories in that set. The correct theories are the essential ones, the ones that should represent science. Likewise, the values of Christianity and their defenses should represent the religion.

OK, tell me which of these are essential and inessential:
- Genesis (e.g. Adam and Eve)
- The story of Christ (the whole foundation of the new testament)
- The Ten Commandments
- The demand for unquestionable faith

You cannot argue that Christianity is foolish because there are some Christians who pursue empty practices; you may as well argue that all rich people are stupid because you found a certain group of them who are.

The argument is that Christianity is foolish, because it is founded on myths, and asks you to put aside reason in favor of blind faith.  Further, you can't discount the evil done in the name of Christianity by attributing it to "empty practices".  The Old and New Testaments are the foundations for Christianity.  In the Old Testament, God is petty and vengeful.  And the new testament begins with a story that demands you set aside all reasonable intuition and logic.

This is not at all categorizing a group of people based on what a few of them do, such as in your "rich people" example.  A rich person will be ethical or unethical somewhat independently of whether or not he is rich.  Many of the world's atrocities were committed as a direct result of religious faith.

[Blaze]

I saw this movie today.  Everyone was laughing through about 80% of the movie.  Pretty funny overall.  :)

[Rule]

Maher actually addresses some of Ender's argument in a recent Jimmy Kimmell interview.  "I'm not saying some of it is crazy, I'm saying all of it is crazy."  "Jesus was a great philosopher, but he is not representative of religion or religious followers.  You can have the philosophy without the religion."  (Paraphrase).