Religulous: A Review From A Layman

Bill Maher's Religulous is one ambitious project. It's not surprising then it ultimately fails to amount to anything substantial.

The basic premise of Religulous is to explore the ridiculousness of religion and "blind faith." Setting about with a camera in hand, in case you haven't noticed, is the new pink for documentaries, Maher does his best to be a modern comedic Doubting Thomas. Along the way, it becomes apparent he has way too much of an axe to grind to be trusted with a sensitive and complex topic. I never got the feeling he was interested in taking the film onto a different plane beyond his position - you know, in case he's wrong.

Maher relies too much on the words of fringe extremists to get his message across. Interviewing quacks is one thing, discussing matters with scholars and academics is quite another. One leads to laughs, the other tends to slow things down to a screeching halt. To be fair, he does interview a couple; but one he treats with little respect (what? A Catholic scientist who believes in faith? How can that be?) and the other we don't see enough of.

Like most anti-religious secularists Maher is found of quoting passages from the 'Book of Revelation' (which is fine since most nutcases do. Like those who irrational attack on science and evolution through the creepy world of Creationism ) but I don't see how this relates to moderate religious people with valuable and deep spiritual conviction.

Maher (who now falls into the category of philosopher-comedian) left me borderline queasy in parts. The line between being stirring the pot with and without a point is a delicate one. Going into to somebody's church and begin questioning their beliefs (like he did in the Trucker's Chapel scene), while necessary, can prove hollow. It is what it is. People believe all sorts of stuff.

For example, like the Dutch dope-cultist Maher spent a little too much time with in Holland. I suppose Maher was trying to equate organized religion with pagan-drug induced cults.

Maher is convinced - if not obsessed - with the notion that faith and reason can't be complementary. His position is a fair one but he makes no attempt to explore this important aspect. I say important because philosophers and great theologians like Aquinas built marvelous models exploring this issue. Logic, faith, reason - these are not easy things to ponder in theological and philosophical life let alone a 1 1/2 hour documentary.

Maher said in an interview about faith, "This the last taboo. For the longest time people have not even broached the subject because when you said, 'Well, that's his faith,' everyone just backed off. Faith, well you can't talk about that, that would be insulting to question someone's faith. Instead of saying, 'Let's examine the faith,' or even the more basic question that I ask in the film, 'Why is faith good? Why is it good to stop thinking?' "

But does one really stop thinking if they have faith?

Now if he means blind faith, then this is another matter. Nonetheless, I would submit faith has a far deeper and psychological dimension sometimes best left alone. If I'm not mistaken, this is something Kierkegaard posited.

But Maher believes this is dangerous (to ignore faith) since religion is the root of all evil and wars. He seems to automatically assume faith and religion are partners in crime.

My contention, in a previous post, is war is a condition of man. Religion is just a smokescreen.

To his credit, Maher doesn't single out Christianity alone. He holds no punches with Islam and Judaism as well. He even took a bold stance and asserted indeed most "religious murders fall on the side of Muslims." He even visited the Netherlands and the UK to explore this further. He could have added France to the mix. These three countries have serious home grown Islamic extremism problems.

Other comments and scenes that left me with my own questions and observations:

-He claims 16% of Americans are non-religious and are "too scared" to speak out. I don't know enough about this but something tells me he probably didn't explore this enough.

-His use of quotes attributed to the Founding Fathers was confusing. I'm not so sure the FF's would be against faith. I think they were too wise, worldly and witty to be dismiss it.

Let them revere nothing but Religion, Morality, and Liberty - John Adams

Duty is ours; results are God's - John Quincy Adams

-A caption disclosed 93% of scientists to be agnostic or atheist. Which reminded me of an old philosophical axiom : What if the 93% are flawed? Anyway, I'm not a fan of flashing statistics as a means to an end in a film. This on its own does little to contribute to his overall point. Who knows for what reasons and in what context this 93% represents?

-He talks about how "he doesn't know" (which fits in nicely with the tag of this blog) yet I got the distinct feeling he did know - or acted as if he did. For example, he's convinced Jesus didn't exist. Scholars and religious people are not so certain. I hope he's not looking for a birth certificate.

-In the "shamelessly misleading to make my point" category, Maher tries to pull a fast one when he claims a "gay gene" had been found. In fact, this is an on-going study and debate among scientists.

"A heated debate over the existence of a "gay gene" emerged from a 1993 report published in the journal Science by then-NIH researcher Dean Hamer, PhD. That study linked DNA markers on the X chromosome to male sexual orientation. Since then, questions arose regarding the validity of those results."

If Maher is a true rational and logical being, he would have avoided this. Instead, he doesn't seem to believe in empiricism in science. READ MORE ABOUT THE GAY GENE DEBATE HERE ON WEBMD.

-In the trucker's chapel, one man tried (in vain of course) to explain why he believed in God. God saved him from literally engaging in satanist activities and all sorts of immoral acts. I've met people who have been "found." To me, all I can say is if you're happy and it keeps you away from the bad stuff all the power to you. Better you hang around in a Church than sipping blood somewhere in an abandon building screwing hookers and robbing people at gun point. Who are we to judge? Does Maher suggest such people, to his logical end, are a danger?

-I did find the analogy with ancient cultures and the origins of Christ's birth interesting - Vishnu etc. There seems to be a common thread here. Again, I will have to explore this further myself because by that point Maher hasn't proven to me he's capable of taking on the subject matter.

-He claims that "religion impedes progress." Again, religion is a broad term and I'm not sure he's entirely correct on this front. Scientists and academics (atheists included) with a political agenda, weak-minded politicians and special interest all play a part.

Ironically, lest we forget, it was Christendom that allowed the West to unleash some of its greatest intellectual movements and events that ultimately led us to the Enlightenment and our liberal and secular construct.

By the end of the film, to any neutral observer, Maher took the easy way out. Interviewing fringe characters to make his point is like pitching to a Double AA hitter. He should have accorded more time to scholars (and avoid the temptation to sneer at people of faith) and have a real intellectual debate.

I recognize some will take a harsher stance than me about the film, while others will just take it for what it is. Despite my observations, Maher did his job adequately. But I don't think it succeeded in achieving its ultimate goal: have people question faith. This is not his fault. This film can have sequels in perpetuity and still not arrive at any conclusive (or at least perhaps satisfactory) end point.

Ironically, while Maher is adamant about his own position, he failed to sway me in any significant way.

Still, for a light-hearted (with a heavy topic) documentary, Religulous is worth renting. The film brings up flawed but interesting arguments. See it for yourself.