I'm more interested in the substance, i.e. the actual claims made by Maher about God and religion, and the counterarguments from D'Souza.
Which claims in particular are you interested in? His main claim is that people are way too sure about untestable points of view, to the point where sometimes they're willing to kill, hate, discriminate against, or put down people for having another equally untestable viewpoint or who don't conform to the standards of their belief system. Faith has been warped by some from a personal pillar of strength to a dogmatic certainty that has to crush opposing viewpoints. He says that maybe you (general you) shouldn't be so sure of yourselves and have a little doubt.
Maher is in search of weak opponents that he can embarrass. Still, it’s remarkable how many of them get the better of him. On one occasion Maher interviews a Jesus actor at a Holy Land Experience who seems like a carefully selected dummy. But when Maher asks him to explain the Trinity, the actor says it can be understood in the same way that water appears in three quite different forms: in a solid form, as ice; in liquid form, as water; and in the gaseous form of water vapor. Maher is completely stumped by this and rendered speechless.
Saying that he just sought out weak opponents he could embarrass is patently false. He interviewed:
- A Vatican astronomer.
- A Vatican scholar.
- A pastor and head of his own ministry (and former music artist).
- Another head of his own ministry.
- A rapper / Muslim political activist.
- An anti-zionist organization spokesman.
- A US Senator.
- A neuroscientist.
- A representative for Jews for Jesus.
- A member of the Dutch Parliament.
- A guide at The Dome of the Rock.
- The guy who plays Jesus at a Biblical theme park.
- A formerly-gay Christian minister who "saves" gay people.
- A couple of former Mormons who were banished.
- A Muslim Imam.
Some expressed points in his favor, some expressed points in favor of things he disagreed with, and others had difficulty answering the questions. But most of them were in fields where they should be fairly well-educated on the subject matter at hand.
The "weakest" group he interviews were in the trucker church, and he questioned about a dozen of them together with their minister, so it's not like they were outnumbered and ambushed.
He didn't choose the guy playing Jesus because he was a "carefully selected dummy," he chose him because it was funny to interview Jesus. And he wasn't stumped by the ice/water/water vapor Trinity response, he paused and looked in the camera as if to say "can you believe this?" I'm sure the guy playing Jesus gets asked a lot of questions by audience members and has to be fairly knowledgeable on the subject of Jesus' life at the very least.
At the end of the discussion, just before Maher’s triumphant exit, the truckers hold hands and pray for Maher. This is the sole moving moment in the film, and in a way that Maher doesn’t realize, it raises these simple people entirely above his snide sophistication.
Maher wasn't looking down on people for having faith, as he stated right at the beginning he has faith himself. And I thought - with a few jokes aside - he was fairly nice and respectful to the truckers. He simply asked them some hard questions. He didn't imply or say "I'm better than you" or anything like that. In fact, at the end he said "thank you for being Christ-like, and not just Christian" to the minister IIRC for having a reasonable dialogue with him and still caring despite the differing beliefs.
The only intelligent believers who are interviewed are geneticist Francis Collins and Father George Coyne, former head of the Vatican Observatory. Both of them are given only a few seconds, for fear that they might undermine Maher’s big theme that religious people are suffering from a kind of mental illness.
Father Coyne, IIRC, was interviewed regarding the Catholic Church's stance of Young Earth Creationism and the Bible as a scientific document, so he was essentially supporting Maher's point. So that kind of throws the whole "he only gave him a few seconds so as not to undermine his point" argument out the window.
Actually Maher’s points—that there is no historical evidence for Jesus, that the main themes of Christianity are all derived from other ancient religions, that miracles are impossible, that religion is responsible for the mass murders of history—are all highly debatable. Maher simply ignores the good evidence on the other side.
Okay, now I would like to see him debate these points.
I believe Jesus was a historical figure, but there is very little evidence to back that up from his own (living) era. I'm not too concerned with that though, as the same could occasionally be said about other historical figures we often take for granted.
Many themes of Christianity do bear a striking resemblance to religious beliefs that have come before (not just Judaism).
If he can prove a miracle, I'll be damn impressed.
Is he actually saying that religion has not been responsible for mass murder in the past? It's by no means the only source for mass murder, but to say that it's involvement at all is debatable shows a distinct lack of historical knowledge or willful ignorance on his part.
I would love to debate him on his show, and can easily show that Maher’s self-image as an intellectual is largely bogus. It is only in the company of obvious charlatans and simpletons that Maher comes off as the bright guy. And because he cannot stand up to real opposition, I doubt that Maher has the guts to take me up on this offer. Ultimately he is an intellectual coward who relies on the argumentum ad ignorantium—the argument that relies on the ignorance of the audience.
Look, you won't get any argument from me that Bill Maher is an arrogant self-absorbed prick, but he's never shown any hesitation to debate an issue with knowledgeable people on his show, so I don't really see how that argument flies.
It's almost as though Maher wants to bash Christianity in order to justify his own admitted behaviors. After all, if he convinces himself that there is no God then there are no repercussions. It's par for the course.
He believes in God.
)
