I realize this interview was done last year, but I wanted to post it for Samkon and anyone else who missed it.  Just click on the mp3 file on this page.  The questions that were asked in this interview brought a new perspective for me on “the new perspective” (pun intended).

The largest free standing structure in all of North America.

Perhaps what was most disturbing to me about Religulous was it’s incredible ability to make religious people look fanatically irrational and uneducated.  The majority of the film was Bill Maher debating/ridiculing relatively uneducated lay people who wouldn’t likely have any ability to defend their faith intellectually.  (The only exception to this was Ken Ham, in which case they masterfully edited the interview to make him look speechless or mad at everything Maher said).  

Maher’s first engagement with real Christians in the moive takes place in the back of a Tractor Trailer as Maher begins “just asking questions” after a church service for truck drivers.  I don’t want to be guilty of stereotyping myself, but my guess is that Bill Maher understands that most truck drivers don’t have Ph.D’s or Master Degrees in Divinity or Philosophy.  They certainly don’t have a reputation for being intellectual.  And of course, the truck drivers are disturbed and offended by his “questions” (at least one gentleman had sense enough to know that Maher was mocking them and not asking sincere questions, so he walked out).  

As you might imagine, Maher didn’t have much “luck” with getting any serious intellectual challenge from the truck drivers.  The hallmark of pseudo intellectualism is to go on the attack against the weakest defenders of an intellectual position rather than challenging the most able of their defenders.  This always makes you look smart and the opponent dumb.  Consequently, uncritical thinkers (i.e. the majority of Americans) are likely to associate your position with intellectual superiority and your prey’s position with intellectual vulnerability.  This is the most dominant element of Maher’s documentary.

Why didn’t Bill Maher interview credible scientist’s like Michael Behe or tenured professors at the University of Berkley like Philip Johnson or the intellectual elitists from the evangelical camp such as D.A. Carson or William Lane Craig?  

For Maher’s ridicule to be cross examined by Christians who are his intellectual equal would probably not make for good anti-Religious propaganda, but it would make his criticism’s more credible if they were to stand up against such cross examination.  

In the meantime … the pseduo intellectualism of Maher’s movie will greatly influence how Religious people–especially Christians and Muslims–are seen in the public eye.