T h e o • p h i l o g u e

Home » Uncategorized (Page 33)

Category Archives: Uncategorized

Bill Maher’s Religion = Ridiculous

Over the next week or so I will discussing Bill Maher’s new movie Religulous, which just hit the theaters this week.  One of my hopes is that people who are also skeptical about religions will speak up on this blog and engage in open dialogue on this religious and philosophical topic.

Today’s Camera Angle: Bills Maher’s Ridiculous Religion   

Bill Maher, in his own words, argues that to take a posture of skepticism toward religious questions about God and life after death is a more “humble” posture than religious dogmatism. 

But on what grounds does Bill Maher believe that skepticism is automatically more humble?  Well …

From the film it’s easy to see that Bill thinks skepticism is more humble because we don’t really have certain answers to life’s religious questions.  Therefore, to pretend we do, or think we do, is prideful, arrogant–ignorance of ignorance.  Making up answers as though they were certain and beginning religions based on such made up answers is the epitome (to Maher) of this kind of morally outrageous audacity.  To go even a step further and press these religions on the minds of the people and bound their consciences to them, to start wars to propagate these religions, to tax the poor (with tithes) in order to fund the propagation, to preach in the street and tell people they are going to hell if they don’t believe a particular religion’s answers to these questions, is of course (to Maher) the uttermost moral atrocity.    

Get the idea?  Religion is a very bad thing.  It’s like a mental disease.  

 

——————————-

Well … to the critical thinker, there’s something apparent about Bill Maher’s skepticism that he doesn’t want you to notice.

                                     ———————

The truth is … the kind of skepticism Maher embraces is actually a form of close minded dogmatic skepticism. 

——————————–

 

In one of the beginning scenes of the movie, Maher is riding in a car talking about why he hates religion. In the process of explaining himself, he proposes that religion comes from fear of death. He says that the question of death and what happens when you die just gets some people so worked up with fear that they must have answers to the question to make them feel better. This is his theory of the origin of religion stated very simply. 

… NOTICE …Notice so far Bill has a few beliefs of his own which do not fall into a “scientifically proven” category: 1) skepticism is more humble than dogmatism, 2) in fact religious dogmatism is ethically unacceptable, 3) because there are no answers to life’s religious questions.    

Throughout the documentary, he literally preaches his own alternative view of skepticism. At one point, after standing up in a small church and “asking questions” (i.e. mocking the poor Christians who were in no way prepared for skeptical challenges), one of the Christians finally turns one of his questions around on him. Up to this point Maher had been asking all the questions.  This time, he’s the one being asked.  As he answers the question with a resounding, “I don’t know!” he literally bangs the pulpit with his hand while raising his voice to say something like, “That’s my religion, I don’t know! I don’t have to have all the answers!”  

But his skepticism isn’t merely an “I don’t know,” or “It’s okay to not know all the answers.”  The movie makes clear that he believes that true knowledge about religious questions is impossible to attain. At one point he makes the argument that no so called prophet could understand or know religious truth any better than him because no human being has any special powers/capabilities that he doesn’t have.  In other words, “If I don’t have access to religious truth then neither do you.” 

To say, “Well … I’m not sure who’s right and who’s wrong or whether anyone is right or wrong,” is one thing.  But Bill Maher is a dogmatic skeptic.  He doesn’t believe answers to religious questions are capable of being known.  We could distinguish these two positions by calling one Open Minded Skepticism (I don’t know but I’m open to the possibility that there are answers) and Close Minded Skepticism (I don’t know, and it’s impossible to know).  Bill Maher, then, is a Close Minded Skeptic.

… THINK with me … 

Not only is he a close minded skeptic, but his motive is made explicit in the film–he intends the whole documentary to serve as propaganda that will promote his belief system of dogmatic skepticism as far as it will go.  All other beliefs are wrong; his position on religious questions is the only right one.  He is religiously passionate about his skepticism and wants everyone to be “saved” from bondage to religious dogmatism.

 

Is anyone else seeing the irony here?

 

Discouragingly, my gut tells me that not many people are seeing the irony in this film.  If you still don’t see it, here; let me spell it out for you.

While railing against preachers, Bill Maher has become a passionate preacher of his own unscientifically proven belief system that includes dogmatic assertions and ethical absolutes.  While on his crusade against religious dogmatism, Bill dogmatically preaches the gospel of skepticism, not allowing for any possible answers to religious questions to be knowable.  While preaching against religion, Maher has founded his own religion.

In disallowing any possible answers to life’s ultimate questions, has not Maher not provided the authoritative answer to all religious questions? (i.e. “We can’t possible know, and if you think you do, you’re an idiot and blind?”)


Religulous, The Epitome of Pseudo Intellectualism

Excessive sarcasm, rudeness, and pseudo intellectualism pervade the new documentary Religulous with Bill Maher.  I watched his movie tonight, and it was very, very powerful.  Master propaganda.  Blows Ben Stein’s movie out of the water in terms of its cinematic rhetorical punch.  

I’m very bothered by this movie.  I will blog about it over the next few days (weeks?).  The “big idea” of the documentary is this: Religions make up stories to answer questions that we don’t have answers to, and then they all become corrupt and destructive to everything good (i.e. to make religion look stupid and ethically outrageous).  For a taste of Bill Maher …

Lecrae’s New Album = The Thrillist Yet

DON’T WAST YOUR LIFE by Lacrae

Lacrae Interview 1

Lacrae Interview 2

Lacrae Interview 3

PAPER by Lacrae

iheart: Appreciating people … one at a time

I’m working on a friends page on another blog of mine: b l o g t h r i l l.

Tag … You’re It!

The following questions come from Said at Southern.  I got tagged.
  • What are you reading on Spring reading days? 1) Alister E. McGrath, The Making of Modern German Christology 1750-1990, 2) Gerald Hiestand, Raising Purity: Nurturing the image of God in the Heart of your Child, 3) Matthew Elliot, Feel: The Power of Listening to Your Heart, 4) Mark C. Mattes, The Role of Justification in Contemporary Theology
  • What do you wish you had time to read?  1) Bruce L. McCormack, ed., Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, 2) .David E. Aune, ed. Rereading Paul Together: Protestant and Catholic Perspectives on Justification.
  • What have you decided NOT to read that you were assigned to read.  Nothing. 
  • What is one great quote from your reading?  “The phrase eternal life is as much about life as it is about eternity.” – Matthew Elliot 
  • Why are you blogging? (You’re supposed to be reading!)  Because the blogosphere is where I spend most of my study break time (lately anyway).

When Experience Intersects Academic Theology, Karl Barth

Here is a quotation from Karl Barth, as he reflected on the reason why he abandoned liberal theology.  

For me personally, one day in the beginning of August of that year [1914] stands out as a black day, on which ninety-three German intellectuals, among whom I was horrified to discover almost all of my hitherto revered theological teachers, published a profession of support for the war  policy of Kaiser Wilhelm II and his counsellors.  Amazed by their attitude, I realised [sic] that I could no longer follow their ethics and dogmatics, or their understandings of the Bible and history, and that the theology of the nineteenth century no longer had any future for me.

Karl Barth, Evangelische Theologie im 19.  Jahrhundert (Zurich: Zollikon, 1957), 6.   

Great Scott! Catching up on things EmergenT

Many will be reading Scott McKnight’s new article in the latest edition of Christianity Today.  Here’s some background info on McKnight. 
 
—-
——
——–
———
———-
———–
————
————-
Scott McKnight is a redactional criticism expert who somehow got involved in the discussions over the emerging movement, and soon after considered himself “emerging.”  
————–
————-
————
———–
———
——-
—–
—-
Actually … it began like this … 
——
After he started writing about the emerging church on his blog Jesus Creed, his readership hits went through the roof, and his students (he teaches at North Park University in Chicago) became more interested in reading his writings.  He realized that most people were not really that interested in his technical writings on redaction, but whenever he wrote about the Emerging Church, everyone listened, and he could hardly keep up with the comments on his blog (one of the most well read blogs in the entire blogospheric galactic spectrum).
.
This led to number of conversations between him and emerging leaders.  Now that he’s intimately familiar with the emerging movement, he considers himself emerging (yes … I know about the recent “abandonment” of the term) and by Doug Pagitt’s categories would be considered emergenT (that T is important … you’ll see why if you keep reading).  Not that I’ve heard Pagitt call McKnight emergenT, but because Pagitt and other emergenT leaders insist that emergenT is not defined by its theology, but rather, is simply a network of friends in conversation (deconstructive conservation mostly). 
HOWEVER … Scott McKnight, although an emerging leader who has tried his hardest to be sympathetic with the concerns of emergenT leaders across the board (even emergent village etc.)–we will see more of this in his upcoming book The Blue Parakeet–has not sympathized with the most controversial aspects of the emergenT movement.  
—————–
His recent article, “McLaren Emerging,” does several predictable things.  Here are a few … 
—————
1) He reminds us of the distinctions between emerging (a broad movement of mostly evangelicals) and emergent (a smaller movement of the emerging movement that leans in a post-evangelical direction).
—————
2) McKnight depicts Brian McLaren, perhaps the most influential emergenT leader, as having become disillusioned with the “gospel” he was taught growing up in an ultra-conservative church, and sensing a great tension between the “global” message of Jesus about the “kingdom,” and the “individualistic” message about “salvation,” that he grew up with.  McLaren thinks the church’s message is different from the kingdom proclamation of Jesus.  The message of Jesus was peace, reconciliation, and love–“not just with God and not just in the heart, but both and more: the peace Jesus envisions is global. … through him, God was launching a new world order, a new world, a new creation.”  Sounds a lot like N.T. Wright’s fresh emphasis on the new creation theme.  Nothing too crazy here.  
—————-
3) More specifically, McKnight tells us that McLaren questions the evangelical theology of the cross.  McLaren does not believe that the Father was “venting” his wrath on the Son so that believers could have salvation (i.e. penal substitution).  Rather, the central message of the cross is the repudiation of violence.
—————
4) McKnight addresses some questions to McLaren in a kind, but challenging, way.  They are predictable questions such as … 
—————
a) “What role does the Cross play in the emergent kingdom vision”?  He follows this up with statement like, “The most stable location for the earliest understanding of the Cross, from Jesus all the way through the New Testament writings, is the Last Supper–and not a word is said there about violence and systemic injustice.  Other words are given to explain the event: covenant, forgiveness of sins, and blood ‘poured out for many.’  Insight into the Cross must start here.”  Great [point] Scott.   
————
b) “What is the relationship of kingdom to church?”  He follows this up with statements like, “According to the Newt Testament, the kingdom vision of Jesus is, it seems, only implemented through the church.”  
———–
He closes by saying, “All in All, I am hoping that McLaren’s works will lead to a massive conversation on the meaning of one word: gospel,” and by quoting Mary’s Magnificat from Luke as evidence that “Luke tells of a gospel far greater than most of us are hearing today.” 
————-
Thus … he is sympathetic with the deconstruction of emergent leaders, agreeing that the church may have missed the full significance of the message of the gospel of the kingdom, yet skeptical of the reconstruction taking place with respect to theories of atonement and ecclesiology.   

Boom in Moscow

Sick

BC One Breakdance Lilou

Spreading the Gospel in Downtown Richmond

…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. … My friend Josh Soto planted and now pastors a church in downtown Richmond.  I haven’t had a chance to visit there yet, but my friend Ricky visited once and he says it’s thunder (well … he doesn’t actually say thunder, he says “awesome,” but you understand).  The church is blowin’ up. 

You can check out the churches website here.  See pictures of the church and the people here.

Josh and I used to minister together on Vision teams at Liberty University.  Now he’s a pastor at an inner-city church and I’m an outreach director at an inner-city church.  We’ve had talks about me coming down to Richmond to check out what he’s doing, but I keep putting it off.