Posted by
Playful Walrus on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:12:37 PM
I caught a little bit of
comedian Bill Maher on Larry King Live last night. Being a comedian, apparently, is supposed to make him an expert on politics, religion, and other important matters. I’ve seen him on television enough and I actually caught a performance of his in-person.
He strikes me as someone who is angry that, before he was famous, women to whom he was most attracted wouldn’t fornicate with him, and now women of that ilk will fornicate with him, but care only about his fame (= money and attention) and nothing about his “bright” ideas.
I also think he’d come across as more honest if he’d just come right out and say what is really going on with him – that what really matters to him most are his orgasms and then affirmation, and so he doesn’t like anything that suggests he shouldn’t be fornicating, especially not with a variety of women. This obviously motivates his opinions about politicians and his opinions on religion. I don’t know – maybe he
has stated this explicitly and plainly already.
There were a couple of things I heard him say last night that caught my ear.
One was the blanket statement that any belief in the supernatural is
irrational. This is an assertion I haven’t seen him back up. Frankly, such a blanket statement is a statement of blind faith, because it is very difficult to prove that there is nothing supernatural that exists or has ever happened. Yes,
much of what some people claim is supernatural
can be caused entirely by natural things. However, many people have a belief in the supernatural that is entirely rational. They have good reason to believe in the supernatural. To say that nature is all there is, all that ever has been, or ever will be is a religious statement that could itself be called irrational.
People like Maher rest their belief in naturalism on the faith that some things seem to point to the supernatural only because we don’t have enough information yet.
There are four possible explanations for the universe:
1. It is an illusion and does not really exist.
2. The universe is eternal, having always existed.
3. The universe came into existence without a cause.
4. Something transcendent of the universe caused the universe.
What new information could possibly make it more reasonable to believe option 1, 2, or 3 is more “rational” than 4? What new information could possibly make it more reasonable to believe that the thing in option 4 is natural and not supernatural?
The second thing that I caught was that the Roman Catholic Church is “destructive”, or that all “religions” are destructive. This is interesting, because Maher has religious beliefs himself – just not “traditional” ones. But we have to ask – what is “constructive”? In this case, it seems to be that Bill Maher is the decider on that, and so it is anything that brings Maher closer to orgasm. I’m not a Roman Catholic, and I agree that some religious organizations and have done destructive things, but I also maintain that all people (except for one notable exception) have committed sins, which are destructive, so thr problem is not all traditional religions, but something inside of human nature. But I maintain there is an objective standard for what is ultimately constructive or destructive. What’s Bill Maher’s standard, and why should anyone else accept it?
What about all of the hospitals, universities, justice, charities, acts of kindness, works of great art, and positive personal transformations motivated, in part or whole, by someone’s devotion to God and facilitated by traditional religious organizations? Are those things destructive?
There is a reason we live in a country where Maher can enjoy what Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt have freely and openly wrought despite the opposition of lot of people, instead of a country where those men would be beheaded in a public spectacle.
Not all religions are the same.