finitum non capax infiniti

You may have heard of Bill Maher’s recent documentary called Religulous. I recently had the chance to view this documentary and it might be the worst documentary I have ever seen in my life. It is definitely on par with Michael’ Moore’s documentaries, which are not much more than Michael Moore editing a bunch of clips so that his preconceived biases “prove” themselves to be “true.” Maher’s attempt at a documentary is just that: Maher interviewing a wide range of unqualified people in order to “prove” his point that religion is an impediment to humanity’s development.

The only person of any substance that Maher interviews is Francis Collins. You would have expected Maher to talk to Collins about science and faith, considering the fact that Collins is one of the foremost Christian scientists in the world. Maher’s topic: the Gospels and their perceived inconsistencies. Why would Maher not talk to Collins about science? If he wanted to talk about the Gospels, why didn’t he choose to speak with Ben Witherington, N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, etc.? Perhaps it is because Maher would have found out that his objections to the Gospels hold little, if any, actual weight. I actually thought Collins did well answering him, but the editing job turns to Maher making jokes about the Eucharist in his van instead of actually dealing with what Collins said.

Besides Collins, Maher talks to a Trucker Chaplain, a Pentecostal health and wealth preacher, a manager of a Christian bookstore, Ken Ham, and other completely unqualified people. Why does Maher not talk to academics about his issues? Why does he not talk to Christian apologists about his ‘problems’ with the Christian religion?

There are probably many different reasons for this, but none more prominent than the fact that Maher does not seem to be willing to actually learn about Christianity or reasons for faith in the Bible. Instead, he’d rather continue thinking that he knows more than any Christian or religious person that has ever lived. Ironically he does this by simply concluding ‘I don’t know.’ In the words of the great Stephen Colbert, “Isn’t an agnostic simply an atheist without balls?”

I’m all for intellectual objections to faith. I read Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, etc., and watch well done documentaries objecting to religion. This documentary simply isn’t one of them. I thought Richard Dawkins’ documentary The Root of All Evil, for instance, was a well done documentary presenting objections to faith. I’m even all for making fun of religion, as I love the movie Saved. But I cannot actually describe in words how awful I thought this documentary was.  One sure sign of an unintellectual documentary: adding snarky subtitles to interviews in post-production that use the sentence “Because the authors of the Bible f***ed up?”  Funny?  Possibly.  Ignorant? Absolutely.

Imagine Richard Dawkins dropped out of school in 2nd grade, but still had his angst towards religion. That is what Bill Maher is and that is what this documentary is: an extremely shallow, unintelligent, naive investigation about faith. Not only that, but it is a horribly done documentary as it is simply Maher pontificating his half-baked objections to faith and occasionally making jokes. There is no real searching for answers, no attempt at objectivity, and, besides Collins, no experts in their fields.

I could make a documentary making any group of people look stupid by doing what Maher did: interview the bottom of the barrel, except for one person who I would ask questions outside of their specialty, and then make jokes about said group of people.

What would that accomplish?

Absolutely nothing, except for making me look like an ignoramus who has the strong desire to continue in my ignorance.

Well, congratulations Bill. You are still ignorant.