Faith Debate on Bill Maher's Show

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/15/bill-maher-why-cant-liber_n_577346.html

The headline on this video clip is actually pretty misleading. It is a question that Bill Maher raises, but the longer conversation is on faith and atheism. Maher’s guests were: Newark Mayor Cory Booker, author John Avlon, and author S.E. Cupp. A centerpiece of this conversation was Cupp’s book, Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity.

On one level, Maher, a staunch and zealous atheist, attacked the premise of Cupp’s book and, frankly, did an effective job. Cupp, who is an atheist herself and does not seem to have a very good grasp on what religious faith actually is, strung together pieces of anecdotal evidence to write her book and was dissected by Maher. It was painfully sad, actually to see him pick her apart, but her book is a book with a political agenda rather than a spiritual agenda and the dissecting was pretty ugly and effective. It also demonstrated that people of faith ought not to rely on non-believers to defend them. Part of her problem is that she was cherry picking some attacks on the ‘fruits’ of ‘some’ ideas, but never really proved her point. Maher used an allegory to describe her research and it was like picking one raisin out of a large loaf. It is a good reminder that anecdotal evidence is not very effective. Anecdotes make good reading and great stories, but they do not really prove anything.

In fairness to Cupp, before they really discussed her book, the three guests were arguing with Maher over religion and war. Maher said that most wars are caused by religion and they countered that there are many things that cause war. Cupp used the examples of Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin, and Maher dismissed this by saying they promoted state religions. I think she made a good point and Maher is just going to call anything he doesn’t agree with a religion.

Booker and Avlon, however, were a different story. My sense is there two people, both of who are actual believers, made the best arguments. Avlon argued that the greatest factor in everything, believer versus believer or non-believer is the issue of arrogance. No one position owns God. Booker than affirmed that one of the truest demonstrations of faith if humility. From that point on, in my opinion, the Mayor of Newark carried the day. Maher was left with little more than his own personal talking points.

Booker spoke of having a collection of Holy Books that Maher decreed all contradicted each other. Booker, most appropriately pointed out the great fact that they mostly do not; Maher semi cited Jesus ‘only through me’ from John’s Gospel----an often misinterpreted passage.

Booker observed that many churches in Newark, New Jersey are doing amazing, transformative ministries, and changing people’s lives. Of course, Maher didn’t want to hear about that, this is not what he wanted to talk about.

I walked away from this exchange with some real thoughts.

First, religious faith is, at its best, apolitical. Neither American political party could safely invite Jesus to their convention. They might claim that they could, but they really couldn’t. Considering Jesus’ moral teachings centered on caring for the poor and a promotion of the outcasts of society, Jesus talking to an exclusive crowd and the biggest downers would not go over well. Jesus would pick the meat off every bone in the room at either convention. Jesus, in his own life, lost his life after appearing to two different political leaders, Herod and Pilate. Politicians didn’t love him then and only love him now as long as they are able to only promote the parts of him they like. The real and total Jesus? Not hardly.

Secondly, Booker was right about humility. It requires humility to believe. Maher arrogantly kept calling Booker arrogant because Booker ‘believed’ (in Maher’s mind) that he, Booker, knew all the answers. Booker did not know all the answers and explained why. It didn’t convince Maher but Maher was beyond being convinced. He was right and everyone else was wrong. True faith does require humility.

Thirdly, S. E. Cupp is an interesting person. I’ve watched her interviewed by Bill O’Reilly who loved the book (it’s a political book that agrees with him, so he would love it) but kept trying to convert Cupp to being an actual person of faith. She was also interviewed by Bill Maher who hated the book (it’s a political book that doesn’t agree with him, so he would hate it) and kept trying to convert Cupp into being an actual atheist. She just finished a Master’s Degree in Religious Studies and understands that religion is good for people, but she doesn’t, herself, believe in God. My sense, with her, is that her arguments really do fall way short of the goal because she genuinely doesn’t understand religious faith. It is not something she has an experience of, and she’s stuck writing on things about faith, while missing the point of faith.

Lastly, whatever one things of the three guests, Booker, Cupp, and Avlon, they were all better than Maher. Of course, Bill Maher is, first and foremost, a comedian and he sees, first, to bring great folly and laughter to his show by making God and religious people, the butt of his humor. Faith is not irrational, it is not the domain inhabited by stupid, poorly read people, but it is a domain that is filled with a vast cross section of individuals with a wide variety of beliefs. Bill Maher’s mocking of things, of beliefs, of deeply helped values built on faith, is not particularly funny.