Atheist Alliance International & the Bill Maher Controversy

Bill Maher

Maher or no Maher? This may be a big question on many attendees' minds tomorrow during the Atheist Alliance International (AAI) Convention. Ever since it was announced that Bill Maher would be this years' recipient of the Richard Dawkins Award, named for the evolutionary biologist and world's most famous atheist, there's been a strong amount of disagreement over the decision, which has divided the atheist and skeptical communities.

Though these two communities show a large degree of overlap, not all atheists are skeptics and not all skeptics are atheists. I belong to both camps. I consider atheism to have been my gateway drug of sorts to generalized skepticism and see religious criticism as just one of many branches of skepticism.

Now the primary reason why many skeptics are opposed to Bill Maher's being honored lies in the official rules of the award (emphasis mine):

The Richard Dawkins Award will be given every year to honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage advocates increased scientific knowledge; who through work or by example teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy; and whose public posture mirrors the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins.

The rules explicitly state that the award should go to an atheist who "advocates increased scientific knowledge." This is something that Maher gets a failing grade on because as often as he criticizes religion, he also launches into anti-scientific rants against medicine:

Maher is not only a fanatical supporter of so-called "alternative" "medicine", but has on countless occasions publicly denounced real medicine as just a giant Big Pharma conspiracy. Further, he's made statements in the past that have suggested he's a Germ Theory and HIV Denier. He promoted cancer quackery just last week:

 He's also anti-vaccine and just a few days ago, called everyone who takes the H1N1 vaccine an idiot via Twitter:

I first learned of this while reading the anti-vaccine propaganda blog Age of Autism. Suffice it to say, they were very pleased with Maher's statement. Adn when Age of Autism agrees with you, that's usually on its own a good sign that you're wrong. It's like having Answers in Genesis praising your statements about Evolution.

Last year, Sam Harris spoke at the AAI Convention, not as a recipient of the Richard Dawkins Award but  because his two best-selling books on religion had made him a major figure in the atheist "community." He too caused a little bit of controversy when he decided not to just preach to the choir in his convention speech. Instead, he talked about his concerns over the use of label "atheism" and about being more accepting of "transcendent experience" divorced from the supernatural. And while I disagreed with Harris, at least regarding the "atheist" label, he didn't lose any of my respect. At the end of the day, I knew he was a rationalist and that we merely had a difference in opinion. To date, Sam Harris has not received the Richard Dawkins Award.

Sam Harris. Bill Maher. Even if we put aside all that anti-science, I think it's still reasonable to ask if Maher is the right choice for this award. After all, Bill Maher is no Sam Harris. Harris is an academic. His The End Of Faith was the first of the so-called "New Atheist" books to come out in stores and become a best-seller. He promoted science, reason, and critical thinking while making strong, intelligent criticisms of religion and faith. And while Harris and the other "New Atheist" authors have their critics even in the atheist community, he's done a spectacular job of defending his position. Maher, on the other hand, is much more of an O'Reilly-level loud mouth who's not above just shouting people down. He's certainly a more divisive choice among even atheists than someone like Harris, who merely shies away from the label.

Now many atheists have defended the decision to give the award to Maher. They point out that he's mocked religion throughout his comedy career. He endeared himself to skeptics several years ago by halting his show in the middle of taping to personally dispatch disruptive 9/11 deniers. It all made it into the final cut of the show. And last year, he made the year's most financially successful documentary, Religulous, where he gave religion the Michael Moore treatment. Mainstream audience saw the film. And many non-atheist audiences even liked it. And for that he gets a gold star. But then I must ask, is this award just a popularity contest? Whether a film sells many tickets has no bearing on the quality of that film (See: Michael Bay). And as much as I enjoyed it, I'd sooner recommend the documentaries Jesus Camp and Deliver Us From Evil, each of far greater quality and without resorting to Michael Moore tactics. But even in Religulous, Maher fails to properly promote atheism. In fact, he contributed to further misrepresenting the term "atheism" by insisting he wasn't an atheist because he didn't have absolute knowledge that there was no god. 

The next defense I've heard for the Maher decision originates with Richard Dawkins, which has led to Dawkins receiving criticism too. Although the award is only named for him and Dawkins himself had no role in the selection, after Maher's anti-science views were pointed out to Dawkins, a dismissive statement issued by the AAI stated that Dawkins was "happy" about the decision and feels he doesn't have to agree with someone on every point to appreciate his or her work promoting atheism. Many others have argued this point. Quite frankly, I think that's a false continuum and a cop-out. Nobody demands 100% agreement on all issues. I know I'd settle for just a passing grade. There are many atheists who are libertarians and I manage to usually get along with them just fine. In fact, if Michael Shermer was to be awarded, I'd be very happy. And there are other atheists who promote science but disagree with the more aggressive promotion of atheism employed by those damned "New Atheists." And most of the time, I'm fine with them too. But Maher's position on medical science is disgraceful. It's no better than the 9/11 denialists he once kicked out of his studio. Actually, it's probably worse. And according to the rules of the Richard Dawkins Award, recipients are supposed to be promoters of good science as well as strong advocates of atheism. And though I hate to invoke Godwin's Law, it raises a very interesting question. If Maher were a strong promoter of atheism who also happened to be a known Holocaust denier, would the atheists be as eager to defend the pick on the grounds that only his promotion of atheism is of concern? I highly doubt it. And for Dawkins to let this go after making his superb Enemies of Reason show criticizing anti-medical quackery, it's very disappointing. Also worth noting is that Maher used the very same deceptive tactics to get some of his film's interviews that Dawkins angerly criticized the makers of Expelled for using on him.

It seems to me that many atheists are willing to overlook quality to honor anyone willing to shout the party line loudly enough. I like Maher, but I can't support the decision to honor him as some sort of icon of atheism. I'm a proud atheist but I'm not just an atheist. I'm rationalist, a humanist, and a skeptic. I also like the term coined by atheist YouTuber Thunderf00t:  PEARList, as in a believer in Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic.  And I don't believe that Maher's atheism derived from rationalism. Reason and critical thinking do not end with a position on gods. Just because someone plays for our team, it doesn't mean they get a pass on their other irrational beliefs. If we're not going to promote rationalism over mere unbelief, then I feel I must ask, what's the point? What makes our "community" any better than that of the religious? I'm proud to call myself an atheist, but I think when we start to treat atheism like it's some great accomplishment on its own divorced from reason, science, and an otherwise rational outlook, it seems to become perverted into an ideology.

This is also briefly discussed in the most recent episode of the Skeptics Guide To The Universe podcast (episode #218) about seven minutes into the show.