Bill Maher
The other day I wrote about my disapproval of the Atheist Alliance International's (AAI) picking of Bill Maher as this year's recipient of the Richard Dawkins Award.
PZ Myers also strongly disagrees with Maher's stance on medicine but did previously defend the decision. Now Myers, who attended the AAI's convention, reported on the proceedings with regard to this particular issue:
The good news for all the critics of this choice is that Dawkins pulled no punches. In his introduction, he praised Religulous and thanked Maher for his contributions to freethought, but he also very clearly and unambiguously stated that some of his beliefs about medicine were simply crazy. He did a good job of walking a difficult tightrope; he made it clear that the award was granted for some specific worthy matters, his humorous approach to religion, while carefully dissociating the AAI from any endorsement of crackpot medicine. It won't be enough, I know, but the effort was made, and talking to Dawkins afterwards there was no question but that Maher's quackery was highly objectionable. I also got the impression that he felt the critics of the award were making good and reasonable points, and that he felt the awkwardness of the decision.
I have to say that it is at least comforting to know that when Myers talked to his friend afterwards, Dawkins did express his strong disapproval of Maher's medical position and agreed that critics of the decision had reasonable points. It's also good to know he did publicly comment on the controversy and make reference to his disagreement on these issues to the audience.
However, PZ Myers is right that it's not quite enough. Orac is less generous here than myself at this point, but I too still feel that it was indeed a bad call to put the atheist message above the rational and scientific one on this occasion. I think Orac makes an excellent point here:
To me, this whole fiasco is pretty strong evidence that, if atheism and science come into conflict (unless, of course, that science happens to be the science of evolution, in which case I highly doubt that this controversy would have been so flippantly dismissed), for Richard Dawkins atheism wins hands down, and science-based medicine once again remains the poor, neglected stepchild of the so-called "reality-based" community. Atheism is clearly what's more important to Dawkins now. As long as he bashes religion, Maher's a-OK with him and only gets a brief remonstration for his promotion of quackery and anti-vaccine views. I'm the other way around. Quite frankly, I no longer care much about atheism; science and reason are my passion, which is why this fiasco got me so worked up.
While I'm still a proud, card-carrying, banner-waving atheist, I can sympathize with Orac's position. If Maher was as critical of evolutionary biologists as he was of the medical community, he would not be receiving this award. He wouldn't because evolution is so much a part of the identity of the modern atheist "movement." It seems almost like we're falling into the trap Sam Harris (who incidentally still has no Richard Dawkins Award) warned us about by choosing to identify ourselves as "atheists."
At the end of the day, what are we going to value more, creating converts or promoting science and reason? I think science and reason is the higher goal and that an atheist worldview naturally stems from that. But at the end of the day, I don't really care whether an individual believes in a god or not just like I don't really care if an individual believes in the Lock Ness Monster or not. What I care about is that they think critically, reject faith as a justification for poor beliefs, and avoid dogma.
While I enjoyed Maher's film and much of his comedy, I don't see him as a person who embodies those values, values which I think the atheist "community" should be honoring over ticket sales. And I certainly don't see him as the person who best embodied those values in the past year. Past recipients of the award included James Randi, Ann Druyan, and Daniel Dennett, luminaries who each clearly embody those values and are able to put those values before their own political agendas. Sam Harris too embodies those values. As does Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers, Michael Shermer, and many more who make far better choices, in my opinion, as recipients of the award than the star of Religulous. The former show they care more about seeking truth than being right whereas Maher more often than not goes the more Bill O'Reilly route of shouting out his beliefs and simply demanding everyone agree with them, lest they be called an idiot or a pinhead. He's a loose canon that sometimes will point in the direction of the enemies of reason but may just as often be pointing at us. And I am beginning to wonder if Maher's atheism stems less from rationalism than from his mere interest in being contrarian.
Comments
"At the end of the day, what are we going to value more, creating converts or promoting science and reason? I think science and reason is the higher goal and that an atheist worldview naturally stems from that."
For the most part, I don't think there's a real dichotomy between the two goals you mention. I, too, am troubled by Bill Maher's ditzy views on medicine, etc., and was wondering if he was really the kind of person who ought to be receiving the Dawkins award. I heard Richard Dawkins' speech at the convention (I'll write about the convention later, I'm still at it) and I thought he answered my objections both eloquently and rationally. Bill Maher, in his acceptance speech, even quipped that Dawkins' summary of RELIGULOUS was better than the film itself! That was a joke that acknowledged a profound truth: the film was important, not because of Bill Maher, but because it showed the intellectual, social and even moral bankruptcy of so much of theism to so wide an audience.
(continued from below) The popularization of knowledge of the ridiculousness of theism is a worthy goal in itself. It is a liberation of the mind to think along new and different pathways... and I don't see how anyone is going to imbibe anything else of Bill Maher's viewpoints from it than that.
Dogmatic atheism, which might allow wierder viewpoints like Maher's, come from already dogmatic philosophies, like Communism. Just being freed from looking at religion like it's too sacred to be scriticized (or satarized) is far more likely to be an opening for looking at more of the world critically, than an invitation to just accept other irrationalities.
This aspect of Maher's work, Dawkin's said (and which I now see) is the greatest part of it; a worthy accomplishment, and a valid reason for recognition. Nothing about giving him this award, as Dawkins pointedly remarked, is a reward for, or makes him immune from criticism about, his other, odder beliefs.
I'm glad Maher does so passionately speak out against religion, but the choice to honor him above anyone else this year because he made a successful movie that mocks religion seems like a weak choice. Should we just assume now that Ricky Gervais will win next year?
And when individuals are honored in this way, I think their personal character should matter too. Maher is being held up as an icon in the atheist community but I hope few atheists actually choose to emulate his poor critical thinking. I'm more concerned with the reasons one comes to atheism than the mere fact that they'd rejected god-belief. I think the AAI could have done much, much better in their selection and is selling the atheistic community short. I'm not saying that Maher's the Sarah Palin of choices, but he's certainly more of a Joe Biden in his ability to stick his foot in his mouth.
Dawkins may have done a bit of damage control, but AAI crudely blew off science when people wrote them with concerns about this particular award going to Maher.
As for Sam Harris, he has a few problem areas which would make him an unlikely candidate for a science award. Check out James Randi's critique of Harris' fondness for Eastern mysticism and his uninformed remarks about ESP in SKEPTIC magazine.
You think Michael "use skepticism to push my radical political and economic philosophy" Shermer is a luminary who clearly embodies those values and is able to put those values before his own political agendas?"
Are you serious?
There is much, much too much stuff to be read to read it all. We create standards to filter out the absurd. Michael Rosch goes in the "high noise, low reward" bin.
dglas,
I think you're making a false analogy. I don't agree w/ everything Michael Shermer believes. I certainly disagree w/ some of his politics. I also disagree w/ some of Chris Hitchens' politics. But this isn't about politics. This is about the intersection btw science and pseudoscience. Contrary to what I've been accused of in the past w/ regards to this issue, I don't demand that the award winners agree with me on everything or share my politics. Shermer is free to write a book about his economic views, but I can't think of a single instance where Shermer put those views before his commitment to science and skeptical inquiry. Shermer is committed to publishing a skeptical magazine every single month. So far, Bill Maher's proven to make one skeptical movie a lifetime. How many more atheist films do you expect him to make? I think we've already seen the height of his involvement. I think we should be rewarding those w/ a history of hard work over time, not flavors of the month.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!