Bill Maher courtesy of his Facebook page
Saturday October 3rd, comedian, talk show host, and documentary filmmaker Bill Maher will be the 7th recipient of the Dawkins Award from the Atheist Alliance International.
“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.”
For some reason, this has become a somewhat controversial pick within the greater atheistic community. The main reason why some atheists have argued against Maher has been because Maher is skeptical about how large corporations have affected the health industry. On his weekly television show, Maher has talked about the value of eating healthy and expressed concerns about chemicals, pesticides, and preservatives that are in our food. He has also commented that pollution in our air and water has also contributed to the poor health of most Americans. Maher’s view is that if our bodies weren’t weaken by the crap we put in our food, the crap we put in our water, and the crap we breath, we probably wouldn’t look so appetizing to germs and viruses.
Another issue that some atheists take with Maher is that he has also questioned whether we need all the vaccines that we get. His concern doesn’t see to be the same as Jenny McCarthy’s however. I don’t think Maher has ever expressed the view that vaccines cause autism. The science on that has come in and there is no link between the two. However, like with Maher’s opinion that we shouldn’t put some much artificial stuff in our food; Maher doesn’t seem to think that we should overly vaccinate either. Does that mean that Maher is against all vaccines? I haven’t heard him ever express that view and I have watched his show for many years.
The fact is that none of these views that Maher has expressed are overly irrational or anti-scientific. Maher has even made the point that his only evidence is anecdotal and he is just expressing an opinion which can be proven wrong. But there are those within the atheist community who seem to think that all atheists should believe certain things in a certain way.
Those in the anti-Maher camp claim that the award is supposed to go to “advocates who increase scientific knowledge” and they claim that Maher’s position that the medical industry has been taken over by corporate-minded people rather than scientific-minded is somehow anti-science. While these are issues we can talk about and discuss, I don’t think any of them are anti-science. In fact, I think Maher would advocate more scientific research on these issues.
The fact is that the Dawkins Award is given out by Atheist Alliance International, not by the Medical Industry. The award recognizes people who promote atheism and science. There is little doubt that Bill Maher’s documentary Religulous, has promoted atheism. Maher is also a board member of the Reason Project and talks about the need for more scientific education and research on his show all the time.
What if Bill Maher was a holocaust denier, should he still get he award? The fact is that Maher is not a holocaust denier so it is a moot point. Bill Maher is human being. He is not a machine. He may still have some irrational ideas on some issues just like we all do. None of his ideas are really that far out of the realm of believability that they should discredit him from getting this award.
In 2005, Penn & Teller received this same award despite the fact that Penn believes that the Government is evil and out to get everyone. Penn was also a strong supporter of Congressman Ron Paul’s bid for the Presidency despite the fact that Congressman Paul doesn’t believe in the Jeffersonian Wall of Separation and believes that American is a Christian Nation. Does that mean that Penn shouldn’t have gotten the Award? Of course he should have. Penn and Teller promoted atheism on their show and this award is for the promotion of atheism. Bill Maher has also promoted atheism on his show and in his film. That is why he is getting this award.
Congratulations to Bill Maher for being the 2008 recipient of Richard Dawkins Award.
Atheism 101 Articles:
Atheism 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Atheism 101: Is there moral grounding without God?
Atheism 101: The Purpose of Life
Atheism 101: Is the Bible the inspired word of God?
Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion
Atheism 101: Why has Christianity demonized nudity, sex and sexuality?
Atheism 101: Does it take more faith to be an atheist?
Atheism 101: What came before the Universe?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the ex-atheist
Comments
Bill Maher is a conspiracy theorist who believes that drug companies are trying to kill Americans. He does not deserve this award. Atheists need better representation in the media. Bill Maher is a fool.
I don't get what the big deal is. Once a corporation gets to a certain size, it tends to stop caring about the well being of anyone who might get in the way of its profits. That's the whole reason all these loans defaulted in the first place; why would the same methodology not be true of drug companies? Until it can be demonstrated that multibillion dollar companies who work "for the good of the people" mean anyone besides their stock holders, I'd say Maher's right to be skeptical.
the real issue for me is that Bill Maher does not even consider himself an atheist. The fact that is might be an atheist is not the point. A spokesperson for atheism, or at least one who wins an award given by an atheist organization, should be at least willing to call themselves an atheist.
I think the problem here is you are conflating atheism with skepticism (is Maher even an atheist?). Many of those, myself included, who object to Maher receiving this award consider themselves skeptics first, atheists second. As I have become painfully aware of recently, the two are not the same thing; many atheists are not skeptics and vice-versa.
May I humbly suggest you do a bit more research on just what Maher's position is, as he rhetoric is far more dangerous than you have alluded too. I attempted to provide some links for you, however they were rejected by the system. Please see the Science Based Medicine blog.
You might also want to look a bit more into Penn & Teller and their standing within the Skeptic community; they are admired and respected by many scientists. Comparing Penn's political shortcomings to Maher's anti-science stance on medicine is a false equivalence.
if bill were an atheist i would kind of agree with the choice but hes not even an atheist, the award is supposed to go to the most outstanding atheist of the year etc.., not the most popular comedian
So far, people has stated that Maher is not an atheist. This is false. He has stated several times that he does not believe there is a god. Some have stated that he doesn't use the label, "atheist." This might be true. I know he didn't use that label in the past, but I think he probably does now. In any case, I don't really see that as an issue. Sam Harris doesn't use the label either, but if he got the award, I don't think anyone would care. Third, people have stated that Maher is Anti-Science. In what way? I have yet to get a real answer to this aside from false characterizations of sound-bytes. As I said, Maher is skeptical about some aspects of our modern medical system. I don't see that as anti-science. Nor does that have anything to do with atheism.
Washed, why is is not valid to talk about Penn's support for Ron Paul? Don't get me wrong, I love Penn and I don't think that his support for loony Paul should have disqualified him from getting an atheist award. But why is that any different than Maher's skepticism of the medical industry? Neither has anything to do with religion. Both Penn and Maher are supporting religious skepticism.
I think Staks did a good job addressing the criticisms posted here, but I would like to add a few points.
Personally, I don't care if someone chooses to label them self as an atheist or not. It is essentially defining yourself with a negative. I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster, either... but I do not feel compelled to give myself a label like "athlochnessmonsterist". The important point is that Maher does a great deal to combat the most negative aspects of religion. The idea of "promoting atheism" is just silly. The best way to spread atheist views is to expose the absurdity of religion. Maher excels in doing so.
As for his views on the medical industry... He doesn't claim that they are trying to kill us. He claims that as a business, it is obviously in their best interest to sell their products and services. As a result, they convince the public that they need unnecessary drugs. It's blatantly obvious that our population is over-medicated. This is not a conspiracy theory.
Brian B,
Another problem is that the dichotomy is not between atheism and religion, but atheism and theism. I, as an atheist, have little problem with religion per se. I have issues with particular religions. I have an issue with faith and with belief in things that there is no reason to believe in. Maher's poking at religion is fine (I thought it was funny), but he has distanced himself from the term 'atheist' (perhaps until recently), and so he does not even qualify for the award, let alone survive the voting process.
I do not oppose religion in itself, I oppose an epistemological stance that many religions employ. I, like was said earlier, am a skeptic first and an atheist as a result of skepticism.
I am an "athlochnessmonsterist", and a-unicornist, and an abigfootist. If I am talking about any of these things, then I might use these terms (or some equivalent ones). The fact is that god is all the talk in our culture, so the term 'atheist' will be relevant more oft
AAI website: "We are also pleased to announce that Bill Maher, effervescent host of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher and host and co-producer of the 2008 documentary movie Religulous, will be in attendance Friday evening to receive the 2009 AAI Richard Dawkins Award for his efforts to further the values science and reason in the world."
Science figures large in this award.
Maher's opinions about health and medicine are more than a personal preference for vegetarianism. He says things like, "All prescription drugs are poison. Everything in the pharmacy is poison. Everything." He claims that flu vaccine causes Alzheimer's and that disease in general is caused by aggregate toxicity. These are views we hear from quacks.
But on Daily Show, Maher also defamed atheists: "I don't say there's no god. I'm not an atheist, because I find atheism to be a mirror of the certainly of religion."
I love the work that man does and I'm happy for him. Live long and prosper, Bill.
PROPS TO BILL MAHER!
Bill Maher is an amazing satirical poet. The problem with this award is that he is not an athiest, he agnostic and claims he dosen't know. He does not denounce the concept of god.
"Maher’s view is that if our bodies weren’t weaken by the crap we put in our food, the crap we put in our water, and the crap we breath, we probably wouldn’t look so appetizing to germs and viruses."
This is sugar coating his views. He honestly believes that all disease is caused by bad diet or toxins, and that alternative medicine can relieve some of this.
A pyromaniac in a field of strawmen.
Maher has a lot going for him. I enjoy his show. However, his understanding of medical science is rather feeble, particularly in the realm of HIV, vaccines (opposing some but not all vaccines CUZ U NOES MOAR DEN CDC still makes you an anti-vax loon), immunity, toxicology, and nutrition.
Celebrities can have opinions. But where public health is concerned, they must get the facts right or STFU.
Patients shouldn't take celebrities seriously, but they do. Medical misinformation kills.
Kudos to Bill Maher!
He's brilliant and funny.
The right always tries to paint this guy as the extreme left, if you read his views, hes certainly not extreme. Hes radical, in a good way. This guy has the guts to say what he says, i dont always agree with him but the rest of this 24 hr news cycle is getting old need other people to take an off handed look at what is happening. I rememba seeing Maher out one night with Ann Coulter she was laughing all night. If there is one thing georgy carlin and maher were correct about it's religion
Bill Maher routinely misinforms people about medicine, nutrition, global warming and many other areas where public policy is crucially important. To give him an award because he is a religious bigot is absurd, deeply sick, and deeply irrational.
It seems like you are speculating a lot about the issue. This blog speaks thoroughly to Maher's anti-science views and proffers video evidence. sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1251
It is the "no climate change" crowd who misinforms people about that issue, not Maher. Why these people, most of whom haven't taken a science class since high school, think they know more about climate change than the National Academy of Sciences is beyond me. Having said that, I do agree that Maher's views on vaccines are silly and could just as well emanate from the folks at Fox News trying to scare up some ratings. Of course, the author said it best: It's irrelevant to the award.
Just noticed this while looking elsewhere. I agree with what most say - he is continuing to add to the belief that agnosticism is somehow a "more acceptable" form of atheism, and even more so his pro-bad science stance should have kept him from getting this award.
Maher once considered himself an agnostic but has since come out as an atheist. His views on vaccines and medical conspiracies do seem a little out there, but I don't think that should disqualify him from the atheist award. But I do respect that fellow atheists disagree. My brother has strongly lobbied against Maher getting the award for that very reason. He has three articles on it (see the sidebar for a link to his Examiner articles).
He was once a Catholic and a Jew as well. Maher is no Agnostic, no more than he is an Atheist. He should however be considered for the chameleon award....that would better suit this tool.
Maher is a tool as well as a fool. Awarding this guy anything discredits the awarding organization ten fold. Aligning yourself with this idiot effectively sets any progress made back and renders that organization as a farce. Of course, the same could be said about Penn & Teller.
On what basis? Do you have evidence to present or are you just BSing around?
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!