Andrew Sullivan Clashes with Bill Maher Over Religion

September 21st, 2008 By: Michael Merritt | Tags:

Andrew Sullivan was on Bill Maher’s HBO show the other day, discussing topics, among them Sarah Palin and the economy.  Maher veered off into an anti-religious tangent, and Sullivan, I think, gave him a good smackdown.  Sullivan is a devout Catholic.  Skip to 6:50 for the religious sparring, since the first part is all rawwr Palin.

YouTube Preview Image

Maher is definitely one of the people I discussed about in a past entry on atheism/anti-theism, who feels he must ridicule people simply for believing in a religion, rather than taking the time and effort to get into a spirited debate with well though out arguments.  From what I understand, Maher is not an atheist himself, just against organized religion.  I still think you don’t have to entirely ridicule someone for their beliefs, though.  And vice versa.

I thought Sullivan was right on target with his comeback.  Oh, and I laughed out loud (for real) at Sullivan’s eye roll when Maher started on his rant.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Claudia, Assistant Editor
    September 21st, 2008 at 14:22
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Bill makes a mistake common in both theists and anti-theists; he fails, more often than not, to separate the individual religious experience from the larger influence of religion itself.

    Will.i.am talks about the good religion did to him and Bill refuses to knowledge this. This is a common mistake. You can still argue that religion is a net negative to humankind while recognizing that on an individual level it can do a lot of good to people. My best friend in High School had the same experience. She came from a broken welfare home. She had all the odds to become a teenage single mother like her own. I have no problem recognizing that it was her church that kept her on track, gave her a center, a constant positive in her life. I believe (and I don’t doubt Bill does as well) that you don’t actually need the religious aspect for this to work, but you MUST acknowledge that it is perfectly natural for people to consider their faith a central part of themselves if the physical manifestation of that faith (the church) is what’s kept them grounded their entire life.

    Likewise religious people often refuse to acknowledge that they cannot attribute their positive experiences to religion and then ignore the negative aspects (extremism) as not really about religion.

    Bill was very clumsily trying to make the point that if you encourage non-critical thinking, if you extoll faith as the ultimate virtue, this will spill over into other aspects of your life, to the point where rationality is considered bad. The real problem, as Sullivan pointed out, is that he takes this to an absurd degree, and pretends like religious people usually apply no rationality to their lives, instead of segregating their religious views from their reality-based ones. I agree that most religious people MUST be doing what Andrew says, because if not they would not be functional human beings. I agree with Bill about the danger of putting faith-based thinking above rational thinking in real world problems, but I think he does no favors to that cause by stuffing all religious people in the same boat.

  2. Barmaher
    September 21st, 2008 at 21:15
    Reply | Quote | #2

    What you won’t see in the video clip is Andrew Sullivan accusing Bill Maher of bigotry.  More at: http://www.barmaher.com/?p=22

  3. Michael Merritt
    September 22nd, 2008 at 03:07
    Reply | Quote | #3

    I agree, Claudia.  There is definitely a place for faith for some people.  For some, it fills a void that is missing and putting imbalance into their life.  On the other hand, some people just don’t require this.

  4. Bob
    September 22nd, 2008 at 22:44
    Reply | Quote | #4

    Right or not, Sullivan seemed like he was on (or off) some kind of medication.

  5. dude
    September 23rd, 2008 at 12:39
    Reply | Quote | #5

    if u believe in noahs ark, talking snakes, adam and eve, etc. how can anyone take u seriously on any other matter? i dont care if you can separate religious thinking and other matters. the point that you believe in the junk proves you are not a rational thinking person.

  6. Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief
    September 23rd, 2008 at 13:35
    Reply | Quote | #6

    the point that you believe in the junk proves you are not a rational thinking person.

    The idiocy and arrogance of some atheists exposed.

  7. wilfred
    September 23rd, 2008 at 18:25
    Reply | Quote | #7

    There is so much tangible evidence that God exists, simply look at the natural world. Our earth is very unique on so many different levels, i think the challenge is on the evolutionists to prove the life we see came from nothing. When you put something, anything in water it breaks down. The Bible itself claims to be inspired from God, which clearly explains why in Isaiah chapter 40 it calls the earth a circle, some translations use sphere, but Isaiah(undisputed) was written seven, yes seven hundred years before Christ. When did science finally agree that the earth was indeed a circle if you don’t know it was the 12th century, only 1900 years later.
     I could go on, but really if one believes there is no God, i pity you.

    The world has been allowed to become so corrupt in order for God to see who wants His way of rule and who doesn’t, personally there are waaaaay to many acts of violence, indecency, immorality and just plain disgusting filth that the bible condemns but society calls freedom, look at what the world has become in all this so called freedom.And the problem with religion is not the bible, it’s the hippocrates who claim to follow it, they not only misinterpret it, but they also misrepresent it, which i am sure they will pay for.

    God is a God of love but only to those who truly want to reflect the qualities of a godly person.Those who don’t, let them be warned.(Maude said it best) 

    If man can live in a world where you don’t have to lock your doors, all people work together for the common good, and life is respected, we will get along much better.Why not follow the laws of God. We already follow laws from society, but if a supremely intelligent being, someone who not only knows how gravity works but invented gravity, wants to give me advice on how to live, then let’s get to it.
    You know that Einstein guy, Albert, he was a deeply religious man, i think he and bill maher would have been boring to watch because simply put bill maher is a big mouth with some media pull, but Albert was highly intelligent, in fact he would have seen right thru bill maher and probably would have chosen not to waste his time on such a friutless endeavor, which is a little the way i’m feeling, but remember folks Einstein did the smart thing, he believed in GOD.  If you want to get closer to GOD, start asking all the hard questions, why are we here, is there really a God, ask loudly to yourself privately(in your room, out in the woods, just somewhere private) and God will show you, start asking then wait for the knock at the door or a stranger stopping you on the street, but no worries have trust God is there, he hears you and his kingdom is coming very soon. 

  8. Sean
    September 23rd, 2008 at 20:14
    Reply | Quote | #8

    wilfrid said, "You know that Einstein guy, Albert, he was a deeply religious man"

    This is untrue.

    Einstein was an agnostic and humanist, although he was not an atheist and was annoyed when people described him as such.  In 1929 he said, ""I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."  This is more in line with deist thinking.  He did not believe in a personal God or in the concept of one.

    In 1954 he wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."  He did not belong to any organized religion.

    Please don’t mischaracterize Einstein to make your points.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.