Bill Maher attempts to corroborate his theory that Americans are stupid by behaving like one

Thank you for taking Maher to task, Jim. I know it hasn't been the first time. My problem with him is exactly what you state here: he talks a big talk about critical thinking and intelligent conversation (and how people who believe in religion are incapable of such things), but he can never back up what he believes. He reminds me of certain high school students I work with in the classroom...only spouting off opinions because they've been told something all along, and when they are challenged by their peers on why they believe what they believe they just vehemently restate what they've already said.

I don't think Maher has said anything new in the last 20 years...he is the equivalent of a teenage boy who stands up for something, or takes a side on an issue "just because"...he rarely has given an intelligent reasoning behind what he believes (aside from the ultra-smug "because I don't believe in a magical creator, so I'm smarter than you" he always spouts.)

I've always found it ironic that he is exactly the type of person that he loves to rail against -- and he's just as zealous, too, because he fails to see it. I honestly don't think Maher would be able to handle an intelligent conversation about the nature of religion, and why some people think it's important, because he lacks the tact (or tolerance if you want to use a stronger word) and critical thinking skills needed to engage in a discussion...not a debate, which is always just loud, obnoxious, and idling...but a discussion where two people can sit down and (gasp) possibly learn something.

But that's impossible because 'ol Bill already knows everything.

The other hole in Maher's swine flu argument is this: Even if he's right that the people who died from swine flu couldn't possibly be healthy beforehand, he's also the guy who constantly rants that Americans are unhealthy. One of the reasons he thinks that we're unhealthy is because we take medications (he supposedly doesn't), thus his conclusion, I guess, is that not getting a swine flu shot makes us healthier. But if people are unhealthy, for whatever reason, they are unhealthy. And so if swine flu can kill an unhealthy person, then it stands to reason that unhealthy Americans (which Maher thinks is most of us) should be standing in line waiting to get their swine flu vaccine.

It's one thing to take the 'whatever sticks' approach in the fight against religion, even if Maher's lines of argument sometimes contradict, because religion is based on faith more than fact, and thus anything someone can do to crack that faith and prompt one to reexamine their long-held beliefs has some value. But medicine isn't based on faith.

I fully understand Maher's skepticism of the swine flu vaccine, because we've learned over time that the initial medical treatment of anything is usually imperfect (which isn't the same thing as harmful). But in the interview above, Maher uses the Fox tactic that when cornered with contradictory evidence you should just talk over the person and say that they're wrong, even if their evidence is more compelling than yours, even if you have no evidence except that what you believe.

What's especially troubling is that one can already begin to predict that should Maher ever suffer a serious illness (and I'm not wishing that on him), he'll stick to his bunker mentality and refuse to attribute it to his stand against medication. His mind is made up. He's got religion.

JE: You said it! He also doesn't seem to understand cost vs. risk. What are the odds that a defective vaccine is going to hurt you vs. the odds that the vaccine will prevent a potentially catastrophic illness? What risks are you substantially reducing by paying a few dollars for a flu shot? Maher doesn't even "believe" Jonas Salk's polio vaccine worked -- which really does fall into a category of tinfoil-hattery somewhere between Holocaust denial and the belief that the moon landings were faked. Based on what? Gut feeling: "Distrust of the government."

"To every complex question there is a simple answer and it is wrong..." (H.L. Mencken)

Maher and the other vaccine non-believers typically try to dismiss vaccines by calling them "poison" or "diseases" or by stating things like "they contain mercury!" in order to make it look obvious that vaccines are bad. Of course, it's not that easy - they tend to leave out the details (live viruses are not injected; there are differences between methyl and ethyl mercury; etc.) and don't seem to realize that individual vaccines need to be examined individually, but that there is plenty of evidence for the general idea and efficacy of vaccines.

Science shows that nature is complicated. That's a pain in the ass sometimes, but I wish more people weren't so, I don't know, frightened of that. They should marvel at it and be curious.

As a someone who used to be mildly amused by Maher (he does throw out some pretty good zingers if he's really on his game) I'd like to say that I'm now completely disgusted with him. His anti-medicine/anti-psychiatry bent was irksome, but somewhat tolerable because he didn't talk about it all that much. I would never wish any kind of illness, mental or otherwise, on a person but I think Maher might deserve a rude awakening to shake him from his perpetual aversion to logic and facts when it comes to medicine.

Part of me wants to hold off submitting this comment; but part of me wants to put it into the mix now, because I make a prediction in it and I'd rather be able to say, "Look, didn't I say this would happen" rather than, "I knew this would happen," without substantiation.

But I'll bet that most of the comments you get on this post will fall into one of two categories:
1) comments from left-leaning commentators who will accuse you of selling out to the dreaded right-wing
2) comments from right-wing types who normally bash you, which comments will...continue to bash you, for cleverly hiding a leftist attack on Rush Limbaugh in a diatribe against Maher.

In short, while appearing to be the soul of rationality, this blog isn't going to win you any points with anyone, except other rationalists. A small and oft-disregarded group because they don't tend to jump up and down, scream shrilly and engage in rhetorical one-upmanship.

But...from my point of view, very good post.

And I say that without the need of any sarcasm html tags...

I wasn't sure if giving the Richard Dawkins Award to Maher was a mistake or not but based on this "interview" where Maher behaves like Bill O'Reilly, I think that they could have found a better non-religious role model for this award.

I think Maher has to be thanked for openly criticizing religion on TV. However, he has proved to be no better than a religious fundamentalist with these unfounded beliefs about the evils of "Western" medicine (I think it should just be called medicine).

I used to live in Mexico, my home country, during the H1N1 virus outbreak. People were coming up with these ridiculous conspiracy theories... so upsetting. I understand if you don't trust your government, but you should at least learn the facts first. Of course, a lot of people cannot tell the difference between a fact and an opinion.

It must have something to do with Mahers close ties to Arianna Huffington, she's something of an evangelist for the whole celebrity anti-vaxxer movement and the new age medicine crowd. As well as forcing her staff to join the "Movement For Spiritual Inner Awareness" cult.

Does anyone find Bill Maher hilarious except Larry King?

I'm very liberal and it sucks that hacks like Maher and Olbermann are the de facto media spokespersons for liberalism in America. I'm Canadian and it's not uncommon to see interviews with guys like Noam Chomsky who is dismissed as being part of the "lunatic fringe left" and thisoutside of the "spectrum of acceptable debate" even though you have right wing lunatics like Pat Buchanan on Meet the Press every week.

I got flu shots every year I was in the military, and never seemed to be any more or less healthy as a result. Given that I absolutely hate needles, this has always been my ironclad excuse for avoiding flu shots. The only thing that puts me one up on Maher here is that I know I don't have a reason, this is strictly an excuse.

I really do hate needles, though. It's not the puncturing of my oh-so-precious skin, it's letting someone do that to me, I just can't stand it. Color me stupid...

The H1N1 virus is a mutated strain of the same influenza that the world has been dealing with for decades. It's interesting that a topic so unquestionably scientific has given way into political, religious and even metaphysical debates.

Since the iniitial outbreak we've seen Egypt slaughters tens of thousands of pigs despite WHO assertions that the disease is not transferable directly from pigs. The assertions fall on deaf ears considering the issue wasn't a scientific one but one of religious rivalry between Christians and Muslims in Egypt.

Later, the virus became a political issue as illustrated my the Maher/Frist interview. I have a suspicion that the same people who distrust the government and denounce its "interference" in public health would also be the first to blame the government should an epidemic break out here in the U.S.

Finally, I mentioned a metaphysical offshoot of the debate surrounding H1N1 as it relates to "non-Western" medicine that Maher apparently believes in. I'm curious how alternative medicines respond to the evolution of viruses. To add one more, the debate has even become anthopological. When I reposted this video on Facebook, a friend of mine criticized Frist's point of view as too ethnocentric.

To reclarify my point, I just think it's interesting watch how a simple gene mutation has "evolved" into something so much more.

I am a libertarian-leaning conservative. I appreciate your taking Maher to task for his irrationality. I am not a fan of it on either side.

Unfortunately, we are in an age where those who are convinced with themselves, especially those who are shrill, tend to drown out those who are circumspect with their beliefs.

I think the reasoning behind Maher's arguments for NOT getting a flu vaccine is one that I heard before as well: That flu vaccines don’t work. I have gotten vaccines every year my entire life, and guess what? I still get the flu. In fact, the CDC has in the past determined flu shots aren’t very effective. The 2006 Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews in 51 separate studies found that the flu vaccine worked no better than a placebo in 260,000 children ranging from six months to 23 months. A study in the October 2008 Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found flu vaccines in young children have made no difference in the number of flu-related doctor or hospital visits. A study produced by Lancet last year found that influenza vaccination was NOT associated with a reduced risk of pneumonia in older people, corroborating a study five years earlier in The New England Journal of Medicine. And the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine published that there had been no decrease in deaths from influenza or pneumonia, despite the fact that vaccination coverage has increased from 15 percent in 1980 to 65 percent today. And while health officials say that 36,000 people will die from it this year, the National Vital Statistics compiled by the CDC show that only 1,138 deaths occur from influenza alone – the other 34,000+ deaths are actually pneumonic and cardiovascular deaths. And many of these deaths occur in people with preexisting conditions, weakened immune systems, and the elderly. For example, in 2002, 753 people died from the flu. The year before, in 2001, just 257 people died from the flu. (Fifty-nine percent of these deaths occurred in people 75 years or older; 75 percent occurred in people 55 years or older.) To put these numbers in perspective, 3,454 Americans died from malnutrition in 2001 -- 13 times greater than the number of flu deaths. That same year, there were 4,269 deaths attributed to asthma, a condition some studies have linked to vaccines.

Vaccinations do present potentially damaging side effects including dangerous mercury levels, serious damage to the internal organs , particularly the pancreas, making receivers more vulnerable to autoimmune diseases like diabetes, Addison's Disease, Arthritis, Asthma, Guillian-Barre Syndrome, Hepatitis, Lou Gehrig's Disease, Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, Osteoporosis, Polio, and dozens of others. Vaccinations also include the following toxic substances: ethylene glycol, neomycin & streptomycin, formaldehyde, aluminum, Polysorbate 80, phenol, Triton X100, and egg proteins (which include avian viruses). According to Dr. Donald Miller, “Seventy percent of doctors don’t even get a flu shot. “

So while Maher might be imprudent to dismiss all medicine (which I honestly doubt he actually does), he is trying to get people to think twice about all of these vaccinations. While a vaccine proven to cure Polio or Small Pox should not be dismissed, vaccines which are questionable in ability to heal but house potentially damaging side effects and permanent organic damage should be carefully considered. Maher has long questioned America’s quick-fix medicine picks, fearing that we are over-medicated and self-destructive, opting for a chemical blitz instead of a natural healthy lifestyle and conventional medical options. He also distrusts the medical industry which is so in-bed with the government, that one could easily see a conflict of interest between medical lobby weasels and campaign contributions.

I think it’s dangerous to believe something just because you feel it and don’t back it up, but backing it up without looking at other independent points of view could prove just as foolhardy.

JE: There are many reasons to have a healthy skepticism of the medical establishment. "Distrust of the government" is not a solid one. Maher simply doesn't understand what vaccines are. Here's the World Health Organization's site on H1N1, not the same as the annual seasonal influenza: http://bit.ly/49Mk0B . Here is the CDC site with information about the availability of adjuvant- and preservative-free (non-thimerosal/mercury) versions of the vaccine (even though there's no evidence those have been harmful -- especially compared to, say, eating sushi): http://bit.ly/A7SM8 . Maher is right that people don't tend to die of the flu itself. They get very ill or die from complications arising from the flu infection -- especially children, the elderly, and people with weakened systems or even otherwise benign or undiagnosed conditions. In the case of the "swine flu," young people (mid-twenties and younger) are also considered "high risk" for serious complications. Past flu vaccines have been found to be 50-80 percent effective. Life is risky; short of boy-in-the-plastic-bubble quarantine, there are no 100-percent safe options when it comes to infectious disease exposure. But nobody is advocating that EVERYONE get a flu shot, either. Again, it's a matter of understanding and weighing risks, costs and benefits for the individual.

I thought Bill Frist did a great job countering Maher's claims. I can't get around how someone can attack the belief in God as irrational while spouting beliefs that fly in the view of scientific understanding, beliefs which to my mind are much more dangerous. It's frightening that his audience found time to applaud Frist only once, and only on an issue with which Maher agreed. I hope the influence that Maher and others who espouse dangerous health views is limited.

Jim, I don't always find myself agreeing with you, but thank you for your thoughtful blogs and for advocating respectful, reasoned discourse. This is the best response to those with uninformed opinions.

There are two kinds of people repeating anti-vaccine nonsense. The first are the honestly duped, the people who think they have been given a dose of the Truth and are now frantically parroting it to every ear they can find. The second are people like Maher, who are rabble-rousers not remotely interested in what the truth really is but sure are hellbent on getting credit for it.

Jim, I'm a fan of your blog. I comment occasionally and am always thankful for your thoughtful and reasonable posts. However, and in the spirit of dialogue and not anger, I have to ask you something. Though I may agree with your position on Maher specifically, your tone towards his position in general (as well as the other 'tin foil hat-ers' cited) merits a follow up response from you. My question is this: Is the natural end-game of your logic a type of ideological hegemony?

I mean, even though your point about Maher is true, I don't like where your attitude COULD lead if expounded upon. Do we really want to categorically belittle folks who have, say, basic philosophical qualms with the idea of certain government compulsions or actions?

I don't think I want to live in a country where when the gov't asks folks to do something, everyone goes, "Oh, okay government."

I guess I'm asking,

JE: I don't care about Bill Maher's abstract philosophy of government. The problem is that those opinions don't support his misrepresentations of science. As I said in a previous comment, there are plenty of good reasons to distrust the medical establishment -- and government, too. But Maher has made blanket statements about vaccines, unsupported by factual evidence, citing his feelings of distrust in a vaguely defined notion of "government." (Above, he also attempts to use a statement by a government source, someone associated with the CDC, to back up his position that vaccines aren't effective. Then he says the flu isn't that severe, anyway -- at least not for healthy people. Government information is apparently just fine when he can distort it to support his opinion...) Besides, the government isn't forcing anyone to get a flu vaccine -- not for regular flu, or swine flu. If you don't want to heed warnings about health hazards simply because they come from the government, that's your right. If you decide to ignore road signs for the same reason I hope you don't hurt anyone else. I'm criticizing Maher, as I have in the past, because he has presented no solid evidence to support his conclusions -- though in the above clip he seems to be implying that flu vaccines are a massive moneymaking scheme cooked up by drug companies in cooperation with many branches of the U.S. federal government as well as numerous international governments, independent disease monitoring agencies and worldwide health organizations.

Generally speaking, I don't trust the National Weather Service because their forecasts for the atmospherically unstable Seattle area are often inaccurate. Sometimes it doesn't rain when they say it will. But if they show me satellite maps and show a blizzard is on its way, I'm not going to automatically ignore them just because they're associated with the government and are sometimes wrong. Sure, a new front could come in and push the storm system to the north or the south, but I have no good reason to disregard the forecast entirely. Same goes for taking precautions against flu pandemic predictions. So, I'll say it again: Maher has shown he doesn't know nearly enough about the subject (doesn't even understand what vaccines are) to make public recommendations about health risks, costs and benefits for other people. He just doesn't know what he's talking about.

"Hegemony" needs to go down on that great Internet list of over-used words, right above 'hipster.'

Sigh.

@Lee Krempel

The issue isn't whether or not Maher distrusts the government, but that he's using superstition instead of reasoning to deny over 100 years of medical achievement. The issue at hand has nothing to do with government; it has to do with calling people on their bullsh*t.

If Maher wants to challenge something as well-documented and universally accepted as germ theory, then he needs the evidence to back himself up. Otherwise, as Jim said in the post, "telling people [...] not to get vaccinated because he doesn't 'believe' in vaccines or doesn't 'trust the government'? That's sick."

There's a difference between being a skeptic and being a crackpot, and Maher definitely falls in the latter category. His statements don't merit a pass because Maher distrusts the government. They're wrong!

Wow, that video was appalling. Good one pointing out his deeply flawed logic.

I don't know much about Maher (he doesn't get much publicity down under), but I did see "Religulous" and actually kind of enjoyed it. Did you ever write a piece on that movie? I'd be very interested to read your thoughts on it.

Jim, is there any position of Maher's that you agree with, on any issue? I ask because his show is currently the only successful, widely visible platform where the religious right is regularly taken to task for their destructive and dangerous rhetoric. I gather from this post (and being an infrequent reader of your blog) that you are not a fan of the right's desire to reinstating school-sponsored prayer sessions, restricting a woman's access to birth control, or giving state governments the authority to control end-of-life decisions for all its residents. And since a fundamentalist religious conviction is the underlying justification for all of these positions and many others, I think it helps a great deal to have Maher on the air making his views heard, even though he is obviously going to be wrong on occasion (as he is here on flu vaccines). The tone of your blog posts on Maher give me the impression that you would be happy if he disappeared forever, but I wonder if you agree with me that even if his admittedly condescending attitude is off-putting, his value as a very rare voice of dissension is worth keeping around?

JE: The quote from Daniel Dennett in the upper right corner of this blog sums up how I feel about Maher: "There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear." "Religulous," as I detailed in my dispatch from the Toronto Film Fest last year, is a perfect example of that. He adopts the very same apocalyptic hysteria and unsound thinking that he criticizes in others. That makes for a very bad argument, since you can't use unsound reasoning to dismantle unsound reasoning. So, I can't say I "agree" with him not because I don't sympathize with his eventual positions, but because I don't respect the route he took to get there. Ignorance and intellectual dishonesty are always wrong, no matter who's promoting them in public, and like Michael Moore (or Maher's pal -- or former pal -- A-- C------), I think he often does more harm than good to the very ideas in which he claims to believe. If he's going to effectively criticize his peers -- Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity or Dennis Miller -- he's going to have to be able to attack the gaping flaws in their thinking (not just which "side" they claim to be on), and he can't do that if he's arguing at the same level they are. I'm sure he's made some sound arguments, too, but as one of the science bloggers I quoted in my original post says, he often gets a free pass just because he is openly irreligious: "If someone who promotes pseudoscience is a prominent critic of religion, to me that makes it even worse when they spout nonsense." Maher is an insult to skepticism because he doesn't honestly practice it.

While I share your desire for uniform intellectual honesty in public figures, I think your own criticism of Maher doesn't adhere to that standard. You stated at the beginning of this post:

"The problem I've always had with him is that, no matter what position he may take up, his reasoning is likely to be manifestly unsound... It doesn't matter if you eventually "agree" with his stance because he's reached it for invalid reasons."

That's a blanket statement intended to discredit all of Maher's views on every topic of discussion, past and future. Because all of the posts you've done on him are only ones intended to show him as ignorant or inaccurate on one subject or another, I would expect your readers who do not follow Maher regularly to agree with you. But you are completely excluding all of the times when his arguments are demonstrably, scientifically accurate, such as in his recent comments describing Americans as "stupid" (a position you understandably took issue with). In his editorial Maher cited numerous surveys showing that a disturbingly large percentage of Americans don't know who we fought in the Revolutionary War, what the FDA does, or how many senators each state has, among many other findings. How is that "manifestly unsound" reasoning? It may not be proof that his position is absolutely correct, but it definitely counts as valid evidence.

I understand you're feelings about Maher's attitudes and methods of getting his point across, but I think his general goal of wanting Americans to stop telling ourselves how great we are and start working towards actually being great is an important one, so I'm thankful for his presence. In all the hours of YouTube footage available, why not pick a clip that shows Maher supporting his position with sound, reasonable arguments? Like maybe this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMHisTmIfyM

JE: Fair enough. I'm not monitoring everything Maher says and keeping a Big List. I'm pointing out examples of where he falls short of rationality because of his reputation as a skeptic. (Yes, the damage Oprah does is worse, but she doesn't have a reputation for skeptical thinking.) The clip you supply doesn't show Maher himself saying much, but the point his guest Dan Savage makes about the distinction between the civil and religious institutions of marriage is, I think, the key issue when it comes to same-sex marriages. Under the law, all people are entitled to the same rights and opportunities. Church dogma and religious ceremonies are something else again -- and, to protect religion from government interference and vice-versa, our Constitution keeps the two separated. Law can only extend marriage rights in the civil/legal sense; it can't tell churches what they must endorse.

Jim and Matt Rosin--

Fair enough. I attempted, in my comment, to assure you that I actually agreed with your specific criticism of Maher, but was wary of the potential 'down the road' implications. I suppose I was reacting more to the tone of the "Science-Based Medicine" blog that you cited.

TheFilmist--

I'm sorry for using a word in the English language that was useful for what I was trying to convey. Perhaps in my next comment, instead of using the first appropriate word that comes to mind for a given purpose, I'll Google "most overused Internet words" and measure my comments by it? I'm terribly sorry for making you "sigh."

JE: Understood. And I hope you realize that I was using the hypothetical "you" in my response -- not referring to you personally!

I've always found Maher pretty odd in terms of where he fell on issues. In particular, his adoration and support for the use of all currently illegal controlled substances, and his contempt for all improvement-of-health medicine. His anti-medicine rants are not unlike the silly pseudo-science beliefs of those "cooky" Scientologists he hates so much. Not only is Maher totally off base with his "facts" in this interview, but his contsant flying off the handle and shouting over the person he's interviewing (not at all unlike his supposed nemesis Bill O'Reilly) is hypocritical and shameful. Maher simply comes off as a buffoon. I also don't understand why he didn't address a seemingly obvious issue with regard to vaccinations and modern medicine in general: Is there any proof that vaccines and medicine are the main contibutors to creating new viruses and more powerful strains of current viruses? I think overmedicating really is a problem in this country, but to dismiss the benifits of vaccines based solely on ideas you've concocted in your own head is just absurd.

I was so pissed off when I was forced to watch his Religulous with a group of friends.

I outright told them that if they really thought the movie was worthwhile, that their looking down on creationists was a sham. Hell, I'm compassionate enough not to.

This guy ruins everything. Come on Bill, some of us want to hear what other people have to say, especially if they're more interesting than you.

Of course, he's probably a good guy to have on your side, especially with the hordes of retards who watch his crap. People love to nod their head in agreement without much thought.

Is there any proof that vaccines and medicine are the main contibutors to creating new viruses and more powerful strains of current viruses?

In academic terms, it's possible that a vaccine, if it fails to stem a viral infection completely, could lead to the evolution of hardier strains. Mind you, RNA viruses like influenza are very fast evolvers anyways, so it's kind of a silly argument for avoiding vaccines, rather like insisting that providing you only drive 150mph down a windy road, your much less likely to get killed than if you drive 155mph.

But let's make one thing perfectly clear here. Vaccines have proven to be one of the most effective public health measures ever developed. Their success in eradicating smallpox and (and nearly so for polio), and for controlling some other historically devastating viral infections cannot be debated.

Vaccines, like any medical procedure, have some risk. A small percentage of the population will suffer a severe immune reaction to any vaccine. Still, for every vaccine out there, it's a very small number, and as harsh as it may sound, it's the calculated risk that doctors have to take. But then again, lots of things in medicine are calculated risks. That's the nature of the game.

As with just about everything Maher utters, this is nothing more than ego stroking infantilism. He's clearly one of these guys that gets off on moving against the current, even when it makes no sense and defies rationality. It's ironic that he seems to think himself some sort of freethinker spokesman when (and I can say this as an atheist) he is no such thing. He's just an ignorant nose tweeker with a rather tiresome schtick.

I was watching this segment and was waiting for a more spirited argument from Frist; he seems to just let Maher's comments spew out and he doesn't do a good job of actually refuting. So the part of the Youtube headline about Frist owning Maher doesn't seem apt as he kind of didn't take him to task as assertively as I think he should/could have.

JE: I felt that, too. Frist seemed to be doing his best to simply get the facts out and let them stand. In retrospect, that was probably the wisest approach, because Maher could easily have shouted him down. Rather than engage him directly, Frist just says, "You won't believe me, but here are the facts." In the end that makes Maher look all the more intolerant and irrational.

"JE: The quote from Daniel Dennett in the upper right corner of this blog sums up how I feel about Maher: "There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear." "Religulous," as I detailed in my dispatch from the Toronto Film Fest last year, is a perfect example of that. He adopts the very same apocalyptic hysteria and unsound thinking that he criticizes in others. That makes for a very bad argument, since you can't use unsound reasoning to dismantle unsound reasoning. So, I can't say I "agree" with him not because I don't sympathize with his eventual positions, but because I don't respect the route he took to get there. Ignorance and intellectual dishonesty are always wrong, no matter who's promoting them in public, and like Michael Moore (or Maher's pal -- or former pal -- A-- C------), I think he often does more harm than good to the very ideas in which he claims to believe. If he's going to effectively criticize his peers -- Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity or Dennis Miller -- he's going to have to be able to attack the gaping flaws in their thinking (not just which "side" they claim to be on), and he can't do that if he's arguing at the same level they are. I'm sure he's made some sound arguments, too, but as one of the science bloggers I quoted in my original post says, he often gets a free pass just because he is openly irreligious: "If someone who promotes pseudoscience is a prominent critic of religion, to me that makes it even worse when they spout nonsense." Maher is an insult to skepticism because he doesn't honestly practice it."

Cheers for that. I agree with you pretty much down the line about his behaviour and reasoning in Religulous. I enjoyed it because I think it did have some good comedic moments, and some of the 'characters' that he came across had entertainment value.

But I think you're right -- irreverence is often given a free pass. There are some atheists who simply shout angrily at people who have religious faith, "YOU'RE WRONG!!!" That kind of hysteria is just as irritating, maybe more so, than the unwillingness of the religious right to engage in debate about the minutiae of their beliefs. Sometimes I think Richard Dawkins is guilty of this.

I'm a big fan of Maher and his show, but, for the most part, I agree with you on this one.

I was watching this segment and was waiting for a more spirited argument from Frist; he seems to just let Maher's comments spew out and he doesn't do a good job of actually refuting. So the part of the Youtube headline about Frist owning Maher doesn't seem apt as he kind of didn't take him to task as assertively as I think he should/could have.

It's rather fascinating, because that's the precise kind of tactic that Creationist "debaters" use. Among us anti-Creationists, it's known as the Gish Gallop, based on how creationist Duane Gish will spew out a large number of ludicrous statements, far more than his opponent can ever hope to counter.

There's no particularly good way to counter this, particular when it's somebody like Bill Maher who is in charge of the bully pulpit. What it does demonstrate, sadly, is that Maher, all his anti-religious-i'm-so-rational rhetoric aside, is simply just another brand of irrationality.

JE: You said it. Frustrating, though, isn't it? Time and again we choose up "sides" without listening to what is actually being said.

I guess after reading this blog so much I was expecting Frist to say to Maher that he was using poor critical thinking and just going with his gut, which is ironic because Maher loves to make fun of Bush for his infamous going-with-his-gut statements.

What's with this obsession with Bill Maher and what he's saying in any given week? Why do you even continue to watch him?

Bill Maher feels, rather than thinks. He convinces himself his feelings must be reflecting true reality for all, and states with passion such "facts." He is a liberal, and a fine example of how leftist "thought" gains some acceptance in spite of its lunacy.

Distrust of the government isn't necessairly wrong; I do believe that some skepticism of anything doesn't do any harm, as long as it isn't taken over board. Researching the H1N1 vaccine and possible side effects/precautions before getting the shot would allow someone to make an informed decision as to whether or not they should get the shot. Blindly rejecting the shot based on distrust or fear may be ignorant, but so would be to get the shot with not the least bit of knowledge about it's possible implications.

I actually had (and still have) a hernia. I also live in Canada. Several months ago, I visited a surgeon. Two choices of surgery were offered. I asked the difference and was told "The only difference is that the one done with the mesh hurts less and has a shorter recovery time". Naturally I opted for the mesh treatment. Surgery was scheduled in five days or so and it wasn't until a day before that I decided to look up the surgery online. To my surprise I discovered that the surgery I was about to have could have serious implications for me far worse than a hernia ever would be. The mesh, once in, cannot be removed. There had been a multitude of instances where it had be placed improperly in patients and caused lifelong complications, such as extreme pain in the leg area. Some mesh had even be "recalled", despite it's permanent status once it remains in you.

I realize this is much different than a vaccine, but I do think that some skepticism about anything is important. I don't think there's anything wrong with Maher's skeptic attitude, it's that he has made a conclusion based on it rather than using it to find out more about the vaccine and make an informed decision. Some vaccines have had serious consequences in the past, but to simply presume that this one is the same (or is any different) does seem ignorant to me.

By Bob on October 16, 2009 7:49 AM
Bill Maher feels, rather than thinks. He convinces himself his feelings must be reflecting true reality for all, and states with passion such "facts." He is a liberal, and a fine example of how leftist "thought" gains some acceptance in spite of its lunacy.

Sadly, this is not an example restricted to leftists.

Say what you like about Bill Maher (and his opinion on vaccines is idiotic), he is at least capable of changing his mind. I remember Bill before he was an atheist. He was persuaded otherwise on that issue, and I suspect he can be persuaded on the vaccines issue as well.

Bill Maher is a great speaker though. And he often admits that he doesn't know what he's talking about, and when you combine that with him being a comedian, you realize that comedy outweighs what is being said as far as factual information goes.

Rush Limbaugh and his fascist memes, and the generation of the extreme-right emulating him, are much worse than Bill Maher. But yet for some reason Rush and Maher seem to be the voices of their party:. What I mean is that I think the extreme right watches Bill Maher and uses what he says on his show to turn on it on its head: Bill Maher said on health care at the end of his that in other country's they don't spend a ton of money on the dying because they are dying, and it would hurt the economy to spend a lot of tax dollars to shorten their life just a little longer--so, they don't. This is where I think Sarah Palin got death panels, and put it into fascist language for good measure (although, I doubt she came up with that herself), the following week. But I also think that the left might be doing a similar thing. I think Jimmy Carter and his racist-accusations started from after he watched Bill Maher (although, it's clear there was some racism).

Basically, what Bill Maher says,you can be sure, is going to turn into the big story the next week or week after that, either distorted by fascist memes or perhaps just used for political gain.

I think the last show he said something like Obama should eliminate "Don't ask, don't tell just to make Rush Limbaugh's head explode." Although this was a joke, I know the extreme-right was watching and they are probably going to exploit that as the truth representative of all "liberals" or democrats, or something else he said on that show. Bill Maher is wrong, but unlike the extreme-right, he doesn't know he's wrong, and they exploit that.

And in the interview Bill Maher starts by saying, "I probably agree with conservative." PROBABLY. That twitter statement was from weeks ago, and since then he went from some vague certainty to a maybe.

I guess that's one of the unfortunate things about twitter...is that you might sound like a twit sometimes--and at least Bill Maher saved being a twit for twitter, and not on the show.

My sound is not working on my computer so I had to watch that clip on my dvr. After just checking that youtube video, I see that the part where he says "I probably agree with conservatives" is not on the clip. He never went as far as saying that he did agree with them.

JE: He says it in the first eight seconds of the clip: "It's funny because on this question I think I would be more with conservatives..." Then he elaborates on it: "Conservatives always say, about health care especially you know, 'You're gonna let the government run health care? They screw everything up.' So why would you let them be the ones to stick a disease into your arm? I mean, I would never get a swine flu vaccine -- or any vaccine...." The factual errors made or implied in those few sentences alone are disturbing. (There is no proposal, for example, for the government to "run" the entire health care -- or health insurance -- system. And, as previously mentioned, a vaccine does not involve "sticking a disease" into your arm, since the virus used is not living. Meanwhile, 86 children have already died of H1N1 in the U.S., including 11 new reports last week, most from pneumonia/respiratory failure: http://bit.ly/vM4wF . Maher claims that otherwise healthy people don't die from the flu, but that's misleading. They die from complications arising from the flu, which may exacerbate undiagnosed or otherwise benign conditions they already have, or to which they become susceptible because of the flu. People don't die of AIDS, either; they succumb to conditions their compromised immune systems can't protect them from.

http://bit.ly/lQUrB

The new H1N1 flu is "strikingly different" from seasonal influenza, killing much younger people than ordinary flu and often killing them very fast, World Health Organization officials said on Friday. [...]

Separately on Friday, Dr. Anne Schuchat of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said 86 U.S. children had died of swine flu, most in the 5- to 17-year old age group that normally escapes serious bouts with flu.

"In severe cases, patients generally begin to deteriorate around three to five days after symptom onset. Deterioration is rapid, with many patients progressing to respiratory failure within 24 hours, requiring immediate admission to an intensive care unit," Shindo said.

Yes, one moment Bill Maher is talking about how great scientists are (e.g on the global warming issue) the next minute hes rubbishing what medical doctors say (even when it is proven, by science).

I like Bill Maher a lot, but sometimes he is all over the place. I don't like taking medicines either, but, c'mon! if the difference is life or death, or serious illness, what are you gonna choose?

I take a lot of what he says with a grain of salt, and even though I tend to agree with him on many issues, it is a bother that the reasons for his conclusions often wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.
As Jason Alexander once said (humourously) of Bill Maher, he must be ..''this far away from madness at all times.''

I'd like to add though I think the nonsense coming from Fox commentators like Beck and O'Reilly is far more poisonous and divisive than anything Maher has ever said.

I don't see why you have to compare Maher's irrational beliefs to "tin-foil hattery."

I wear a foil cap to sleep every night, and my mind has yet to be subjected to the influence of alien rays. Clearly the method works. They keep away tigers too.

Maher has never needed to make a valid point, he simply has to make the position he supports entertaining. Stephen Colbert and Bill O'Reilly have this in common. No one listens to them for riveting intellectual discourse, but for hillarious, scathing attacks on the issues he disagrees with.

Why else do you think "Religulous" was so popular, despite it's obvious bias and lack fair debate to the religious side? For one, much of the work is done for him: a lot of his core audience shares already his atheism. So he doesn't need to make logical points, he just needs to execute the other side in ways the audience will enjoy.

The majority of the audience for Fox News or the Comedy Central duo are no different than the folks we so shamefully shook our heads at during the Townhall Meetings on the Healhcare bill. Thier minds are made up, and TV personalities are just preaching to the choir. Ironically, Bill Maher can only get away with what he says, because most Americans, are stupid.

alan on October 14, 2009 12:45 PM:
Does anyone find Bill Maher hilarious except Larry King?
Yes: Bill Maher. I can't stand to watch even the parts of his show that are somewhat funny - he spends so much of the time smugly giggling at how clever his own jokes are.

From the outside the US seems to be heading somewhere extremely weird and worrying at the moment. It's like some bizarre mixture of witchcraft and fascism is working its voodoo on the right now they've been robbed of political power.

Unfortunately I know many many people (liberal and conservative) who believe this stuff. Whenever I try to reason with them they turn me on to one of their like minded "experts" on YouTube videos, and when I point out flaws in the arguments, they start raising their voice to summarize their talking points and conclude by calling me a government sheep. So you can't win.

Even more concerning to me is the causes Autism argument. There's no evidence for that, but it seems to be taken more seriously. It's found it's way into everything from The Shield to Obama's stump speeches.

''From the outside the US seems to be heading somewhere extremely weird and worrying at the moment. It's like some bizarre mixture of witchcraft and fascism is working its voodoo on the right now they've been robbed of political power.''

Agreed 'eyeswiredopen'.
Non-American's like myself find it all very creepy.

I'm with you on Maher; while I generally agree with him, I feel that he very often does more harm than good. Kind of like Michael Moore.

Regarding the swine flu vaccine... I'm not convinced. A vaccine usually undergoes years of test trials before the FDA will even begin to consider it "ready" for public use. The swine flu in its current form has only been with us for a year or two. As I see it, there can't possibly have been enough trials to determine the new vaccine's effectiveness OR its side effects.

But I'm no immunologist; if I'm wrong and someone can set me straight, I'd appreciate it.

Excellent post, Jim. Years ago, I used to go watch Maher's show Politically Incorrect being taped in Hollywood. Maher would come out and talk to the audience, taking questions before each show. It was an education to watch him interacting off the cuff with people. It was here that I learned that Maher's ego is his one all-consuming concern. He would be jovial and friendly with anyone who fawned on him, but if anyone raised even the mildest criticism or questioned him on some point, he would practically snarl at them, no matter how reasoned the challenge. At one point, he actually advanced towards a woman in that classic bullying "I'm gonna smack you" way that is so familiar from grade-school playgrounds. In the years since, he's gotten no better. He treats his own opinions (not even research, just opinions) as given fact, rolls his eyes at anyone who disagrees whether they are more qualified to judge the issue or not, and produces snap judgments based on sweeping generalizations and faulty pseudo-reasoning. (At times he's made his opponents sound even more reasonable than they actually are, merely by sounding like a complete ass himself.) He's especially tiresome when he gets on his atheism high horse, acting as if the mere fact of calling himself one makes him unimpeachable or frees him of any responsibility to actually back up his claims. He's a classic example of the kind of person that brought to life the internet adage Stay off my side, 'cause your making my side look bad.

That's a really unfortunate stance he's taken.

I'm normally behind Bill Maher. I think Religulous is a very important film. Pointing out how not just stupid but how *dangerous* religion is is very, very important. For that he deserves a lot of credit; most people don't have the courage to do it, because of the backlash they'll get.

And then he goes off and says something just as stupid himself. I'm annoyed not because it's a stupid thing to think, but because people will use it to discredit the important things he's got to say about religion.

I had to revisit this posting after watching Maher's 10-16 episode (his season finale). In it, he tackles (or attempts to at least) is critics over his vaccination stance.

Watching it (please, if you haven't see the ep, check it out) one feels Maher grasp for a defense of his stance (an ad hominem attack on "Western" medicine, the long-term impact of the Polio vaccine) but in the end, Maher reveals his incredibly abstract motivation: he's just debating the issue because he doesn't feel like anyone else has.

So in short: Maher is willing to make a scurrilous, factually inaccurate, snide argument about the safety of vaccinations not because he believes they are necessary dangerous (if he's to be believed when he says he understands the science behind them) but because someone needs to fight against the prevailing scientific evidence.

I ask myself again why I watch this guy from week to week.

JE: Wow, that's insane -- especially when there's so MUCH misinformation about vaccines being "debated" (as much as you can debate from ignorance) out there. The Annenberg Public Policy Center issued an extensive report on "Innoculation Misinformation" that I added to the post above: http://bit.ly/45hs20 . Maher is one of the people guilty of spreading some of the misinformation they debunk.

Jim-

I am a huge fan of Bill Maher. But this definitely needed to be said. I was appalled at how he embarrassed himself in the Bill Frist interview.

This is one area I totally disagree with Maher on. It frustrates me because he loses credibility in this respect, and it saddens me because I tend to agree on most everything else he says about religion.

Your headline says it all.

I disagree with Maher on vaccines and note Glenn Beck's similar position. But saying he can't back up his opinions in Religulous is disingenuous. The whole point of the film is people around the world hold the most idiotic beliefs imaginable without a scintilla of evidence to back them up and are far more certain they are right than even Maher or Beck. And it's my guess that Maher's views on religion are what really have all your panties in a twist.

JE: He won't even admit his own atheism in "Religulous" -- says he's just "curious," which is about as disingenuous as you can get. He spends most of the movie (rightly) attacking fire-and-brimstone preachers for their fear tactics, then resorts to the very same thing with his apocalyptic, mushroom-cloud conclusion. He doesn't know enough about religion to make a case against it -- he just replaces one kind of "magical thinking" with another.

You include Jehovah's Witnesses among those who promote pseudo-scientific medical beliefs. That is not the case. Jehovah's Witnesses position on blood transfusions is religious, not scientific. It's true that we believe that better medical care can be achieved without use of blood, but that's beside the point. If there were no risks at all associated with blood transfusions, we would still obey what we believe to be God's commandment. You might not agree, but nonetheless our beliefs are not based on deceptive, imaginative science.

Besides, if it's quackery then why do so many hospitals including Tampa General and New Jersey's University Hospital offer and advertise bloodless medicine? Apparently more than a few skilled and respected surgeons practicing at reputable hospitals as well as the administrations of those hospitals don't agree with your assessment.

I agree with the point of your article. But be honest, now you have allowed your personal opinion to substitute for actual scientific knowledge.