Religulous v Expelled: A simple comparison

Expelled is now on Netflix watch instantly. I hope Religulous becomes available to those of us who aren't going to see it locally. (the local theater owner here is a bit biased in what she shows...)

I saw it, and it was excellent. Bill Maher’s interview with Ken Ham was interesting. Ham seemed to be on guard and not his usual blustering arrogant self. Bill Maher’s interviewing technique is very interesting to watch.

But sadly, "Fireproof", the latest piece of Christian propaganda from IDiot Kirk Cameron is a big hit. Sigh...

And yet despire the overwhelming evidence that Religulous outperformed Expelled, some insist otherwise. What is it with these self-loathing atheists?

Excellent movie! Go see it if you can find a theater its playing in. There were very few around me and I live in a major city :(

Eh. I'm not completely comfortable with comparing the two movies (although I made the same comparison in a blog post a few days ago). One is an attack on science, the other is not a defense of science but an attack on religion. They aren't really analogous.

Also, Maher was at a number of points very sloppy. For example, he repeated uncritically a number of claimed similarities between Mithra, Horus and Jesus that are heavily disputed by scholars. Overall, he made a good, amusing case for his thesis but he seriously weakened it with poor scholarship and borderline intellectual dishonesty.

Joshua Zellinsky said: Overall, he made a good, amusing case for his thesis but he seriously weakened it with poor scholarship and borderline intellectual dishonesty.

But sadly, “Fireproof”, the latest piece of Christian propaganda from IDiot Kirk Cameron is a big hit. Sigh…

Science Avenger said: And yet despire the overwhelming evidence that Religulous outperformed Expelled, some insist otherwise. What is it with these self-loathing atheists?

http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

as much as i like the movie i wish i could say Bill Maher was someone i liked too. however PETA does put a horrible awful taste in my mouth. make no mistake PETA is just as bad as any creationists or religious group, it is just his personal beliefs too. after having to deal with that lot i can't really say whom i would rather deal with, a creationist or a member of PETA?

PETA and their ilk caused a number of problems for us, a small herpetology study group, a few years back in dayton ohio. they helped push through an exotic pet ban. however only after putting spin on a recent death and having fringe groups release wild and potentially dangerous animals like bears and alligators in public places. after all they had money and lawyers, we had a dozen members and knowledge. who do you think won? One of our exotic animal rescues was even shut down because part of the ban restricted rescue operations. don't worry set the new one up at the county line to run it in. PETA does not care for animals, only their world view much like the creationists.

due to PETA i can't really trust Bill.

Glen Davidson said: That said, the IDiots had latched onto the single metric in which they had done relatively well (at least compared with other documentaries in theaters), the number of butts in theater seats.

Well, Bill Mahar fits well with PETA, both are sexist...

I saw Religulous on opening weekend, and it was downright hilarious, some of the things the interviewees said were jaw-droppingly shocking, but I would have to say from a film-standpoint, it was very awkwardly edited together. The end of the interview was stuck in the middle of an interview, for example, and there didn't seem to be a point to that. I recommend it, though.

Some commenters say Religulous is "excellent." I cannot agree. I enjoyed the movie, I found it amusing and entertaining, but it falls short of excellence in several ways.

Cinematically, Religulous is not great film-making. Do you recall what Richard Dawkins said about Expelled? That it has a lot of "Lord Privy Seal" in it? So does Religulous.

Intellectually, Religulous is no great shakes, and it sometimes uses questionable sources. For example, Maher interviews an "ex-gay" minister and counselor, who insists that homosexuality is sin, not identity. Flash to a snippet of Maher interviewing Dean Hamer, who claims to have discovered the "gay gene," a discovery that is not widely recognized for its soundness amongst geneticists.

See it. Enjoy it. But please stop claiming it is "excellent."

But sadly, “Fireproof”, the latest piece of Christian propaganda from IDiot Kirk Cameron is a big hit. Sigh…

Bigger than “Religulous”, according to Christianity Today Online.

Great to see FL is happy that Kirk Cameron's nonsesne is doing well.

I saw a clip of Kirk on the Bill O'Really? show, and he held up a picture of a duck with an allgator head and wondered why, if evolution is true, we never see one of those...

Stupid is as stupid does.

Joshua Zellinsky said: Eh. I'm not completely comfortable with comparing the two movies (although I made the same comparison in a blog post a few days ago). One is an attack on science, the other is not a defense of science but an attack on religion. They aren't really analogous.

Science Avenger said: And yet despire the overwhelming evidence that Religulous outperformed Expelled, some insist otherwise.

I think we atheists tend to get overly excited whenever there is something in the media that challenges credulous beliefs, simply because it is so rare, and thus sounds so refreshing to us. And before anyone goes all war-against-Christmas on me and starts talking about all the Christian villians in the films, do note that the vast majority of the time it is noble believers, not noble nonbelievers, who play the heros in such tales. The unrepentent, rational, moral atheist is virtually nonexistent, so we'll take a flawed one if we can get it.

I saw "Religulous" in downtown Seattle, a place not normally subject to selectivity being practiced by movie theatres. I could not help thinking throughout the movie that you can draw parallels with "Expelled". There was no doubt a similar stretching of the truth, sleight of hand, etc, which exposes it to the same kind of criticism that "Expelled" got. Also, "Religulous" was very heavy handed - it gave no quarter at all. Maher did a great job of making some fundemetalists look pretty stupid, but then poured it on, in my opinion, to the point of making me a bit uncomfortable. Still - I agree that the movie is a pretty effective retaliatory strike for a group that seldom fights out. And it was highly entertaining which is why I go to the movies.

I agree with James Wheaton's comment - a lot of Maher's claims seem pretty questionable, and at times seemed quite reminiscent of Expelled/ID-level tactics. For example, I've seen the Mithras/Horus/Dionysus/Jesus comparisons being thrown around many different times, both on the internet and in this film, but never seen it backed up by solid references or sources as to where these comparisons can be verified.

Also, the nutcase element are fairly easy targets, I doubt Maher would have had the same success against a decent religious scholar or philosopher for example (although I suppose a purpose of the film is to generate laughs as much as anything else). I'd also agree with Glen that box office numbers for a documentary don't mean much in terms of truth or not.

Isn't this why the comparison is so ironically relevant :-)

I would also like to know more about the facts and figures stated in Religulous. The 16% of the U.S. population's "non-religious" from the Pew survey, for example, includes 1.6% and 2.4% who self-identify as atheists and agnostics, respectively, with the majority simply checking off "nothing [i.e. no religion] in particular." I would bet that a good number of these 12% are effectively agnostics, but I think Maher is too quick to lump them into that camp. Just cite the source more accurately and be done with it, the point is still made.

As for the "Lord Privy Seals," I found them to be laugh-out-loud funny for the most part. Scarface, anyone? The other on-screen asides were used effectively as well, like the "text message" sent to the Muslim cleric. "LOL :)"

Just a quick correction: Some of the above comments are implying that Bill Maher is an atheist, but this isn't true. On his Daily Show interview, he made it very clear that he's an agnostic, NOT an atheist.

I would probably not like either film, but hope to watch both some day. This comment however, is a warning that my local talk radio station just started playing ads for "Expelled" DVDs, and is even giving them away to callers. The station features the Medved show, so it's no surprise. Of course the ads give no time, let alone "equal time," to the inconvenient facts that (1) nearly all biologists, religious or not, disagree with its outrageous claims, and (2) some prominent Christian critics of ID/creationism were deliberately left out of the film because they would (in the producers' own words) "complicate" it.

(2) some prominent Christian critics of ID/creationism were deliberately left out of the film because they would (in the producers’ own words) “complicate” it.

FL said:

But sadly, “Fireproof”, the latest piece of Christian propaganda from IDiot Kirk Cameron is a big hit. Sigh…

Bigger thsn "Religulous", according to Christianity Today Online. (Insert huge smile here!) FL

In a scene towards the end when Kirk Cameron's character kisses his wife, it was shot in shadow, and the actress, Erin Bethea, was replaced by Cameron's real-life wife, Chelsea Noble, disguised to look like Bethea.[8] This was done because Cameron does not believe that as a Christian he should kiss any woman other than his wife.[8]

Box Office Mojo has a Religulous vs. Expelled showdown, with comparisons of overall, weekend and daily numbers, for those who are curious. Religulous is beating the pants off Expelled so far. Not only did it get off to a much better start in half as many theaters, but it's got better legs, falling 35% per week compared to Expelled's 50% drops per week:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=controversus.htm

As to the trend between catholics, None , and protestants see NY Times

Fascinating trends to see protestants dropping about 10 points while none are increasing 10 points. Seems to me that the foolish position of so many protestant churches may be backfiring.

Praise the Lord. Scientific ignorance combined with religion will make the latter the loser.

"An animal that is a chimera of two completely different species would be a proof of CREATIONISM, not evolution!"

Of course it would. But that dingaling is talking to people who nod approvingly when told that a banana or a jar of peanut butter is proof of divine creation. My question is, what does a banana and peanut butter sandwich prove? Huh? Answer me that, smart guy?

Dave Luckett said: Of course it would. But that dingaling is talking to people who nod approvingly when told that a banana or a jar of peanut butter is proof of divine creation. My question is, what does a banana and peanut butter sandwich prove? Huh? Answer me that, smart guy?

Unfortunately, nothing can change the fact that The Dogma of the Gibson made something like half a billion dollars.

There is no justice in the world.

calyptephile said: Just a quick correction: Some of the above comments are implying that Bill Maher is an atheist, but this isn't true. On his Daily Show interview, he made it very clear that he's an agnostic, NOT an atheist.

iml8 said: [snip] I suspect religious fundamentalist may find this attitude more infuriating than outright atheism. The indifference seems dismissive, while it's harder to demonize folks who are minding their own business and not giving religions flak. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

There's two kinds of belief: what you SAY you believe, and what you ACTUALLY believe. One's real beliefs are reflected in one's actions and choices.

I feel quite sure that most people that call themselves 'agnostic' are actually atheist, which is to say: they live their lives exactly as would someone who was atheist. They don't stay up nights wondering IF there's a god, they don't wonder IF maybe they should pray or not. They don't actually live their life in any way that reflects being 'on the fence'; instead, they act precisely the way an atheist would act, which is to never bother considering the possibility of divine intervention or the efficacy of prayer.

Someone who really wasn't sure if the world was flat would pause before booking cruise ships. Someone who really wasn't sure about the existence of vampires might carry some garlic with them when walking at night - you know, just in case. However, no one ever does these things because people generally ARE sure, no matter what they SAY they believe, that there are no vampires and the world is not flat.

Now replace "existence of vampires" with "existence of god(s)". If you truly weren't SURE there was no god, you'd take some precautions to avoid incurring the god's wrath. The fact that you don't do these things is evidence (and to my mind, proof) that in your heart of hearts, you believe that there is no supernatural deity concerning itself with what you do.

Exactly why the label 'agnostic' is more attractive for these people than 'atheist' is an interesting subject. Would you ever call yourself a "vampire agnostic"? After all, you can no more disprove the existence of vampires than the existence of god. And the same counterargument applies: It's just such a ludicrous proposition, and backed up with absolutely zero evidence, that you'd be crazy to even allow the possibility. In fact, vampires are far MORE plausible than any particular religion's version of god, yet you wouldn't hesitate to call anyone who swore up and down that vampires stalked the night "insane".

The one 'out' I can see for such people (self-described agnostics whose actions are exactly atheist) is if they acknowledge the possibility that a god or gods EXIST but that this/these supernatural being(s) simply doesn't care what you do, and neither can its favor cannot be curried nor its displeasure invoked by any of your actions, and so each person is better off simply not wasting any time worrying about it. But no self-described-agnostic ever brings up that possibility.

Let me get this straight. Bill Maher outperforms Ben Stein and that means what??? It just shows how hard religious people have to work in this country to get things across. I guess they don't have such a persecution "complex" after all.

Anyway, I'm not saying I endorse Expelled, but I do have lots of issues with mainstream academia.

It shows that there's some kinds of BS even the religious won't swallow.

NotedScholar said: Let me get this straight. Bill Maher outperforms Ben Stein and that means what??? It just shows how hard religious people have to work in this country to get things across. I guess they don't have such a persecution "complex" after all. Anyway, I'm not saying I endorse Expelled, but I do have lots of issues with mainstream academia.

MH said: It shows that there's some kinds of BS even the religious won't swallow.

I feel quite sure that most people that call themselves ‘agnostic’ are actually atheist, which is to say: they live their lives exactly as would someone who was atheist. They don’t stay up nights wondering IF there’s a god, they don’t wonder IF maybe they should pray or not. They don’t actually live their life in any way that reflects being ‘on the fence’; instead, they act precisely the way an atheist would act, which is to never bother considering the possibility of divine intervention or the efficacy of prayer.

— MH

There’s two kinds of belief: what you SAY you believe, and what you ACTUALLY believe. One’s real beliefs are reflected in one’s actions and choices.

— MH

MH said: Someone who really wasn't sure about the existence of vampires might carry some garlic with them when walking at night - you know, just in case ...Now replace "existence of vampires" with "existence of god(s)". If you truly weren't SURE there was no god, you'd take some precautions to avoid incurring the god's wrath. The fact that you don't do these things is evidence (and to my mind, proof) that in your heart of hearts, you believe that there is no supernatural deity concerning itself with what you do..

MH said: I feel quite sure that most people that call themselves 'agnostic' are actually atheist, which is to say: they live their lives exactly as would someone who was atheist.

James F said:

Science Avenger said: And yet despire the overwhelming evidence that Religulous outperformed Expelled, some insist otherwise. What is it with these self-loathing atheists?

Why did I know the link was to "Framing Science" before I even clicked it? *sigh* Guys, sometimes a win is a win!

Expelled is getting VERY heavy advertisement on the Military Channel

Expelled is getting VERY heavy advertisement on the Military Channel.

— fredgiblet

iml8 said: However, there is also a difference between saying "you God-botherers are dead wrong" and saying "I have no basis for disputing the faith of the believers and no reason to exert myself to do so." From that point of view, the difference is very clear.

Science Avenger said: ... but saying "those that believe in gods are wrong" makes one strident, arrogant and intolerant. [shrug]

Frank J said: What are the odds that the ads give the "whole truth," namely that nearly all of mainstream science, and a significant portion of mainstream religion considers "Expelled" to be grossly misleading and hideous propaganda?

I think that my fears are just beginning to be justified. I predict that, in 5 years, more people will have seen "Expelled" than "Religulous," "Fahrenheit 911" and "The Passion of the Christ" combined.

Doubtful, I seriously doubt that it will ever get the numbers that Passion got.

— fredgiblet

fredgiblet said: Doubtful, I seriously doubt that it will ever get the numbers that Passion got, there's just not enough people who actually CARE about the evo "debate" to watch something connected to it.

fredgiblet said: Expelled is getting VERY heavy advertisement on the Military Channel

David Fickett-Wilbar said: I heard an advertisement for it on a Christian radio station in which someone who identified himself as a Marine said that it made him glad to think that just as he was defending our freedoms abroad, so too was Ben Stein protecting our freedoms at home.

I think that’s something PT folks tend to forget: most folks don’t care about evo science one way or another, and to the extent they express an opinion on it, they just say whatever pops into their head, and forget about it until somebody asks them again.

— iml8

Frank J said: I think that my fears are just beginning to be justified. I predict that, in 5 years, more people will have seen "Expelled" than "Religulous," "Fahrenheit 911" and "The Passion of the Christ" combined.

I suppose this may be slightly OT.
There seems to be a trend in mainstream TV that greatly disturbs me. Several recent TV series convey the message that Science is BAD, and (perhaps worse) that overturning the Constitution to protect us from that Science is to be lauded. The two most egregious examples of this phenomenon, IMHO, are Fringe and The Eleventh Hour.
The premise of Fringe is that there's a special group of investigators, under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security, tasked with solving "The Pattern" of crimes requiring advanced science. The Eleventh Hour is similar, except there doesn't seem to be an overarching criminal scientific conspiracy.

One might argue that these shows are not anti-science because one of the protagonists in each serial is a scientist. But look at these putative heroes: in The Eleventh Hour, he's a bio-physicist... with, apparently, some degree of Asperger's Syndrome. In the other, the protagonist is some sort of third-standard-deviation polymath who happens to be a schizophrenic sociopath recruited, by the DHS, after a seventeen year stay in a psych hospital.

Since this is OT, I won't go on any more, but I'd be interested in hearing of other examples folks have seen of this anti-intellectual bias.
Randy

EoRaptor013 said: There seems to be a trend in mainstream TV that greatly disturbs me. Several recent TV series convey the message that Science is BAD, and (perhaps worse) that overturning the Constitution to protect us from that Science is to be lauded. The two most egregious examples of this phenomenon, IMHO, are Fringe and The Eleventh Hour. ...I'd be interested in hearing of other examples folks have seen of this anti-intellectual bias. Randy

eric said: Meh. Its a free country, they can put on whatever fiction they want. I don't worry about media bias because IMO networks are completely mercenary. Their primary bias is to ratings, and the only media conspiracy is to get you to watch more TV. In terms of whether a show gets continued, the producer's "message" is probably inconsequential compared to (whether the audience likes) the cast and plot.

EoRaptor013 said: No, the TV studios have no portfolio to educate John Q about his biases. But, those biases are what disturb me. Ben Stupid and the O'Learys of the world gain traction precisely because of the sorry state of education in the US. The Dishonesty Institute and the Fables in Genesis groups could not survive in the face of an educated public, and it bothers me no end that none of our political leaders, or current candidates, seem strongly motivated in this regard. But then, who says politicians' motives are truly any different than those of the TV studios?

eric said:... technically we're all talking about gross, not number of viewers. Though they probably correlate reasonably well.

EoRaptor013 said: The premise of Fringe is that there's a special group of investigators, under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security, tasked with solving "The Pattern" of crimes requiring advanced science.

What a waste of time this site is. Saying nothing! Proving nothing! Lets just change the name to the TOWER OF BABLE a source of infinite BS

trl000lal said: What a waste of time this site is. Saying nothing! Proving nothing! Lets just change the name to the TOWER OF BABLE a source of infinite BS

Indeed yes, as at least one previous poster notes, there is a particularly loud quality to Panda’s silence on the subject of how the Religuous interviews were obtained. Complaints were loud here on Panda about Expelled's tactics not long ago. For example, PZ Myers was aggrieved by the deceptive interview tactics used to make Expelled:

Why were they so dishonest about it? If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, "bring it on!" . . . I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest. I don't mind sharing my views with creationists, and do so all the time. By filming under false pretenses, much like the example of the case of Richard Dawkins' infamous "pause", they've undercut their own credibility . . .

( http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/im-gonna-be-a-m.html#more )

We also find Expelled's deceptive interviewing denounced at http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/allen-macneill-2.html#more , where PvM urges that that the following material “deserves more attention”:

Allen MacNeill Wrote:

. . . Will Provine and I were interviewed by Mark Mathis and his crew last year. Like PZ myers, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott and others, we were lied to about both the title of the film (they said it was “Crossroads”, not “Expelled”, for which a website domain listing was acquired several months before our interview) and the purpose of the film, which they said was to present an even-handed look at both sides of the debate.

. . .

Treating people with whom you disagree as “enemies” is the antithesis of the intellectual tradition. Just because you happen to agree with one “enemies” list and therefore eagerly participate in demonizing those with whom you disagree doesn’t absolve you of committing a heinous sin against the ancient and honorable traditions of the academy. Just the opposite, in fact. And using ad hominem arguments . . . are the tactics of propagandists, not scholars. Shame on Ben Stein, Mark Mathis, and their supporters, and shame on anyone who resorts to character assassination, mendacity, and subterfuge in the pursuit of what should be an argument based on reason and evidence.

I agree with every word of the above complaints. But compare them to Panda’s (particularly PvM’s) dead silence on how Religuous was filmed, even while it apparently gloats over Religuous outperforming Expelled at the box office. And we know exactly how Religuous’s interviewers were obtained: as Bill Maher helpfully explains, "It was simple: We never, ever, used my name. We never told anybody it was me who was going to do the interviews. We even had a fake title for the film. We called it 'A Spiritual Journey.' It didn't work everywhere. We went to Salk Lake City, but no one would let us film there at all."

( http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2008/08/bill-maher-hate.html )

The nasty odor of partisan double-standardship given off by Panda’s treatment of the two films could be dispelled, I think, by a hearty denunciation by PvM of Religuous as deceptively-filmed propaganda that “resorts to . . . subterfuge in the pursuit of what should be an argument based on reason and evidence.”

Waiting.

The nasty odor of partisan double-standardship given off by Panda’s treatment of the two films could be dispelled, I think, by a hearty denunciation by PvM of Religuous as deceptively-filmed propaganda that “resorts to … subterfuge in the pursuit of what should be an argument based on reason and evidence.” Waiting.

Thank you, PvM, that does clear things up. It seemed to me at first that Religulous was being treated here by a different standard than the (perfectly good) one that had been applied to Expelled: I see I was mistaken, and am truly glad to be so. My apologies for misreading you as uncritical of Religulous.

Sincerely,

Larry

The writer seems to be turning around and appealing to the behaviour of the general population to ratify something here. If earning a few more dollars were reason enough to convey merit upon a production, it would be quite a disaster.

If anything, the fact that the relevant statistics of these two movies are within one order of magnitude of each other suggests to me that they have the same unfortunate thing in common.