Ask Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins some questions at the AAI Conference this weekend!

To Bill Maher:
Do you really believe that Louis Pasteur recanted germ theory on his deathbed, as you have previously claimed? If so, why do you think that this invalidates all of the evidence supporting germ theory?

To Richard Dawkins:
One of the strengths of science is the capacity to change interpretations as new information becomes available. With all that has been presented about Mr. Maher’s views of medical science, has your opinion of the appropriateness of giving him the Richard Dawkins Award changed?

Science hasn’t proved there is no God, just that this “God” thing – IF it exists – is not what a bunch of people with an old book think it is. Therefore Dawkins isn’t all that smart. It is easy to poke holes in Religions – it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. So why all the “brilliance”??

Secondly Maher is just another loud-mouthed dude with strong opinions and a quippy anecdote or two, when you get down to brass tacks.

It seems that this retarded award is for a bunch of opinionated jerks patting themselves on the back. Oh how brave and brilliant that you discredit religions! – That’s like getting praise for beating up the cripple in middle school. And if this Dawkins guy is so hellbent on “science” – like Orac implied – science doesn’t stop at Evolution v Creationism. But he’s not into science – he’s into his own pompous persona.

And the more we celebrate people with big mouths, the more people like Suzanne Sommers and Jenny MacCarthy gain credibility. So that’s the question: How do you get the message to the masses that these people – no matter how many awards they bestow upon themselves – are just people? They are NOT scientists. Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins really should be no more credible than your ‘pseudo-intellectual’ uncle or college professor.

Science hasn’t proved there is no God, just that this “God” thing – IF it exists – is not what a bunch of people with an old book think it is. Therefore Dawkins isn’t all that smart. It is easy to poke holes in Religions – it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

Liz — I think you misunderstand what atheism is all about. I’m not sure exactly what you mean when you say “science hasn’t prove there is no God”, since that all depends on your definition. Dawkins is quite explicit that the idea he is attempting to debunk is the concept of God in common usage.

Oh how brave and brilliant that you discredit religions! – That’s like getting praise for beating up the cripple in middle school.

Um…. really? Maybe if that cripple is so politically powerful that no person can be elected to major office in the United States unless they agree with him…

I just do not understand the folks who try to act like us atheists are picking on the weak when we rail against religious institutions. Are you effin’ serious?!? Take a look around at the world we actually live in, and you’ll see why some of us feel the need to speak out.

So why all the “brilliance”??

Have you read “The Selfish Gene”? I highly recommend it.

@ Liz
You are a jackass.

Question for Maher:
You continually deride religious people for their faith in an unproven supreme being, a stance on which I agree with you wholeheartedly. Why then do you have faith in alternative medicine without any proof? The studies that have made it through an IRB (Insitutional Review Board) and been completed on any alternative medicine have come up as being as good or worse than no therapy at all, or as only having a placebo effect. Where is the scientific evidence? Big pharma can not control the scientific method – if there was proof of efficacy, that therapy would be adopted as quickly as possible. And the people responsible for discovering it would be well compensated as well as famous (to paraphrase Patrick Swayze).

For Richard Dawkins:
People often charge you with being ideological in your militant atheism and accuse you of stepping outside the bounds of scientific evidence to promote atheism. How can you refute that charge, sir, if you allow a prominent promoter of anti-science woo to be given an award in your name for atheism? Doesn’t this reinforce the impression your critics have that you put atheism ahead of scientific rationality?

For Bill Maher:
You are admired for your courage in standing up to conventional wisdom on a number of issues, and for being unafraid to face criticism. Yet you carry on endorsing all this unscientific quackery touting alternative medicines and railing against vaccines. How about inviting a proper scientist on your show so you can educate yourself about the real science behind the “mainstream” medicine you so despise?

My point was not to upset Atheists. My point was to say that these two guys are not scientists, they are opinionated people, seeing as science has not actually disproved a deity (believe it or not) and Mr Maher has a sketchy record of vaccination backing/not backing.

Dawkins? Not a scientist? I wrote these criticisms and taken some flak for doing so, and yet I do not question that Dawkins is a scientist. Upon what do you base your characterization?

Dawkins? Not a scientist? I wrote these criticisms and taken some flak for doing so, and yet I do not question that Dawkins is a scientist. Upon what do you base your characterization?

That one has me scratching my head as well. I’m all up for some Dawkins bashing, but he is clearly one of the great science educators of our time. This is why this Maher thing is so disappointing. Dawkins appears to only care about attacks on his little corner of science.

My point was to say that these two guys are not scientists, they are opinionated people

Maher is not a scientist.

How could Dawkins not be a scientist? Let me put it this way. He invented the term “meme.” List of publications.

@Liz

Which two guys are not scientists? Last time I checked, Dr. Dawkins was indeed a biologist. (Bill Maher is not a scientist, true.)

Also, I’d say just because a group is not killed or tortured does not mean that they do not need political advocacy. For example, I myself am somewhat active in the GLBT rights movement. While you do get hate crimes against GLBT folks, personally, even if those stopped, and even if we got some of the legal rights we’ve been agitating for, I would still be doing things to work for helping GLBT folks be accepted, and that open and hidden bigotry against GLBT folks be pushed to a fringe position.

Come on, people, let’s start at the beginning:

Dr Dawkins:

Do you believe that vaccination is a safe and advisable approach for preventing diseases, and that people should be vaccinated according to international health organization guidelines?

Establish the foundation before sniggling over details. Nothing is sacred!

But I guess I should expect that from an apostle of Dawkins.

I should add that while I do admire Dawkins for reasons I touched on briefly in #17, I am by no means an “apostle” of Dawkins. Some points:

As I said in #17, I think The God Delusion is overrated… there are some really choice quotes in it, but overall it got a little tiresome. (I actually preferred god is Not Great — even though Hitchens is way full of shit a lot of the time, and much of that book was not particularly fair, it was at least damn entertaining)

I share your frustration that you expressed in your initial post at #3 that Dawkins seems to have a bit of tunnel vision at times in his focus on evolution vs. creationism — understandable from an evolutionary biologist, but that doesn’t make it any less frustrating.

While I enjoy his writing a lot, his interviews occasionally make me cringe. 90% of the time he speaks with the sharp wit and eloquence that come across in his books, but the 10% of the time when he falters can be pretty bad. Sometimes he misses an obvious counter-argument; other times he says things that just come across as stupid, or even as hateful.. Orac had a blog post from awhile back where Dawkins fumbled in an interview and wound up saying something downright anti-semitic. I’m sure he didn’t mean it how it sounded, but still — OUCH.

And, as I think my initial comment at #5 made clear, I am highly disappointed that Dawkins has not explicitly distanced himself from Maher’s insane medical beliefs. I’m ambivalent towards Maher getting this award — he hardly embodies the ideals that the reward is supposed to honor, but at the same time, I found Religulous extremely entertaining and I think it is an important movie — but Dawkins’ response to the criticisms has been disappointing to say the least.

So there you have it. me != Dawkins “apostle”. I admire him for some things, but there are definitely criticisms to be made as well — as with all people, I imagine… Except Jesus, right? 😉

To Bill Maher:

1) Why do you advocate the use of science and reason when dealing with religious beliefs, but do not apply the same type of critical thinking to your beliefs about alternative medicine?

2) Would you consider reevaluating your alternative medicine beliefs, using science and reason, in the same way atheists like yourself may wish to see religious proponents rationally reevaluate their religious beliefs?

Maher or Dawkins:
3) Alternative medicine beliefs do not use the scientific method, exempt themselves from scientific evaluation, and rely on the supernatural in their claims. How does Bill Maher’s/your faith-based medical beliefs differ from faith-based religious beliefs?

Bill Maher is an atheist, but not a skeptic. I think the fact that this is an atheist convention may be a sort of defense for him–but this is exactly why I prefer to promote skepticism and critical thinking, rather than just atheism–you can be an atheist but still have faith-based beliefs (alt-med, ufos, dowsing, 911 truthers, etc.), but it’s hard to be a good skeptic without being an atheist.

I think if there IS a way to turn Bill Maher from an atheist, to a skeptic, it will be to get him to see the parallels between religious beliefs and new age/alt-med beliefs. Maher is probably used to people using the ‘in your face’ approach–I don’t think ‘tough’ questions will work. Somehow, using calm reason, someone needs to make him see that skeptics feel the same sort of frustration when it comes to alt-med beliefs, as he does concerning religious ones.

Alt-med beliefs are still faith-based; I think this is the point that needs to be stressed.

Professor Dawkins,

You’ve accused moderate religionists of providing cover to the extremists because they offer no rational argument for differentiating good religion from bad religion.

Similarly, alternative medicine proponents offer no rational standard for separating good alternative medicine from crazy alternative medicine. Once a doctor leaves behind the rules of evidence medical scientists normally use, once he skip independent peer review, controlled studies, and the constraint of prior plausibility, he’s entered the realm of faith based healthcare where all manner of harmful quackery becomes possible.

I wonder how you reconcile your opposition to faith based arguments concerning the creation of the universe and life’s evolution with your approval of Mr. Maher as an appropriate recipient of the Richard Dawkins award, knowing how he frequently promotes faith based medicine?

Re Joseph at #18:

That link to Dawkins’ publication record gives me some pause. He is a great science communicator, no doubt – and that is recognized in his current academic position as well. His publication record, though, is relatively thin on peer-reviewed science, especially since the 1980s – i.e., post “The Selfish Gene”. No coincidence there, obviously, for he clearly devoted his energies into his science communicator role after that bestseller. Of course that doesn’t make him a non-scientist, but I doubt I’m alone in thinking that his contribution to peer-reviewed science is a bit dated.

(…ducks, in case any of those “apostles” of Dawkins are about!!)

Mr. Maher,

You’ve said that people who get the swine flu vaccine are idiots. Can you please explain the CDC’s position regarding this vaccination and their rationale for recommending it to certain populations?

____
I’m guessing that asking Maher to explain himself will go nowhere. But asking him to explain the current scientific consensus could be entertaining.

James Sweet was talking about Atheists in America – sorry, not so marginalized.

Depends on what part of the country, really. There are places where “coming out” will cost you your job. Not where I live, thankfully, but still…

And anyway, I would hate for you to dismiss everything I said because the first example of the harm done by undue deference to religion was one that, while it hits close to home for me, is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. Please, if it bothers you that much, ignore the fact that I said that.

Imagine instead that I was talking about the theistic slaughtering going on in other countries. Or, that I was criticizing the fact that people who are supposedly liberal are encouraged to look the other way at the subjugation of Muslim women (yes, even in America) in the name of religious tolerance.

My point is that one does not have to look far to see that religion, far from being “like a [handicapped kid]”, is a quite successful and prolific bully. I do not think one can fairly characterize Dawkins’ atheist activism as “shooting fish in a barrel.”

Madhu:

(…ducks, in case any of those “apostles” of Dawkins are about!!)

As an accused “apostle” of Dawkins, I can say that I did not disagree at all with anything you said at #30. 🙂

Again, I agree to separate church & state, I am not religious. I guess atheists are starting to sound a lot like bible-beaters. And that’s all we need – another group of ‘my way or the highway’ types.

For my thoughts on why “strident” atheists are a good thing (in 2009, maybe not in the future) please see this post.

In short, when you have a group that is as disrespected as atheists — and you, Liz, are a prime example of the problem, as even though you are not religious, you are clearly anti-atheist! — it is both expected and desirable that some members of the group will be “loud and proud”.

Best of luck! It’s good to see that not everyone is afraid of stirring the pot. I sincerely hope you (plural) give both of them a good – respectful and evidencebased – heckling.

To Dawkins:

As many know, Simon Singh, a respected educator of the sciences, is currently facing legal battles in the UK from quacks. The scientific and rationalist societies rallied around him and launched a campaign against the bogus lawsuit. You, yourself, spoke in support of Simon calling him a “courageous hero” a few days ago ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/20/richard-dawkins-libel-laws ). Do you feel, then, it is appropriate to give the RDA to another staunch quack?

Sundeep,

Oh, geez. I wish I’d thought of that one!

However, your ideas about Bill Maher show the same biases he does. If he takes the low road (any George Bush joke) and makes jokes about politics with which you happen to agree, you’re fine with him. Anything negative about George Bush, is a gushable moment for you.

Really? Got a concrete example from this blog where I’ve done that with Maher? I’ll wait.

{crickets chirping…}

Didn’t think so.

Pablo, I like your idea about asking Dawkins if he favors mass vaccination to prevent disease. “Enemies of Reason” seemed to put Dawkins on our side of the fence. And you’d think the inventer of the meme would have a firm grasp of infection and immunity. But you never know. People can compartmentalize.

Orac,

Thanks. I hope it gets asked. I’ll make a donation to Sense About Science if it does.

Hmmm… richarddawkins.net features an anti-anti-vax article (i.e. the good guys).

Not that that says anything, as I’m pretty sure Josh Timonen actually vets what articles are featured there, not Dawkins himself. But it’s a data point, I suppose…

Oh geez, I never saw Enemies of Reason, but apparently the second episode specifically talked about vaccine rates declining because of MMR-autism hysteria. So there ya go.

When Orac referred to the strange contradiction between Dawkins’ work with Enemies of Reason vs. his non-denouncement of Maher, I assumed Orac was referring to general principles, not to a specific contradiction in stated position. Well well. That’s even more disappointing.

I’m now going to shock everyone by partially agreeing with Liz:

I still stand by giving Bill Maher any kind of scientific award is “you’re an Atheist? Me too!” Back-slapping.

It’s seeming that way, isn’t it? Or at least, Dawkins’ failure to distance himself from Maher’s medical views looks like he is giving special deference to vocal atheists in a manner not to different from how you caricatured it.

I will be at the AAI convention this week.

I have extracted all the questions so far, and will ask as many of them of Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, and the AAI board as much as possible.

If I get a response, I will post it here, or otherwise, at Orac’s direction.

(I am the founder of the skeptic’s side of the Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics. We are an AAI affiliate).

What I’ve never been able to get straight from an anti-vaxxer is this: what data, and from what source, would it take for you to accept the safety data?

PZ Myers says:

And yet another problem: people are barking at Richard Dawkins. Dawkins does not support quackery. This isn’t an issue on which he’ll disagree with any of you, but he’s also there to talk about his exciting new book, not about fake cancer cures. I suspect he’s not looking forward to a lot of time-wasting headaches over this issue, and if it sounds like it’s going to eat up all of his time with the public, he’ll probably do the rational thing and cut back on spending time with the public. This is not to be encouraged.

Then Professor Dawkins should have thought of that problem before he so blithely dismissed people’s concerns about Maher’s anti-scientific views about medicine, shouldn’t he have?

Believe it or not, I actually like and respect–admire, even–Dawkins for the most part. However, unfortunately the AAI and Dawkins really laid a turd here and need to be called out on it. Dawkins is part of this too. The award bears his name. I’m sorry if PZ doesn’t like it, but Dawkins needs to be called out almost as much as Maher does–again, politely but insistently. So does the leadership of the AAI, come to think of it.

Maher;
You have stated that, “Merely suggesting alternative medicine for cancer treatment can get an individual arrested in this country.”

To date there are countless websites and companies that market and sell alternative based treatments specifically targeted towards individuals with cancer (Natural supplements, vitamins etc.). Can you cite any cases where suggestion of alternative treatments have actaully put people in legal jeopardy?

I enjoy Mahers humour and views on religion and politics, but his perspectives on medicine is quite preposterous.

Sorry for the double post – I don’t know how it happened

Since Dawkins doesn’t select the recipients of the award named for him, maybe he doesn’t see the point of making a public fuss about an unworthy nominee. Courtesy would indicate that any public opinion he expresses be quietly supportive of the choice, and Dr. Dawkins is an extremely courteous person. I suggest he be given a break.

So far Orac’s question about Maher’s apparently contradictory views HPV vaccination and all other vaccinations is the best, but nobody has addressed the elephant in the room yet.

To Bill Maher:

Are you an atheist; do you not believe in a god of any kind, yes or no?

Did you say the following words and do they accurately reflect your views today?

“I’m not an atheist. There’s a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn’t believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don’t need. But I’m not an atheist, no.” I believe there’s some force. If you want to call it God… I don’t believe God is a single parent who writes books. I think that the people who think God wrote a book called The Bible are just childish. Religion is so childish. What they’re fighting about in the Middle East, it’s so childish. These myths, these silly little stories that they believe in fundamentally, that they take over this little space in Jerusalem where one guy flew up to heaven no, no, this guy performed a sacrifice here a thousand million years ago. It’s like, “Who cares? What does that have to do with spirituality, where you’re really trying to get, as a human being and as a soul moving in the universe?” But I do believe in a God, yes.”

Are you perhaps, an agnostic, a deist, &/or simply anti-religious? If you are any thing other than an atheist, (that is someone who does not believe in any god, deity, supreme being, or supernatural power of any kind) please explain what your beliefs are.

His publication record, though, is relatively thin on peer-reviewed science,

You can tell Dawkins is more of a pioneer of sorts. “The Selfish Gene” was pretty revolutionary, and he’s responsible for the whole field of memetics. He might not work out in the field all that much, but what he’s done is part of science too, and his contribution has been significant.

Doesn’t Maher deny even being an atheist?

For Maher:

I’ve heard that you are anti-vaccination. Is that true?

If yes, what would you do if you were bitten by a rabid animal?

If get a rabies shot/vaccine – isn’t that a little hypocritical? Picking and choosing which vaccines you think are helpful and which are not? The whole purpose of vaccinations is that an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The Dawkins Award this year is inscribed:

“for outstanding contribution to freethought
in Religulous
and many insightful criticisms of religion
presented to Bill Maher
by Atheist Alliance International
Oct 2, 2009.”

Thus, it’s specifically targeted at Maher’s outspoken criticism, and mockery, of religion. It’s not for his stance on alt med, or his scientific expertise: he’s an entertainer. He’s helping to ‘break the spell’ which says we must say only good things about faith.

I mentioned this in the “Is Bill that ignorant” thread, but it may have been missed.

Bill Maher thinks atheism is the mirror image of religious fundamentalism… or some such nonsense. It’s at the very beginning of the clip.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-30-2008/bill-maher-pt–2

How’s Richard and AAI feel about that?

Man! This guys really is all over the place!

How can he say what he says about vaccines but also hold this view?

Yeah, I know he talks about Tamiflu and not a specific flu vaccine but still. He seems to be in the midst of finding himself. Which is fine, but man watching it all unfold live is pretty weird!

I still stand by giving Bill Maher any kind of scientific award is “you’re an Atheist? Me too!” Back-slapping. That was my original point. Bill Maher does not deserve a science award.

He’s not getting a science award. The award is for people promoting atheism in the public sphere.

Holding AAI’s feet to the fire is more difficult here. They are an Atheist organization, which I have learned the hard was has little to do with skepticism or rational, scientific thought. It is mostly about support for those damaged by religion.

Then they have no reason to care whether Maher is a drooling imbecile, as long as he’s banging the drum to the correct beat. If that’s their agenda, then they’re consistent with it and so be it. If it was just the “AAI prize” would we still be having this discussion?

I’m guessing that Dawkins is rather pained over this whole thing, and is probably wishing that he hadn’t let his name get attached to a prize whose reciept he didn’t control. He’s pretty smart; I bet this won’t happen again. Unlike Maher, Dawkins appears to learn quickly.

I’m guessing that Dawkins is rather pained over this whole thing, and is probably wishing that he hadn’t let his name get attached to a prize whose reciept he didn’t control. He’s pretty smart; I bet this won’t happen again. Unlike Maher, Dawkins appears to learn quickly.

I would guess that Dawkins only “pain” over this is the inability of some to separate out the media awards, meant to boost an organizations public awareness, from the core mission of the group.

To steal from Mark Twain — “everyone’s always complaining about the weather, but nobody seems to do anything about it”, if you are unhappy with the award, join an atheist or skeptic group, become an AAI affiliate and contribute in a meaningful way.

Then maybe these egregious compromises of principles will become fewer. But as it stands, AAI is fighting for its life and looking for any boost it can get.

Orac #76 wrote:

Was what is inscribed on the award the only criteria for the award all along, or did you change the criteria after the uproar over the choice of a quackery booster like Maher for the award?

I don’t personally know, but the Dawkins Award has rather broad criteria, and the emphasis varies, depending on the recipient and their strengths. I think it has to, because people and causes are complex, and seldom pure and perfect. Bottom line, Bill Maher is not a doctor, or official spokesperson for alt med — he’s an entertainer whose talk show and mainstream-ed movie helped to “raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance.” That’s what got big attention this year.

For each recipient, the inscription says something different.

Why would I want to associate myself with a group that gave Bill Maher an award?

Good question, I will ask that of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, Lawrence Krauss, etc. this week at the convention, it I get a chance.

“Mr. _______, could you explain why, someone as intelligent, successful in their field, and committed to their principles, such as yourself, would associate with a group such as AAI, when they would participate in awarding Mr. Bill Maher for his service to atheism, in light of the fact his scientific knowledge or lack of leads him to false conclusions about the nature of reality?”

I anticipate the response:

“Because I am an adult, not a child, insisting that everything must go their way, all the time, even when bigger issues are at stake.”

I’m a Dawkins fan, and I don’t think Dawkins does class as a scientist any more. Formerly he was a scientist, currently he’s a science educator and writer. I also don’t think that matters in the slightest.

I am disturbed about this award and I hope that Dawkins can do something about getting his name off it.

Forgive me if these are duplicate ideas. I haven’t time to read all the above right now.

My questions are for AAI and Dawkins, because they are the ones responsible for this lamentable situation:

The Richard Dawkins Award is given to one who “advocates increased scientific knowledge.” On what efforts, in the furtherance of science, did the selection committee base this award to Bill Maher?

This Award is suppose to go to an “outstanding ATHEIST” who “mirrors the UNCOMPROMISING nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins.” Yet Bill Maher has gone on record that he is not an atheist. Please explain how this award is not compromising.

Who was on the selection committee?

For Dawkins:

What will be your position should Mr. Maher defend his anti-vax position in the future by referring to his prestigious science award, given to him by none other than Richard Dawkins?

Regarding PZ Myers Comment.

I don’t think the issue is whether Dawkins accepts alt med bullshit. Clearly he does not and PZ rightly told everyone to avoid questions about specific alt med claims. The issue is that Dawkins does not seem to really care about the extent and depth of Bill Mahers dogmatism when it comes to medical issue.

True, atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in God(s). The modern “atheist movement” is about more than that however. It is also about the ability of reason and science, when properly wielded, to improve the human condition. This is something that I know Dawkins understands on principle because I have heard him say as much. The question then is why he is willing to ignore the blatant undermining of medical science just because the person doing it raised the profile of atheism, especially considering medical science is one of the best examples of an area where science and reason have immeasurably improved the human condition.

Either Dawkins does not realize the extent of Mahers idiocy on this issue, in which case he should be educated, or he does not care, in which case he should be argued with.

I’m all for asking Dawkins plenty of interesting questions about his new book but that does not mean that someone should not ask him about Maher.

Like PZ said though, don’t ask him if he supports alt med. Just watch “The Enemies of Reason” for your answer to that one.

“It seems that this retarded award is for a bunch of opinionated jerks patting themselves on the back. Oh how brave and brilliant that you discredit religions! – That’s like getting praise for beating up the cripple in middle school.”

A cripple that is responsible for a history of wars, that has tortured thousands and would still be doing it today if it weren’t illegal, a cripple that kills children by persuading their parents to pray rather than go see a doctor, a cripple that denies information about contraception to millions of impoverished women all over te world.

Feh. In case you haven’t noticed, religion is no cripple. It’s a “roaring lion, that goes about seeking whom it may devour”.

Oh and as for all this “Bill Maher is not an atheist” horseshit. Come on, thats just a stupid rhetorical tool that Maher uses. I don’t like it at all, I think he is being dishonest and just trying to win openmindedness points. According to any reasonable definition of atheist however, Bill Maher is an atheist. That is to say that Bill Maher lacks a belief in God. He is on record time and time again stating quite clearly that he does not have a belief in God.

Please, please, please, just drop this “Maher is not an atheist” thing.

I could go around telling people I was not a human until I was blue in the face and that would not to anything change the fact that I obviously am.

In PZ’s defense, I think the excerpted para in 57/58 loses a bit when taken out of context. I’d encourage everyone to read the whole post, after which I think it will be obvious that PZ is very much in support of asking these questions and seeking accountability, including specific suggestions for how to do this effectively.

rc-moore, cool your jets and quit whining. You’re not winning any hearts and minds to the AAI cause with your derisive responses her or at Pharyngula.

If you can find some evidence that Bill Maher, in any significant way, has any influence on anything in the public health arena, please present it.

Yeah, this pretty much sealed the deal for me. If AAI is full of inane apologist tripe like this, you can keep it.

Maher has been an extremely vocal proponent of AltMed for years. He shares his opinions on this topic every chance he gets. He is a woomeister extraordinaire, and he has millions of fans who hate ‘the Man’ as much as he does, and thus who sit up and take notice when he rails against the monolithic ‘Western Medicine’, etc. I’m not arguing for a minute that he shouldn’t be allowed to say whatever the hell he wants, but he should be held accountable for it and challenged on his loonier ideas. Instead, you guys are giving him the Richard Frakking Dawkins award and telling us we should all just get along and this is the real world, gosh darn it, not a the comforting womb of the internet echo chamber where everyone thinks exactly like we do. Get over yourself, asshat. Maher is a horrible choice. Own it.

What makes this all the more tricky is the fact, as someone pointed out earlier, that Maher seems to switch back and forth from this quackery as it suits him.

If embracing viruses and vaccines can help him score a point against Bush, he does it in a second.

What the heck are his views anyway?

For some reason I can’t help but think of Wallace and Grommit and the Wrong Trousers.

I think Dawkins and PZ’s hypocrisy is showing BIG TIME. Forgive maher’s “sins” because he produced a crappy movie against religion, yet always call out “accomidationists” who do more to promote science than PZ ever has (Dawkins has done good science promotion).

That Pharyngula post was the pussyfootiest thing I’ve ever seen PZ write. He’s certainly not being as ridiculous and asinine as some of the people leaving comments defending the award here and elsewhere, but his lack of palpable anger is stark. This is frankly embarrassing, and that ought to be explicitly pointed out.

Atheism isn’t something unto itself, as the term itself implies. If atheists don’t realize this, they’re going to turn into the ridiculous South Park parody of atheism.

To RD:

How can atheism claim to be a cogent position if it is not founded in respect for reason and evidence? How can giving an award in your name to someone who is widely and publicly known for treating evidence-based medical science with contempt do anything other than undermine the credibility of atheism?

Memetics is about as much of science as is evolutionary psychology when applied to humans. It is more of a philosophy or psychoanalysis because it is subject to the biases of interpretation of the author. It is founded on controversial premises, like that all human learning is imitation and non-creative. You shouldn’t cite creating the “meme” as scientific cred for Dawkins.

It is founded on controversial premises, like that all human learning is imitation and non-creative.

Ah, no. Memetics requires some method for meme initialization, selection, and reproduction. The method doesn’t have to reside within a human brain. Genetic algorithms, for example, happen within a software environment.

Gene replication is really just a special case of meme replication.

To Bill,
Have you ever seen Professor Dawkins’ documentary series “The Enemies of Reason”?

To Professor Dawkins,
Have you ever seen your documentary series “The Enemies of Reason”?

Perhaps one of the apostles can shed some light onto the subject. Has he ever in his writing explicitly stated vaccine support and/or spoken out against the anti-vax movement?

The following quote from part 2 of Enemies of Reason should settle that matter:

…inn 1998 the publicising of one survey of twelve children that wrongly linked MMR vaccines with autism prompted hundreds of thousands of parents to opt their children out of entirely sensible innoculations. A hyped-up insinuation that the government and the medical establishment were conspiring to sacrifice our next generation to autism has left up to a fifth of our children entirely unprotected agains rubella, mumps and measles, a disease with complications such as brain-injury and deafness. There have now been epidemics in Kent and Yorkshire and the first death from measles in 14 years. It’s an accute example of the danger of devaluing evidence.

The question here is not what side Dawkins is on – He is clearly on the side of science and skepticism – but whether or not Maher’s criticism of religion earns him a free ticket to endorse dangerous nonsense in other areas – it clearly doesn’t.

This year, the committee of AAI took the decision to give the RDA to Bill Maher. They asked me, as an individual, if I approved, and I was delighted to do so because I find him, and especially Religulous, very funny. I know nothing of any stance he may have taken on medical questions.

Well, here’s a list of posts by me and others to educate Professor Dawkins and fill in this rather glaring hole in his knowledge base

Maybe Richard Dawkins – a Brit – doesn’t feel that it’s part of his life’s work to keep up to date with every American loudmouth? Bill Maher is not known at all on the eastern side of the pond. I don’t know if Religulous had a UK release, but it wouldn’t be of much interest in the UK.

And maybe Dawkins(perhaps unwisely) assumed that AAI would have done their own “background checks” before deciding to make the award? I don’t understand why you blame Dawkins rather than those who chose to make the award!

@121
Because his name is on the award and he is handing it out?

How can the maker of the documentary “Enemies of Reason” agree to and hand out an award to someone who would be a great punch ball in that very program (which would be a nice questions to ask Dawkins, by the way)?

While Dawkins did not make the selection, he could have distanced himself from it or refused to hand it out. He did neither, so part of the blame goes to him.

oh, one more thing. It is largely due to the fact that Maher had such a hard on for Ann Coulter that she gained such pop status. Her PR folks knew how to milk a horny, middle aged, failing comedian to get her lots of air time in her short miniskirts when he had the late night ABC TV show.

Bill Maher= Fail

@rb, yes, it does seem hypocritical to me too. But claiming that Myers has not done a lot to promote science is friggin ridiculous.

For Bill Maher:
Mr. Maher, one of the dangers that I have always believed that organized religion poses for people is that it promotes praying when one is sick as a plea for being cured. There is, of course, no evidence that people that pray when sick have any greater a chance of being cured than those of us that don’t. Don’t you beleive than, that anything that is promoted as a cure for ANY disease or sickness should be held to a high level of factual scrutiny and scientific study so that people are not taken advantage of like those that are told to pray for a cure? Do you have such evidence to support the claims that alternative treatments for cancer have a higher rate of cure than conventional medicine treatments?

Sastra:

The Dawkins Award this year is inscribed:
“for outstanding contribution to freethought
in Religulous
and many insightful criticisms of religion
presented to Bill Maher
by Atheist Alliance International
Oct 2, 2009.”

Outstanding contribution? As I pointed out about a year back, ‘Maher credulously repeats the quote mine of John Adams saying “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’ The stuff about the parallels between Jesus and pagan deities looks like it was from Acharya S, or the Internet urban legends spawned by her. I know at the very least that everything he said about Mithras was bogus, and the claim that Horus was born of a virgin is a downright howler.” Religulous isn’t all bad, but I can’t see how a movie that uncritically repeats common canards can be considered outstanding.

That Pharyngula post was the pussyfootiest thing I’ve ever seen PZ write.

Yeah. This part got me.

PZ Myers:

If you find yourself with a chance to ask Richard Dawkins questions, though, please stick to issues that interest him. If you ask him about acupuncture, he’s going to be as dismissive as all of us other skeptics, so there really isn’t much point to going on about it. Don’t waste an opportunity to converse with Dawkins on a bunch of annoying noise. OK?

Not that I think people should brandish pitchforks and torches, but why the comment to stick to “issues that interest him?” What sort of conversation of dialogue worth having is one-side?

This also has nothing to do with whether Dawkins believes in woo, but why he thinks it’s appropriate for someone who does to get an award that is suppose to go to someone who “advocates increased scientific knowledge.” Nice dodge Myers.

I respect Dawkins’ work, but it’s one of those situations where grandpa’s got his pants around his ankles at dinner time, but we’re all suppose to look away and pretend it’s not happening.

@Bill Maher:

Mr Maher, you’ve repeatedly denied being an atheist. Why, then, are you accepting this award?

PZ’s Monday post on the award “the pussyfootest” thing he ever wrote? We don’t seem to have read the same article, then.

Maher made a provocative movie about religion this year, Religulous, and that’s the kind of thing we want to acknowledge and encourage, but at the same time… Maher is as loopy as they come on medical matters. He’s a conspiracy theorist who blames Big Pharma for controlling health care, thinks modern medicine is a failure, and promotes ‘alternative’ therapies that don’t work. It is a serious embarrassment.

I think it is an excellent idea to ask difficult questions and put Maher on the spot, as Orac has proposed, and the last thing any skeptic or rationalist should do is ask critics to be silent.”

If that is “pussyfooting”, excuse me while I miaow! 😉

@rc-moore:

“I am an adult and moved on.”

“Otherwise, quit using your personal self-righteousness as an excuse for your inability to leave your mother’s basement and join the real world. ”

That’s verrrrrrrrrry adult of you :p

Indeed. I laughed when I saw that whole “mother’s basement” bit. The guy could at least come up with something even a wee bit more original than that.

Oh wait. Apparently he can’t. Apparently to him that’s rapier wit.

@Irene (#137):

You might want to take a look at Pablo’s question for Dawkins at #138, then go re-read PZ’s post. You’d be more correct if it were someone else, but this is PZ Myers we’re talking about. He’s a guy who’ll fly off the handle about a link someone sent him, and not notice that it’s from 2005. Yet here, he wants you to be careful to not waste Dr. Dawkins’ time or offend Mr. Maher’s sensibilities at this glorious event. You either aren’t a regular reader of Pharyngula, or you’re deluding yourself that PZ isn’t making a special case for the sake of Dawkins, AAI, or atheism in general.

Again, I’ll point out that atheism isn’t exactly a cause unto itself. If you disagree with that notion, take it up with the AAI and their Richard Dawkins award. It normally and nominally goes to someone who “advocates increased scientific knowledge.” And, their supposed “values” include: reason, science, knowledge, progress, empiricism, ethics, and responsibility. None of those things are implicitly atheistic. And, Maher embodies none of them.

But that’s only part of the criteria.

This has been the biggest problem for me. There were stated criteria, and I thought they were good. Yet, they blatently ignored entire components of them. Now it seems they have even retro-actively changed the criteria in order to make Maher qualify.

Pablo #145 wrote:

Now it seems they have even retro-actively changed the criteria in order to make Maher qualify.

Retro-actively change the criteria? I’m not sure what you mean. If it’s the wording on the Dawkins Award itself, that’s just honesty, and accuracy. It’s the specific reason Maher is getting the award. It’s not for any contributions to a general scientific approach to thinking.

I understand, and agree with your point that it should be, and thus not Maher. But given that it is Maher, best to be clear and truthful.

Pablo:
Ah, I see. Ok.

Pablo #150 wrote:

Can someone please tell me why I keep getting a “Registration is required” error over at PZ Myers blog? What registration?

Typekey registration: PZ’s trying to keep out spammers. I was going to post the link for you, but for some reason I’m having problems. Instead, try SEF’s link at #30 on the “Richard Dawkins says we’re descended from frogs” thread (she’s constantly posting it as a public service, and it’s the only one that finally got me on.)

Question: given that Maher is getting the Dawkins Award, what would you have preferred to have on the inscription? Seriously.

Question: given that Maher is getting the Dawkins Award, what would you have preferred to have on the inscription?

If at all, and since it appears to be inevitable:
“For his outstanding achievements in raising awareness of nontheism”.
Leave out the claim that he’s an atheist, leave out the claim that he’s representative of a “stance” commonly adopted by a loosely-defined-as-it-is community.

For all I know, his “life stance” is “don’t think too hard”. Or possibly “seated behind a desk and kinda slouchy”.

“Life stance” is a terrible construction to begin with, and is completely unnessecary even in the basic description of the award.

I think the inscription should indicate what the award is for, not why it is for him. Presumably, he is supposed to reflect what the award is for, not the other way around.

I’ll admit, it is difficult to have an inscription that describes the award AND give it to Bill Maher, but that’s kind of the point…

To Bill Maher:

Do you understand why double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies are ultimately necessary to evaluate the veracity of claims put forth by both traditional scientific medicine, and so-called “alternative” medicine?

From Maher’s Twitter:
http://twitter.com/billmaher/status/4403617471
“If u get a swine flu shot ur an idiot.”

I think Kismet demonstrates my point well; instead of considering whether alliances between skeptical atheists and skeptical believers can advance goals that they hold in common (I would like to think that, say, public health might be a high priority goal for both camps?) Kismet’s immediate response is to dismiss the very possibility of a skeptical believer and immediately start trying to alienate that skeptical believer. At least I have to assume that alienation was the goal, because shoddy logic of the kind displayed (“If you believe in one thing I don’t believe in, you obviously believe in everything I don’t believe in!”) is certainly not going to convince or impress anyone who isn’t already a convert.

Antaeus Feldspar, I couldn’t care less about strategical alliances and whatnot when I am directly addressing one specifical point you made. Therefore, your retort is completely besides the point [and, no, I do not approve of your religious accomodationalism. FWIW we can form alliances on health topics while *strongly* disapproving of superstitious beliefs and pointing out that they’re silly.]

Would you be so kind to answer the questions? How can you sceptically examine belief and not arrive at the conclusion that agnosticism (and not the 50:50 variety) and atheism is justified? Please, explain you reasoning.
What is this spiritual but non-material god you were speaking of? How do you justify praying to god, which god and why not demons and elves?

I just fear that you simpy mischaracterised sceptics in your post; not those posters claiming that most sceptics should be atheists.

I am often pretty dense Neill. I think I finally get where you’re coming from.

I once heard Robert Wright on the Diane Rehm show (I think that was it.) And half way through I thought to myself, Jesus! What is wrong with this guy? Everything he says suggests he’s an atheist, but he refuses to say it. In fact he kept criticizing those who were atheists, yet in substance they said nothing different from him.

mk:
Honestly I agree with Sam Harris that atheist should not be the term that the “atheist movement” uses to describe itself. I know some atheists who are thoughtless idiots, and why shouldn’t I. Atheism does not imply anything but the rejection of God belief, it says nothing about whether you rejected it for good reasons. I think a better description of the worldview being advanced by Dawkins and the like is rationalism. Among other things this would highlight how absurd it is for Maher to be receiving this award, along with avoiding the “what about Stalin” questions that get lobbed out at every single debate I have seen or engaged in on the subject.

@redfish
If you believe that God is just a metaphor that should not be “interpreted as fact” than I’m sorry, but you my friend are an atheist.

Allow me to edit the quote you provided to illustrate my point.

Every star wars movie is true in one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.

How would Maher react to the HIV/AIDS vaccine? (http://www.newsy.com/videos/positive_step_toward_cure_for_hiv_aids) It would end one of the biggest health crises of our time.

Sorry for the derailing, in penance here is a question for Maher.
You have been an outspoken critic of global warming denialism, pointing out that much of the right wing denies the scientific consensus in favor of their conservative ideology. In light of this why do you choose to ignore the clear scientific consensus on specific issues of medical science like germ theory and cancer treatment?

redfish:
So God is a figure of speech? Well I certainly believe in figures of speech, does that make me a theist? The problem here is you are playing fast and loose with the idea of existence. Atheism is specifically the belief that God does not literally exist. There is absolutely nothing in atheism that dictates that I can’t believe that God is a metaphor. Either you believe God literally exists and you are a theist, or not, in which case you are an atheist.

The point I was making with the star wars thing was that from your definition of belief and existence, I believe that the star wars universe exists. The same could be applied to any fiction with even a little bit of metaphor in it.

I’m sorry but words mean things. My concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that he is just a representation of an idea, there pastafarianism is correct because I have defined it to be so.

Your “non fundamentalist” concept of God is that he does not exist as anything but a metaphor. So again, sorry, but that makes you a big fat scarlet a wearing virgin sacrificing atheist.

Sic ’em Orac. Give ’em a piece of our mind. We are with you.

Thanks “sundeep” for your post #48. Checked out “Sense About Science”. Nice.

Orac, I hope you have an interesting and enjoyable time. We wait eagerly for your updates.

Really? Anyone got a link?

I know I have joined this session very late but I have a two-part question for which I have been seeking an answer for sometime. Perhaps the good Professor might be able to help or this could be conveyed to him in view of its broad implications:

1. Do you think our world would be a better place if not for past (and present) religious ideologies and institutions with their various persecutions and influence over people’s behaviour and thinking?

2. If your answer is ‘yes’, would you really prefer that alternative ‘better place’ world in view of the following. Let me explain: Being angry and feeling betrayed by past injustices is understandable but carries an interesting irony since we are the unique children of that past. Just consider the paradox of a person from a conquered land of mixed descent who endures a lifetime of apparently justified indignation reflecting over that part of his indigenous ancestry that were exploited and abused at the hands of invading foreigners who wiped out an ancient civilisation and imposed an alien ideology on the surviving generations. Like us he wonders how much better his world would have been if not for such acts of barbarism. Yet, he doesn’t consider that if those very events had not taken place he would not exist, just as it could be argued we would not exist except for human history occurring precisely as it did. A different set of circumstances impacting on peoples’ movements and meetings around the globe would have resulted in a different gene mix with in turn different circumstances impacting on that mix, and so producing a different lot of descendents at every generation onwards. And modern science has only increased our awareness of the probability factors governing our individual existence. For instance, of the approximately 100-500 million sperm released in every act of human intercourse, with each individual sperm carrying a different genotype, what were the odds that the particular sperm with your genotype would be the successful one to win the race to fertilise the egg? Take this to the next step by multiplying these sperm by the number of successive generations that have occurred in your ancestry since the first humans walked the earth (recent estimates by scientists put this at around 6 million years ago). A different sperm being successful at any level in your lineage and the individual that is you could not now exist. As such we might be grateful for the past, with all its triumphs and tragedies, philosophies and institutions, individuals and events. We need to learn from the past and not be too hasty to want to do away with concepts that are part of our heritage, either because we don’t personally have the standard of proof we demand to satisfy our sense of what can be real or not or have suffered great disadvantage in our own lives as a result of the misuses of these concepts.