Jami Responds to a Challenge

My good buddy, Patrick in a comment after one of his recent posts, offered me a deal: He'd watch Expelled, a movie about academic freedom in the world of science and research, if I'd watch Religulous, Bill Maher's "current take on the state of religion in the world." Now I am willing to accept this deal, Patrick, and my apologies for taking so long to get back to you, but between the flu and the growing of new life in my very own body, I've been a bit distracted, however, I want to explain why I don't necessarily agree that these two are equivalent. I have not yet seen Religulous, though I've seen a few cuts and the trailer. I will absolutely agree with Bill Maher on the two points I've seen him make which are: 1. People do stupid, evil and terrible things in the name of religion 2. Religions can be broken down to look foolish in the eyes of non-believers. For point 1 - it's absolutely true that all manner of stupidity and atrocities in the name of their religions. The Crusades, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, it's a long and disgusting list, hopefully embarrassing to each religion involved. However, does that mean that religions, plural or individually, are to blame? How many horrible things have been done in the name of love, loyalty, wealth, pride or country? Should we abolish these things as well? Or is the point that humans, as a group, can take a good concept and twist it to satisfy some evil within? The fault lies not with the religion itself, but in the people using it to justify actions that in most cases falls well outside that religion's beliefs. More fault may lie with the others in the religion who refuse to chastise someone solely because they claim the same god. But to call all religion bad because some misuse it - that's a dangerous path to go down. 2 - Again, having not seen the movie, but from the reviews even on IMDb, a fairly "neutral" party, Maher got interviews with various religious leaders by misleading them as to his identity and intent. After getting these interviews, he seems to be trying to show how nonsensical each religion is when looked at objectively. I personally don't think that faith is the absence or ignorance of facts, but the logical jump you make once you decide where the facts point, and when they can go no further. I can no more prove my god exists than someone can prove conclusively that he doesn't. All I can say is that even in the Bible, it warns that God uses the things that seem foolish to confound the wise, so I will believe what I believe and if it sounds ridiculous to you, that is what you have decided. I'll respect what you believe, or don't, if you'll respect that I do. On the other hand, the point of Expelled is not to prove or disprove evolution, creation or intelligent design. It's not a treatise on if there's a god. It's a disturbing look at whether scientists should be allowed to question evolution. Ben Stein didn't deceive anyone in his quest to answer the question - Is evolution provable? and If not, should people who study and teach this be allowed to voice the opinion that there may be an unexplained force involved. Stein offers no opinion on any god in particular, instead he focuses on people who have lost jobs and livelihoods by merely mentioning that evolution may not provide all the answers to the beginning of life on earth. So Patrick, if you're still game, let me know.