Bill Maher: why does he believe in pseudoscience?

Sadly, many people apply critical thinking only in some parts of their lives. Bill Maher is an example.

He does not believe we have strong evidence for the existence of god. That's a reasonable position.

He does not believe in the germ theory of disease. That's ignorant.

He said "...people get sick because of an aggregate toxicity, because their body has so much poison in it, from the air, the water..." That's ignorant.

He does not believe vaccines work as scientists have shown they work (e.g. he does not accept the fact that polio was eliminated because of vaccines). That's ignorant.

On google, search for "Bill Maher pseudoscience" or "Bill Maher anti vaccination" or something like that.

Bill Maher is a good reminder that we should not congratulate ourselves about our critical thinking in the area of religion while being credulous in other areas.

If you go to the Atheist Alliance International Convention in October and hear Bill Maher speak, please take some time beforehand to do some research on the web, find some quotes that display his stunning ignorance about certain topics, and ask him to confirm that he indeed holds such pseudoscientific beliefs.

He seems like the kind of person who, when presented with or reminded of all the evidence, will reach a logical conclusion about what to believe. So we just need to keep reminding him.

I don't know about the pseudoscience you speak of, I like to hear him tear down theists and their arguments trying to prove the existence of a god though.

I was not aware of his views like that of Jenny McCarthy and others out there when it comes to vaccines. Then again, there might be folks in our group that take offense if I was to call Jenny crazy because they have similar beliefs.

Bill Maher always makes me laugh when he appears on the late night shows. Just like this group though, if I attend this convention, I approach it with an open and objective mind. Like they say "Trust but verify".

In our Meetups I have come across other members that have certain political views that are different than mine.

The same with ethics and morals, I give them their space, no matter how you present certain results people are going to connect the dots the way they see fit.

He has also said that he believes in ghosts and astrology. He is a supporter of Peta. He pretty much tows the Greenpeace line. He's a stopped clock.

Pseudoscience is bullshit? Now you tell me! After I spent thousands on magnets, crystals, and a celebrity Feng Shui consultant!

Now cryptozoology...THAT'S a different bag. I saw bigfoot in my backyard so I know it's real.

The Non-prophets (an atheist internet podcast) did a segment about Maher being nominated for the Richard Dawkins award (for atheists) by the Atheist Alliance International and how that was wrong because: 1)he is not an atheists at all, and 2)his acceptance of the anti-vaccine thing and other pseudo-science is anti-rational and lowers the bar for an organization like AAI. I tend to agree with them. I think Maher can be incredibly funny and has done some really great stuff on Real Time, but sometimes he does go about things the wrong way. Definitely a mixed bag.

Jeremy,

I listened to that podcast as well. I agree with what Matt said about how he thinks that there are far more deserving people to nominate for an "atheist" award being that Bill's not even an atheist and that he can seem to be on the far end of the rational and skeptical spectrum. But I also agree when he said something to the effect of agreeing that Bill does have quite a visual platform to get people thinking about their ideals and religious dogma (e.g. Religulous, and Real Time with Bill Maher).

Bill certainly does have a much greater reach than most vocal atheists because he isn't confined to the "atheist circle" if you will. By standing on the outside, Bill can get otherwise 'out of reach' peoples' wheels turning and thinking about what it is that they believe and why. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and the like are mostly only going to appeal to other atheists/agnostics or those scarce few who would be enlightened enough to entertain another viewpoint even if it doesn't agree with their own.

Even though I most certainly do not agree with a lot of what Bill Maher stands for, I do appreciate that he has the ability to get those who normally wouldn't, to at least think about the blinders religion has put on them. And in my opinion, if we can get people thinking critically and rationally they may not only be able to let go of the superstition that is religion, but take those newly found critical thinking skills and apply it sufficiently enough to other aspects of life to not fall victim to the new age, warped, and dangerous thinking Bill Maher has. I'm fine with Bill being part of the catalyst for a much more rational society - we just don't have to follow him down the rabbit hole.

My two cents...

-Annette

I think this stuff has been promoted by people who do not like Maher's politics. If you look at his New Rules May 1, 2009 it seems pretty clear that he believes in germs as the cause of at least some disease. As for all "diseases", I do not think his statement is that far off base. Here is a list of the leading causes of death in the US (2006):

* Heart disease: 631,636
* Cancer: 559,888
* Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
* Diabetes: 72,449
* Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
* Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
* Septicemia: 34,234

You have to go pretty far down the list before you get to something that is purely caused by germs. Heart disease and strokes are pretty much entirely due to polluting ourselves with animal fats, sugars, etc. Lung cancer and diseases have also been shown to be due almost exclusively to things like cigarette smoke and diesel fuel particulates. (Though other cancers have recently been found to be associated with viruses, which is interesting). So I am inclined to agree that sickness and disease here in the US is mostly caused by things other than germs. Even in the case where there is a germ infection, I think that there is a good case for many being "opportunistic" infections caused by a weakened immune system.

Does anyone here have a link to the complete text where Maher said he did not believe in vaccinations? I could not find it. I am curious as to whether or not it was another misquote like the anti-germ one.

See http://www.sciencebas... for one example of Bill Maher talking about vaccination.
Excerpt:
"I don’t believe in vaccination either. That’s a… well, that’s a… what? That’s another theory that I think is flawed..."

The author of the blog post, a surgical oncologist specializing in breast cancer, analyzes some of Maher's false statements and pseudoscientific beliefs and says
"Maher’s own words show that he has anti-vaccine views, flirts with germ theory denialism and HIV/AIDS denialism, buys into extreme conspiracy theories about big pharma, and promotes animal rights pseudoscience."

Here are a few resources that can help all of us sort out the difference between science and quackery in the medical field:
www.sciencebasedmedicine.org
www.quackcast.com (in podcast format)
www.quackwatch.com