Bill Maher's Alan Smithee Film

An Alan Smithee film is one in which the director adopts the pseudonym "Alan Smithee" because he/she is so dissatisfied with the final product. There is one thing worse than coming to recognize that you have made an Alan Smithee worthy film, and that is failing to recognize that you did.

I thought of that as I recently watched director Larry Charles' "documentary" film "Religulous" which features the perennially obnoxious, giggling, Bill Maher trapsing around the globe and shaking his greasy head in wonder at the sheer irrationality of everyone but those who adopt his brand of "doubt". (More on that in a subsequent post.)

A typical low point comes when Maher drops in on some humble truckers meeting at a roadside chapel. Among the bizarre claims Maher makes, he raises serious historical doubt that Jesus ever existed. Of course the truckers aren't able to engage Bill Maher; they know Freightliners, not Josephus and Philo. But how many tenured professors of ancient history doubt the existence of Jesus?

I'll tell you what would have made for a much more interesting exchange: Bill Maher, the comedian, telling Paul Maier, the Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University, that Jesus probably didn't exist.

Now this is a great point for reflection. Let's consider the following analogy. Many religious skeptics are all too happy to point out that the vast majority of scientists accept Darwinian evolution. (With a little bit of extrapolation from the Discovery Institute's "Dissent from Darwin" list and the alternative "Steve Project", one could conclude that less than 1% of scientists reject Darwinism.) Maybe, just maybe, a scientist could buck the consensus and be taken seriously, but only if he had really great arguments.

The same goes with denying the existence of Jesus. Sure, I guess a historian could buck the overwhelming consensus, but only if he had great arguments. Otherwise he would just look like a fruitcake.

But a comedian making a documentary challenging the consensus of the vast majority of ancient historians with nothing more than flat jokes to back him up? Why that's as ridiculous as a comedian making a documentary challenging the consensus of the vast majority scientists with nothing more than flat jokes to back him up.

Hey, wait a minute...