When Maher picked up his Dawkins Award at the Atheist Alliance International meetings in Burbank, he used his thank-you speech to give a hilarious verbatim reading of Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Life, apart from the Bible the best-selling hardcover book of all time (the two have many similarities). I didn’t realize that this schtick was part of his standup, routine, which you can see below. This bit is nearly identical to what Maher said in Burbank. And if you haven’t seen Warren’s book, you’ll be amazed at the tripe that has sold more than 25 million copies. (The sales do, however, bespeak a deep need in the American psyche.)
The Warrens—Rick and his wife, Kay—are capable of astonishing generosity. Rick plows the profits from his ventures back into his faith-based initiatives; in his life, you will not find even a whiff of the scandals that accompanied Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart. Kay Warren, while suffering from breast cancer, developed the idea of using every bit of her influence and money to fight the suffering caused by HIV/AIDS in Africa, a courageous venture for a conservative Christian, or indeed for anyone else, to undertake. The Warrens have put to rest the shadow of Elmer Gantry. It really is possible to be both religious and sincere. When you attribute all your success to God, you are no longer focused on your own self-interest.
At the same time, however, Rick Warren, who shares his wife’s larger commitments, can be insufferably sure of himself. Seemingly surprised by gay and lesbian opposition to the decision to allow him deliver the inaugural prayer, he tried to deny that he had equated gay marriage with incest when he clearly had. Warren, it would seem, does not take criticism well. Displace your own abilities onto a supernatural power and you are easily led to blaming others for the messes you cause. Avoiding self-interest, you can fall into self-importance. Warren’s ego is hard to miss. One can only wonder what the presidents of Israel and Syria really think of this provincial from California who seems to believe that he has a proper place on the world stage beside them.
One does not have to be an evangelical to realize that a world of ruthless calculators living for no higher purpose is as shallow as a world in which religious faith allows no room for individual self-development. Rick Warren, Sheler’s book makes clear, has found a message that reconciles profit and high purpose, faith and individual effort, and offers a form of humility that, at its best, galvanizes without aggrandizing. [JAC note: this book was “written with Warren’s cooperation.”] It may not be how I, or others, would balance the relationship between individual striving and a life of meaning, but it is plainly a formula uncannily well-timed for our disoriented, driven moment.
What is the alternative to strident religious faith that Wolfe presents? A “world of ruthless calculators living for no higher purpose”? It’s this ridiculous dichotomy that enables Wolfe to choose the middle ground and heap encomiums on Warren and his message. But what about this alternative: “a secular life devoted to helping others, being moral, and enjoying your friends, family, job, and avocations”.
The Warrens have put to rest the shadow of Elmer Gantry. It really is possible to be both religious and sincere. When you attribute all your success to God, you are no longer focused on your own self-interest.
Wow, one televangelist is not corrupt, therefore the entire widespread problem of corruption amongst televangelists is over. One example disproves all those counter-examples.
I’ve always felt that religious faith tends to be incredibly narcissistic. If people feel they are special creations of an all-powerful god who lovingly guides them and blesses them, how can they feel otherwise?
Warren epitomizes this, in my opinion.
“When you attribute all your success to God, you are no longer focused on your own self-interest.” That doesn’t create any imperative to focus on the interests of others, either. It can, however, create a powerful feeling of entitlement. When the creator of the universe paves your way to success, you can’t help but feel important.
Oh… and the “ruthless calculator” with no life purpose accusations drive me nuts, too. Drivel.
How much more calculating can you get than the Christian who essentially pretends altruism and “giving it to god” when the real message is, “give it all to god or else risk hellfire.” That’s not altruism, that’s CYA writ biblical.
Drivel? You’re being kind. I had something more descriptive in mind, “horsesh*t.”
Yes!
The best thing I can say for Warren is he is the one I detest the least of all the (in)famous preachers of recent memory.
Why is no one commenting on Bill Maher’s T-shirt? I love it. Where can I get one?
There is no reason to attribute one’s life and reason-for-being to another, whether something natural or supernatural.
One makes one’s own destiny and purpose in this short life.
Ask me what I think about Warrens ‘HIV/AIDS activism’.
Go ahead.
Ask me.
I dare you.
What do you think of the Warrens’ HIV/AIDS activism?
That’s nice, though in fairness, being “more conciliatory and invested in doing good than…Jerry Falwell” is not really much of a challenge. I mean, I am pretty sure the homeless druggies that I used to give my empty bottles to at my old house were “more invested in doing good” than Falwell…
“What is the alternative to strident religious faith that Wolfe presents? A “world of ruthless calculators living for no higher purpose”? It’s this ridiculous dichotomy …”
The passage is not setting up a dichotomy since Wolfe clearly doesn’t see Warren’s as ‘religious faith that allows no room for individual self-development’, so you have at least 3 possibilities: Warren’s, the strident religious and the ruthless calculators. The last sentence is a pretty clear indication that Wolfe himself doesn’t fit in with any of those three and that he expects there are other possible positins. There’s nothing in the passage to indicate Wolfe thinks all people, such as yourself, who live for no higher purpose (presumably other than the purpose(s) you choose for yourself) must therefore be ‘ruthless calculators’.
Perhaps you’re merely projecting your own tendency, on display here regularly, to see all who don’t embrace your atheism (and your style of atheism at that) as defective and assuming that if Wolfe sees something worthwhile in a religious person’s views he must perforce think all atheists are ruthless calculators. The person imposing a ridiculous dichotomy here is you, Jerry.
Ok, but why does he bring up the ‘ruthless calculators’ at all, given that they don’t exist outside his imagination?
Why is it “given” that ruthless calculators exist only in Wolfe’s imagination? The upper reaches of business and government would seem to be chockablock with such folk.
Where’s your evidence there aren’t any ruthless calculators?
@Mike from Ottawa
The burden of proof is on him, he postulated these caricatures.
“The upper reaches of business and government would seem to be chockablock with such folk.”
The key words here are: “would seem”. When you look closer you find average human beings.
Well, I suggest you write to Wolfe for his proof. But before you do, make sure you’ve never made a statement or implied the existence of anything without being able to meet an appropriate burden of proof. For instance, make sure you can demonstrate that every person in the upper reaches of business and government is an “average human being”.
Now, my evidence of the existence of ruthless calculators is the present recession and the subprime mortage schemes and derivatives that drove the world’s economy into it. Thousands of people involved in lining their own pockets at the expense of others. I think it reasonable to conclude there’s at least one ruthless calculator in the bunch who is also an atheist. The odds, you know.
In any event, while Wolfe may not be without sin, I notice that you don’t have anything to say about Jerry’s obvious flop in claiming Wolfe had set up a dichotomy.
To fabricate a financial crisis you don’t need ‘ruthless calculators’, what you need is people falling victim to group think and tunnel vision.
It may make you feel better to imagine the bankers as ruthless fraudsters but their *individual* decisions were probably not more morally questionable than someone making a living serving BigMacs at McDonald’s while the current obesity epidemic is costing many lives every year. They might be a bit more amplified the more power the person has, but if you switch the individuals you get similar results.
We have yet to find out what “a world of ruthless calculators living for no higher purpose” actually means. Since he leaves that open it is up to the reader to fill the blanks with his imagination (see your previous post for one example). This kind of intentionally vague reference to some sort of evil is the hallmark of demagoguery.
A world of ruthless calculators would be the vision of Ayn Rand and her pathetic acolytes. There’s thousands of them, many of them in positions of power that brought on the financial meltdown.
So, the ruthless calculators exist and are no figment of the imagination of the author.
Can’t believe I didn’t twig to the ‘Objectivists’ earlier.