The Trouble with Atheism

The Trouble with Atheism is a documentary by Rod Liddle attempting to portray atheists and atheism as a religion, which in turn can become dogmatic and murder millions of people. this article will provide a side-by-side review of the documentary, providing a critical analysis of the contents and provide basic fact checking.

Film Overview

Throughout the film, Liddle tries to portray atheism as a new religion that is gaining ground in recent times. For something to be qualified as a religion, it requires several prerequisites like a sacred text, places of worship, and individuals held in such high praise. Liddle tries to attach those things to atheists, without giving a clear definition of atheism. Rather, to Liddle, it seems that atheism is just a belief in a disbelief, and somehow this belief in disbelief has its own tenets for every atheist to follow.

Liddle brings up physics and biology, especially the theory of evolution which he falsely labels "Darwinism." In reality, there is no such thing as Darwinism as there is no Einstienism (please keep that in mind throughout the review). To Liddle, being an atheist means you accept Darwin by default, in fact Darwin was probably the main reason why people become atheists in the first place. this is demonstrably false, given that most atheists usually leave religion for a variety of reasons but have no idea or understanding of Darwin until after they become atheists.

Film Walk through

Introduction

Britain has become one of the of the world's least God-fearing country. Every year, more and more of us come to the view that God and everything about him (a sense of mystery, intuition, blind faith) is to be rejected in favor of an understanding world that is based on the observable and the knowable. It is no surprise when you look around the world that atheism has become so attractive. But at its worse, atheism can be just as dogmatic and intolerant as the most devout religious belief. I wonder if it really is the answer to our prayers.

Is atheism the answer to your prayers? Take a good look at Britain, and compare it to a highly religious country like the United States. Both of the two countries are superpowers, but only the United States population is by far more deeply religious. Is atheism dogmatic and intolerant? As this review will show, Liddle's case is rather poor.

Liddle says that if you believe in God and he is on your side, any act of barbarism unto nonbelievers can be justified. He points to Sunni Muslims killing Shiite Muslims, Christians fighting in Ireland, and Zionists fighting Palestinians because they think they have a God-given right to occupy land. Liddle says it is no wonder why people in the “liberal West” think ill of religion. Liddle goes around outside a market asking people their general opinions of religion. They all agree that religion causes a lot of problems, particularly war. Liddle says such views are understandable, but wonders if it is religion that is the cause or “that very stupid human craving for certainty and justification.” While showing a brief clip from Richard Dawkin's program “The Root of All Evil” (speaking over Dawkins), Liddle says many atheists think that religion is the cause. Liddle says that Dawkins is a brilliant man, a talented writer, and good scientist, but points out that these days Dawkins has these days become known as a man who “hates God, forever waging war against religion, blaming it for much of the violence in the world.” Then there is a very brief clip of Liddle interviewing Richard Dawkins, with the clip just revealing Dawkins claiming that religious violence is motivated by religious belief, and such a thing can never be seen in regards to atheism.

Pay close attention to that first line: if you believe in God and he is on your side, any act of barbarism unto nonbelievers can be justified. Basically, religion instigates violence upon others based on the presupposition in an unverifiable, unprovable belief. This is just as similar and ridiculous as a group of devout believers in universal sky pixies slaughtering their heathen neighbors and trying to enforce their beliefs on others, especially the ruling government. The list of violence between religious people are numerous, all around the world and all throughout history.

Next interview, Liddle speaks to Prof. Peter Akins. Akins starts off saying that he objects to people being trapped by religious belief that blocks their thinking processes. Liddle asks Akins if he thinks that religious people are stupid. Akins says no, but he states that he thinks that religious people are more conditioned than he is.

In a sense, Akins is right. All holy books demand they be believed on faith alone. If their holy text told them that slavery was okay and the author of the text is infallible, then they cannot question it.

Liddle says that some atheists have become dogmatic, firmly convicted that there is no god and those who do hold a religious belief is a delusional dangerous fool. Liddle wonders if the atheists are right, and asks if everyone tomorrow became an atheist, would the world suddenly become a better place? Liddle says he doubts it, because atheists have been the very people they despise.

The new wave of atheists is not dogmatic, unless simply sharing facts like gravity is dogmatic. For the past decades, the world has changed with the vast expansion and access of new knowledge, alongside religiously inspired violence have both contributed in atheists speaking out more and more. Their message may appear to some as dogmatic, but this is just not the case. If anything, all atheists (and secularists in general) are proposing is mere reason. Compassion. Co-operation. An end to divisiveness.

Liddle states that atheism is becoming a religion of its own (while showing a bust of Charles Darwin in the back). Liddle states that atheism already has its gurus and its revered sacred texts (showing a copy of Darwin's Origin of Species). Quick jump to Akins, who says that we will be able to explain everything through science. Liddle says that atheism already has it own magnificent temples—showing the outside of a research building, with a physicist explaining this is where they uncover the laws of physics, the origins of the universe and its evolution. Liddle says that atheism also has blood on its hands, stating that the atheistic Soviet union has killed more than 20 million people. Liddle states that atheism is just a belief in a negative, a belief in disbelief. Liddle says it is curious how a blank position can show us how to live our lives, and yet that is what some atheists are trying to do just that and becoming the very thing that they despise.

Liddle travels to America, where he says Christianity and atheism clash. Showing the outside of a Church on Sunday, Liddle shows a lone man walking down the sidewalk outside the church holding up a sign that reads “All Gods Are Make-believe”. His name is David Bedford, and Liddle says he is such a “good atheist” that David changed his last name to Darwin (as Liddle notes, just as a Islamic convert may change his name to Mohammad). When Liddle approaches and engages David, David calls himself the “atheist messiah.” Liddle asks David what he believes. David says he does not believe in any God. Liddle asks David why he can't let people believe whatever they wish. David says because what they believe is wrong (to which Liddle says “isn't that a bit arrogant” to which David answers no) and he believes that religious beliefs should not be tolerated. The interview is cut off there, and Liddle remarks it would be unfair to claim that all atheists are like David. Liddle figures that in America where religious beliefs are instructed not to be question, David must be out here trying to instigate people to start questioning. However, Liddle notes that atheism’s rationality can still spawn “loonies” like David.

In this piece, Liddle calls David a “good” atheist. What is a good atheist? Did he really change his name to Darwin? If so, why introduce him on screen as Bedford.

Liddle goes on to weave more similarities between atheism and religion. Liddle notes that most believers are unwilling to listen to other religions, and Liddle says it is the same with atheists. He goes to visit the American Atheist, which was constructed to protect the civil rights of atheists. Ellen Johnson is the current president, who she shows Liddle their library, explaining that they want to keep a solid record of history so Christians cannot distort it in the future. Ellen welcomes Liddle on her show Atheists Viewpoint (which aired on cable in 19 states). Liddle says he liked Ellen, then adds “but underneath, you got that sulfurous whiff of the true believer.” Liddle says he is curious why atheists need an organization to pledge that they do not believe in something, to which Johnson replies that they are trying to protect the civil rights of nonbelievers (who may be discriminated for their lack of belief) and try to preserve the separation of church and state (to which Liddle notes that “separation of church and state” seems holy commendable to atheists). Johnson gives examples of Christianity abusing the separation, such as the God in the American pledge and logo on their money. Jump in the interview to Johnson explaining that believers are simply obedient and do what they are told (which is why they are called “followers”). Liddle asks her if she thinks religious people are therefore stupid? She tries to remain polite, and the obvious knowledge that religious people don't think for themselves may sound rude, but Johnson states that they may not be stupid but their beliefs and theology are stupid.

When Liddle says that he caught a "sulfurous whiff of the true believer," it is almost as if Liddle secretly desired Ellen as the wicked image he holds dear in regards to all atheists. Liddle claims that atheists try to uphold separation of church and state, but never mentions Christians trying to do the exact same thing. If trying to uphold the constitution and the law is somehow "holy commendable" than patriotism therefore must be a religion too. Johnson does have a point that religious followers are simply being obedient more than good. Ask yourself, who is the better person? Person A who does good things because A is told to, or person B who is good simply because it is good. Liddle ignores the horrible passages in sacred texts (such as condoning slavery in the Bible) and does not mention religious people ignoring such atrocious laws. Theists who discard the less palatable parts of Scripture should at least be honest about the standards by which they do this and concede that they are applying their own independent judgment to Scripture. Obviously when we use our own moral sense to separate god and bad in Scripture, when we revise our interpretation of it to reflect the more enlightened view of our time, it is not Scripture guiding our morality. It is our morality guiding our perception of Scripture.

Liddle remarks that atheists who engage in debates go beyond the passion in seeking facts, but go as far as to say that the existence of God is not only improbable but also laughable – a characteristic, Liddle notes, of a devout religious believer with the firm mindset “I'm right, you are wrong.” Back to England, Liddle says that this country has its own “atheistic evangelists.” Liddle drives up to a science building, which Liddle notes is the “habitat of fundamental atheists.” Liddle introduces Prof. Peter Akins, a professor at Oxford University who believes that God is a unnecessary creation of man. Liddle asks Akins about the evidence for God, to which Akins says there is no evidence for a single one, there is no reason to believe in one, and it is foolish to believe in something that does not exist. Liddle ask if there is a terrible arrogance in that certitude? Akins says what is wrong with arrogance when you are right. Jump to Liddle interviewing Dawkins. Liddle remarks that Dawkins firmly believes that irrational religious beliefs should be replaced with the principles of the scientific method. Dawkins speaks that the scientific method has peer review methods of testing and verification. Dawkins says people who believe in something because it just feels good to them does not change reality. Dawkins notes that if a scientist said that he believed an asteroid hit the earth because it felt good to him does not make it so. Liddle remarks that atheists think that science is the way for us to make sense of the world, and it is the only tool for our understanding. Liddle remarks, “in other words; it is the Way, the Truth, the Light.”

Liddle asked Akins if claiming there is no evidence for God is arrogant. Would Liddle ask a astronomer who makes the statement “the sun does not orbit around the earth” arrogant? Simply stating the plain and obvious is not arrogant. To this date, there is no positive evidence for a God, and believers only cling to a belief in god based on the gaps of our current knowledge or they deny observable reality in favor of fantasy. That is why atheists deem religion irrational, because it forces people to expel observable reality in favor of delusions. Dawkins is right, that an answer that feels good does not make it true. For instance, your neighbor may be convinced in believing he is the ancient King of Persia. Being of royalty feels good, thus enforcing his delusion. But it is obvious that his belief does not change reality in his favor. If for instance, he thinks because he is of royalty, he marches into your house and claims he is conquering new territory for his kingdom. When you try to reason with him and show why he is not only incorrect but also delusional, what would be your response if he and Liddle claimed that you are just being “dogmatic”? Of course you know right away that you are not being dogmatic, you are simply being truthful. Liddle tries to portray atheists as viewing science as a pathway to truth like it is Nirvanna.

Atheism Religious Tenet: Physics

Liddle says that science may not be as far away from religion as they may think. Liddle travels to a Fermilab in Illinois, noting its structure is similar to that of a Temple. Liddle says that its mission is to explain the origins of the universe “but just like the early Latin or Greek religious texts, not in a language that many would understand.” Liddle introduces Rocky Tolb, professional cosmologist. Liddle explains the lab has some of the powerful machines in the world that send particles of matter and antimatter at each other near the speed of light to replicate the origin of the universe. Kolb explains that this gives us a better picture of how the universe started at the Big Bang and how it developed after. Liddle remarks that Kolb cannot explain what happened before the Big Bang, to which Kolb says they can make “informed, scientific speculation” to what happened. Liddle asks if there is anything in Kolbs life work that precludes the existence of a creator, to which Kolb answers no but adds there is nothing there to include it as well. Liddle says there are only two options: God or no God. To pick one is a matter of choosing something for which there is no scientific proof either way.

Comparing the architect of a lab to a cathedral is rather a lazy argument. The language of science is not hard to understand. The main reason why people find it hard to understand is because common people have taken a lot of their terminology and used it in everyday language, such as the word “theory.” To the public, theory means a guess or speculation, but in science the word is the exact opposite. As of now, science can only make informed, scientific speculations before the Big Bang, but that is what drives new scientific discovery. Once we could only make informed, scientific speculations about Mars, until we developed larger telescopes and sent a drone there to make a closer investigation. Final note, notice that Liddle said that to pick the option that there is a God has no scientific proof.

Introducing Dr. John Polkinghorne, a retired theoretical physicist and now Anglican priest. He believes that God exists outside the realm of physics. Polinghorne says that it cannot be scientifically known either way if God exists or not, but for the people who do attest to believe should not resolve to finding proof for a God since it is all faith based. Jump back to Akins, where Liddle asks for his thoughts about scientists who do believe in a God. Akins says they are wrong, and those who do believe are “half-scientists.” Cut to Liddle sitting alone in a church, claiming that atheists claim that scientists who believe in God are guilty of dualism – a contradicting belief in the rational world and another than involves belief in the supernatural. But Liddle says he does not find it contradictory, rather he finds it balanced and strikes him as the very “essence of what it is to be human. You cannot live by cold logic alone.” Next, Liddle states that cold logic and science cannot disprove God, but atheists still attest that their view is the only rational position. Cut to Dawkins stating that you cannot disprove God anymore than you can disprove fairies, to which Dawkins is very sure that God does not exist just as he is convinced that fairies do not exist.

Regarding Akin's comment that religious scientists are “half-scientists” while scientists themselves may be religious men of many different faiths, their methodology was designed to be the antithesis of faith because it requires that all assumptions be questioned, that all proposed explanations be based on demonstrable evidence, and that all hypotheses be must be testable and potentially falsifiable. This is why medicine works rather than faith-healing. Blaming magic is never acceptable because miracles aren’t explanations of any kind, and there has never been a single instance in history when assuming the supernatural has ever improved our understanding of anything. In fact such excuses have only ever impeded our attempts at discovery. This is one of many reasons why science depends on methodological naturalism; because unlike religion, science demands some way to determine who’s explanations are the more accurate, and which changes would actually be corrections.

Fine-tuned Physics Prove God

Liddle says that modern physics are revealing God's handiwork in our universe. Introducing Prof. Bernard Carr, a cosmologist at the University of London, who says that the laws of the universe are so finely tuned to allow complex life to exist, that this must have been the work of a divine creator. Carr shows Liddle a “Pyramid of Complexity” (listed in descending order) with consciousness, brains, organisms, cells, biomolecules, molecules, atoms, quarks, and then a big question mark at the bottom. On the side is an vertical arrow pointing up, marked “Time.” Carr argues that the likelihood of such things happening by random chance gets much larger the further down you go. Liddle asked how this all came about rather than luck. Carr answers that the first and foremost answer is that there was a tuner/creator/or God (if you want to call it that). Liddle shares that there are other ideas to explain the fine-tuning of the universe, but Liddle only names one: the multiverse. Liddle remarks that to the layman, this stretches the imagination far beyond that than a belief in a creator. Carr remarks that it is very interesting, and states that this may be the last “refuge for the atheist.” Liddle says that the multiverse is just as provable as God.

Basically Carr is presenting here the anthropic principle. This principle is defeated simply because it is a tautology, weakened by the fact of quantum mechanics and the multiverse. The Copernican Principle is more accurate. The Copernican Principle is the opposite of the Anthropic Principle and states that humans do not occupy a privileged place in the universe. Successive astronomical discoveries seem to support this principle. The Anthropic Principle emphasizes the rarity of life and consciousness while the Copernican Principle forces us to realize it was not all done just so we could exist. To Liddle, the multiverse is just as believable as God, but not quite. We can verify that quantum fluctuations occur and can create universes, and these fluctuations continue and there is nothing to show what if anything puts the brakes on them. The multiverse only stretches imagination because it is outside our ordinary experience, for the oponents of Galileo the idea of the earth moving and orbiting the sun stretched imagination. Why does Liddle talk about the multiverse or God? A polytheistic design team is as plausible as a monotheistic god. Carr and Liddle start with the flawed anthropic argument and continue with the Non sequitur that there must be a single designer. Reasoning of this quality from believers and even agnostics is what makes some atheists feel so superior.

Atheism Religious Tenet: Biological Evolution

Liddle says physics is not the only scientific denomination that excite atheists, the other is biology. Liddle says that atheists have found a sacred text, Darwin's Origin of Species which to atheists has become a New New Testament. Liddle says Darwins book is “the fundamental reason why people become atheists in the first place” (using a clip from the interview with Dawkins, who shared that he became an atheist when he understood Darwin's theory). Liddle says “for a century and a half, Darwinism has been atheism’s trump card, but even today its strongest tenet is under threat.” Next shows a clip of Liddle asking a man when he thinks Darwinism could be universally accepted, to which the man predicts rather rapidly. Liddle explains that all major religions put man in such a high importance in existence, but Darwin put man back in nature among the other animals. Liddle states that Darwin was taking on the religious establishment and thus giving atheists its first sacred religious text. Liddle says that Darwin swept away the previous Christian “truths” that a complex organism (such as the eye) must have been design, and Darwin won (which is why atheists turn to Darwin).

Right off the bat, Liddle is making a huge and false leap. Atheism does not rely on Darwin, since many atheists reject Darwin and many religious people accept Darwin. Evolution is even less religious! It is the branch of biology which explains biodiversity. As such it doesn’t permit supernatural explanations, has no doctrines, nor dogma, nor fables with morals; it has no rituals, traditions or holidays, nor either leaders or defenders of the faith because it doesn’t allow faith. It holds nothing sacred, there’s no place of worship, no enchantments, no clergy, no fashion of garb, and it neither promotes nor discourages belief in gods or souls, and says nothing about how we should live or what happens after we die. Evolution is therefore NOT a religion, and creationists KNOW its not –but they say it is anyway.

Liddle states the importance of Darwin to atheists cannot be overstated. Introducing Steve Fuller, philosopher of science at University of Warwick, who believes that “Darwinism” lies at the heart of modern atheist thought. Fuller says there is a clear connection to atheism and “Darwinism” if atheism is viewed as a view that is against the supernatural and a personal deity that is involving in planning a created universe. Fuller, to his mind, cannot see any other credible scientific discipline for atheism than Darwin. Liddle says that since Darwin is so important to atheists, he does not find it surprising that atheists apply evolution to things beyond biology. Liddle shows a clip of Dawkin's program, in which Dawkins is arguing that religious belief is a meme, or a cultural virus, that is passed on to the next generation. This meme gives people comfort and a sense of wonder. Liddle talks to immunologist Dr. Dennis Alexander if he thinks that religion is a meme, to which he does not fully agree and explains that scientists use a lot of metaphors to help explain their views and work (such as physicists talking about black holes). Alexander says that a meme does not really mean anything, but does not agree that memes act like a virus in the literal sense. Liddle comments that atheist use of a religious meme is a good example to their commitment to Charles Darwin, which troubles Liddle (and he says he is not alone).

Professor of Sociology Steven Fuller may not know much about the history or content of science but he is good at the kind of jargoneering that the Discovery Institute and its allies use to confuse the public about science.

Introducing Rev. Allister McGrath, a theologian at the University of Oxford. McGrath is concerned that the use of this theory is being expanded way beyond its original limits. McGrath claims that “Darwinism” is now become universal in everything. McGrath does not see “Darwinian paradigm operating, for example, in the history of ideas.” Liddle says that everyday, the limits of “Darwinism” is become more clear, and all the while atheists hold dear to its central claim like a “religious fervor, but the fact is that it isn’t getting on a bit, and it is now 147 years old.” Liddle claims that scientists are now finding holes in Darwin's theory.

Evolution is strictly limited to biology, but when scientists and philosophers use the term "evolution" in other fields, they simply mean "change over time." This is not expanding the biological theory that explains biodiversity unto other fields. The theory of evolution is not getting on a bit? This statement could not be father from the truth. Worldwide, the scientific community accepts it as fact and it is taught in every academic school. it is not being hold unto like a "religious fervor." In science, scientists try to falsify theories and laws, and when they continue to fail to disprove a theory, it is accepted as fact when it passes every test. This is the case with the theory of evolution. So when scientists defend theories from criticism, they do not do it like they are protecting a holy tenet, they are simply doing what scientists in general do. Is the theory of Newtonian gravity old because it arived a century before Darwin and Einstein improved on it? If age counts against a scientific theory it should count even more against the Bronze Age and Iron Age mythology of the bible.

Liddle travels to a Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, whose fossil collection Liddle says are challenging Darwin's theory. Introducing Jeffery Schwartz, an agnostic scientist who is turning Darwinism on its head. According to Schwartz, fossils show that species can appear suddenly. Schwartz shows a cast of the first original Archaeoptryx, pointing out each of its “dinosaur” characteristics and Darwin used this as an example between reptiles and birds. Schwartz says “No, this is just there. You, know, pop out of nowhere. So really, an intermediate is interpreted in the eye of the beholder.” Liddle says that Schwartz uses genes to argue that species just appeared rather than came about through gradual change. Schwartz claims his proposed theory is a mutation (in the broadest sense) appears in a population that changes the appearance of a parent at some point in its life, who then may mate with another with the same mutation, and then they both produce an offspring with a natural change just like that in a generation. Liddle says that Schwatrz's theory explains that Darwin only could explain where novelties graduate, not where they originate from. Schwartz says that selection does not cause an adaptation to appear, rather the adaptation has to appear first for selection to operate on it. Liddle asks when “Darwinism” may be re-written properly and accepted as such, to which Schwartz answers “very rapidly, but there may be.... (Liddle cuts him off).” Liddle says that Schwatrz's theory does not imply the existence of a Creator, but it does rip away the heart of “evolutionists” using “Darwinism” to explain everything. Liddle is sure that “Darwinism” will be superseded, given the history of science revising and recreating new theories as knowledge grows (paradigm shift). Liddle argues the fact that science keeps changing proves that it is not always absolutely certain of anything.

Evolution Leads to Eugenics and the Holocaust

Liddle claims that the history of science shows that the scientific method, logic, reason and evidence do not always lead to a better world. In 1865, Darwin's half-cousin Francis Galton took the logical step and applied Darwin's theory of natural selection to humans. “Using logic and reason, Galton came up with the theory of eugenics, and the results were a bit worrying.” Introducing David Stack, historian at the University of Reading, who says that Galton was inspired by Darwin and his work. Stack said that Darwin claimed that the lame and the sick were protected by civilization, then Galton comes along and comes up with eugenics as the solution. Galton tried to develop scientific techniques to distinguish the unwanted from the rest of society by their physical traits. What he did was he took photographs of criminals and tried to find connections in their physical traits that may have contributed to their behavior.

Liddle says that one person who was very interested in his work was Adolf Hitler. Liddle shares that David Stack runs a course called “From Darwin to Death Camps” explaining that the Nazis took Galton's work and took it a step further to justify the extermination of the Jews. Stack says there is a line between Darwin, Galton and Hitler, but asks “is Darwin responsible? No. But is there an intellectual connection? Yes. Darwin removes the spirituality of mankind, he places man within nature. Once you do that, you can regard man as you would regard animals and plants.”

Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy: “”Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. (Hitler 1943, 383) The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including: Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279)

Liddle says the following, “You find very few good-minded liberal atheists in the case of eugenics these days. But why not? What is the matter boys? Scientifically, it is after all very difficult to argue against. But something stops us from clamoring from the compulsively sterilization of mentally handicapped people. Something, perhaps, unscientific. That something is called morality. The fact that atheists have to confront, is a terrible one, that the scientific method is – by definition – supposedly disinterested, a neutral. So, if you rely on science on how to live your life, where do you look for moral guidance? Natural selection and survival of the fittest are the only moral imperatives that could be produced from Darwinism. Unsurprisingly, not a lot of atheists fancy that approach to morality. And so, atheism’s big thinkers are working very hard to find a moral code that is based on reason.”

Many eugenics arguments, such as the expected effect of selective sterilization and the results of interracial mating, are based on bad biology. Better biology education, including the teaching of evolution, can only counter the assumptions on which eugenics is based. Liddle tone in this piece further extends the likelihood of Liddle's prejudice against atheists, that he wishes to see them in the ill picture he has conjured up in his own mind.

Where Do Atheists Get Their Morals?

Introducing Prof. Peter Singer, whom Liddle claims is one of atheism's greatest ethical thinkers. Singer shares his thoughts on how to provide a moral system based on focusing on the needs of others besides our own personal selfish interests. Singer says this leads to a more reflective morality that holds itself in a more tentative way. Liddle then says that tentative way is what we find in atheist material in “religion-bashing” such as Dawkins's book The God Delusion. Liddle points out that within his book, Dawkins comes out with his own set of Commandments, but Liddle says they lack rigor and are “wishy-washy” that may be here today and gone tomorrow. Dawkins compares it to the moral problems of the Old Testament, and agrees that his Commandments may be gone tomorrow with the coming and going of the moral zeitgiest. Liddle says that this may sound like a good idea, but the history of the world that have done away with the moral certitudes of religion is not ideal. Liddle uses as an example the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who tried to built the first society based on reason. Introducing Dr. Michael Burleigh, who gives a brief history of the Jacobins and claims that they tried to destroy Christianity. Burleigh says that they killed 250,000 people in France. Liddle shares that Burleigh thinks that societies who have rejected God have not escaped man's violent nature.

Picture a society where children are branded witches and blamed for famines and floods. They are ostracized by their parents, starved, tortured, and killed. What can we say about this? Well, we know that these disasters are not due to magic but natural processes. So even before having to consider the moral dimension, we can reject this behavior outright as resulting from a false view of how nature works. What makes it a moral matter is what kind of harm it involves. For things that cause no harm, moral condemnation simply is not appropriate. Example, homosexuality is often misidentified as a moral issue, but gay relationships involve no intrinsic harm any more than mixed ones. Indeed, classing harmless things as immoral results in persecution. We've reason to condemn the misclassification. Are the parents in this society morally blameworthy if they are genuinely ignorant of their wrongdoing? We do not call well-fed cats who kill mice, or small children who crayon on expensive wall paper immoral, because we do not contribute them with the capacity to grasp reasons for not doing so. People who harm children as witches may have their capacity for reason undermined by false teachings and so be less blameworthy than knowing abusers. In a very important sense, moral responsibility can be said to operate within limits of education. This is why education, especially in science, is crucial to moral progress. Among other things, it helps eliminate our vulnerability to superstition-based abuse. Knowing better leaves us no excuse for not doing better. Once the justification for harmful practices is shown as false, there is literally no reason for it to continue. This first scenario is about dehumanization, when the witch-finder convinces a parent that her child is evil (even demonic) this is a potent way of eroding empathy - an adaptive pro-social trait (lacking in psychopaths) which keeps us sensitive to others suffering. During WWII, Jews were seen as vermin by their persecutors, some paint the non-religious as degenerate or hell-fodder. Dehumanizing people is a known method for diminishing compassion and the guilt felt when abusing them. We learn much from history and the present day about the horrors it can enable. The worry that without a religion or god, we've no basis on which to discuss morality, is without foundation. Plain empathy can trigger natural help responses to others' distress and create natural aversion to causing others harm. Likewise, the simple experience of living alongside others is a simple feedback about how our actions affect each other and how we might have to affect our conduct in response. The human brain contains "mirror neurons", which mimic the activity of other parts of the brain or of other brains. This provides a literal biological foundation for empathy: individuals with mirror neurons, including humans and other primates, can actually feel what others feel. (Source: Thomas S. May, "Terms of Empathy: Your Pain in My Pain—If You Play Fair Game," Brain Work 16 (May—June 2006): 3) The two prerequisites for reliable moral assessment are 1) reason and 2) accurate and relevant information. Sound reasoning won't lead to valid assessments if we are operating under flawed information, nor to sound information if our reasoning is flawed. Without sound reasoning and information, we can't determine how the universe works, how different life forms suffer or flourish, where responsibility lies, or what the short or long term consequences of actions are on an inter-personal or global scale. And these are considerations on which moral judgments depend.

Atheism Leads to Communism

Introducing Vladimir Nikiforov, chaplain of Royal Holloway College, who lived through the hell of a society based on Marxist reason in Soviet Russia. When Nikiforov was secretly ordained a Christian, this put him at odds with the communist party because it violated state laws. Liddle says that atheism has played a part in all communist states. Nikiforov states that the communist party stated that you could not be a member if you belong to any religion. Liddle and Nikifolov agree that secularism can be just as vile as religion, and Nikifolov says that the crimes of secularism has a long list (he names fascism and communism). Cut to the interview with Akins, who says that atheists do not go out to kill people of different beliefs. Liddle brings up Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Akins states that none of them go out to kill “in the name of atheism.” Cut to Dawkins, who explains that while Stalin was an atheist, he did not do any of his evil deeds “in the name of atheism, rather in the name of Marxism” Liddle says that once religion is swept away, the values a society loses must be replaced. Dawkins somewhat agrees, and says that humans may be very weak that they may require something of the sort of a religion. Dawkins says “once you sweep away Christianity, you get something like Satlinist or Marxist... (Dawkins is cut off there).”

Marx was not the "father of communism." As much as this film wishes to portray atheism as more wicked than Christianity due to dead-body count, the main cause for all the deaths in Soviet Russian and Communist China was due to communism, not atheism. Communism, in the sense of a system of collectivized property, is a biblical notion already found in Acts 4:27-32. That Christian communist system also resulted in the killing of a married couple (Acts 5:1-11) that reneged on their promise to surrender their property. Thus, the principle of killing those who did not conform to collectivization of property is already a biblical one, an ideal that predates Karl Marx and is within the pages of God's perfect Word. The defense that it was simply lying about turning over their property that was the motive for the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira overlooks the brute fact that the value of life was put below handing over all their property. For instead of just being expelled, they were killed. Stalin or Mao probably would have done the same thing. Since communism is advocated by some biblical authors, then Maoist and Stalinist deaths cannot simply be attributed to atheism, as enforcing collectivization can be deadly in both atheist or Christian forms.

Liddle says “the events of the last century should have taught us that countries that adopt secular ideologies could reach high levels of cruelty, bigotry and repression, which would have been unimaginable. The point being, once you get rid of religion, you do not get rid of the bigotry and the violence. To me, it is clear that a society built on science and reason will not automatically result in the utopian vision which atheists dream of because when you take God out of the equation, you still have got the problem of human nature.”

Societies with high levels of secularism do not have high levels of cruelty. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) the most secular nations are the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Other analyses paint the same picture: The United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious literalism and opposition to evolutionary theory; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, STD infection and infant mortality. Countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on Earth. Is religion necessary for a healthy society? High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of social health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant morality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality.

In Conclusion: Live and Let Live

Liddle ends the program with “atheists have become terribly occupied with destroying God and religion, and it is the absolute certitude with accepting this and the attempt on those who fail to share disbelief which worries me a little bit. History has shown us that it's not religion that's the problem, but any system of thought that insists that one group of people are inviolably in the right, whereas the others are in the wrong and must somehow be punished. The true scientific position, of course, is that there may be a God and there may not be a God. Why can't we leave it at that?”

Liddle portrays atheists as people who are preoccupied with battling theology and religion in general. Perhaps this is because religion is trying to destroy us, and given its track record, religion can be very devastating to mankind. Liddle is right that severe problems arise when two opposing groups with different views collide that think that the other one is wrong, but this is mainly in regards to fundamentalism. However, in the case of religion, fundamentalism plus delusion leans good people to obediently kill others simply because a voice in their head ordered them to. This is not limited to major religions, but any sect ruled by fantasy, delusion, and coercive persuasion. Example, devotees of the Japanese sect Aum Shinrikyo placed nerve gas in a Japanese subway, killing 10 and sickening thousands of others, simply because its sect founder instructed them to. Liddle's last comment, whether there is a god or not, why can't we live and let live? Perhaps it is because religious people simply cannot accept that. From wars, slavery, and witch hunts to pushing creationism in schools, denying minorities their basic human rights, to simple delusions. The Christian who opposes equal rights for homosexuals is a good example of a religious person being intolerant, while not letting people live as they wish.