Next Monday at 8pm, Channel 4 will be showing a documentary by Rod Liddle titled “The trouble with Atheism”, which inspects and challenges atheism. The blurb reads:
Documentary in which controversial journalist Rod Liddle explores and challenges atheist attitudes. Far from being an antidote to religious fundamentalism, Liddle argues that atheism too has its dogmas and beliefs like the organised groups it opposes. Meeting professors and anti-religious associations, Liddle reveals how atheists give to science a certainty when in fact there is none
I’m an atheist, and am actually looking forward to the programme, although my expectations are quite low. One of the mailing lists I’m on had some involvement in the production of the programme and, shock horror, the pre-production spiel was somewhat different from the programme as described above.
Given a previous documentary by Rod Liddle had him demonstrate the sort of wishy-washy agnosticism associated with membership of the CofE, I’ve an expectation he’ll do little more than just stir things up a bit simply to earn the ‘controversional’ moniker he seems to relish, and to confuse non-belief as a form of belief in itself.
The blurb further worries me that he may fall on the classic misunderstanding that a science theory is the equivalent of fact. A theory, such as that of Darwin’s theory of evolution, is just an explanation that fits the available evidence and observations, and leads to other conclusions which are observable (Wikipedia definition). But that doesn’t mean it’s fact. A better theory could come along tomorrow which supersedes it.
An open mind is to me what Atheism is about, and requiring a burden of proof on alternative theories (including religious ones) that stand up to challenge and inspection. Science is the best process we’ve got by a long shot, and it’s served us very well in understanding the natural world about us.
None the less, I’ll give the programme the benefit of the doubt. Challenging your own views and opinions is a vital part of maintaining an open mind. Expect to hear more about the programme after I’ve seen it (Update:here is my review of the programme), next week… And for any religious folk reading this, why not try it yourself, and pick up a copy of The God Delusion?
Update
- Are you a Humanist? – The British Humanist Association, and National Secular Society are organisations supporting and representing the large number of people without religious views. Joining these organisations will help ensure religious views do not go unchallenged, or present belief in the supernatural as a requirement for a moral outlook and philosophy.
- My response to “The trouble with Atheism”
Entries (RSS)
December 17th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Yes, he will fall on precisely the misunderstanding you mention. In his article in last week’s Spectator, Rod Liddle turns the debate into a simplistic conflict between belief in God versus belief in Darwinism, and thinks that by asking “But what if Darwinism is wrong?” he has struck a blow for religion. Obviously, if science replaces Darwinism by a better theory, science is thereby strengthened. But if monotheism were to discover that the Bible, the Koran and the Vedas were merely the work of fallible, imaginative human beings … but then of course they would refuse to admit the possibility.
Best wishes,
Stephen
17 Dec. 2006
December 17th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
i was really looking forward to seeing this, as an atheist i would love to see someone challenge atheism with a degree of intellectual clout, but after reading the blurbm, it seems that this documentry will simply be another failed attempt to challenge lateral thinking.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
It’s a channel four documentary; what did you expect?
December 18th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Search for the Atheism Tapes by JONATHAN MILLER on BBCfour.
I think u can get them on bittorrent if u missed the broadcast.
These are the extended one-on-one interviews from his History of Atheism series that were shown in full on there own right. Better than the original series i thought. Dawkins episode in particular.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
It really was a very disappointing, poorly researched piece by Rod. I’m usually a fan, but in this instance he had a story in mind and selectively picked items that would support it, albeit poorly. The notion that atheism is somehow akin to a fundamentalist belief in Darwin that brokers no criticism was really quite childish. Made worse by the peddling of noddy philosophy 101 debates such as ‘can you have morality without god’ as though new revelations.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Sadly, very one-sided.
The use of the archaeopteryx as evidence of a ’sudden species’ was desperate. The fossils are 150 million years old and they find it difficult to understand where and what were its forefathers! The obvious conclusion (according to Liddle) is that it represents evidence that evolution is bunk and God decided to make archaeopteryx from scratch. A very laughable example.
Liddle then goes on to blame the atrocities of the 20th century on atheism and that a lack of godliness induces a vacuum into which homicide/genicide will fill. Scary.
More sketchy anti-atheist rubbish I’m afraid.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
i just watched the show, it was more one-sided than i would have imagined. mentions the worst forms of atheism there have been, communist regimes etc… and those that have lacked a religious morality (nazis) and the jaccobians. though on this point he fails to mention religious genocides, the spanish inquisition and various other massacres in the name of or in the persuit of religion :S. for the most part it is not full on religious, it doesnt promote the religious views at all, however it doesnt give a fair account of atheistic views either and promots atheism as a belif system itself. i agree that the whole show was made to stir things up and keep his “controvercial” title
December 18th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Rod Liddle’s programme ,if nothing else ,makes a fairly good argument for agnosticism.Science can never claim to eradicate the human desire for belief in some higher force which fills all societies, races and religions with a placebo for all ills. Irrational though it is at its best and dangerous at its worst. the point is that Religion is a manmade creation.No more,no less.
Rod Liddle could not have treated this subject with greater vacuity and illogical distraction if he tried.The question to be asked is not whether Darwinism holds all answers or not.The questions to be answered surely are the reasons why man invented religion in any shape or form in the first place and why religion has always been the convenient camouflage to gain political or personal justification for individual vested interests.Rod Liddle feeds the fallacy that organised religion equates with moral code, “civilised behaviour” or a civil socio-political stable structure and that atheism plunges us into an apocalyptic void.The maverick waving a placard in NY reinforces this imagery.
I am a scientist , a doctor ,an Obstetrician and though born a Hindu, am an agnostic.I do not seek to belittle other’s beliefs in any religion,not even those of my family , for that matter . I do not believe in the Superior position of Man in the Universe neither do I believe in Eugenics. Whether there is an afterlife or not does not concern me as much as the immediacy of present existence.I obey what is currently held as codes of social and civil conduct and aim to do the best I can for the humanity I come in contact with. I , therefore do not fit into the suitably maverick image that Rod Liddle would wish to interview!There are however millions like me in all societies who are not plotting for anarchy or genocide but who recognise the hypocrisy and man’s misuse of any organised form of religion. The only redeeming feature is that despite cycles of revenge destructions of art and sculpture, man has created truly wonderful art as offerings to “religion”, some of which survive for agnostic admirers like me to see and marvel at.
Yours sincerely,
Harini Narayan
December 19th, 2006 at 6:22 am
Points taken. But I tuned in to welcome an argument against evolution and science, and to see his reasons why religion is the right way to go. I too do not seek to belittle religions.
I think that religion exists because humans are insecure and seek a degree of control in others. Religion provides the answers for those who do not wish to seek any further, or those who refuse to accept that we are still a very confused but evolving forefather of the monkey.
I find it hard not to feel a little superior to those who do have their chosen deity who will cherish and serve them grapes personally when they die.
December 19th, 2006 at 9:39 am
I was pleasantly surprised to discover this programme – I don’t exactly follow the schedules – but after watching it, I was seething. Dreadfully one-sided and full of the simple-minded nonsense that one oftens finds from the religious people: there’s no morality without God; atheists claim that religion causes all suffering; atheism is itself a religion; atheism is a belief in a negative. Drivel, drivel, drivel!
Mind you, I have to admit I found the ‘Atheist Messiah’ bloke a bit scary. Completely bonkers, and not even marginally representative.
Once again, the burden of proof falls on the atheists, when it is the religious who are making the unsupportable claims. If I claimed that the world is a bauble hanging on a Great Celestial Christmas Tree, you’d expect me to provide some evidence, wouldn’t you? I hope so. But no! Apparently it is enough for me to assert the truth of my claim to give it equal status in the world of ideas. The total absence of evidence for the Tree is of no consequence. So, I am starting a campaign to end the annual sacreligious destruction of pine trees in the West… Naturally, Rod Liddle will support my campaign.
Theists reading this should understand that atheism is not the belief in a negative (the absence of God). Rather it is non-belief. I prefer evidence to superstition. If you had your children vaccinated, why wasn’t prayer preferable? In your heart of hearts, if you are honest, you know that science delivers, and that prayer is futile.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:45 am
As a Christian, I find the teachings of Christ relevant to the here and now. Sadly, just as the Nazi’s can’t be said by the modern athiest to be “good examples” of this mindset (wanted to put in religion here but though that would just wind a lot of you up!
), so too have the churches through the ages not really followed the example of Christ I read of in the New Testament.
Personally, I think Rod’s attempt to grapple with masters in their field is a bit like drunken lout attempting to show a world class heavy weight how his technique needs improving… Rod may be a philosopher of sorts, but not a scientist. What the program did push forward was the simple George Orwell satire style’d example that many Athiests are following. Many religious people are arrogant and obnoxious about what they believe, I think this is probably what drives people to create secular organisations, and become religiously intollerant. But at the same time this mind set then takes on a white wash approach, so that everyone who holds a religious belief is “thick”.
It seems that when it comes to religion, we all (whether we are mono/poly/athiestic in our tradition) need to be less insulting, and more tolerant. Disagreeing is one thing, but calling people fools and idiots because they go to church on a Sunday or pray in a mosque each day seems a little extreme.
The reason it seems such a heated and sometimes offensive argument is because a man’s beliefs lie so close to the heart. Perhaps history can help to make us realise that being proudly arrogant about any conviction will only lead to conflict.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Thanks for all the comments so far. Please keep them coming!
For anybody interested in my take on it, I’ve put together my personal response to Liddle’s piece in a separate post as it got a bit long for a reply here!
http://www.leyton.org/diary/2006/12/19/a-response-to-the-trouble-with-atheism/
December 19th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
[...] Rod Liddle’s programme “The trouble with atheism” (my preview here) was a rather disappointing ramble that didn’t impress me particularly. But then I didn’t expect to be impressed in the first place, so no harm done, eh? But it did highlight some of the unnecessary and sometimes unpleasant smugness associated with some public atheists (but scientists, as they often are, don’t strike me as media-savvy or ’slick’ presenters), but it was through the filter of somebody seeking to present a case, and a bit of selective editing can do wonders. [...]
December 20th, 2006 at 8:46 am
No morality without religion? I know many immoral people who have been steeped in the stuff.