leyton.org

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.

I was reminded a little of some attempts, whilst at University, to complete computing assignments. Faced with several at the same time, I was unable to put all the up-front work in to some of the assignments I required. So I’d turn it about face, and program the solution, then retro-fit the design around it. That was a little how I felt with Liddles’ programme: He had a conclusion he wanted to make: “What’s wrong with sitting on the fence?”, and decided that atheists are in the ascendence (at least as far as the media is concerned), and so were in need of a bit of a ribbing.

In a word, it was facile and poorly considered polemic that was disappointing more for it’s deliberate ignorance of key points, and over-blowing the cult of personality and minor characters to draw out dubious conjectures.

So what follows is my response to the key points. There’s certainly nothing new in what I say, but anybody who professed to think it was balanced might find something here to interest them. I’ve had some marvellous and interesting comments on my original post, and hope that there’s something here of interest.

• Atheism is a faith in itself. No, sorry, it’s not. Atheism is simply going one god further than everybody else has already gone (Do you christians believe in roman/greek/nordic gods?). Atheism is about understanding, accepting - even challenging - the good explanations for how we come to exist, without the need for supernatural cop-outs. The scientific process is demonstrably the best mechanism we’ve ever had to furthering our understanding of the world, and is open-minded given supporting evidence and observation. No right minded scientist would say “There is categorically no god”, rather they’d say “There is no verifiable proof to support the theory that there is a god”. Publish a paper in a regarded journal that proves it, and you’ll have us atheists lining up to join your organisations. Until then, it’s up there with fairies, father christmas and tooth fairies I’m afraid. Whilst there may be vocal atheists (some good, some bad), all they’re doing now is putting out a clarion call to encourage people to think about what they believe: no more no less. To argue that atheists are as passionate about their beliefs as the religious is to disregard the fact that atheists should be (imnsho) ultimately open minded to explanations, but sceptical of the unproven.
• Hitler and Stalin were atheists, ergo, atheism is no better than the religions it seeks to oust. Well, the Hitler/atheist thing isn’t as clear cut are Liddle would have us believe. The point here is Hitler was also a vegetarian. Don’t hear many people blaming that for his actions. It wasn’t because Hitler/Stalin were atheists (Even presuming they were. Hitler in particular is very doubtful) that they did these things. They did these things because they were vile and evil people with absolute power. No matter the world-view, it’s still going to happen, and will happen again, with or without religion. Neither does a religious view provide any form of moral safety net, as demonstrated over history so many times before. The catholic church need only look at its wilful ignorance, from pope, through clergy, to church attendants of the actions of Nazi Germany during the second world war to realise that human nature is to blame, not a (lack of) religion per se.
• Anthropic principle: Why is it all just so perfect for life to exist? Surely, surely it must be because it was designed for us. Yeah, yeah. Talk to the puddle. See Douglas Adams’ quotes. If that doesn’t work, try playing with the really really large numbers of planets, stars, galaxies, perhaps even Universes that exist.
• Darwin could be replaced with something. Well, of course. Look at Newtonian physics. It was superseded by relativity, after Einstein came along. Science theory is not set in stone, and yes, it could and probably will be superseded by something that explains the process more accurately. But Liddle’s painfully built straw-man, was that Darwinism is held up as a holy-scripture for atheists, and to ‘disprove’ or ‘challenge’ it, was to undermine atheists central tenant. But Darwinism isn’t core to Atheism (in my view). It’s certainly important because, until Darwin came along, there was no adequate scientific explanation for how complex life appeared. Now there is, and it’s a remarkably simple explanation. Dig deep enough and you’ll find people who will say what you want, and sure the scientist he spoke too could have something interesting, but I’ll leave it to the peer-reviewed scientific process to help establish whether it’s valid. There are plenty of things we don’t understand, but that doesn’t catastrophically undermine the process and the theory. It struck me as the whole ‘god of gaps‘ argument reworked, along with a probable misunderstanding by Liddle about the unit of natural selection. Try reading the The Selfish Gene, and come back to me.
• Americans Atheists are rude or weird. His conversation with a few American atheists sought to paint their approach to atheism as representative of every Atheist. They’re not. American atheists face a unique problem in that they are, if they are publicly atheist, at significant risk of being discriminated against. Atheists are one of the most “untrusted” groups in the USA right now. Consequently, it’s important that they stand up for what the writers of the constitution sought, freedom to practice (and from) religion. It’s shocking that somebody who goes one god further than everybody else in their disbelief in the supernatural, is discriminated against. My concern is that american evangelical christian ideas are gaining a foothold here in the UK, so it’s imperative that the problems that could cause, especially for those who do not share their opinions, is highlighted. Keeping religion a private matter, outwith the state, is the only fair way to go about that.
• The multiverse. Sure, the theories espoused about multiple universes, evolving universes, infinite universes and so forth are all somewhat ‘out there’, and there is no evidence to back it up. A bit like many religions to be fair. But the religious argument that “it’s god what done it” is to put forward a far more preposterous argument that some impossibly powerful (and surely more complex) entity wished it all into existence and then disappeared from view, and asks that we massage it’s ego every (insert day of choice) so we can subsequently fawn at its feet for the other half of infinity. So, what existed before your god? What created it? Surely, if scientists are not permitted to espouse ‘infinite’ theories, neither should the religious.
• Atheist’s don’t have morals. Well, turn it on it’s head and look at the morals religions chose not to espouse. Not long after Moses comes off the mount with the 10 commandments, there’s a lot of random killing going on (Exodus 32:27) So much for listening to god. So much for moral consistency. The point I want to make is that morals are innate in us, and we don’t need a careful selections from a dubious historical text to tell us how to live our lives. Look around the world, and over time, and different cultures organise themselves in particular ways, which share a lot in common. Much like monkeys (funny that, you’d almost think we were related). A marvellous achievement are widely accepted, internationally agreed, human rights. Treat others as you would be treated yourself is about as simple as it gets. So you can’t ‘measure’ the morals of one group of people against another group of people, just as you can’t disregard the morals. I’d just suggest that doing them for no other reason than it’s the right thing to do is a better foundation, rather than simply that the bible says I should. But that we all agree to be nice to each other is a good start.
• His parting remark captured his attitude succinctly: “The true scientific position is: There may be a god, and there may not be a god. So why can’t we leave it at that?“. Because to not ask questions about the nature of the world about us - including how it all started - is profoundly and horrifically unscientific. What we have now, as never before in human history, is a resounding set of theories, backed by observable facts and evidence, to demonstrate how the universe formed, and life itself emerged. From that understanding, we have solved many of the worlds health problems, and raised living standards to unimagined levels. So to stop asking questions about the process because “god probably did it” is the worst form of cowardice, to turn your back on the scientific process, and to disregard it’s many achievements through the hard work and perseverance of a great many people.

But I’m perhaps deliberately missing his point though, which is probably supposed to be “live and let live”, and to that I agree. Here! Here! So, in this new found spirit of cooperation, let’s just start with the religious crowd backing away from dictating how schools should be run, how our children should be educated, how cultural christianity is required in order to progress in some parts of the world, how morals are considered the exclusive preserve of the religious, that science should be reigned in, that atheists are all arrogant. Yes, us atheists will back off when there is a fair and even playing field, and people can live their entire lives without the need to espouse a belief in some supernatural cop-out for the reason we’re here.

But above all, I hope that people (that includes you, dear reader) simply try to find out for themselves the truth of the matter. A belligerent CofE/agnostic is hardly going to be the basis for a balanced documentary, almost every post/e-mail I’ve received on the matter has agreed on this point. But neither is a belligerant atheist (here and here for Dawkins’ piece on Channel 4 earlier this eyar) going to win ‘converts’ on the merit of a short television programme. There are plenty of good books on the matter, be it The God Delusion, The Atheist Universe, or even the bible itself (be sure to check in with The Skeptics Annoted Bible, and start at the beginning. A piece of paper and a pen for death, injustice and vengeful-god-fit-of-pique counting is advisable).

But work it out for yourself is my central tenant. Read up on the matter. Think about it critically. It truly is a spectacular world and universe, and understanding it makes it all the better, and being able to explain it - as never before - through natural processes makes it so much the better. I for one am not in the habit of dismissing heart-felt religious beliefs out of hand: Our one life is far too short. But I do ask for an even playing field, and respect for everybody on their own merits, and an open mind that so many of the religious ilk seem so keen to close down.

See also:

• Channel 4’s Talking point: Atheism
• Channel 4’s Culture forum
• Are you a humanist? - Atheists and agnostics are not alone, and don’t exist in a moral or cultural vacuum.
• The Scotsman’s preview
• A christian’s comments
• Atheist discussion forum, well, the forum at richarddawkins.net…
• A muslim discussion forum on the programme
• Bad Science forum. It’s always worth worth visiting badscience.net, but this forum will also help challenge the bunk that was put forward as anti-darwinism.
• The programme is available on YouTube in two parts: Part 1 and Part 2.
• Wongablog has a similar take on it to me, as well as some useful links.
• More criticism at Slightly Inperfect
• Small town scribbles sums it up well. Not sure if my post is quite up to a proper fisking though…
• Roger Darlington has a thoughtful and considered analysis of the programme, and issues raised.