I feel like the most fundamental point to keep in mind is that either way, the only type of God that can be justifiably believed in, is absolutely and fundamentally incompatible with all the major western religions. It is an egregious error to use uncertainty and the logical impossibility to disprove God as an excuse to continue to believe in any of the traditional Abrahamic incarnations of God [with all the dogmatic doctrines they entail].
“If everyone became atheist tomorrow, would the world be a better place?” Absolutely, the least religious countries are demonstrably better places to live.
Dogmatic, anti-dogmatism, is the least dangerous form of dogmatism.
I found the false equivalencies in this documentary to be disturbing. Here’s an example why:
I find the fine-tuning explanation, as a justification for most concepts of God to be rather unpersuasive. And do in fact think multiverse-like theories to be more likely.
Quantum Computers and Parallel Universes
His handling of memes is simplistic and misleading (feel free to ask for more).
His framing of new understandings of evolution as somehow undermining evolution itself is also simplistic and misleading (feel free to ask for more).
Of course science can’t know everything, and can’t claim to.
It’s similarly irresponsible to use historical scientific mistakes (which only have been shown to be such with better science) as somehow evidence that science itself is criminally suspect.
Not surprisingly Rod Liddle also confuses descriptive morality with rational normative prescriptions.
“there are at least three projects that we should not confuse:
1. We can explain why people tend to follow certain patterns of thought and behavior (many of them demonstrably silly and harmful) in the name of “morality.”
2. We can think more clearly about the nature of moral truth and determine which patterns of thought and behavior we SHOULD follow in the name of “morality.”
3. We can convince people who are committed to silly and harmful patterns of thought and behavior in the name of “morality” to break these commitments and to live better lives.”
“Because most religions conceive of morality as a matter of being obedient to the word of God (generally for the sake of receiving a supernatural reward), their precepts often have nothing to do with maximizing well-being in this world. Religious believers can, therefore, assert the immorality of contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, etc., without ever feeling obliged to argue that these practices actually cause suffering. They can also pursue aims that are flagrantly immoral, in that they needlessly perpetuate human misery, while believing that these actions are morally obligatory. This pious uncoupling of moral concern from the reality of human and animal suffering has caused tremendous harm.”
It’s also rather ridiculous to blame atheism for Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Those examples are clearly examples of dogmatic belief; not based on science and reason, but rather state worship. Believing that the ends justify the means will always be dangerous.
Studying human nature without assumptions about what we are can only help us better understand what we are, and how to live better as humans. And in fact has.
These are things I’ve said with links I recommend: