On Theists, Atheists and Others Recently, by a group of enthusiasts, this film received Russian voiceover and was publicly shown in some cities of Russia and Odessa. Moreover, at least in St. Petersburg, it was also discussed. This documentary was touted as worthy of attention, and perhaps it really deserves it, as it all depends on what you are looking for. At the same time, I was a little disappointed, apparently because of my expectations: I was waiting for a more meaningful tape. Of course, the film is not a format for a serious and detailed conversation, but, for example, in 2005, Richard Denton and Jonathan Miller made albeit modest, but quite informative work “A Rough History Of Disbelief”, and from the footage also a series of conversations with the participants of the film under the general title “The Atheism Tapes”. And Richard Dawkins in 2012 came out much more meaningful film “Sex, death and the meaning of life”.
The unbelievers are a kind of preaching. That's quite normal, though. The authors took a simple idea — a scientific way of thinking is better than a religious way of thinking — and created a movie that has an emotional, inspiring atheistic charge. But what kind of movie is made for and why?
I believe that in order for something to be fruitfully perceived, it is necessary to have at least some thoughts about it, and good and emotional interest. Therefore, apparently, this film will appeal to someone who has already somehow correlated himself with the community of unbelievers. I do not dispute that the feeling of solidarity that can arise when watching a film, if he lives in conditions of an influential religious ideology, is enough for an unbelieving person, but it is unlikely that such a movie will shake someone’s faith. Those who treat the subject without any interest (agnostics, intheists, ignosticists, etc.) after viewing the topic do not inflame with atheistic interest.
Moreover, science and religion can coexist indefinitely. Science does not yet have the answers to all questions, and, most importantly, there is no consolation and it literally does not offer the meaning of life, religion, like old Proteus, is very difficult to say something definite about it. Therefore, Lawrence Krauss can put forward as many theories as he wants about the origin of the universe, and Richard Dawkins – about the evolution of man, a religious person will always be able to say that the very fluctuation before the Big Bang was God or even the Big Bang is the Creator, and the very bacterium from which man evolved is also His work. For such speculative gimmicks, one should simply be a little less dogmatic and not read the Bible or any other sacred book literally. Moreover, in the context of the rich religious experience of mankind, it is very difficult to talk about atheism. I mean, you can ask an atheist what he doesn't believe in, which God? And the atheist will have to go into some theistic field and play by its rules, or rather challenge them, otherwise the conversation simply loses its meaning, and God turns into some vague abstraction.
Karen Armstrong recently appeared in The Story of God. 4,000 years of research in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, I found a good formulation that today can be used as an atheistic minimum. Karen Armstrong writes, “Thinkers were particularly irritated by the idea of a supernatural, inaccessible but objectively existent deity.” However, the history of Abrahamic religions is known for spiritual experience, when God deftly departed from the objective world into the transcendental or subjective dimension, and I am not to mention the apophatic faith, which preferred to remain silent about God than to speak.
I don’t think this movie is very interesting in itself, but it’s interesting that this and similar films have appeared, mainly in America. According to Dawkins, Krauss, and Miller, being a public atheist in Puritan America is a big problem. Even though there have been atheist presidents in U.S. history, today no big politician is willing to make such admissions. He must, albeit formally, stick to a certain rhetoric. That is why “Infidels” and similar films are a significant social phenomenon, reaction and counter-worldview, which are conveyed to the public by the most powerful information medium – cinema. Apparently, Protestantism and capitalism once moved to North America brought a rather pragmatic and objective God, who began to irritate modern scientists. And even though “The Unbelievers” is a sermon and not very meaningful, for a certain time such films will and even should appear in order to create a zone of tension, fertile for such problems, for their resolution.
As for Russia, it seems to me that religion does not have a monopoly on minds here. The merging of Church and State, the legislative activity of recent years, testify more to the crisis of religion than to its rise, as do the golden “bows” that grow every year. According to some statistics in our country, 5% of convinced atheists, 15% of true confessional believers and 80% of those who believe in something (from “Something There Is” to Christ) or have not decided on this issue (Elephants, N. N. Intheism: between theism and atheism // Philosophical Sciences. – 2010. – N8. — P. 47-64. Therefore, such films are unlikely to appear in Russia for natural reasons. However, there is another reason for this: religion becomes an official ideology. This, of course, is death for any living idea, but they will not give money anyway, and if anyone gives it, they will not show it anyway. Sorry.