Many British are physicalists/atheists. I have suggestions for three documentaries.

Documentary suggestion 1. The Prerequisites for (Abrahamic or other) Strong Theism (not the social prerequisites, but what strong theism is)

a. self-causality/self-causation of personhood (see: prerequisites for personhood/philosophical but also neuroscientific, and idealized mathematical personhood-yielding computer = brain)

(Without the self-causality of personhood we have atheism = impersonal procedurality)

b. involvement of personhood in cosmogony/genesis (otherwise we have deism; non intervening God, non-Abrahamic theism; a weaker more vague theism)

Documentary suggestion 2. Physical Axiomatics

Present ideas of David Tong and David Deutsch.

Read articles on Quanta Magazine and select professors who work on quantum foundations.

see: Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics

Focus very much on David Tong, because quantum field theory is the closest we get to observational data (particle accelerators).

(String theory and superstring theory don't meet the data of the particle accelerators.)

If we debunk theism, we have to work on physicalism = the affirmative physical theory and not merely atheism = the negation of the self-caused and cosmogonic personhood

Quantum gravity is simplistic. If it were true things would be very easy for physicists.

Wavefunctions seem to entropically diffuse and share information, in a transient manner and not in pure discrete steps (intermediary states/transitional states are experimentally proven to exist).

David Hilbert was wrong for claiming that the physical foundations are simpler than quantum mechanics. From particle accelerators we know that the deeper we zoom in in the phenomena, the more complexity we find; see: CERN texts, FERMILAB texts, David Tong.

Sabine Hossenfelder is wrong for overscientifying science.
Sabine Hossenfelder without mathematical proof demand science to be either a closed axiomatic system, or an open axiomatic system she doesn't bother to examine.

Sabine Hossenfelder erroneously claims that science is only to measure things.

David Deutsch is more intelligent and rigorous.

ANY foundational theory (not Newtonian or Einsteinian approximations) has a physical axiomatic impact (it affects ontoaxiomatics); it affects the foundations of physics (the nature of substantiality).

Hidden variable theory either are obviously wrong (some reject the Higgs boson = observational fact), or they shift some problems deeper in the physical foundations = physical axiomatics, and never deal with it.

Everettism (see: Sean M. Carroll) is a mathematical theory.

Hidden variables have no mathematical explanation.

(You can ask me anything you want... But it would be wiser to create one or more documentaries based on the ideas of David Tong [Cambridge physicist]. Speak to him. He's friendly. Then speak to David Deutsch and Sean M. Carroll.)

////

3. Documentary suggestion: Causal closure versus (VS) hypernymic Everettism:

Causal closure is the fallacy that the universe is a combinatorial or permutation[al] algorithm

and not an entropic system which isn't a closed system, neither has closed physical foundations/axiomatics

hypernymic Everettism: many-worlds interpretation + many-physical-foundations-per-universe interpretation (actually its about kin-mathematical families of universes)

Why This Universe? A New Calculation Suggests Our Cosmos Is Typical. - Quanta Magazine

https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-this-universe-new-calculation-suggests-our-cosmos-is-typical-20221117/