Flip the switch as a theist. The lack of action is still a choice. Knowing you had that choice makes you just as culpable of killing the 3 as you would be of killing the 1. All else being equal, or equally unknown, it's a numbers game. The only difference in culpability would be civil/criminal liability, where acting could be construed as manslaughter and not acting construed as negligent/involuntary manslaughter. Neither of which weigh on the purely ethical/moral question. If we were talking about one child versus three adults, I could justify not flipping the switch. The child might not be aware of the dangers of railroad tracks, but all adults should be, making their position on the tracks their own culpability. If the one person thought they were safe, they'd either have to be aware of the switch or making an unfounded presumption of safety. If aware, they'd know I'd switched the train to their track and move. If unaware, they are equal to the three in taking the risk of hanging out on railroad tracks. Now, if this were the scenario where throwing one fat man off a bridge would save 3 on the tracks, I would not act. Since the man on the bridge has not placed himself in danger and thus not equal to the 3, I would be committing murder. I wouldn't expect this question to show significant differences between theists and atheists. A theist could be just as likely to believe that God's will doesn't include their own actions as an atheist is to believe that determinism means they have no real choice, and thus take no action. But the theist could also believe that free will makes their inaction just as culpable as their action, and the atheist could believe that they are deterministically conditioned to make the utilitarian choice.