Christopher Hitchens v. God

it's interesting how most minds truly shut down when challenged about god. I just listned to him on On Point, and the callers that were against him were really not listening to what he was saying... sigh. oh well, back to the dark ages we go.

The United States of America needs Christopher Hitchens.
Let's get the Presidential Exploratory Committee started...

Seriously serious,

MG

I believe in the idea of creator, but I don't believe in "creationism." I believe that there are mysteries of the universe that mankind has not unraveled. I don't believe in deliberately belittling or mocking anything that someone holds sacred. But, I do believe that this man has some valid points.

Most wars have religious undertones. I dont believe in god but I dont knock people that do.

I don't have an issue with anyone who believes in a higher power, but I agree with what I have heard Hitchins say: organized religion is poison. It is an excuse for what would otherwise be considered grossly irrational and arrogant behavior.

I always hear religious folks attack science and rational thought by pointing out that mankind does not yet have the answers to all of our questions. True. But Hitchins nailed it when he pointed out the extreme arrogance of religious devotees claiming that they have the answer to the (as yet) unanswered issues of our time. Out of some five or six thousand years or so of recorded history, mankind, as a rational creature, has answered an astonishing number of questions about the world we live, answers which have utterly changed our very existence.

I am not an atheist, however. I think there is space enough for the numinous in this world, but not the slimmest shiver of a ledge for the myopic misanthrope of organized religion.

Does anyone know Eastern religions such as Taoism or Zen Buddhism fit into Hitchen's view of religion, as they aren't really based instructions handed down from an all powerful, all knowing deity? Even Buddhists have a saying about the Buddha, "If you ever meet the Buddha, kill him." That may be a paraphrase, since it is from memory. In some sense they function more like a "philosophy" or a set of rules/goals to live your life by, as well as, a viewpoint/perspective to understand the universe.

I've only listened to about half of the program (via the web, not live), so I apologize if it is addressed later in the show.

Whether the Eastern religions fit into Hitchens' view would depend on how much they rely on faith- strong belief without evidence, or in spite of contradictory evidence.

Hitchens is clear that he doesn't want to take away anyone's religion- he just wants them to keep their faith to themselves, and to stop using it as if it's a kind of trump card- "I have no evidence- Thor tells me it's so, and that's good enough for anyone," for example.

God, Satan, there must be other marbles that go round and round. I just want one that is nonviolent and practices peace on earth Goodwill to all. One that is one on one, God-individual life form. And unorganized. Seems all that bad stuff floats in and out with the Organizing. Let's just agree we can live on this planet without killing one another. And be nice to the planet. Now see all you people running to your corner to Organize. Woe be us.

Also, don't forget that our arms were, at various times, considered too short to box with Mercury, Isis, Mithra, Apollo, Neptune, Ghengis Khan, and -of course- Huitzilopochtli.

I'm not sure what is meant by "enough space for the numinous *in this world*." If it's "in this world" (the natural world), then it is not numinous (supernatural).

The problem I have with positing the possible existence of a supernatural realm is that it, by definition, cannot exist. Everything that we've so far discovered to exist is added to our list of things in the natural world. In fact, when we say, for example, "shoes exist," we're not actually talking about "shoes;" we're saying, in effect, "the universe contains shoes."

If you're going to say that spirits/ ghosts/ faeries/ dead relatives "exist" in the supernatural, what happens if they are ever discovered to be "really" real? We will (in principle) be able to find out where they are, who they are, and how they came to be- and they'll have to go in the book, along with shoes, attorneys general, farts, quasars, and bagpipes- how exciting!

There is only one natural world out there, and anything posited to be outside of it from the get-go cannot, by definition, be real.

I agree strongly with mark r., and would like add this: while Christians in the US continue to maintain that they are being "persecuted" because not all of their religious agenda is enacted into law, they never seem to notice that one cannot be elected to national office in this country unless one, first, proclaims oneself a Christian, and, second, promises to either promote, or at least abide by, some part of various Christian agendas. Obviously, this is not codified into law by the constitution or any other legal mandate, but is may as well be. When was the last time a non-Christian candidate was taken seriously for even a moment in modern times? As a wanna-be Buddhist and mostly rationalist, I am embarrassed and appalled at our so-called democracy -- especially when "Christian" leaders like Bush et al, have led the country into actions so immoral as to make the Inquisition look appealling in its wake.

A personal example: I was recently asked to leave a local pub because the bartender did not allow discussion of "politics and religion." I was not asked to leave because I was intoxicated, or too loud, or for any other reason. I made the mistake of equating certain American Christian movements with Fascism -- a connection Higgins touched upon tonight.

I apoligize for the language that follows. It is not mine.

Yet, at the same pub, I have heard conservatives refer to "fucking liberals," to Hillary Clinton -- repeatedly -- as a "bitch" -- and, most egregiously, heard a "Christian" say on MLK day, "If I would've had a gun back then, I would have shot that fucker myself."

Need I say more?

mark r:

nice post- as you probably know, the reason beliefs can't stay out of politics and public life is precisely because they *are* 'beliefs;' that is, they are taken to be accurate representations of the way the world is, and what better frame for judgements about public policy that 'reality,' even if not everyone shares one's reality of Jeebus?

the problem with promoting unverifiable beliefs to the level of those that can withstand scrutiny is that suddenly anyone can say anything, and we end up with absurd situations like here in massachusetts, where people on both sides of the gay marriage issue are invoking jesus- one one side is the anti-gay jesus and on the other is the gay-friendly jesus.

what authors like hitchens- and sam harris is particularly forceful on this point as well- are pushing for is a change in conversational rules: when someone pretends to be sure about something no one can possibly be sure about, call them on it, and don't let them get away with playing the "faith" card- the idea that some ideas are beyond questioning.

how refreshing a press conference would that make? hitchens made a good point on lou dobbs the other night when he remarked that the surprising thing about romney's objection to sharpton's remark was that everyone was *surprised* by sharpton's remark. wait a second- romney's beliefs form the core of his personality, and are the lens through which he views the world- these are *precisely* [how do you get italics in this forum anyway?] the things we should be asking a presidential candidate.

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

Could this be said any better?

And I mean honestly religious folks, not those who use religion for screwing other (this includes our "beloved" President).

First let me start by saying that I am a Christian, and a lover of theology, I just want folks to know where I stand.

I have to agree with the prefessor that it is incredibly shameful to have the faults of Christianity pointed out in this way. I rail against the Christian community almost every day for the part they play in diminishing the faith.

One problem I have with Mr. Hitchens is that it is easy to point out the faults of religion, we can all do this, but he did not really give alternatives to the faults of religion. Everything from him was negative and defensive. I just felt as if he wanted to condemn. I did not feel that he was taken to task on any possible to solution to his condemnation. Also, he does not seem to have read the gospels of the New Testament. Much of what goes on within Christianity is not taught in the gospels. Infact, most is quite contrary to the gospel. ( I will not bore everyone with how there is so much judgement when the gospel of Christ clearly teaches not to judge.) Mr. Hitchens also (in the interview, I have not read the book) leaves no room for evil which corrupts, and this includes the corruptions of Christians.

Mr. Hitchens failed to point out that scholastic theology had quite abit to do with the beginning of science. One could point to the use of the term Ockham's Razor. Anyone in the scientific commuinity can quote this by heart. Ockham was in fact a theologian.

Also, Mr. Hitchens, either did not have time or was unwilling to answer the professor question about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I am not sure which of Bonhoeffers books that Mr. Hitchens has read, (I have read the majority of them), but Bonhoeffer was clearly a Christian. If one doubts this, they should read "Letters and Papers from Prision". (Actually everyone should read this because it is simply incredible.)

And lastly, Mr. Hitchens does not seem to allow for the good that the garden variety Christians do everyday. There are those Christians that sit with the hurting, feed the poor, befriend the lonely, and comfort the sick.

Mr. Hitchens is simply gaining profit and recognition by lashing out at the worst of Christianity, and in some ways this is a good thing, because the worst of Christianity needs to be called to the carpet, but in his anger and pain he is over looking the more subtle and unhearelded parts of a merciful God. And because of the evil in the world, he is unwilling to take a look at the parts of Christianity which are good, just as some who call themselves Christians are unwilling to take a look at the parts of themselves that which Christ clearly teaches against.

Why On Point would give air time to a rambling incoherent sot like Christopher Hitchens is beyond me. There are plenty of articulate, thoughtful athiests out there who could present at the very least a dispassionate argument against the existence of God. Hitchens on the other hand betrays his actual belief- rage in fact- towards God for his own miserable , failed, misogynistic state that he alone has brought upon himself. He is more religious than he has the courage or honesty to admit.

steve b. - I must acknowledge that using "numinous" in such a forum was not the best choice. And your point about the impossibility of the "super-natural" in the natural world is obvious and well made. That being said...
One perfectly acceptable use of the word carries the meaning of "spiritual". Another usage denotes the "divine". I believe Hitchins himself used the word to convey these ideas in a comment he made which referred to the transcendentalists. I should have chosen a word without such a strong association to the super-natural. What I was trying to say before was this: I think there is room for us to have a "spiritual" "experience in this world, and I do not mean anything super-natural. Of course, when I use the word spiritual I am referring a certain visceral experience of love, or of beauty, etc., that transcends my already enormous appreciation of the physical phenomena that create (or allow me to experience) a sunset, a symphony, a poem, and so on. I think that there is an emotional synergy that can occur in certain situations, and I call that, for lack of a better word, spiritual.

Isn't it the case in light of the scientific progress at explaining ever more of nature, the universe and laws of physics, that mainstream religions are concentrating more on telling adherents how they should live their lives and less on discussing the existence of miracles, the almighty, and heaven? It is interesting how otherwise intelligent people are still willing to suspend logical reasoning to accept at face value fantastic religious claims. But throughout history a vast majority of people have found it easier and more comfortable to blindly follow rather than to reason and act on their own.

Bill B, thanks for clarifying that; I couldn't agree more. I wish there were some other word for it than "spiritual," though, despite the fact that for most atheists and naturalists it has lost its hocus-pocus baggage.

I think the reason Hitchens and the rest spend much time criticizing religion to the exclusion of its potential virtues is that religion carries too much baggage with it- yes, xtian missionaries may be doing great work in the sudan, but does anyone else see anything wrong with simultaneously preaching the necessity of accepting Christ in an area where muslims are targeting christians? or isn't the work that missionaries are doing in the wake of the 2005 tsunami cheapened by the fact that a planeload of bibles went with them, and that they seem to spend a good deal of time teaching children (children?!!??) christian hymns?

the main point that atheists like myself try to make here is that there are plenty of reasons to do good work in the world that don't require believing ridiculous things- not the least of which is belief in an afterlife. when you take into account the negative effects of this baggage- helping the poor and aids-stricken while simultaneously preaching against condoms is one particularly shining example- the only benefit that religion seems to have to me is that it's great for organizing people. but you don't need christ to do that- any made-up god will do, and surely we can make up a better one than st paul did; we know so much more about the world now!

and as far as religion and science going hand-in-hand, here's my take: of course they did at the beginning, about the only educated people back then were the clergy! But as soon as science started contradicting literal scripture- which didn't take very long- the two were separated, and while clergy continued to fulfill the societal scientific roles for a while, it was done with a sense that the results were irrelevant once the matins bell rang. This, of course, is my personal, non-historian analysis, but I think the least that can be said about this science-religion issue is that the early clergy scientists were not disposed to apply their scientific methods to the whole of their beliefs- something we still have with us today in the person of the biologist who doesn't believe in evolution, among other examples.

i applaud randy's call for religion to answer for the evil done in its name- we need more christians like him- but we need to be honest here about from where this kind of critique comes- and it's not from closer readings of religious texts, although perhaps more selective readings.

what we atheists rail against is not necessarily religion in particular, but unjustified, dogmatic belief. this takes many forms (stalinism and national socialism (nazis) are two secular examples), but religion is the software most easily used by our evolved brains for this, and i think most atheists see it as our moral duty to rise above this by applying critical thinking in all areas of our lives, and to call attention to those in our society who would use unjustified belief to justify positions in the public sphere.

Hitchens is nearly right about nearly everything he said in the interview.
But because he is a journalist, and not trained in any scientific dicipline, he fails to grasp or use one crutial point in his debating arsenal: the scientific method requires that those making a claim have the burden of proof. Theists claim the existance of God, or heaven, or the veracity of the bible, or whatever, but do not make sufficient proofs. A clear example is that theologian interviewed during the 'On Point' segment. He used personal testimony as proof (recall the bit about his daughter's disease?) with no other support. When questioned about the existance of God Billy Graham answered, "I know he exists, I spoke with him this morning!" Cute, but that is not proof. With this fuzzy application of logic, real progress can not be made towards any TRUE understanding of the universe, nor our place in it.
The irony is that all of these folks, from the flock to the priests, to the president, will accept nothing less that full scientific demonstrations of the effectivness of MEDICINES. Look into the functions of the FDA and you will find (aside from some frightening corruptions) how the application of a rigorous systems of logic and proofs result in drugs that actually work -- hocus-pocus begone! Similarly, NASA gets the engineering right, and makes no accounting for prayer in the calculation of orbits.
I take Hitchen's underlying point to be that religion, and this fuzzy, illogical thinking makes a mess of our POLITICS. It scorched me to hear so many repeat the mantra, "God Bless America," after the 9/11 attacks. The solution I think Hitchens is pointing to is that WE need to bless America.

I would like to express my deepest thanks to Mr. Hitchens for his response to the minister who said that God must exist because his daughter was supernaturally healed when he asked.

Three years ago, our otherwise perfectly healthy and developmentally normal son was stillborn when I was eight months pregnant. No cause was ever found for his death; it remains a mystery... a supernatural event.

And did I not pray every day that my son would be born whole and healthy? I am very glad that the minister's daughter survived and earnestly hope that she lives a long and healthy life. But his assertion that his daughter was healed because *he* prayed to God necessarily implies that my son died despite *my* prayers to God.

Now, why could this be? It could be because God weighed my prayers, my son, or me in the balance and found us wanting. I cannot deny my own failings and hope that if there is a sentient God, he/she/it will be far more understanding than that. But such an insult to my son is, as Mr. Hitchens unapologetically responded, "disgusting" and "morally repellant."

Could it be, as so many people so hurtfully said to me at the time, that "everything happens for a reason" and that my child's death was "part of God's plan"? Don't those statements indicate a possibly benevolent but ultimately impotent God? How could such a God be credited with healing, in fact with anything?

And if God *is* all powerful, wouldn't he be able to do anything he wanted without my child's participation? Wouldn't his refusal of my prayer despite his ability to grant it indicate a pathological cruelty?

None of this is original, of course: it is the ancient question about any supernatural power, best stated in Archibald MacLeish's "JB":

"If God is God he is not good;
if God is good He is not God...
Take the even, take the odd."

The idea that we should give thanks to God for our blessings but not blame God for our curses, and its attendant personal insult to anyone experiencing any calamity, is not just illogical but starkly cruel and the direct cause of so much suffering in the world.



(Note: although I appreciate any impulse to express condolences for our loss, I'll request that such expressions NOT be posted on this forum; it's far more valuable to me to keep this discussion on topic.)

One thing that I find funny, is that as a Christian, my initial impulse on the interview with Mr. Hitchens, is the same as Jon Hogan. But after abit more reasonable thinking, I find it a good thing, because a civil and reasonable discussion among some believers and non-believers is taking place, and as a Christian, who believes that God gave a sacrifice for everyone and not just me, this is a good thing.

Steve, I agree that there are many good reasons to do good in the world, and Christians, do not have a monoploy on doing good. (Again, I do not add the other religions because not being part of a different religion, I cannot speak for them.) What I see as one reason for a backlash against Christianity, and I actually think that this backlash is needed to "remove the scales from the eyes", of a great many Christians, is that many Christians believe that in order to help someone you have to give them a sermon. Take for instance the Christians helping with the tsunami and taking bibles. Please understand I think that the bible is a good thing, but it does not need to be handed out when people are worried about eating. I have a small non profit, which basically just tries to help needy families. I let them know that I am from a local church, but I dont tell them which one, and that is all they know about the gift card. They never get my name or any other information about me or my faith. When trying to help someone feed their kids, I think that a gift card is enough and does not require a sermon.

Side note....is there any irony in the death of Jerry Falwell died today. I was never a fan of his.

Anyway, there is too much of the gnostic idea of elitism in Christianity today, and I believe that this also is against the message of Christ. I have to laugh when I hear the some Christians ask the question "Do you know Christ as your Lord and Savior". While I think their heart is in the right place it is the wrong question according to the Gospel. In case anyone cares, the correct question should be "does Christ know you?".

Anyway, what this is all to say is that I think Christians have become their own worst enemies when it comes to showing others the faith. I also think that we Christians must bear responsibility and that we are going to have to answer when we meet God for those that did not believe because of our actions. I also believe this of other religions as well.

Steve, I must say that I do not find my believe in an after life ridiculous, I find it very reasonable, but this does not mean that I blindly leave science out. I have a minor in biology, and I believe in evolution. I find it interesting that you find a benifit of relgion as a great way to organize people. I find that as one of the biggest problems of religion. It gets too many people together feeling they are better than others, and then money gets involved, and then then it just all goes wrong. Then lose focus on the simple message of Christ, and then religion becomes about them and no one else. I think this also causes a backlash.

I just reread what I have been writting, and I thought I should just say again that I am a Christian, although it may not sound like it. I just see the problems with the chruch that it seems only non-Christians see.

Plain E. I will offer condolences, and also use it too prove a point. You are correct, and Christians need to learn to close their mouths when someone is in crisis. We have some close friends who lost a 26 day old baby, and some of the things that were said in the name of God to them was appaling. I do think Mr. Hitchens made a fantastic point here. I dont think the problem is religion in these situations as much as it is a problem of the religious. I am so sorry that people (in particular Christians) said those things to you. I think they say those things in order to make themselves feel better without any thought of who they are saying it too. And again to keep this on topic, I believe that this is another reason for the backlash. It not logical to say that things happen for a reason when some one is suffering, and the best that it can do is turn folks away from God.

At the risk of boring everyone I will close with this. I truly believe that the problem with religion is not religion, but the so called religious, who either dont think about what they believe or they think that religion is only for their benifit and those who believe as they do.

Thanks to everyone for a fun discussion

Organized religion is bad for humanity, period.
There is something inherently wrong with any "organization" that needs members to prove their worth to themselves. Misery loves company comes to mind.
I am 58 years old, and up until 9/11 I believed in "god". Now I believe in Mother Nature.
I am an atheist. And proud of it.

randy:

of course you don't find your belief in an afterlife ridiculous; if you did, you would not believe it. religious people often express this opinion- that "belief" in something is a choice (and that stubborn atheists "just refuse" to believe). if something is a belief- something taken to be a true representation of the state of the universe- there must be a reason for that belief, and one will helplessly believe it. now, in the case of religious belief, there are many reasons for it; unfortunately, none of them are reasonable or rational, unless one accepts without evidence the vast baroque framework required to support such beliefs (so much for ockham). here are some examples: 1) my own spiritual experience tells me it's so/ god spoke to me, 2) i was raised in this religion/ culture, 3) i can't accept that a universe doesn't have a creator 4) all the nice people i know are religious.

if your belief in the afterlife is a choice- that is, you cannot rationally justify it to yourself- then we are at a point at which one could honestly question your sincerity in pushing that self-admitted fiction on others. this does not seem to be the case with you or other religious people that i know. however, if you wish for others to accept that your belief is not ridiculous, then you must show how it is not worthy of ridicule; how it is different from belief in zeus, santa, a living elvis, aliens, or any other belief maintained by our fellow citizens that is commonly considered ridiculous. otherwise, assertions made without evidence will be dismissed without evidence.

in the case of the christian, you must show a number of things:

1) why the cult of mithra[s], (which precedes christianity by centuries, and features the birth of a savior god on the winter solstice by a virgin, who met with his disciples for a final meal at which symbolic cannabalism figured prominently, was executed by the authorities and rose 3 days later on the spring equinox, and which sect was led by a leader known as a "Papa" who resided on what today is known as Vatican Hill) is totally wrong, but christianity is right.

2) how jesus came from nazareth, when archeological digs show that that area was not lived in at the time of jesus's alleged birth (yet strata evidence exists of settlements in the area both before and after that time).

3) why a virgin birth is more likely than mary telling a fib, and why she seems to have no memory of the angel's visit, and seems positively puzzled when she finds jesus doing messiah-like things.

4) why this virgin birth is true when all the others preceding and following it are false.

5) why there is no account of jesus's birth, life, or death in contemporary historical records- especially the [entire] earth going dark and mass resurrections occuring at the crucifixion, or the many miracles he is said to have performed.

6) exactly what god sacrificed by killing his own son, who, it turns out, did not die after all; and why he couldn't just forgive the sin of adam- which, if one accepts evolution- never existed in the first place?

there are many more inconsistencies that need resolution, but that's a short illustration of the nature of the task at hand, and shows what is required for this belief to be accepted by others as representing reality in the same way that science does.

the problem with 'functional' religious belief is that it has become, in our modern age, unjustifiable to the same extent that scientific beliefs are. sure- quantum mechanics, evolution, time dilation and neuroethics are beyond many people- including myself- but the fact remains that this knowledge is in principle accessible: you can go out and buy a book, or visit a science lab. try getting the same results by reading the bible or visiting a church! in addition, religious beliefs do not do a better job of explaining our world in a predictive way than science does (what if we gave the tsunami victims seismographs and books on plate tectonics?), and they don't do a better job at inspiring moral behavior or even [puts clothespin on nose] spirituality [takes it off] than do literature, art, theatre, or music.

as far as religon being 'great at organizing people,' it does its job just as well as any other framework that turns on the "in group- out group" axis. and, when i said it was a benefit, i should have explained that it's a benefit to its members, not to society as a whole. what we need is fewer ways of separating ourselves, not more.


randy, by studying biology and accepting evolution, you've learned what makes a good explanation. you know how ridiculous the biology book would be that has contradictory accounts of photosynthesis, or mutally exclusive taxonomies not presented as provisional pending further DNA evidence. science is the most successful method we have of explaining our world, and the questions it hasn't answered yet are not answered particularly well by religion, either. and, given the variety of answers provided by various religions, these questions never will be answered by religion.

i hope you give this some thought; you sound- like many christians i know- like a genuine, honest, nice person. l just think you don't need unjustified beliefs to be that person.

all the best,

Some thoughts from an Orthodox Christian: Chris Hitchens is fighting childhood terrors probably created in his infantile mind, like monsters in the closet. His personal torment is visible in his features. That being said, he speaks truly in that religion and moralism are the most dangerous form of delusion; a "good" life prevents us from self examination and a holy life.
As an Orthodox Christian, I need to examine my path to the Lord and any of my passions that continue to harrass my conscience. Religion as created by Man, is exactly as he describes it: hellish, filled with condemnations, since it comes out of self-righteousness. God's revelation of Himself in Christ Jesus - for Christians - has revealed His mercy and compassion AND the way to have a personal relationship with this Incomprehensible God through His Son. REligion = created by Man; Christianity = God's surprising revelation of Himself. His commands keep us cleared of tormenting passions, and self-destruction.

"God's revelation of Himself in Christ Jesus - for Christians - has revealed His mercy and compassion AND the way to have a personal relationship with this Incomprehensible God through His Son."

never happened. check out the koran for the most recent version of events...

Randy: Please pardon my bluntness, but I would like to suggest that your belief in an afterlife is bad for you! This is an example of what C. Hitchens was trying to get at. By putting store in the notion that one will have a 'second life' after this one, people tend to get lazy about the nature of how they life THIS life! We who are not burdened by this thought are instead pushed (pressured?) to accomplish all they want (or can) in this life. Baba Ram Dass said, "Be Here Now." I think he meant that focus on THIS time (each day, or each hour, or each minute...) will result in a more fulfilled life overall. Statistically, there are an amazing number of folks (my mother in law was one) who believed that she would go to her reward in heaven, but that there was no hell at all. Though it sustained her thru what was a rather depressing lifetime, it did not serve her well overall. It was a mere opiate rather than an inspiration.

Judith: you said about C. Hitchens, "...Infantile mind...His personal torment is visible in his features." Please! Using an ad hominum argument (attacking the person rather than the thought) has no value in a rational discussion.

You go on to an explanation of what Christianity is, "Christianity = God's surprising revelation of Himself" This is expressly what C. Hitchens roils against! What gives you (or anyone) the authority to think you know the mind of god? The danger: some who claim to know what god wants use that claim to subjugate others. The logic: if there is no god, then he has no mind to know. If there is a god with the powers you imply, then there is no way any of us humans can stake a rational claim to knowing what he desires. This is the nature of FAITH - it is irrational. It can not be explained or proved - please stop trying.

Only when it is understood that we evolved over vast time scales, and that our PSYCHOLOGY evolved under certain specific conditions, among them the great social complexity in which we are constantly enmeshed, can it be understood WHY we are the way we are. Why we turn to such foolishness as myths and superstitions. Yet we carry that heritage in our genes, our 'animal' instincts, in our brain's very wiring. The human condition is to try to make a synthisis between that 'animal' heritage, and the new thing we have - our rational, logical minds.

I reccomend "The Territorial Imperitive" by Robert Ardrey

I really respect Mr Hitchens.. he says what needs to be said. Im glad we have him and Professor Dawkins and Dennett and Sam Harris, and several others. Its about time we are bringing attention to the issue of the poison of religion.

One of the many things I can't stand about religious people is summed up perfectly in Sandy A's comment above" :I wouldn't judge, harrass or harm those who don't believe yet." Who don't believe YET. She and her coreligionists have got it all figured out; it's us idiots who just haven't caught on, but she is confident we will, God willing. Please spare me the condescending crap. I prefer to live in a universe where science gives us a pretty good idea of what's going on, not one in which some invisible man in the sky watches every single thing I do and think, and keeps score so he can decide whether to let me sit and stare at him worshipfully for eternity, or make me roast in the unimaginably tormenting fires of HELL forever. Frankly if Sandy, Falwell, Robertson, Bush, and their ilk are going to be in heaven, I'll take Hell any day.