Pajiba

Great review. I had read a few articles by Hitchens in other places and the only thing I could think was "Wow. This guy is a gigantic douchebag." Thanks for slogging through the book and proving it. It's unfortunate that the good points in his you mentioned had to be buried under such a giant mound of self-righteousness.

I also can't believe he said that about Mother Theresa. It sounds like Hitchens is the cunning famewhore here.

I haven't read the book myself but what you quoted out of the book sounds about right to me, I wonder what it was that put you off?
*cough* *christian* *cough* *cough*

Hitch is an irritating man. Overwhelming vitriol is his way of life. When he's against you, he's an incredibly irritating jerkass. When he's on your side, he's an exciting ally who has the bad habit of going way too far way too often.

Part of me is annoyed by the stridency of his rhetoric. Then again, as an atheist, part of me sees it as fitting. How often are we bombarded with the message that faith itself is an inherent good? How often do we hear that morality is inextricably bound with religion? How often does anyone in the public eye point out that the previous two sentences are mendacious lies?

Hitch's confused logic resonates partially with mine. Religion is a basic reaction of humans to the natural world. It's a natural product of how we operate. To call it purely good is fucking stupid and flies in the face of reality. Then again, to call it evil is to do the same. It's just too goddamn big to label one or the other. It's like saying greed or fear or love are good. They're far too large to bear such a simple label.

I'm always torn when called upon for civility in religious issues. Christian triumphalism has been so loud and so obnoxious for so long. It's hard to hold back, since the public fora force piety, or the pretense of piety, all the fucking time. If my co-worker wants to prattle on about Jesus in a company meeting, inadvertantly denigrating much of what I hold as important and true, that's considered okay. If I want to respond by calling out the rhetoric as self-serving nonsense, I'm a disrespectful toad. Whee.

In short, I agree that civility is called for, but shit, it is *so fucking hard* sometimes.

But, as a good Northern boy who doesn't believe in God, I have strong values and a strong commitment to justice and charity. So it goes.

These sort of arrogant atheists do nothing to further any sort of substantive debate. As an atheist, I've never seen a reason to try to stamp out religion. I admit it would be a great comfort to believe that I would never really die, or that my conscious wouldn't. And I also think its ridiculous to propose that people aren't assholeish enough that they wouldn't find some other reason to kill each other if there were no religion. But I do admit I am curious as to whether religion affects the way people logically process information, especially when they are learning to do so. That is, are people who are brought up is religious households, with an emphasis on faith as well as logic, at a disadvantage when it comes to say logical thinking and whatnot. I haven't really formed an opinion on the topic, but I do admit I think about it from time to time.

But I do admit I am curious as to whether religion affects the way people logically process...

I think the cause and effect goes the other way, if anything. People have illogical thoughts, and then use whatever framework they have established to justify them to themselves. Religion is just a common framework. If religion wasn't there, it would be something else.

Not to start a whole big thing, but he's right about It's a Wonderful Life. I don't understand how so many people melt for that movie when it features child abuse and all kinds of good stuff so prominently. And also, that kid's voice at the end when she says the thing about the bell just feels like someone is peeling off my flesh layer by layer. The ending in general is just a giant serving of pure treacle.

Still, Hitchens is an ass and I have no intention of reading his book, although I'd probably agree with him on this count.

It's interesting to me how many athiests posted here. I mean, if you're an honest athiest, why do you even care what Hitchens' book said or what the reviewer thought about it? Isn't it all moot? And how about the Merchant of Fear, above, who doesn't believe in God, but who used the term "goddamn" and capitalized the word, "God"? Maybe some inconsistency there.

All of Hitchens'arguments have been made before, and logically refuted before. His arguments are only fresh to the uninformed.

St. Augustine explained things best when he said, "You made us for yourself, O God, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you." So much restlessness in the book, the review and the posts.

Tell me how all people, not just awesome atheists, can take your lead, Mr. Hitchens, and replace their religious faith with ardent admiration of literature, music, George Orwell and Thomas Jefferson!

I just finished this book during my lunch break at work today, and I must say that the above sentence alone tells me that you missed the point of Hitchens's work, Constance. It's not a "How To" guide to embracing secular humanism. It's an indictment of religion's influence on human history and human behavior in the present.

I didn't read any "flinching bravado". In fact, just the opposite. There was no mention of a future necessity for religion. The last few pages are a celebration of science's ability in the future, albeit in small increments, to pull us away from our prehistoric beliefs. Plus, I don't think it's possible for a thoughtful person to write a screed against religion and not mention those positive influences religious people have had on human progress (on the subject of Dr. Martin Luther King he leaves the "dirty edges" far behind in favor of tears and praise). Nowhere did I sense he was whining about having to follow religious customs, such as celebrating Christmas (in fact, he glories in the fact that our society celebrates what is, essentially, a pagan holiday). The only Christians he refers to as "yokel creationists" are those actively foisting creationism on our nation's schoolchildren. Surely even people sympathetic to or raised with religion and read Pajiba are uncomfortable with teaching our kids that the Earth was made in seven days. If all of these examples are "flinching", I think you're asking the impossible.

Yes, I'll admit I'm an atheist, and yes, Christopher Hitchens was, essentially, preaching to the choir. And yes, he unfortunately supports the War in Iraq and claims women can't be funny. So what? Like you, I learned a lot. For instance, I had no idea the genocide in Rwanda was encouraged (and its leaders protected) by the Catholic Church.

As for Mother Teresa, you can't tell me you weren't (or aren't, if you can't remember) troubled by her close relationships with brutal dictators, like Haiti's Duvalier family. She followed the money and rarely troubled herself as to where or who it came from.

And sorry to say it, but It's A Wonderful Life is pure schlock. Just because someone does or doesn't like it doesn't mean the rest of their argument is bunk.

Hitchens definitely takes an arrogant tone, and I don't think that's a great way to communicate with religious people, but perhaps he wasn't trying to communicate with them? Even if he had been calm and respectful, they'd still come back with the irrefutable (in their minds at least), "God exists because I believe he does and it says so in the Bible." He says he hopes to change minds, but it's obvious that he knows people will keep believing no matter what evidence comes to hand. I once saw a very interesting documentary where a relatively open-minded priest was asked whether he'd continue to believe in God even if it was conclusively proven that he/she/it didn't exist. And he simply said, "yes, I wouldn't know what else to do".

Maybe Hitchens is trying to galvanise the atheist community and actually counteract the constant "in your face" religious bunk we have to deal with on a daily basis - religion affects everything we do - the laws that are made on 'moral' issues and the foreign policy decisions, and while on a personal level religion may help people, on a political scale it's overwhelmingly done harm.

It's an absolute "outrage" if an atheist calls religious people judgmental and ignorant (not my view of all religious people by the way), but if a street preacher feels like telling me I'm going to burn in hell for the rest of my days and that homosexuality it an abomination, I'm supposed to just take it? Or worse, telling me that they can help me change my ways and be forgiven? (UGH!) I'm sorry, but it actually offends me, and I can understand the anger and resentment that's coming through in Hitchens's book from that perspective, and I can understand why it might be comforting to actually hear something that isn't trying to placate everyone - at least we know there are others like us willing to speak up, even if it perhaps wasn't the most "tactful" way to go about it.

Greg Stuart notes above that all the arguments against religion have been 'logically refuted'. I'm sorry, but isn't that sort of where the breakdown in communication occurs? That we are discussing something that is a matter of belief or disbelief and cannot be either proved or disproved?

And, I must stand with the other atheists above here: obnoxious as some of us may sound at times, let's remember who has been holding the floor since the dawn of civilization, and remember that it never hurts to listen to a differing opinion.

Very well counter-argued, Rebecca. I haven't read this book (yet) but I've often read Hitchens on this subject in the past and it seems to me that Constance is missing the whole point of his approach. His style is one that has a long and noble history - the robust polemic, full of cheerful abuse, sometimes vulgar, sometimes strident, sometimes subtle, frequently hilarious, and replete with the love of argument for its own sake. No single reader is likely to agree with everything in a work like that, but surely only the terminally po-faced could fail to find it at least occasionally bracing. I disagree with Hitchens on many things - the Iraq war chief among them - but he is capable of quite wonderful writing. His 'neither fear nor favour' approach to the subjects he tackles is admirable and he undoubtedly has a certain kind of reckless personal integrity and courage in the way he has challenged some of the more complacent assumptions of the Left, both in the UK and the US, in the full knowledge that no one is more scorned than the apostate. In many ways, he has more in common with someone like Bill Hicks than with the writers of the academic books-with-colons-in-the-title that he shares shelf space with. I'd recommend his books on Orwell and Kissinger to anyone - the latter to US readers particularly.

Writing from what, admittedly, might be the most irreligious country in the world (the UK, or the almost-independent bit of it called Scotland) but a frequent visitor to the US, there does seem to me to be something of a national cry for the smelling salts across the US - even in mainly liberal-lefty constituencies like Pajiba - when someone takes on religion in this way, which seems odd when you have produced plenty of take-no-prisoners commentators on other areas. It seems you have no problem with someone taking on the more obviously woman and homosexualist-hating, Muslim-burning, Jew-converting fringes of the Christian Right, but when someone takes on some of the less easy targets you get very uncomfortable. Constance's "you can't say that!" attitude about Mother T is a case in point. Is she simply beyond criticism? This was the woman, after all, who, arriving at Knock airport in Ireland, made a speech from the steps on her plane in which she said that abortion and contraception were the greatest evils in the world. Not poverty, or hunger, or war, or slavery - none of these were mentioned. I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that that indicates that her devotion, first and foremost and above all else, might have been to Catholic dogma, as approved by the very conservative Vatican of the time, rather than to the (mainly Hindu) poor of Calcutta, for whom reproductive choice would have been an unheard of luxury anyway.

I didn't mean to go on so long and it's late here now. I may be an unreconstructed lefty, socialist, atheist limey, but I do love the US and Americans and have no time for knee-jerk anti-Americanism. The thing is, Hitch is the same - he is one of your great defenders to the rest of the world and you should embrace him, warts and all.

I don't think that criticizing Mother Teresa should in anyway devalue what he has to say. I haven't read the book, but I read the article linked regarding MT, and I have to say that while Hitchens does come off as narcissistic, his criticism of Mother Teresa is pretty interesting and something I've considered before (minus his assessment of her financial situation). Fundamentally, he is critiquing the automatic reverence given to her by those who would normally condemn imperialistic religious crap like missionaries. Interestingly, that very automatic reverence seems to be at work here, with the dismissal of his critique as being famewhoring. I've no doubt that Hitchens chose MT deliberately to provoke some strong feelings, but that doesn't make what he has to say untrue.

I wouldn't presume to call everyone who believes in God "stupid", but I don't have a problem applying that label to anyone who believes that the Bible/Torah/Koran is absolute truth rather than allegory or ancient political material. A good deal of the contents of these holy books HAVE been logically refuted, and while I don't want to be as much of a douchebag about it as Hitchens is, it drives me crazy that I can't point this logic out without being called intolerant or close-minded.

Now, don't get me wrong, I accept that we cannot ever know whether there is or is not a God, or gods, or Creator or whatever, and in our quantum universe we can never rule out any possibility... we can only say that something is extremely unlikely, given the data we have. But it frightens me that some people actually think that the planet is 6000 years old and was made in one week by a Charlton Heston look-alike who still peeps into our bedrooms from time to time to check that we're not buttfucking. Why are we not allowed to say that this is completely absurd?

Even scarier, the people who run our country are basically required to profess belief in this absurdity. I'm all for religious freedom - believe whatever ridiculous thing you want in the privacy of your own home - but for Christ's sake [sic], let's base decisions that affect others on objective reality.

Layla, your position is well stated. The point I was trying to make is that I think that so-called athiests try too hard to be athiests. Here's an example: I don't like rap music...at all. But I don't read about it, I don't talk about it and I don't post about it. And I certainly don't listen to it. Somewhat like religion, the presence of it is inescapable yet I manage to just let it pass by with little thought of any kind. It's just not a part of my life. Hitchens and his athiest buddies are offended that religion won't let them alone. Well, we're all interfered with by all kinds of unwanted messages (rap music, for example). Getting all worked up about it tells me that there's something more below the surface that's unresolved (restlessness?).

Lastly, my comment about Hitchens' arguments having been logically refuted is simply a response to his notion that believing in God is unreasonable, and that this unreasonable belief has poisoned everything. That is false. Reasoned thought can lead a person to belief. Proof, no. But faith, yes.

Atheism, the belief that God does not exists, is the anti-religion. It is therefore subject to the same deficiency's that anti-religious commentators use to critique religion. In that regard, they live there life (not) believing in something. Based on what? I suppose lack of empirical evidence. Though that same argument has too been used to deny such things as the earth being round, gravity, inter alia. No logical being can say with certainty that God cannot or does not exist anymore then someone can say with certainty that God does exists. So the atheist has FAITH in something they cannot truly know because they cannot see it, either figuratively or literally. The religious embrace their faith, which is a positive belief. Atheism is by virtue a "negative" belief. Not so much believing that something does exists based on faith, but that something does not. Maybe science will one day show that the "faithful" got it wrong, or it may just show that atheist got it wrong. But this idea that God and religion have been the source of so much evil is quite absurd when 1) the commission of all types of crimes against the religious 2) by definition God is not evil and 3) if God is evil, or at the very least "Not Great", he has to exist in the first place to be anything. If its Religion, the belief in God, exclusively that is considered evil, then he get's it wrong again. For you cannot simply bunch all religions together, for one. And I cannot speak for others and their religious beliefs, but my religion by its very nature is good. Its when religion gets bastardized by people, fallible by nature, that the message from God to the people gets mixed up so much like a game of "Telephone".

For you cannot simply bunch all religions together, for one. And I cannot speak for others and their religious beliefs, but my religion by its very nature is good

Sure you can, JP. For starters, everyone says that same thing about their own religion. So who gets to be right? You?

I accept that the existence (or lack thereof) of a God (or Gods or fairies or Eumenides) is unprovable. I consider myself an atheist because I don't believe in any God or God variation; that is, I can certainly have a conversation about Jesus w/ my dad or write an essay about Jonah and the "whale," but I don't go about my life as though God were as real as I am. Frankly, the most common time I think about God is when I'm handling money.
Also, Hitchens is a douchebag.

"Hitchens and his athiest buddies are offended that religion won't let them alone. Well, we're all interfered with by all kinds of unwanted messages (rap music, for example). Getting all worked up about it tells me that there's something more below the surface that's unresolved (restlessness?)."

But unlike Rap music, we can't ignore religion and the devastating effect some of its believers have had on the world and even on my life personally. Religious morality and the laws that the government make directly affect me - I cannot choose to ignore that as you can with a type of music. I get worked up that my gay sister cannot get married and have IVF, and that abortion is still technically illegal where I live, because these are life-changing issues.

I get "all worked up about it" because it is THE most significant and universal cause of much of the trouble in the world today (perhaps it vies with money for that honour) - of course I get worked up about people being killed, repressed and maimed in the name of religion. If I can't get worked up about that, what am I allowed to care about?

Additionally, it's a very pertinent and long-standing philosophical issue that many great thinkers have chosen to get "worked up about" throughout history. It goes right to the heart of human identity and purpose. I guess I'd have absolutely no problem with religion (I believe in freedom of thought and expression), if it wasn't ever used to justify so much bigotry, ignorance and hate.

As for "trying to hard to be atheist". What? If you attend church every week and pray every day, and are passionate about your faith, does that mean you're trying too hard to be Christian? I'm not trying to be an atheist - I AM an atheist, and I have as much right to be heard as the vast majority of people who believe in God. And as I'm in the minority, I feel that it's important to make sure the religious agenda doesn't completely dominate the world in which I live.

I know you're trying to imply that my "restlessness" is due to the fact that I haven't found God - "Oh, you're just angry because you have unresolved issues about your lack of faith" - and it's precisely this type of condescending attitude we atheists loathe, just as much, in fact, as you probably dislike the tone of Hitchens.

Rebecca, it has nothing to do with a particular religion being "right" and another being "wrong", its that they believe in some way or another different things or they practice their religion in different ways. So, for example, I see no LOGIC in lumping me, a believer in Jesus, in with some group who also believes that Jesus is their savior but also think he told them that it is a sin to receive medical treatment so they deny their children access to healthcare; or another group who kills doctors who perform abortions in the name of Jesus. So some people may do horrible things in the name of *, but I BELIEVE that most people (be they religious or not) are good; and further, most people who are religious don't use it as the basis to harm others. Sure, some religious leaders (NOT GOD HIMSELF) have absolutely used religion for evil purposes, but for everyone of those people there are hundreds if not thousands who have done wonderful things for mankind.

JP:
I think you misunderstand what an atheist is. Atheism is not a faith as it is, by definition, a lack of belief in something. Curious, would that mean that I have faith because I don't believe in the tooth fairy?

Greg Stuart:
You said religion is inescapable (I agree) but are you suggesting atheists aren't allowed to talk about it? Religion in my life isn't just an annoying message that I hear every so often, it's a strong force that guides people's lives, tries to pass it's influence through government, and can sometimes lead to the number of examples I'm sure are provided in Hitchen's book. I most definitely can and will speak up about it when I feel the need (I have no problem being respectful to others' religions at times, either).

Constance:
Thank you for the review. I was in the middle of Dawkins' The God Delusion and wondering if I should put this one next up in my reading queue, but I may decide to pass on it. As much as I enjoy hearing from honest atheist viewpoints, self-righteousness bugs me no matter what religion it comes from.

Wes S., "Because that generalized contempt for anyone who disagrees with their beliefs seems part and parcel of liberal politics."

Try substituting the words "liberal politics" for "religion" and you'll get a bit of an idea how atheists often feel.

The thing is, I can select certain religious tenets that I agree with (love thy neighbour, thou shalt not kill etc.), and certain ones I don't. Whereas you seem to have dismissed "liberal politics" in its entirety on the basis of one person's comments - and FYI Hitchens isn't a liberal anyway. Atheists come in all shades, just like religious people do.

I don't need a framework for my moral code. I have come to certain values through rational thought, and my own life experience, as well as being influenced by other thinkers (some of them religious). My moral code, while it has some unchanging fundamentals (i.e. don't hurt others), is quite flexible. I used to think that homosexuality was unnatural, for example, but unlike a lot of religious folks, I've been able to see the error of my ways. It's not like there's only a choice between religion and "earth-worship" (i.e. paganism). Your views sound a little outdated.

And "most of them will concede that decent people of all faiths will find their way to heaven."

Um, what about people who are decent but have no faith? (we do exist you know!) Do we get to burn in hell?

I also think that Hitchens was only referring to a particular type of person as a "creationist yokel", and while I don't agree with his name-calling, I also don't like being called an "abomination" and a "sinner". So there you go.

And don't worry, your views seem very "Christian" judging by the the vast majority of Christians I've come across.

JP - "...have absolutely used religion for evil purposes, but for everyone of those people there are hundreds if not thousands who have done wonderful things for mankind."

But I believe that those wonderful things could just as easily have been done without religion - however, many evil things could not have been.

Sorry for all this posting - I swear to God I'm going to stop now!

Mike, do you KNOW God does not exist or do you Believe it? Let me answer that for you. Its Belief. Call it what you will, but you are acting on faith that there is no God. It actually impossible for you not to be an atheist without relying on faith because there, as of yet, is no way to disprove the existence of God.

Layla, there are many evil things that have been done because people don't believe there will be repercussions, whether it be on this earth or in the after-life. And many of the evils performed in the name of God or religion were not; the Holocaust, for example. Also, just like religion, many evil things (shooting a child, drinking and driving, blowing a plane up, chemical warfare, synthetic drugs) could not have been accomplished without science or scientists. Or how about experimentation on humans or animals. Does that make science evil?

Hoo boy, I should just pass on by, but this one got to me:

But I believe that those wonderful things could just as easily have been done without religion - however, many evil things could not have been.

I kinda have to agree with JP about this last part. There have been plenty of quite evil acts that have been performed without religious intent, like say many dictatorships and Communist regimes. And one could argue that those that were inspired by some sort of religious zealotry could have found other just as ludicrous sources. 'God', like 'The Devil' and 'Rock and Roll', is simply a convenient scapegoat so people can avoid personal responsibility. Oh, and science, too (eugenics, anyone?). It seems weird to say God doesn't exists, then blame him/her/it for all the bad stuff people do. Maybe evil stuff happens because there are real assholes in the world, and they want to hurt their fellow human beings, regardless of the justification. Does that sound illogical?

I often wonder if religious discourse would still be the same if Constantine had not made Christianity as the religion of the Holy Roman Empire. Would we still be arguing, but instead of Jesus and Yahweh, we would have Zeus and Athena? Or does only the Judeo-Christian religious complex incite such action? Would Hitchens be railing against Baal if the Persian Empire ruled instead? Or against Manitou if Native Americans still held sway? We accept the non-existence of plenty of gods and goddesses everyday. What is it about this particular one that engenders such passioned debate?

And another thing, and I really want an answer. Does being an atheist mean you do not entertain the idea of spirituality as well? As I understood it, Buddhists were technically atheists because they had no gods in their beliefs (I know this is a serious generalization, but go with it). Yet, they are considered quite spiritual. So does that belief in something beyond mean they are not atheists by your standard? Does being an atheist mean you have to believe emphatically that the only reality that exists is what you can sense, or can you just not believe in a defined deity?

I am agnostic, by the way. I figure that somebody came up with some good ideas for relating to each other and the world, but somebody else got it in their head that this was so good that it was infallible. And we are simply the result of that ill-conceived notion.

And since we are recommending books, I have yet to regret reading Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality series, where I am currently on his third book. His reasoning for why the gods seem so confusing and contradictory: because they are basically humans given untold power over the ages, and they are simply doing the best job they can do under the circumstances. But I fully intend to read Gaiman, though.

An excellent and thoroughly enjoyable review, thank you.

I second the vote for Dan Denett by Armando. As an evolutionary scientist whose work is greatly influenced by Dawkin's I have no problems admitting that man needs an editor (and asshatectomy) like Stephen J Gould needed opposable thumbs.

As an atheist and scientist however, I get unnerved when people use "Science" as a replacement for religion. Science is a way of asking questions, and it shouldn't be viewed as an alternate belief system- it doesn't inherently believe anything other than evidence. Sure there are theories, but these are mutable and subject to the basic premise of empirical inquiry: they're held until someone can prove them wrong.

For those not particularly interested in engaging in a yes-or-no debate, there's always apatheism. Defined by Jonathan Rauch as "a disinclination to care all that much about one's own religion and even a stronger disinclination to care about other peoples". That's me. Guess I shouldn't be here.

Agnostic: I have not been presented with conclusive evidence regarding the existence of God.

Atheist: There is no God. Because I'm an asshole.

See, you can't just BE an atheist, you have to be an asshole about it!

I am SO glad you put this review up- I just got done reading this book, too- and I even blogged about it. I was really disappointed in the book- I was hoping for something less... histrionic. Through the whole thing, I felt like if I were hearing him speak, his voice would have kept getting more and more shrill until only dolphins or bats could have heard him. This guy IS a douche, and I totally agree with your suggestion for a new title for this book. I might want to punch this guy in the throat, and I am not by any means a religious person. I do know douchebaggery when I see it, though, and I saw PLENTY between the covers of that stupid book.

I'm glad I wasn't the only non-fundie motherfucker who didn't like it. I thought for a second that maybe I was losing my edge.

Josh, I know you were joking, but your definition of agnostic is a bit confusing - "I have not been presented with conclusive evidence regarding the existence of God."

Do you ever expect to be presented with such evidence? Up until that point, do you believe that there is no God, or are you erring on the side of caution? If the former, then I must be an agnostic too. But then again, I am sort of an asshole...

And Vermillion - I am somewhat more open to the idea of spirituality (and I find it easier to understand/accept than religion), but not as it relates to a deity of any kind. Although Buddhists have elevated a man to the effective status of a deity, so their "atheism" may just be a matter of semantics. I just don't believe in/worship/defer/pray to one or more "higher" or omnipotent being/s.

I suppose I "believe" (if that's the right word) in other human beings, and in the power of humanity united to achieve positive things and overwhelmingly triumph over harmful and destructive elements (no, I don't believe in a utopia, just a better world). I believe in taking full reponsibility for our lives and actions, and making the most of this ONE life we have. I believe in rational thought and progress, but also in compassion and sustainability. And I think all the freaky people make the beauty of the world, even if I completely disagree with them - but I still hope to find enough common ground to make things work and I expect them to try as well! (And I'm not talking about eliminating disagreements altogether - that sounds very boring - I'd love everyone to approach things with a critical mind). In essence, I don't think we should look to God, I think we should look to each other. I also think the world is an incredible amazing place - I just don't think that 'God' created it. To me, evolution holds much more wonder and interest than creationism in any case.

See, I am actually incredibly idealistic! We're not all arrogant, bitter, soulless old twits who believe in almighty Science and everything else be damned.

I was going to make some sort of long and angry comment here, but after reading all the others i think i've been adequately covered already (particularly, though more beautifully than i could ever hope to achieve, by Layla).

But i'd like to reiterate (and i'm paraphrasing Dawkins here) that atheism is a religion only insofar as not collecting stamps is a hobby, and that if you use the "can't prove God doesn't exist..." argument then you might as well hope that fairies are going to step in and help you in all of your decisions.

I wouldn't have a problem with religion if it could leave me alone, but as far as i'm concerned plenty of decisions are made using religion that affect me, enough so that i feel obligated to speak out against it.

I would actually read Atheists Are Awesome: How To Insult Everyone Stupid Enough To Believe In God.

This, not so much.

Vermillion, put down Piers Anthony and pick up "American Gods" immediately. Anthony is self-important kiddie lit. Gaiman, while not perfect, at least can put a real, cohesive spin on diverse aspects of our culture.

I didn't really see a review of the book, mostly a review of the author, which isn't the same thing. It does help to know that the guy's a general prick, but to glide over the substance of the book in a few sentences really doesn't give me enough to go on.

Beware the growing religion of science.

This statement is inherently illogical. Anyone who is using science as a "religion" is not practicing science at all but is co-opting a tool to accomplish some separate goal. Science is a hammer and saw for building knowledge. Just like a hammer and a saw are not inherently good or evil, science is incapable of being anything other than neutral.

When environmentalists engage in terrorist activities for their cause, or when a totalitarian government uses scientific knowledge to build weapons, those actions are not science. It is unacceptable, illogical, and dangerous to blame "science" for the actions people take to satisfy their inner beliefs.

Okay, katy, I can appreciate that. That can apply to any neutral tool or activity, however, and the root of the problem is humans' tendency to co-opt tools for nefarious purposes, not the tools themselves. Religious folk, just like the other groups cited, have taken scientific knowledge and used it to further ends that I find repugnant -- for example, missionaries' use of medical knowledge to gain the locals' trust and soften them up for proselytizing. That is not an indictment of science, it's an indictment of people who misuse it.

I would add that science is really the only useful tool to deal with the problem in my prior post about god being unknowable. Science is the only real hope for penetrating the mysteries of the universe to the extent that we can overcome our own physical frailties to understand the nature of things -- not that I'm confident that will happen, but I'm pessimistic about faith and meditation leading to the answer.

I think the underlying issue here - whether discussing religion, as the author does, or science, as in the comments - is that the root of all of this is: PEOPLE ARE ASSHOLES. And dumb.

Whether as Hitchens says, people invented and cling to God foolishly, or people use religion or science for evil - it's not the religion, the concept of God or faith or science or anything else that is poisonous - it's that some people are utterly villainous and will use whatever they can to do whatever they feel like.

I would wager that most people, atheists, liberals, scientists, creationists, whomever - wouldn't bother anyone else with their beliefs, it's just the vitriolic fringe elements who want to dominate others and impose their views on the rest of us... which is a failing common to mankind, regardless of belief status. Including the hysterical Hitchens.

Mankind is Not Good: How Humanity Poisons Everything - now that's a book I'd get behind.

Layla, et al,

You take my point about athiests getting worked up about religion too far. I'm not saying that athiests shouldn't or can't have a voice in the discussion of religion, I just don't know why they care. But one reason that I can come up with to answer the question of why they care, is that at some level they really do care, which is the restlessness that St. Augustine mentions. Now, on that topic, I do not bring it up in order to be condescending. You have my true apology if it was. I think that what Augustine was getting was the innate urge to find the "answer". And for him, as well as for legions of others, the "answer" is God. As for the role of reason in leading honest people to their conclusions about God, if someone carefully considers the pros and cons of the question, and concludes that there is no God, then I'm fine with that. But then if that's the conclusion, why continue the debate? You say the reason for that is the damage that religion has caused, and causes, and your sense of responsibility to address those offenses. As you do that, though, I think you also must consider the good that religion has done, and does: the countless people fed, clothed, healed educated, housed, and, yes, even saved. All in response to the message delivered to us in the bible. So you can't honestly say that religion is all bad, nor can you say that it has caused all the grief of humanity. That's a tall order to put on anything. I'd extend that point to ask you to consider that you have it backward. Religion hasn't poisoned/ruined everything, but people have poisoned/ruined religion. Read the Gospels with an open mind. Leave aside for a moment the divinity of Christ, which will be a problem for you. If all of us decided to live in the way the Gospels advise, can you really say that the world wouldn't be a better place a month from now?

Religion hasn't poisoned/ruined everything, but people have poisoned/ruined religion. Read the Gospels with an open mind. Leave aside for a moment the divinity of Christ, which will be a problem for you.

I've been agreeing with some of your points along the way, but WHOA... now I'm suspicious and I wonder if your approach to religion is just rigidly conventional and you're being stubborn to what others are saying. Why did you mention the divinity issue? What do you mean by people being saved? Because to me, faith does not equal believing in a creed, which is, let's face it, man-made. Creeds are direct results of interpretations of sacred texts. And while these texts may offer truths, in the mythos sense of powerful symbolism, narrative, and imagery, they are not necessarily accurate.

People have been arguing about whether atheism is a religion. I don't think it is, but I think people are confusing the terms "religion" with "fundamentalism." I DO think that atheism can become fundamentalist, as this is a mindset that is driven by a modern thought process where mythos is dropped and only logos is used to arrive at truth. Ironically, it seems that religious fundamentalists only use logos when arguing for their doctrines.

And by the way, I don't think Dawkins is all that nice. He basically said in an interview with Salon that he thought that asking questions like "What's the meaning of life" are products of a weak intellect. The guy was obviously intimidated by the possibility that there are unknowable and unobservable conundrums that require thought processes other than logos. I liked some of his writing, but he is disappointingly lacking in curiosity or empathy with those who want to find some form of expression for their spirituality in a medium outside of being in awe of Totally Awesome Science.

"Layla, your position is well stated. The point I was trying to make is that I think that so-called athiests try too hard to be athiests. Here's an example: I don't like rap music...at all. But I don't read about it, I don't talk about it and I don't post about it. And I certainly don't listen to it. Somewhat like religion, the presence of it is inescapable yet I manage to just let it pass by with little thought of any kind. It's just not a part of my life. Hitchens and his athiest buddies are offended that religion won't let them alone. Well, we're all interfered with by all kinds of unwanted messages (rap music, for example). Getting all worked up about it tells me that there's something more below the surface that's unresolved (restlessness?)."

The difference between rap music and religion, Greg, is that Jay-Z doesn't go around knocking on doors and bug you incessantly until you repent of your rap-hating ways and come to a concert with him. Sure, advertising and evangelism have a lot in common, but the zeal of certain evangelists, both professional and lay, not to mention the double standard applied by and to people of faith regarding their own views versus those of people who do not share their beliefs, are often impossible to avoid without a great deal of friction.

kel m - Wouldn't that theory actually mean that one devastating consequence of schizophrenia is religion? That's kind of funny actually.

I just had to point this out because it made me laugh, "But it frightens me that some people actually think that the planet is 6000 years old and was made in one week by a Charlton Heston look-alike who still peeps into our bedrooms from time to time to check that we're not buttfucking." That frightens me too. If some atheists have come to their conclusions based on this interpretation of Christianity, then I can't blame them for their position, but would hope that they're still open minded enough to learn about true Christian principles that are actually based on the gospels.

Katy - glad I made you laugh! :) And of course I know that not all Christians are of this crazy variety. As a recovering Catholic myself, I've read the Gospels (and some Old Testament), and I do agree with lots of the ideas presented... what bleeding heart liberal would disagree with "love thy neighbor"? Jesus was a great philosopher.
Hell, even Genesis is a lovely allegory.

I have no problem with the Bible, in the main, although it does contain many self-contradictions and quite a few abhorrent messages (all that smiting!) It's just when people start declaring it to be the infallible "Word of God" that I start to have a problem.

katy: Sapolsky is more eloquent than I, but the basis is that shamans are schizotypal e.g. they went on spiritual journeys, spoke to higher beings, manipulated space and time, experienced visions/hallucinations - all atypical behaviours on the spectrum of schizotypal disorders. Schizotypal shamans benefited from these oddities because it was considered mystical/spiritual, and due to the power they held within the community, they were reproductively successful.
The upshot being that not only did the rituals developed by shamans serve as prototypes for future religions but they established schizotypal genes within the population, with the most severe and well-known form of schizotypal disorders being schizophrenia.

"So you can't honestly say that religion is all bad, nor can you say that it has caused all the grief of humanity."

I didn't say that - I just think it's caused/exacerbated an awful lot of bad things, so for me, it's logical to question religion and why people believe in it. Just as I question science when morally dubious things are justified as "research". I do agree that many wonderful things have been achieved in the name of religion. I just think those things you mention can be and HAVE been achieved without religion. I, unlike some, believe that most people have a tendency to be good and not do harm, whether or not they're religious. The Gospels do provide some good messages, but to me, those same moral conclusions can be arrived at through humanistic and rational thinking. I manage to know that harming others is bad without being religious, but through the same thought process I'm also able to conclude that loving consensual relationships are NOT bad, even if the participants are of the same sex or are not married, and than women are not the "weaker vessels". So I prefer my way of thought - it feels more logical to me. I can be a good person who contributes positively to society, without embracing (or constantly having to justify) all the bad things that religion can bring, or being restricted by a "moral framework".

"Religion hasn't poisoned/ruined everything, but people have poisoned/ruined religion."

Agreed. But religion is particularly susceptible to manipulation by bad elements, because it does induce one to stop questioning and just accept what religious leaders and holy books say (although of course there are many religious people who still question). Religious texts are set in stone (no pun intended), so often they enable the unquestioning support of outdated views that repress sections of society. Furthermore, some wonderful people I know, who are otherwise compassionate, caring and intelligent, hold some really offensive views about "needing to save" those who don't conform to their idea of morality - and that involves supporting some laws and values that really ruin other people's lives (i.e. not using condoms in AIDS-ravaged Africa). They're not "evil", but you can't reason with them about such things, so in that way, religion often allows good people to do what I consider to do bad things (or support bad things) without really having to examine WHY they're doing them.

"...if someone carefully considers the pros and cons of the question, and concludes that there is no God, then I'm fine with that. But then if that's the conclusion, why continue the debate?"

What question? I actually am not looking for any one single "answer", because I don't believe there is one "question". I continue the debate because just as religious people are often trying to sway me to their point of view, I'd like to get some religious people to question their beliefs a little more, and to really think about some of their values and how "good" they acually are. I'd like them to understand that I can be a good, moral person and not believe in God. I'd like religion to have less of a role in politics. And also, as a human, I have an inquiring mind. I am constantly forming and reassessing opinions in my mind, and I think it's a very useful philosophical exercise to continue to debate these things. Religion is not one of those things where it's always ok to "agree to disagree" (although I support freedom of religion), because as I've said numerous times, religion impacts my life and others' lives a lot more than atheism affects yours, so it's surely understandable that I want to engage on the issue.

That being said, I just want to thank people for such a civil and interesting debate on the issue. I know that both atheists and religious peeps get ragged on for their views out in the world, so it's nice to discuss the issue with people who can be respectful about it.

Armando
I hope I don't sound nitpicky, but agnosticism is actually not about belief in a god, per se. Agnosticism is the idea that one cannot know if a god exists (whether it can be proven or disproven), not the "I'm not sure" definition that it's popularly understood as. Because of that, it's possible that there are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. Only theism and atheism say anything about whether a person actually has belief that a god exists. I think I can see where you're coming from, though, and so I think we agree on that position.

Greg
"I'm not saying that athiests shouldn't or can't have a voice in the discussion of religion, I just don't know why they care. But one reason that I can come up with to answer the question of why they care, is that at some level they really do care, which is the restlessness that St. Augustine mentions."

I see what you're saying and I agree with you there. I care in the sense that I want to find the truth whatever it may be. If the truth is that there's a god then that's where I'm headed. Unlike the atheist stereotype, I try to keep an open mind about the matter and as such I will continue to debate it. You wonder why atheists still talk about it? Well, I guess my point is that atheists, who don't believe in a god, continue the debate for the same reason as those people who do believe in a god continue the debate.

Hitchens is a hack douchebag. I hate him with a hate that burns like a thousand suns.

- One thing that has kinda bugged me for a while is the demand for evidence of God's existence...

Well said, Vermillion.

I've stayed out this, (I studied philosophy and ethics for years, as well as doing some Bible Study and theology getting into debates like these does literally nothing for my blood pressure) and hopefully I won't have to come back but are you actually agreeing with Pascal's Wager, Greg? You had some semi-decent points until you brought up an argument which is essentially a glorified punnet square. "Believe in God because you'll be screwed if you don't" is along the same lines of "I shouldn't kill people because I'll be punished if I do" - persuasion through fear.

I understand that the debate has been raging for a while, and granted you've probably played the majority of your cards and ideas are running thin on the ground but playing the "religious thinking comes from tradition that's been around for thousands of years" argument requires some serious levels of doublethink. Aside from the fact that we spent millennia believing that we were at the centre of the universe, that lightning was caused by an angry deity, that the rains would come if we danced for them, that the earth was flat - things we now know to be untrue, consider this: Billions of people across the globe have traditions and beliefs that have roots stretching even further back than JudeoChristian mythology. They have scripture that has been carefully thought out and studied, and passed down through the years. What about their traditions? Are all people simultaneously right because they've held the same beliefs for a really long time or is there some reason that your tradition holds more weight than theirs?

Give the "blind faith" argument, give the "I see wonder in the world" argument, give the "because I just do" argument - I can't refute them, but you've had too many good points to fall back on the point of "because that's how it's always been" because as a species, we've been wrong before. I'm not being deliberately antagonistic, just interested and thinking out loud, it's a slow day at work and I have nothing better to amuse me.

Alex the Odd, now that I've gone and put up my post, I see that you have more elegantly and more calmly articulated some of the same concerns on my mind. Cheers. I'll strive to do as well next time.

"Now, if you want to, you can toss all of that tradition out the window because it doesn't "feel" logical to you. We're all free to make that decision. But then you have to consider Pascal's Wager, an inelegant but highly practical guide to making such a decision: either the Judeo-Christian tradition is true, or it isn't. No maybe's. If it is false, then chuck it all with impunity and believe what you want. Horoscopes, voodoo, wicca, whatever. It just doesn't matter. BUT, if it is true, AND you reject it, then you're screwed, for eternity. You've passed up the promise of eternal life. Ouch, to say the least."

And a God that would base eternal life on such a principle is one you want to spend eternity with, Greg? And what of the teachings rather than the teachers? Is a god that would condemn thousands of his creations, which he supposedly loves, to death and eternal damnation simply because they didn't believe in the right code, recited the correct prayer or, most relevantly to today's teaching, behaved in the correct way worthy of following? And what of the other, sometimes older traditions besides the Judeo-Christian one? (As if there were such a thing as a "Judeo-Christian tradition anyway! Christianity is shaped much more obviously through its contact, early on, with Hellenistic paganism and philosophy than Judaism, from which it began distancing itself as soon as it became politically inexpedient in 66-70 A.D. and almost completely separate as Rabbinical Judaism began to develop after the fall of Jerusalem.) Doesn't Pascal's wager apply to them?

I know I'm not being nearly as eloquent as Brenda or Alex the Odd, but I had to get that off my chest.

What an embarrassing and cheap review of Hitchens's book! I suppose I'll remain a Pajiba fan in regard to movie reviews but when a snippy lady attempts to find fault in a perfectly enjoyable account of why the Abrahamic cults of the world need to fall, it just comes across as tawdry.

Why don't you exchange your copy of God is Not Great, Miss Howes, for a pop culture quiz book from Mtv publications or some such shit?

Greg-

Interestingly (or not), I've had practically the OPPOSITE experience you have had regarding spirituality and, specifically, Christianity. I began as a rather devout Catholic child, then becoming an Evangelical Christian in college, only to find my faith not just tested but eroded the more I investigated and learned about the origins of my religion. Spiritual paths are a funny thing.

Now, I don't understand why you put "shame on the Santa Clause (sic) poster." S/he may have been glib, but s/he has something of a point. The similarities between Santa Claus and our _TRADITIONAL_ (read Western) view of God are quite striking.

Oh, and because I can't stop myself, Armando made me want to share my personal mini-background for the sake of clarification.
I grew up traveling and living in different parts of the world as a child because of my parent's work. In nearly every place some kind person gently tried to enfold me into their religion, you know, out of kindness. But even as a child all the inherent contradictions were noticable to me no matter how convincing or full or faith each person was. I realized every religion was of equal value and none were the One True Way and there grew my distate for evangelism, missionaries, you name it.

Yeah, spiritual paths are a funny thing.

Katy, genuine religious experience is always subjective. As I said much earlier (way up there), it is possible to arrive at belief in God by logic alone, and there is a strong element of objectivity in that process. But, also previously stated, this is not just an intellectual exercise. If it were, it would be pointless. Faith requires a response, which is subjective. So I don't think that subjective arguments are ineffective. In fact, they're necessary.

I've said my bit here, and have enjoyed it, snarky Santa Claus remarks aside. There are good people here, thinking hard. My bet is that many of them will continue thinking hard and come to a point in their lives when the hokey, subjective stories are their own. Then I say, "Welcome home".

"it is possible to arrive at belief in God by logic alone"

Except it isn't, Occham's razor (one of the simplest logical conventions out there) forbids it at the very least. The only possible way to come to a "logical" conclusion about the existance of god is to take into account explanations that have already been given by society as well as preconceived notions about the nature of reality. Which, while almost unavoidable, doesn't make it a completely objective decision. A notion of the "supernatural" must first exist and so the decision isn't being reached from empirical data alone. Any text on the nature of critical thinking and true logical argument would tell you as much.

Of course you may be referring to "logic" in the every day sense (forming inferrences from certain situations based on personal opinions and experiences with a view to being objective) but as far as true logical theory goes I'm afraid you're a little off the mark

i've seen this bloke on the Daily Show and i also read his NYTimes review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. why they let a humourless and pompous twat let him review that book i'll never know.

Hitch is famous for having bad titles. Remember that book on Mother Teresa called The Missionary Position. Arrgghh.

Still, all in all, I am glad we have Hitch around. I don't always agree with him, sometimes profoundly so, but I love his writing and his speaking engagements are almost always very entertaining.

My parents bought this book, and some of the ball-busting comments that I heard him say while on bill maher were pretty priceless (he made fun of the audience for neighing at everything maher said, like sheep, which bugs the shit out of me and I agreed with), but at the same time, does he really think he has the impeccable judgment to say such things?
His arrogant tone is clear as day in the book, and really, that attitude makes a person just as ridiculous and superstitious as one's enemies. .he is just as bad as the evangelicals. well maybe not quite as bad as them, hahaha. But I DO think that he would have hard as hell of a time understanding anyone else's viewpoint beside his own, he has a sacred cow and refuses to see anything else. So....his good british education means nothing because maybe he doesn't have a flexible mind.

After I finished this book titled, God is not great,
I tried to fathom the unfathomable dissonance of a mind. I guess when someone as informed as Hitchens, enters a state of I-know-all, the outcome is a highly jumbled up and an opinionated product, nothing less than this book.

Hitchens attacks everyone and everything. He makes sniper attacks on Jesus, Mohammad, Moses, Buddha and every other prophet you can think of, and sprays bullets on the likes of Gandhi, mother Theresa and Martin Luther King. He declares all religions to be evil and all believers to be idiots, extremists or terrorists.

Religions, in time, become dogma and dogmas are not something to be proud. Hitchens is entitled to his opinion about individuals from his knowledge of right and wrong and there is little one can do change it.

Hitchens ridicules God and in fact negates his very existence. And that prompted me to write this comment.

First and foremost, from what I could make out from his book, his mind is conditioned by the description of God as he may have interpreted from reading books. He may also be influenced by the disillusionment he may have personally experienced by living in the company of "masters" he may have chosen in the past or were chosen for him. He looks for a God of some higher order who has the capability to interfere with our actions, decide our fate and generally keep a watch on whatever we do. Will he be disappointed? I bet.

God is not something that can be captured even in imagination, leave alone being described. And it is very stupid of Hitchens to make presumptions about believer's perception of God.

According to Hitchens, our world is completely explained by Charles Darwin and all the credit for our being here is given to "evolution". While I have no quarrel with Darwin, I have a few questions for Hitchens.

The world (or any system) left on its own has tendency to move towards disorder (Law of thermodynamics. We experience this in our daily life, as we have to spend large sums of money in repairing and maintaining our belongings), implying that when we get a glimpse of some kind of "order" among chaos, it is manifest of some intelligence. Our species and all other species living on this planet are good examples of this.

Humans are more evolved than other species because they have the potential to "connect" and "see" the truth much beyond the capability of their sensory system. However, this transcendental experience, being tacit in nature, is beyond articulation and can not (is incapable to) be expressed or shared with others. And such people, who, even though have personally gone through such experience, when confronted by people like Hitchens to give sensory evidence of that experience, can only listen and smile.

Unchecked by his own reason, Hitchens goes after the idea of intelligent-design and uses some convoluted logic to explain our presence through evolution.

According to Hitchens "airplanes are, in their human-designed way,"evolving" and so in a different way are we". Taking his argument further, if the airplane "evolution" is driven by human-intelligence what intelligence is driving the Darwinian evolution?

Hitchens should know that intelligence does manifest in other forms and can be replicated but never be created from nothing. If evolution is intelligent, then there must be a source for that intelligence. I wonder if Hitchens would like to propose a name for such a source.

Evolution is limited only to conscious entities. It is not applicable to the "material" world. Evolution is a process that is authored by some intelligence to ensure that it doesn't have to keep looking over it.

Certain intelligence creates a universe with certain laws and replicates itself inside to create evolution, much as humans create airplane and replicate themselves inside the airplane. The laws of the universe do not evolve. Only the consciousness does.

And consciousness is a replication of the infinite intelligence that causes everything to emerge from nothingness. If that can be called God then he certainly is great.

i'm an athiest. but it pisses me off when EITHER side of the fence (relgious or non) is self righteous. self righteous ppl in general piss me off.

Your characterization of the book is right, but as an atheist, I say --"It's about time!" Along with Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins we finally have people to stand up and tell the rest of the world, "The emperor is buck naked, and, BTW, there is no god!"
Thank you Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins.