If the intended reader of this book should want to go beyond disagreement with
its author and try to identify the sins and deformities that animated him to
write it (and I have certainly noticed that those who publicly affirm
charity and compassion and forgiveness are often inclined to take this
course), then he or she will not just be quarrelling with the unknowable and
ineffable creator who – presumably – opted to make me this way. They will be
defiling the memory of a good, sincere, simple woman, of stable and decent
faith, named Mrs Jean Watts.
It was Mrs Watts’s task, when I was a boy of about 9 and attending a school on
the edge of Dartmoor, in southwestern England, to instruct me in lessons
about nature, and also about scripture. She would take me and my fellows on
walks, in an especially lovely part of my beautiful country of birth, and
teach us to tell the different birds, trees, and plants from one another.
The amazing variety to be found in a hedgerow; the wonder of a clutch of eggs
found in an intricate nest; the way that if the nettles stung your legs (we
had to wear shorts) there would be a soothing dock leaf planted near to
hand: all this has stayed in my mind, just like the “gamekeeper’s museum,”
where the local peasantry would display the corpses of rats, weasels, and
other vermin and predators, presumably supplied by some less kindly deity.
At later lessons we would be given a printed slip of paper entitled “Search
the Scriptures,” which was sent to the school by whatever national authority
supervised the teaching of religion. (This, along with daily prayer
services, was compulsory and enforced by the state.) The slip would contain
a single verse from the Old or New Testament, and the assignment was to look
up the verse and then to tell the class or the teacher, orally or in
writing, what the story and the moral was.
I used to love this exercise, and even to excel at it so that (like Bertie
Wooster) I frequently passed “top” in scripture class. It was my first
introduction to practical and textual criticism.
However, there came a day when poor, dear Mrs Watts overreached herself.
Seeking ambitiously to fuse her two roles as nature instructor and Bible
teacher, she said: “So you see, children, how powerful and generous God is.
He has made all the trees and grass to be green, which is exactly the colour
that is most restful to our eyes. Imagine if instead, the vegetation was all
purple, or orange, how awful that would be.”
And now behold what this pious old trout hath wrought. I liked Mrs Watts: she
was an affectionate and childless widow who had a friendly old sheepdog that
really was named Rover, and she would invite us for sweets and treats after
hours to her slightly ramshackle old house near the railway line. If Satan
chose her to tempt me into error he was much more inventive than the subtle
serpent in the Garden of Eden.
However, I was frankly appalled by what she said. My little anklestrap sandals
curled with embarrassment for her. At the age of 9 I had not even a
conception of the argument from design, or of Darwinian evolution as its
rival, or of the relationship between photosynthesis and chlorophyll.
I simply knew, almost as if I had privileged access to a higher authority,
that my teacher had managed to get everything wrong in just two sentences.
The eyes were adjusted to nature, and not the other way about.
I must not pretend to remember everything perfectly, or in order, after this
epiphany, but in a fairly short time I had also begun to notice other
oddities. Why, if God was the creator of all things, were we supposed to
“praise” him so incessantly for doing what came to him naturally?
This seemed servile, apart from anything else. If Jesus could heal a blind
person he happened to meet, then why not heal blindness?
What was so wonderful about his casting out devils, so that the devils would
enter a herd of pigs instead? That seemed sinister: more like black magic.
With all this continual prayer, why no result? Why did I have to keep
saying, in public, that I was a miserable sinner?
Why was the subject of sex considered so toxic? These faltering and childish
objections are, I have since discovered, extremely commonplace, partly
because no religion can meet them with any satisfactory answer. But another,
larger one also presented itself. (I say “presented itself” rather than
“occurred to me” because these objections are, as well as insuperable,
inescapable.) The headmaster, who led the daily services and prayers and
held the Book, and was a bit of a sadist and a closeted homosexual (and whom
I have long since forgiven because he ignited my interest in history and
lent me my first copy of P. G. Wodehouse), was giving a nononsense talk to
some of us one evening.
“You may not see the point of all this faith now,” he said. “But you will one
day, when you start to lose loved ones.” Again, I experienced a stab of
sheer indignation as well as disbelief.
Why, that would be as much as saying that religion might not be true, but
never mind that, since it can be relied upon for comfort. How contemptible.
There still remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that
it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of
this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the
maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous
sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking.
I do not think it is arrogant of me to claim that I had already discovered
these four objections (as well as noticed the more vulgar and obvious fact
that religion is used by those in temporal charge to invest themselves with
authority) before my boyish voice had broken. I am morally certain that
millions of other people came to very similar conclusions in very much the
same way, and I have since met such people in hundreds of places, and in
dozens of different countries.
Many of them never believed, and many of them abandoned faith after a
difficult struggle. Some of them had blinding moments of unconviction that
were every bit as instantaneous, though perhaps less epileptic and
apocalyptic (and later more rationally and more morally justified) than Saul
of Tarsus on the Damascene road. And here is the point, about myself and my
co-thinkers. Our belief is not a belief.
Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason,
because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust
anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many
things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit
of ideas for their own sake.
We do not hold our convictions dogmatically. We are not immune to the lure of
wonder and mystery and awe: we have music and art and literature, and find
that the serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and
Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Eliot than in the mythical
morality tales of the holy books. Literature, not scripture, sustains the
mind and – since there is no other metaphor – also the soul.
We do not believe in heaven or hell, yet no statistic will ever find that
without these blandishments and threats we commit more crimes of greed or
violence than the faithful. (In fact, if a proper statistical inquiry could
ever be made, I am sure the evidence would be the other way.) We are
reconciled to living only once, except through our children, for whom we are
perfectly happy to notice that we must make way, and room. We speculate that
it is at least possible that, once people accepted the fact of their short
and struggling lives, they might behave better toward each other and not
worse.
We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion.
And we know for a fact that the corollary holds true – that religion has
caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than
others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make
a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow.
Most important of all, perhaps, we infidels do not need any machinery of
reinforcement. There is no need for us to gather every day, or every seven
days, or on any high and auspicious day, to proclaim our rectitude or to
grovel and wallow in our unworthiness. We atheists do not require any
priests, or any hierarchy above them, to police our doctrine. Sacrifices and
ceremonies are abhorrent to us, as are relics and the worship of any images
or objects (even including objects in the form of one of man’s most useful
innovations: the bound book).
To us no spot on earth is or could be “holier” than another: to the
ostentatious absurdity of the pilgrimage, or the plain horror of killing
civilians in the name of some sacred wall or cave or shrine or rock, we can
counterpose a leisurely or urgent walk from one side of the library or the
gallery to another, or to lunch with an agreeable friend, in pursuit of
truth or beauty.
Some of these excursions to the bookshelf or the lunch or the gallery will
obviously, if they are serious, bring us into contact with belief and
believers, from the great devotional painters and composers to the works of
Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides and Newman. These mighty scholars may have
written many evil things or many foolish things, and been laughably ignorant
of the germ theory of disease or the place of the terrestrial globe in the
solar system, let alone the universe, and this is the plain reason why there
are no more of them today, and why there will be no more of them tomorrow.
Religion spoke its last intelligible or noble or inspiring words a long time
ago: either that or it mutated into an admirable but nebulous humanism, as
did, say, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a brave Lutheran pastor hanged by the Nazis
for his refusal to collude with them. We shall have no more prophets or
sages from the ancient quarter, which is why the devotions of today are only
the echoing repetitions of yesterday, sometimes ratcheted up to screaming
point so as to ward off the terrible emptiness.
While some religious apology is magnificent in its limited way (one might cite
Pascal) and some of it is dreary and absurd – here one cannot avoid naming
C. S. Lewis – both styles have something in common, namely the appalling
load of strain that they have to bear.
How much effort it takes to affirm the incredible! The Aztecs had to tear open
a human chest cavity every day just to make sure that the sun would rise.
Monotheists are supposed to pester their deity more times than that,
perhaps, lest he be deaf. How much vanity must be concealed – not too
effectively at that – in order to pretend that one is the personal object of
a divine plan? How much self-respect must be sacrificed in order that one
may squirm continually in an awareness of one’s own sin? How many needless
assumptions must be made, and how much contortion is required, to receive
every new insight of science and manipulate it so as to “fit” with the
revealed words of ancient man-made deities?
How many saints and miracles and councils and conclaves are required in order
first to be able to establish a dogma and then – after infinite pain and
loss and absurdity and cruelty – to be forced to rescind one of those
dogmas? God did not create man in his own image. Evidently, it was the other
way about, which is the painless explanation for the profusion of gods and
religions, and the fratricide both between and among faiths, that we see all
about us and that has so retarded the development of civilisation.
The mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most
devastating one. Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree
on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did. Still
less can they hope to tell us the “meaning” of later discoveries and
developments that were, when they began, either obstructed by their
religions or denounced by them. And yet – the believers still claim to know!
Not just to know, but to know everything. Not just to know that god exists,
and that he created and supervised the whole enterprise, but also to know
what “he” demands of us – from our diet to our observances to our sexual
morality. In other words, in a vast and complicated discussion where we know
more and more about less and less, yet can still hope for some enlightenment
as we proceed, one faction – itself composed of mutually warring factions –
has the sheer arrogance to tell us that we already have all the essential
information we need. Such stupidity, combined with such pride, should be
enough on its own to exclude “belief” from the debate. The person who is
certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the
infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and,
like all farewells, should not be protracted.
The argument with faith is the foundation and origin of all arguments, because
it is the beginning – but not the end – of all arguments about philosophy,
science, history, and human nature. It is also the beginning – but by no
means the end – of all disputes about the good life and the just city.
Religious faith is, precisely because we are still--evolving creatures,
ineradicable. It will never die out, or at least not until we get over our
fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other.
For this reason, I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could. Very
generous of me, you may say. But will the religious grant me the same
indulgence? I ask because there is a real and serious difference between me
and my religious friends, and the real and serious friends are sufficiently
honest to admit it. I would be quite content to go to their children’s bar
mitzvahs, to marvel at their Gothic cathedrals, to “respect” their belief
that the Koran was dictated, though exclusively in Arabic, to an illiterate
merchant, or to interest myself in Wicca and Hindu and Jain consolations.
And as it happens, I will continue to do this without insisting on the
polite reciprocal condition – which is that they in turn leave me alone. But
this, religion is ultimately incapable of doing. As I write these words, and
as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your
and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human
attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything.
© Christopher Hitchens 2007 Extracted from God is not Great, by
Christopher Hitchens, published by Atlantic Books on June 10 at £16.99.
Available from BooksFirst at £15.29, free p&p. Call 0870 1608080 or
visit timesonline.co.uk/booksfirstbuy
When I became an atheist
My parents did not try to impose any religion: I was probably fortunate in
having a father who had not especially loved his strict Baptist/Calvinist
upbringing, and a mother who preferred assimilation – partly for my sake –
to the Judaism of her forebears. I now know enough about all religions to
know that I would always be an infidel at all times and in all places, but
my particular atheism is a Protestant atheism. It is with the splendid
liturgy of the King James Bible and the Cranmer prayer book – liturgy that
the fatuous Church of England has cheaply discarded – that I first disagreed.
When my father died and was buried in a chapel overlooking Portsmouth – the
same chapel in which General Eisenhower had prayed for success the night
before D-Day in 1944 – I gave the address from the pulpit and selected as my
text a verse from the epistle of Saul of Tarsus, later to be claimed as
“Saint Paul”, to the Philippians (chapter 4, verse 8): “Finally, brethren,
whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things
are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely,
whatsoever things are of good report: if there be any virtue, and if there
be any praise, think on these things.”
I chose this because of its haunting and elusive character, which will be with
me at the last hour, and for its essentially secular injunction, and because
it shone out from the wasteland of rant and complaint and nonsense and
bullying which surrounds it.
For the record...I am a Christian! Though I do not attend church, I pray to my God and thank Him for everything that He has blessed me with. I was always raised as a Chrsitian, Southern Baptist at first, but I prefer a Pentecostal church on the seldom occasions I attend. I've haven't ever really considered myself "religious," but more spiritual. I do pray that everyone, of a religion or of no religous preference, can have respect for one another. That you may not judge each other unfairly, ridicule each other for ones beliefs, and really...respect one another. Which obviously means that if someone doesn't want to hear about religion, then respect that and quit talking about it. If someone doesn't want to be spoken to about atheism, then don't mention it anymore. I find it pretty simple, and yes, I thank God that I have the clarity and open mind to perform these things...meaning I don't care what religion or non-religion you are, you still deserve respect when/where it is due!
Emilee, Chadwick, Mo
That's most unusual, Lisa Young of Norristown, Pa, USA. Everybody I know has had these regular visits and find them unsatisfactory.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Have you ever checked out Jehovah's Witnesses? A thorough Bible study with them can show you why religion is generally incredible. They teach what is REALLY in the Bible and why things are the way they are in the world today.
I challenge you, if you are truly an intelligent and thinking man, to study seriously, attend the meetings, talk to them - ask questions for a period of about 6 months, then see how you feel.
There is no cost and no pressure to join up. I know, because I studied with them three times over a period of about 12 years before I decided that they had the truth I'd been looking for. Most people aren't as stubborn as I was. They did answer every question I had ever asked about God, whereas other religious groups couldn't.
Lisa A. Young, Norristown, Pa / USA
I believe in God and his Son, Jesus Christ, because of the book you disdain. I don't believe in trying to argue someone to this point of view, because there is no need to empower the Word of God with any arguments I come up with.
Nevertheless, something should be obvious to anyone, believer or unbeliever--God doesn't exist simply because I believe he does, nor does he not exist simply because you believe he doesn't. In other words, the existence of God is independent of belief or non-belief.
RS, rsville, ne
You are mostly incorrect about one thing. People of faith are not planning your destruction, but seeking your salvation.
God offers so much, including the most profound opportunity ever offered to humankind...to know God on a personal level. In the Bible it states, "Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, or the strong man boast in his strength, or the rich man boast in his riches. But let him who boasts, boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these things I delight, says the Lord."
To find out more, visit http://www.everystudent.com.
marilyn adamson, orlando,
If you have on a blue pair of lenses, you'll hadly recognise white as white or what is brown may just be dark. Your view of God is determined and corrupted by the lenses (man-made doctrine) through which you look so all you can see is what those lenses can permit you to.
Take away every knowledge you have acquired and only then would you be able to distinguish white from blue or dark from brown. Note that having on a wrong quality of lenses can make a man with good sight no better than a blind man. Just do well to yourself by confessing that you can't see well and only then will you be able to come out of ignorance. Jesus loves you so much but you can't see that because you have on the wrong pair of lenses. He came that the blind could see and those who think they see become blind.
Cornelius, Yaounde, Cameroon
The bible tells us that people one day will not be able to endure sound doctrine. They will strive for that comforts their itching ears, meaning what 'they" want to hear, verses the truth of the Word of God.
God cannot be put on the same level as a human being, hello! Also remember that the stats for death are perfect, one out of every one.
The bibles says it is appointed for man once to die, and then comes judgement, and of course we all have been to a funeral, or at least most reading this have.
Give some thought to that, we can haggle over the internet, but alone in your bed at night, think about where you will go when you die, it is a sobering thought.
And as well folks, God does heal some, not others, He does as He sees fit, and since we do not know why, it is unwise to try to judge Him for His decisions.
Man may have toyed with religion, but God's Word reamins true.
Food for thought!!
Mike, Southern California,
Religion is the best medicine.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
I dont think religion poisons anything. It is mans interpretation of religion that poisons everything. Theism and atheism are both two sides of the same coin, they are both belief systems created by the mind. When we let go of this coin, that which is true (God, reality, love, truth) whatever name we may give it shines forth effortlessly.
Be still and know that I am!
Jonathan Balshaw, Newton Abbot, Devon
I would comment on this, but I am busying myself planning the destruction of all good things. Honestly, how can one dignify with a response a piece of writing that accuses one of being, well the Antichrist (for want of a better word).
Sorry, but get back to me when you can keep your childish remarks below the surface.
Joseph A Tafra, Armidale, Australia
How refreshing. When you stand outside organised religion, you are so often struck by the distortion and self deception. It is comforting to know that there are so many others in the world who have given the subject such consideration and despair at the lack of true free thinking. The key point that this book highlights is that we do not need to give human beings any additional impetus to hate and cause pain. We are so well disposed to do this unaided. Personally, I despair at how little the human race has deviated from primeval superstitions. Thanks for publishing this reassuring viewpoint.
Morgan, Guildford, Surrey
Since Hitchens seems sporadically lucid, I had expected better arguments in his thesis against God. Alas. While arguments for atheism are flimsy at best, his aren't even in the front rank of those. I think this comes from the deep illiteracy of our culture. A journalist is someone who makes you think he's read Aquinas or Plato, because he can trot out a few eclectic quotations; but either Hitchens hasn't read the great thinkers he spurns, or he's not up to grasping their drift. Otherwise, his arguments would be less puerile. Hitchens should take up the really tough philosophical burden and try to prove God does not exist. It is easy to mischaracterize faith, revile it, and pronounce "Q.E.D!" Ye olde straw man. Try developing proof positive for the absence of God -- then get back to us with your sequel. I think we need not hold our breath.
Jim Moseley, Altadena, California
I would disagree with the idea that faith is the starting point of religion. I myself explored and researched other faiths and belief systems before I reached the conclusion that Christianity is the only true way to live in harmony with the Creator. I would also mention that I used science and reason to reach my conclusion. Another point that interests me is the author's thoughts reguarding ethics. He seems to implie that he lives by a system of ethics, yet he remains open-minded and feels that science and reason must play a part in this exercise. There are two unanswered questions that arise from this idea. First, why should one feel obliged to follow a system of ethics if they are subject to continually changes by new experiences, the lastest science, or the reasonning of modern thinkers? Second, if one is indeed open-minded, does it not follow that he would not be in a position to pass judgement on God reguarding preceived evils?
Ryan Polsley, Ottawa, USA
I have an argument with both sides. Can the religionists promise never to impose their religion on others, usurp the state/justice/education, condemn and prevent violence? I doubt it but if they could I'd be happy to let them just get on with believing. Can the aetheists actually become 'militant' and prove through opening agnostic schools demonstrating to kids and adults that it is possible be ethical and motivated and creative without being religious simply because what goes around comes around. Otherwise they will remain a talking shop playing intellectual games. Come on guys you both have lots of convincing to do yet.
Robert Grundy, London,
Alex Piggins:
It's a shame you didn't seem to find the Semana Santa celebrations particularly moving. I think it is one of the most powerful demonstrations of how people are touched by the Holy Spirit; and also a great example of how religion can bring whole cities together in unison.
John Ward, Pontefract, UK
It is so refreshing to read the the above article as well as The God Delusion. For years I was almost too afraid to speak my thoughts which directly reflect those posted here. Why are these views not at least aired at schools ? What have the religious got to be afraid of ? All religious views should be studied at school, including atheism, and let children decide what makes the most sense ! It is about time we stopped the blinkered views of The Good Book being forced on children without some rational debate.
A little late for me (being 32), but I look forward to offering my children a more balanced view of the world.
PM, Chichester, West Sussex,
One of the biggest problems with religions is that they tend to become the opposite of their founders' intentions.
Instead of bringing more harmony and unity to mankind, they provide another cause for disagreement, disunity, disharmony, strife, and violence.
They feed bigotry, superstition, and wishful thiking. They use up resources that could be better spent on bettering lives. (Think of the many slaves worked to death to bring out the gold and silver that decorates churches. Gold and silver donated by those responsible for the inhumanity of that slavery, and supposedly to give themselves a higher standing with God or something.) And consider all those stupid religious wars.
And all because of some claim to know the unknowable.
Of course, if one feels inferior, he might well be glad to accept status as one of the Elect, the Approved, the Chosen, or the Saved which makes one feel better and - of course - better than those ungodly, barbarian, or whatnot Philistines!
Persecute them!
Buck Burris, Peoria, IL
I was in Chicago 10 years ago when I heard 2 statistics on the morning news. A recent poll had determined that 33% of Americans believed that the world was created about 10,000 years ago by God. This didn't surprise me.
The utterly staggering statistic was that 24% of GRADUATES in the US believed exactly the same thing, despite their above average intelligence and education.
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they feel vulnerable and insecure enough to NEED to believe this, and to deliberately not try and be sceptical about it.
Religion rules by fear. Fear of not getting an afterlife. It's a big thing to lots of people, that. Other people have taken advantage of that fear for millennia. They won't stop until 90% of the world is properly educated. Don't hold your breath.
Religion is like oil. It is power.
Paul, Lingfield, UK
In reply to Ben, I didn't refer to a point in time before time. I referred to laws that must have existed to create time and space. Secondly, while I agree it is erroneous to infer the likelihood of an event which has occurred, it is not erroneous to question if that event could have occurred by chance. My argument in favour of a creator God is a better explanation for the existence of the universe than his explanation of a chance creation. An eternal God can create whatever He wills. Chance operating on nothingness produces nothing. Father Brian Storey has adequately answered Simon. Sylvia Berry's contribution doesn't warrant a reply.
Ian Turner, Tonyrefail, South Wales, UK.
Non-believers try to point out to theists the error of their ways. They might equate this the them trying to "destroy their faith", but a better analogy would be with education. A schoolchild might claim that his teacher is trying to "destroy his ignorance", but we wouldn't accord his views any particular credibility.
Even if regilgion were harmless it would be a worthwhile pursuit debunking it. However, it is positively harmful and therefore should be destroyed. Unfortunately the only theists who are likely to listen are the intelligent ones with a moderate outlook, who aren't the ones who do the harm.
Z Smith, London, UK
If anyone can answer this question for me, I will turn to religion. It is said: God sent his only son for us (which incidentally happened around 2007 years ago). Why did he wait? Were the Mesopotamians, Asyrians, Phoenicians, Babylonians, etc. not important to him?
Vanessa, B' Stortford, UK
Ian from UK - Existence (matter/energy) is eternal makes more sense than god magically appearing from nothing.
From existence, biological life and then conscious beings evolved (carbon and water) naturally. When Jesus spoke of "The kingdom of God", he was speaking of his own conscious self-awareness...He was speaking in metaphors. Most humans did not possess the mind-space for consciousness and thinking 2000 years ago. They reacted to their surroundings as do unconscious animals. Jesus was anti-establishment and was murdered by the establishment (Scribes, Pharisees - conscious elite) for speaking out.
Mark, Virginia, USA
Simon, as God cannot be contingent, He needs no Creator. Rob, uncontolled ego is the source of evil. The ego can only be reduced through worship of God. There are many subleties in the human personality with religious pretensions. We need to keep reaching out for the Almighty One. Do not be deceived by the rubbish that blames religion(worship of God) for evil. It's ignoring or abusing religion that's the problem So, not less but much more religion in the true sense, is what we need.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Ian Turner from South Wales should realise that religion has no better answer than atheism for the problem of something being created from nothing. If God created the universe - who created God?
Simon Carter, London, UK
Mark Davies, Bridgend, Wales and others.
How many times do you people need telling, Hitler was a Catholic and made numerous references to his faith in speeches and Mein Kampf and used this to justify some of his actions, why do you think the Jews were singled out. Then look at the occult interests of the Nazi state, not really the actions of atheists is it. So does Christianity claim responsibility for these lives? Or should we just put it down to the regime being insane and looking for scapegoats. Stalin trained to be a priest (not very atheist again). Then you have communism which is basically a religion anyway as it says there is nothing more important than the state which must be worshipped, atheists on the other hand tend to claim the most important thing is each and every individual. Chalk a second one up for religion/Chrisitanity?
As has been said before by far greater people than me, nobody kills for atheism, however only religion can make a good man commit attrocities.
Rob, Birmingham, UK
I have a companion story to Hitchen's.I was 10 at the time, and I was attempting to find God with a Baptist Church in Philadelphia.The sunday school marm was as pleasant and as generous with treats.However on the week preceeding Palm Sunday she jumped the religous shark.Using a child-like voice, she whispered to us that Christ did not die of his wounds at his cruxifixon .He died of a broken heart,and water flowed from his wounds.These were his tears.
I knew instantly, that this was both funny and shocking.I left the sunday school, walked the 1 mile home.The library in my working class neighborhood was open on sunday mornings.
I went to the front desk and asked for the part of the bible where they showed that Christ died of a broken heart.The little old lady stood up and said what a horrible thing I had just said.I just repeated the story , and her only comment was priceless;"Young man that is just those miserables Baptists trying to fool you.In one hour I became an Atheist.
Keith D Allan, Philadelphia, USA
With Ian Turner's argument one has to ask "Whence came God"?
Having studied the history of religious art for many years, it gradually dawned on me that religion is man-made. It is an imaginative answer to the question Why are we here? and a desperate attempt to negate death.
It also comes in handy to bring large populations under the control of canny leaders.
Why do religious people need to think there's life after death? As far as I am concerned, we are all recycled into something else even if just a pile of dust. That dust might be useful to living things that come after or it might not. Either way, we won't know.
As for going to a heavenly place where a god is constantly worshipped by adoring mobs, well, what kind of existence would that be? If Jesus wants me for a sunbeam, I would have to refuse since it would be too boring for words.
Sylvia Berry, Caterham, Surrey
Ian Turner, your arguments are rather flawed.
Firstly, since the concept of time is bound up in our definition of universe, to refer to a point in time BEFORE the big bang is nonsensical; time (at least as we understand it did not exist.)
Second, the statistical application is also fallacial. I am put in mind of the so-called "Bible Codes", where predictions of the future were discovered in the Bible. A flawed analysis gave the odds of this occuring by chance to be astronomical (a number of prominent statisticians later proved it to be closer to 50/50). The point being that it is erroneous to infer the likelihood of an event which has occurred (in this case life on earth).
Finally, to use chance as an argument in favour of the existence of god is entirely illogical. You are attempting to explain an improbable event using an even more unlikely one: That something more complicated exists (god) than the thing which is too unlikely to have occured by chance (creation of the universe)
Ben, Berkhamsted, England
I love this idea the "militant atheism" is taking over and persecuting the faithful. If someone could link me to the news reports showing me that churches and mosques have been burnt down or that people have blown up tube trains or flown aeroplanes into buildings in the name of there not being a God, I'd be very greatful.
If the practical upshot of "militant atheism" is the printing of a book that might make you think for 5 mins and invest your energy, love and passion in this world & not whatever fantasy world is promised next or made you strive for answers where previously you blindly accepted it as the will of God, then that has to be a good thing, surely? That fact you feel threatened in you comfort zone says it all.
Eddie Izzard put it best when discussing the straw man of "militant atheists". He pictured a group of men knocking on doors and saying "have you heard the bad news?".
Peter, Zurich, Switzerland
I agree with Mr Hichins' ideas about religion, rituals to make you right with God on your own. The Bible and so God would too and He said so when Jesus Christ was on earth (Matthew 15 10-28). However, He did show the only way we can realy be saved; by trusting in Him.
Because of our rebelion against Him, God our just creator Lord will judge us. We face eternity without Him, and so anything good. However, God is not only just, He is also perfectly loving and doesn't want us to suffer this punishment. Therefore, He sent His Son Jesus Christ into the world to fulfile His law and take our just punishment in our place, so we could be made right with God. We must accept this and live our live in obidience to Jesus, following our designer's rules to live best, to gain this gracious gift of salvation.
This requires trust in Jesus not ritual and changed lives of obediance to God's word , by the power of His' Holy Spirit, not to human institutions(Matthew 7 24-27). God bless,
Gareth Rhymes, Hull, UK
To believe in God is sheer folly and makes no sense whatsoever which is why it is so inexplicably amazing that, not only does He exist, but he takes such delight in His creations. Until you have experienced the touch of the Holy Spirit it is indeed difficult to believe. However, once you have stretched your faith enough to let God Himself enter into your being, you will forever be captivated by His all encompassing love and no argument, however scientific, clever or analytical, will convince you otherwise.
Teresa Dawson, Nuneaton, Warwickshire
I feel exactly the same way as Christopher Hitchens. Religion is obviously self-serving and man-manufactured rubbish, and it is hard to understand how otherwise intelligent people can believe in it. I would not mind their beliefs if they did not try to control the rest of us. Just leave us alone, I say!
Cathy, Bristol, UK
It's only by relating our lives to God that the ego can be reduced. This is necessary in order to increase human joy and love. Of course, one can get into a joyless state in the effort. Yet this is the only way as wonderfully demonstrated in Aldous Huxley's 'Perennial Philosophy'.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
"If you have never met a religious person - Christian or otherwise - who you have found to be joyful, to have integrity, and all other valuable traits, then you need to look a bit harder!"
I have found plenty of them to be joyful and with integrity, but also simplistic and dull. Religion seems to breed fanaticism or smugness and often both. Frankly life is to short for drivel.
Eric, London, UK
Mark from Virginia should realize that creation from sheer nothingness is a problem that atheism has no answer to. Nothing creates nothing, yet something came into existence. The physical laws that a highly-tuned new-born universe would need in order to evolve must already have existed from the first instant. Whence came they?
Ian Turner, Tonyrefail, South Wales, UK.
"there's no sustainable morality without the God concept"
I won't go through a huge list of philosophers in the long history of ethics who have presented excellent ethical arguments that don't rely on God.
I'll just say that I act ethically because I choose to, not because some ethereal being demands it. I think the concept of God detracts from the true essence of ethics - choice, and our understanding of ethical choices.
Richard, London,
There are some legitimate rants towards Christendom and war. But what I have found is that these are violations of Biblical truth not the outworkings of that truth for Jesus say "If my kingdom was of this world my servants would fight. The futherence of the Christian message is in no way enocuraged by Christ through the force of arms. On the other hand you seem to think that atheism would never stoop so low and do anything as vile as create wars and suffering. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were atheistic states. One needn't look far to see the horrors they poured on humanity but this is the danger of atheism for these are not violations but the natural ourworkings of atheism based on Neiztche's philosophy " Because God is dead there is no up or down. Laterns will have to be lit in the morning. We are straying through and infinite nothingness. What sacred games are we going to invent." The game they invented was to become God and to rid the world who didn't fit their utopian ideal.
Mark Davies, Bridgend, Wales
I'm sure Christoper Hitchen's bok is a good read, although from the extract above it looks as though it is the usual rambling use of words and ideas writers (including religous ones) admire.
The answer really is a question - why? Why would God make one planet (and todate we only know of one planet) that supports diverse life-forms? Why would God allow for genetic mutations - some good some bad - of his (or her) infallible creation?
Religion, any religion, simply cannot begin to address these 'whys'. Scientific process can. In the same way that the random dealing of a deck of shuffled cards will eventually produce all the cards in order so chance will produce somewhere and, perhaps, other places with diverse life forms. In a space the size of the universe lots of chances occur,
What is also obvious, as with conspiracy theories, is that some (perhaps the majority) of humans need a narrative to satisfy their fears. The fact it is ridiculous isn't important.
eddie reader, birmingham, uk
Christopher Hitchens absolutely speaks for me and many thousands of others who feel helpless under the weight of the institution of church whether we want it or not, interfering in our lives, patronisingly assuming that we ALL want (or need) to be part of their fantasy and that IT IS GOOD for us, that we cannot be moral without it. The institutionalised religions expect and get special treatment in law and practice, taxation etc, and a huge contingent in the House of Lords making laws based on PERSONAL beliefs that directly affect the lives of all of us. Those with a religious belief are suddenly feeling all put-upon and some are claiming 'persecution'.How do they think those of us who do not share their fantasy feel after centuries of imposed fear, threat and paternalism? Those with a religion seem unable to comprehend that those of us who do not share their faith can possibly survive without a belief in 'something'. That sounds suspiciously like a need to believe in anything.
Judy Hungerford, Norton St Philip, UK
I to was 9 years old when I rejected religion....
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth"
So...In the beginning there was nothing and then "god" appears and from nothing creates all matter and energy.
God magically appears from nothing? Who/what performed the magic? From nothing god created exsistance? From what?
God concepts do not resolve in physical reality. I think if more people studied Physics they would question god concepts.
Mark, Virginia, USA
Obviously Mr. Hitchens hasn't read serious works in defence of Christianity. For example, can I suggest Christian philosopher Norman Geisler's 'I haven't enough faith to be an atheist' to begin with? Creation of the universe out of nothingness at a finite point in time (i.e. big bang) and its fine-tuning to the nth degree are better explained by the working of a transcendent Creator than mere chance. The favourable position of Earth in Milky Way galaxy, within the habitable zone of its medium size star, stabilized by a large moon and protected from space debris by two large gas planets also appear to be more than fortuitous. Then the probability of complex life forms arising by chance is mind-boggingly small. I think Sir Fred Hoyle estimated it to be 1 in 10E40,000. He believes the world would be a better place without religion. That involves morality. On what basis can an atheist make a moral judgment?
Ian Turner, Tonyrefail, South Wales, UK.
Hitchens is attacking the worst of religion: sexual repression, guilt upon guilt, and the conceit of the 'chosen'. But if he made a proper effort to understand some of the religious he would see that religion is very often not these things.
Christianity for me (I am a Christian to declare my interest) brings joy and freedom, and teaches me humility but also self-worth. I hope at least that Hitchens and other strong atheists can accept this as my view - though perhaps they will call be deluded.
But to tar religion all under one brush is both simplistic and sloppy. If you have never met a religious person - Christian or otherwise - who you have found to be joyful, to have integrity, and all other valuable traits, then you need to look a bit harder!
Nic Long, London,
C'mon Lily from Cornwall, there is a difference between bombing the tube and campaigning against abortion or euthanasia! Crimes should be punished by Law but opinions should be voiced freely. I would not condone any pro-life nutter getting nasty...
Fernanda Giles, Woking, Surrey
Too many of Hitchens's crude arguments cite examples of human behaviour, a poor guide to answering the question of the existence of God. Much better to analyse what weapons actual scripture can provide atheists with, since scripture is what Christians claim to be the word of God Himself (Hitchens does try to go down this route by citing the Biblical claim that God made man in his own image, but the idea that this implies spiritual and intellectual replication is absurd).
He should consider more carefully the apparent contradictions in Biblical doctrine that might compromise the truth of the Word, rather than the faulty rotes of a rambling teacher from forty odd years ago. The Church is engaged in debating the relative literal truth of scripture on issues such as homosexuality, not the rights and wrongs of human behaviour in a less sophisticated past (the crusades, perhaps).
Finally, it is illogical to suggest that religious pluralism is incompatible with any one religion being true.
James A, Herts, England
I've always been suspicious of any religion that portrays its figurehead in the image of man.
If any deity that is all seeing and all powerful, demands obeisance from its minions to be appeased , then what a fragile ego it must have and is not worthy of the obeisance.
Religion will not go away, it fills a need in our psyche and is reinforced from generation to generation and evolved from superstition and belief in tree and mountain spirits, to one all encompassing godhead. - What a marketing ploy, less is more!
. Leaders past and present found it a useful tool to bond and subjugate their followers. It will take many thousands of years before we abandon these childish beliefs and start believing in ourselves.
Mac Blundell, Plymouth, Devon
I finished reading the above article by Mr Hitchens with a sigh; yet another clumsily recycled "argument against faith" of which we are presented with so often these days.
What amazes me is that the writers of these so called arguments don't seem to realise that their writings smack of exactly the same zealous fundamentalism they take issue with.
John Ward, Pontefract, UK
A thoughtful essay, but one that will convince no believer. While religion teaches humility, it does not practice it. Instead, it pretends knowledge of the unknowable, and is willing to fight any opposing view to its own. Cloaked is "holiness" it is uncriticizable. So cowed is human society that we seldom speak plainly about what we see concerning it. Thus religion can preach hatred and get away with it. And if one dares to point this out, he is called a bad name that is contrived to exclude him from any seroius consideration. Hence, a religion can be an open conspiracy against mankind. Those outside the group are certainly "not with God." And those within it have already surrendered their minds. (Unless they are leaders who merely use the group identity for their own purposes and hold their followers by means of the emotionsal power of religious group adhesion.)
As Otto Rank wrote in "Beyond Psychology" a religion is driven by emotional power. Hate and fear are a strong emotions.
Buck Burris, Peoria, IL
What a turgid load of old cobblers. I lost interest about half-way through this palaver, the only point of which was to demonstrate how very, very clever one half, at least, of the Hitchens brothers Christopher is. As I ploughed my way around subtle serpents, came across a closeted homosexual (at 9 Christopher apparently knew how to recognise one), and tussled with epilepsy and apocalypse I slowly lost the will to live. One thing Christopher could not have spent much time on under Mrs Jean Watts was the art of précis, or how to say stuff as succinctly as possible, preferably using shorter words. Failing that, at least warn us at the outset that we might find watching paint dry more rewarding.
Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England
Well in that case Freeman, he's done a great job in
destroying the case for secularism. Personally, I
don't want to build Jerusalem here, its not a very
nice place.
martin walker, bromsgrove, worcestershire
I'm currently at work on the 'When I stopped eating celery' chapter of my new 'Salad is not great' book.
It'll be a huge, polemic, self-congratulatory rant and constantly re-iterate points that have been made many times before. All the while it will do more to damage the cause of salad-dodgers like myself, since its piggish logic will contrive to make the same errors as the health conscious it is trying to denigrate.
And I shall present it as a courageous, well-informed and necessary contribution to the salad debate, when in fact I shall simply be looking to make some money for old rope.
Now where, you may ask, did I get the idea for this book from?
Mike Finn, Teesside,
Religion is worship of God. If bad things are done in the name of religion, that's not through religion but through the ego portraying itself as God.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Dawkins at least is coherant and argues cogently.
Hitchens just rants. There's no really solid argument at all.
I suspect that because Hitchens can write in long-sentences and has a wide vocabulary that that fools some people into thinking that what he writes is intelligent.
Also, his style is way overrated. He likes to criticise others for being "unlettered" but actually his prose is in places scarcely elegant.
I suspect that is a criticism that would affect him more than any arguments about the content of his work.
Freeman, Oxford, UK
What I find desturbing about religion is how religious
leaders seem to detatch themselves from wars in
their name. If your a peacefull religion, come out,
say it and denounce all violence. We're not evolving,
we solve our problems with the Bullet not the brain
and besides.........
If god wanted me to discover the truth, he wouldn't
have given us a brain the size of a walnut.
God wants the world to fail and your making a
brilliant job of it.
martin walker, bromsgrove, worcestershire
"Why do people that do not have any faith try and destroy the faith of others ?
Bernard Parke, GUILDFORD, "
Because this faith so often destroys the lives of others.
Ana Theist, oxford,
> Do you believers believe everything you read in the
> newspapers?
very little on face value
> Then why would you find a reason to believe in a god
> based a book passed down by word of mouth then
> written by people who "knew" the world to be flat. There is > just no evidence for a god.
What you say there is all very dodgy, but in any case faith comes from experiencing the transforming love of the Lord about whom the books (the bible has 66) are written
David Grieve, Bishop Auckland, UK
It seems like Hitchens has been surrounded by only the stupidest sorts of believers. If the only believers around me had said ridiculous things like "you will only see the point of faith when you start to lose loved ones," I might reject God too.
This explains why Hitchens' diatribe sounds, to the reasonable believer, like a strawman argument. What reflective believer thinks it's right to kill civilians in the name of some sacred wall or shrine or rock? Some religious people are crazy--how does that imply that there is no God?
For instance, he presents the tired false "religion vs. science" dichotomy. But why can't evolution be a mechanism of God's creation? Just because we are developing increasingly plausible scientific accounts of our world's history doesn't mean that we are simultaneously eliminating our need for God.
Basically, Hitchens says "religion poisons everything" because the believers of his childhood were homophobes and 7-day creationists. Doesn't that seem...juvenile?
Rob, Madison, WI, USA
The question of God's non existence is a non starter. Come off it, the uncertainties of unbelievers far outway any religious doubts.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Realising that one's teachers sin doesn't disprove Christian teaching but, rather, proves it. It's just as well atheists aren't regularly reminded of what happened in the last century when atheistic regimes ran riot and many millions more were killed than were ever allegedly killed by the church. Beholding nature is beholding creation. Believing that everything exists of its own accord and that it brought forth life by accident is a much greater leap of faith than accepting that someone made it and keeps it going. And pointing out an atheist's grave mistake may hurt him, but it is an act of charity because it could save him from his delusion.
Paul Danon, London, England
I would not go out and kill just because I was told the tooth fairy did not exist. Yet you would if you were told god did not. You sad as much. And if god is 'wholly sane', why the genocide in Egypt, passover, Noah's flood etc. This is excessive and unnecessary suffering (assuming you believe it).
Ben, York,
Maybe the reason that non beleivers attack religon is because of the way religon was indoctrinated during their early school years. I myself feel very resentful of this fact.
When I was at school I went to the headmaster told him I no longer believed in God and did not want to attend church I was told there was no choice, I had to go.
Where is the evidence for this "loving" god?
Do you believers believe everything you read in the newspapers?
Then why would you find a reason to believe in a god based a book passed down by word of mouth then written by people who "knew" the world to be flat. There is just no evidence for a god.
Steve Byrne, florida, USA
What would the leader of Christianity do if one day he was presented with irrefutable evidence of the non-existence of God? Would he:
1. Remain in his job at the Vatican?
2. Look for another job?
3. Pension off officials of the Church?
4. Maintain the staus quo in all departments of the Church?
5. Create something in its place?
6. Re-write the bible?
7. Move into politics?
8. Apologise for his role in the propagation of the faith?
9. Shoot the messenger?
Damn it, I've just released the plot of my unwritten book!
Maxadolf, Epsom, UK
I have no arguement with people worshipping whatever God or Deity they wish to...if it makes you feel better or gives you answers to some of lifes' questions than thats great. What I can't stand is ORGANIZED RELIGION. Many of our current problems revolve around, or are based in religious conflict. For instance, look at the amount of killings in Iraq between Shia and Sunni? The Catholic church says if you have an abortion you should be excommunicated...Yet how many preists have molested countless children and what does the church do? Simply moves the offender to another parish to pray on a new group of unsuspecting kids! Let mankind rely on science and reason and with any luck organized religion will run out of naive lost souls to prey on...peace to all.
Mark Willmott, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
The difficulty I have with all this is how to interpret Hitchens himself. He over eggs his pudding, but is this for effect? He is a journalist after all Or out of Ego (and I imagine that is a huge drive in journalism). Some of his inaccuracy is deplorable. Bonhoeffer, for instance, was no 'nebulous humanist', and I wish he'd made the effort to discover what christian theology really says about his Aunt Sallies.
It is the easiest thing in the world to rubbish 'religion'. Harder to analyse and explain the history of humankind's search for 'God'. More wonderful still to receive God's search for us which poses so many questions that should keep the mind open.
David Grieve, Bishop Auckland, UK
"[I]t wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos"
What is the correct representation of these?
Kevin, London,
You got me wrong again, Ben. Yet there's no sustainable morality without the God concept. See the first of the 10 Commandments, written in oue hearts.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
The eternal Religion of the One True God is the most effective education to beautify the human souls and causing nations to flourish.
It is regretful for any huan beings who fail to learn and to seek their way back to the ever-loving God.
Le Loc, Hochiminh City, Vietnam
Only God is 100% sane, Ben. You do follow some zigzag pathways in your reasoning.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Surely the important point, and one that makes belief possible, is not what happened at creation, nor the afterlife, but,as the Psalmist asked, what is man. Extreme reductionist views that say that we are just body-chemistry seem implausible. Even "dichotomist" views that we are x-plus-body seem incomplete because they do not, perhaps cannot, make clear how the two are linked. So we are left with a multidimensional view that is of course mysterious but at least leaves space for body, mind, spirit and soul and perhaps a whole lot more.
Although people of faith cannot observe the other dimensions, they at least are not under the delusion that the reductionist pictures can be made to work. In fact such multidimensional viewpoints may be supported by analogies with abstruse theories of modern physics which also begin with the idea that three dimensions of space and one of time are not sufficient to explain everything.
PhilipP, Godalming, UK
Why do people that do not have any faith try and destroy the faith of others ?
Bernard Parke, GUILDFORD,
I very much enjoyed the extract from Mr. Hitchens forthcoming book. It should be noted however that is not the concept of religion that is poison, but rather the organization of religion. It is the corrupting hand of man that taints the religious institutions of the world.
Budda, Jesus, Mohammed and others were great philosophers who all demonstrated the only hope for mankind was to live in peace and harmony with nature and each other. How bitterly disappointed they would all be to now to see the bastardization of their beliefs in the form of organized religion.
The Dalai Lama once noted, after seeing the first picture of the earth from space, we are all residing in one house that has many rooms and universal humanitarianism is essential to solve global problems.
This message is as true today as it was 1500, 2000 and 2500 years ago and organized religion is not going to solve it.
Martin Winzar, Broadstairs,
Mr Hitchens:
I must agree with your sentiment. While I deeply respect the ancient traditions of religious faith, I find religious faith at best, meddlesome and annoying and at worst, a pointless distraction from appreciating and improving the world around us. When I see the beauty and complexity of the universe around me, my lack of faith is only more deeply affirmed. Complexity is not evidence of design, beauty is not indicative of purpose. Mankind's purpose, if you will, is not to break the cycle of reincarnation, nor to blow one's self up in an effort to kill as many unbelievers as possible, nor is it to sit at the right hand of some immagined "God" in the hereafter. Life is tenuous at best, and short in the extreme. If there is any purpose here, it is to comprehend as much of the world around us as possible, and too leave it a little better place for our descendants.
Tony Pieta, New Sewickley Twp., PA, USA
I do not know how far this debate will go but Dawkins and Hitchens are right to begin the unenviable task of starting it. There is a real problem of langauge. The atheist should not tangle with the theist's langauge nor should the theist assult the atheist with religous langauge - the two do not mix and the debate is stalled. I would not even wish to be called an atheist. It is a counterpoint to something I do not refer to.
This is not the first time that 'non-believers' have stated their case. The theist states his or hers all the time and have institutions to protect and proclaim their faith. And, they crusade meekly or violently to change or refute the non-believer. The athetist is not asking anyone to have a 'belief'. He or she is an empiricst that's all.
Mr Hitchen lapses, unfortunately, when he talks of the soul. For the empiricist there is no mind-body division. Thought and feeling are the same.
The division between the state, the church and the law is also significant.
Wigglesworth, Gachnang,
Bryan, you answered "yes", to the question that "if it was conclusively, undeniably, 100% proved god did not exist, that you would run outside and murder everyone you saw?".
This proves the insanity of many religious people.
Ben, York,
Religion is "both the result and cause of sexual repression". Written by someone who grew up in the twentieth century. Moral views are determined largely by the economic circumstances we happen to be in - in this case cheap contraceptives and a market for female labour, the economic costs of family breakdown not yet kicking in. They are only later rationalised.
You talk about Mrs Watt's ignorance of adaptation. A nine year old boy is at the age when he is beginning to realise that a lot what the women looking after him say is wrong. It means it is time to enter the world of men. Nothing more.
Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK
Great! No mention of Mother Theresa, Christians ending the slave trade or the origins of schools!
'Fundamentalist atheism' is alive and well!
Bill, Taunton, UK
There is a nice song of a german group named "jeans team" .
The chorus of that song describes the perfect world for me .
Translated it says:
No God,
No Nation,
No Work,
No Money,
My home is the world !
This would be the real "heaven" :)
Florian Bartels, Cologne, Germany
Religion is man-made. Perhaps. But God is not.
LK, Derby,
Dear Mr Hitchens, Having read your rant, I ask where is "Love". You seem to be bereft of it.
You seem to be trying to disprove something you don't believe in ,namely GOD and in the process admit that God exists .If he really didn't, your book is worthless or why write.? What are you worried about ?
While not wishing in any way to condemn you .What you have written as did Richard Dawkins, amounts to nothing more that a lot of hot air. The anger which both of you display says something does it not.? Secularism as promoted today has nothing to give to values for living. Look at the mess we are in collapse will come .History tells us so from previous attempts by man to invent his own way.
Someone in the comments writes about St. Paul. Now there is a man who met Love. Millions have since .
Michael Butler, Eastbourne, East Sussex
Yes, Ben. Only God is goodness per se. Our participation in this depends on relating to Him, consciously or otherwise.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
I'm praying for you. That's all I can say. I won't argue, but I pray that you see the light soon. Because for you to hold that much animosity towards faith. it is something I can't help but wonder to what is driven behind it.
Sincerely,
A follower of Christ
Natasha Cramer, Dallas, USA, TX
I find it interesting that the people who are most shrilly intolerant are those proclaiming disbelief. The British media seems to be full of people who are not content to merely be unbelievers. They feel the need to loudly attack religion at every opportunity.
I must repeat the most powerful argument against atheism. Collapse in religious belief in Europe - and it is an exclusively European phenomenon - began around the beginning of the 19th Century. Since then more people have been killed, interned, tortured, in more barbaric ways than at any time in human history.
The likes of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are not really against people believing in God. They are against people believing in anything at all.
A totally rational world would not be pleasant. The most rational way to live is for the strong and ruthless to kill anybody who is unproductive and enslave everybody else.
I thank God that human beings are not rational.
Simon Allen, Melbourne , Australia
Hitchen's argument that he would be happy to respect other people's faith, religion and beliefs, so long as they are not forced on him, is somewhat ironic, as he is doing the very same thing at the other end of the spectrum!
If he indeed finds those views imposing, why the hell does he feel he should impose his views on everyone else too!
I don't believe in a god, and I am an atheist, but I am happy in that I don't have to tell everyone that I am, just as many people of faith don't feel they have to shout about it either.
If people would just keep their views to themselves, the world would be a happier, quiter place. Who will step up and be the bigger man though?
Tom, Pontesbury,
I'm a Christian and love Jesus and really enjoyed this article. Hitchens discusses his opinions clearly and doesn't pretend to know everything. The events that led to his decision to abandon religious faith, confront issues that we all struggle with- sex, evolution etc. Jesus is truth and light and Hitchens is honest and informed in his opinions.
catherine , SCARBOROUGH, England
The imaginary friend of childhood writ large - really large!
Robert, Toronto, Canada
Bryan, are you saying that if it was conclusively, undeniably, 100% proved god did not exist, that you would run outside and murder everyone you saw? Moral codes are not dependent on gods - look at Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.
Ben, York,
Solipsism is a hugely, and inaccurately, over used word. Relegion combines, Hitchens tells us, the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism.
Conversely, the militant atheism which is currently so fashionabe seems to me deeply solipsistic.
Inevitably there is the claim to have understood for one's self at an early age that there is no god. Ignoring, or actively rejecting and ignorant of, the historic tradition and more contemporary thought.
And the solipsism of believing freedom, free mind, to be the highest virtue. Close to solipsism in it's proper sense; that there is no reality besides one's self. A moral solipsism - that that freedom inherently makes one a superior moral agent. The Gorgias, The Bible and Faustus have answers to that.
Far better discusions of the relationship between morality and relegion have been published. None recieve the attention that Hitchens and co currently do. None are ever mentioned by those claiming to remove the scales from our eyes
MS, Cardiff,
A few weeks ago i was in Spain and witnessed first hand their 'semana santa' or holy week and i was dumbstruck by the lengths people go to, to prove their faith. How can so many people still believe in a God created by Man?We mock the ancient Egyptians and Romans for their many Gods, surely in years to come, we will be mocked for our blind belief in God. But i do agree that it gives people comfort and so had its uses, especially concerning death. Death is the one thing Man has never and will never conquer, and that is why we created a God.
Alex Piggins, Warwick, UK
Thank you Chris, as eloquent as Dawkins or Harris and just as necessary. Religion will unfortunately continue in this world until humans are brave enough to face up to the undignified truth that we are brought about by genetic mutation filtered through natural selection. Let's hope that that date arrives sooner rather than later
Rohan, London,
To answer Fernand Giles- I have no problem with personal belief providing it does not affect others who don't not share that belief. Unfortunately many use their faith as a reason to do just that ,whether it is is blowing them up , trying to prevent women having abortions,or frustrating efforts to get more humane voluntary euthania legislation passed.
Lily, cornwall,
Great article - glad somebody has the courage to write something I've thought for years. Please now de-bunk the medieval misogynists and their treatment of women, in all religions! Keep up the good work!
Janine Mumford, Isles of Scilly, uk
We atheists can manage without an invisible friend in the sky.
Jane, Guildford, Surrey
Of course god doesn't exist.
Those that 'believe' just won't accept that there is no good reason, no provable evidence and no logical counter to the argument that 'god' is a purely man-made phrnomenon, designed to frighten people and make the churches rich
David, St Albans, UK
I'm sorry, but the arguments here just don't actually make sense, and those that do (like Richard Dawkins' main points) are fatally flawed.
He fails to distinguish between the rightness (or wrongness, if you like) of a belief in God and that of organised religion; and between the beliefs and customs of different religions, denominations and individual followers. These are both basic and vital distinctions that must be made to avoid judging the many by the few (and also reveals a lack of understanding of the way religion and faith work - which surely someone arguiong against it should have). Unfortunately, this is exactly what Mr Hitchens does - whether by judging all believers by a (relatively) few extremist fanatics, the Aztecs or his old biology teacher. There is also the lack of evidence for almost all his arguments - while this presumably makes up the rest of the book, you cannot just make statements as if they are facts (without any evidence) and expect to be taken seriously.
sam, farnham, UK
Yes, understood but we are so poor in spirit without the concept of God derived from the deepest yearnings of our psyche.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
I am sorry, Mr Hitchens, but us faithfull are not as clever as you, therefore we need prayer to gide us through... Why can't you ,and other atheists zealots, leave us alone to worship whatever God we think fit? Think about it: if tomorrow the faithful decide to boot the Almighty, you lot will be out of pocket as nobody will need your books and lectures.
Fernanda Giles, Woking, Surrey