I’m only a few chapters into Mr. Hitchen’s God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, but am getting the feeling that in it, he is saying something similar to what he purports here.

I find his stance to be inaccurate, misleading and harmful. To say ‘religion’ or ‘religious mania’ is to blame for the atrocities individuals commit frees those guilty of the crimes from accountability, if only to a small degree. Religion may indeed be what the individuals involved would claim was their rationale, but by so-labelling it, Mr. Hitchens supports, if inadvertently, their lapsed logic in turning to it as a tool to achieve their ends. Pointing the finger at the vague concept of ‘religion’ makes it easy to overlook the more elemental reasons and motivation for their actions: that through brainwashing, egoism, greed or maliciousness these people have entered a state of mind where they do not value or respect the lives of others. Blaming religion then also makes it much harder to deal with the situations that arise from so-called religious conflicts. Faith is about what defies logic, so using reason to resolve religious inconsistencies and dissent is steeped with inherent and possibly insurmountable challenges. It seems to me that it would be more manageable to tailor and target solutions to the issues that are at work on a more fundamental level than at religion generally.

Both identifying problems and seeking solutions based on what’s truly at the heart of the matter would have a more fruitful outcome.

So, let me get this straight. Terrorists are terrorists because of "laspsed-logic" and faith is about "what defies logic".

This is a wonderful argument against religion. Strange that the tone of your post seems to indicate otherwise.

And just for the record, religion isn't "about what defies logic" - it's about many things. That aside, it's more accurate to say that it's about what defies reason. Better known as unreason.

Here's a helpful solution: abandon unreason.

Jams, you are right. It is exactly the argument that Mr. Hitchens makes. As a friend put it…if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are, it’s a duck. But, to use my word of the day, the logic is flawed. Just because religion defies reason and terrorists defy reason, does not make terrorists religious, or religious folks terrorists.

Moreover, to force the metaphor, I can’t help but think it’s somebody in a duck suit. It is particularly easy to find oneself believing these individuals are ducks (motivated by religious beliefs), because they often claim so themselves. But if you were a greedy egomaniac, or a lost misguided soul, wouldn’t it be far more appealing to claim duck-dom (which everyone holds as a higher ideal) as the reason you’re quacking than to admit you’re a power-hungry sadist who wants to expand his empire, or are someone who has been given hope and direction (aka, eternal salvation through martyrdom) by that guy?

If religion itself were to blame, wouldn’t more followers of a faith hold the same convictions and wouldn’t we all have been blown to smithereens by now?

I like it: abandon unreason. Wouldn’t it be nice if it were that simple? Experience has led me to believe there is a huge percentage of the population who will not abandon unreason. And though I’m not religious, even I’m not yet thoroughly convinced it would be the right thing to do.

Let's assume our medical-minded would-be bombers were, in fact, motivated by religious ideology (or at least let's assume they themselves would so claim).

Let's also assume that maybe some of them were also "greedy" or egomaniacal or "lost, misguided souls" irrespective of any religious beliefs. Hell, let's even assume some could have been full-blown sociopaths...

It seems to me the crux of this discussion should be the question, "Without their religion, would these individuals have been as likely to attempt mass killings of innocent civilians?" I think the answer is "no" and I think Hitchens would agree.

Answering "no" to this is not the same as saying "Religion is the root of the problem." (I don't think we've established there is a clearly identified problem and that it has a root cause.)

Hitchens writes, "Still, the aberrant and the sadistic don't seem to explain the resort to murder in the present case.[...] So, we must look elsewhere for the explanation. Why have doctors apparently become killers in this instance? That's easy. Because of religion."

I find it hard to disagree with him here. It's tough to imagine that without their religion, i.e. their system of belief that (rightly or wrongly) informed them killing civilians was ok, that these doctors would have banded together and taken the actions they did.

Alt view suggests that crazy, violent individuals may use claimed religious conviction as a cover or a channel for their pre-existing sociopathic tendencies. While it seems certain that this must be true sometimes, this does not counter the argument that some religion legitimizes, encourages and facilitates acts of horrific violence.

It also doesn't address the issue that religion itself may have had a hand in creating these pre-existing tendencies. Crazy, violent individuals don't pop into the world fully formed. From what little I know about "religious education", certain varieties encourage children to grow into adults primed to suspect, hate and, if need be, kill outsiders.

Finally Alt view writes:

"If religion itself were to blame, wouldn’t more followers of a faith hold the same convictions and wouldn’t we all have been blown to smithereens by now?"

No - or more precisley, only if the religion in question clearly and absolutely mandated the smithereen-blowing.

But religions don't generally do this. Most Muslims don't think it's cool to kill innocent civilians. Most Christians don't think it's cool to shoot abortionists with sniper rifles. And most Jews don't think it's cool to machine-gun a crowd of Muslim worshippers.

But some do.

Most others of the same faith as the murderers don't murder. But this does not weaken the argument that religion ecouraged, justified, and facilitated the killings.

Looked at epidemiologically, belief in a supernatural being is a risk factor for large-scale violence. E.g., when I read that George W. Bush's religion teaches him about "end days" and the apocalypse, it makes me much more nervous than if he were just dim and extremely ill-informed.

Without benefit of his religion, Bush might well have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq - we'll never know. But the fact he believes he talks to God and thinks the "end days" may be near make it possible that in this case as well, religion could ultimately provide encouragement or justification for unheard-of destruction.

Similarly, it's hard to imagine the 9/11 hijackers doing what they did based only their perceived ill-treatment at the hands of the West, etc. It seems to me that a belief in an omnipotent and omniscient being was a prerequisite for the kind of willingness to kill and die they demonstrated that day.

FWIW. I'm not arguing that "religion is the root" of anything. I only state that in the current situation in the UK, I'd bet the failed bombers would not have organized themselves and done what they did, had they not first been convinced that God thinks blowing up British civilians is peachy-keen and they'd be richly rewarded in heaven for their efforts.

There are MANY different ideologies that can be used to motivate and justify suicide bombings, mass killings of civilians etc., than just God or a religious figure. The Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, do NOT use religious ideology (indeed, many of them are from a multitude of faiths); neither did the kamikaze pilots of WWII per se. You are right that a belief in something "beyond" is likely necessary to carry out such an act, but labelling it as "God" is a fallacy. I love Hitchen's always reductive and monolithic arguments...sooo easy to deconstruct.

Well, I am convinced that unreason is folly. Maybe unavoidable, but certainly not defensible. After all, if unreason is defensible, then everything and anything is defensible - including terrorism.

I think when you teach people from an early age that being right and making sense can be mutually exclusive ( and, in many cases, honorable - "My country, right or wrong", or "you'll burn in Hell for all eternity, because god loves you!") you plan the dangerous seed that ANYTHING can be rationalized in this insular mind. It can be just the impetus to go too far in acting on hate, selfishness and bigotry, because one can always say, "He doesn't believe/look/act like I do and, because I have a relationship with god, they are not as good as me and do not deserve respect." I'm with god, and you're either with us or against us. You can justify almost ANY horrendous act by pointing to a bible passage and citing "god's word". That is more than enough for some people to justify illogical and horrible acts.

Take the Red Mosque in Pakistan. The students at the Madrass there receive a proper education for a few hours a day, and study religious texts for the other 6 hours of the day. In that complex of buildings, the clerics preached and the youth absorbed all of the religious idealism they could. Recite the Koran ? Check. Argue the Hadith? Check. Bludgeon the local police, kidnap foreigners for suspected prostitution, incite rebellion against your own country? CHECK.

These are religious nuts that insist that Islamic Pakistan is not ISLAMIC ENOUGH. They'll clash with the local military. Lie, cheat, kill. Anything to justify their idea of a grand Islamic revolution foretold by Muslim "End of Days" philosophy as the whole world unites under the crescent banner. Sound familiar? Our way or the highway. You can't be as religous as us. You can't possibly be as pious as Fanatics that sit inside a religious compund and use women and children as human shields. The Pakki Rangers and the rest of the regular soldiers in that standoff are going to have a bloodbath on their hands. Plenty of muslim on muslim violence. All in the name of... < shrug >.

You'll find plenty of people that insist the United States is not Christian enough, even with an Evangelical President hell bent on "End of Days" mythology. When doe-eyed students come marching out of religious minded colleges, be leery of them. They ARE the same agents of change. Doubtful? Well the tactics are much more sublime. Consider the Regents university grads like that blond 20 something that worked for Alberto Gonzales. She and her cohorts in the Bush administration had ideas on how to completely rebuild the Justice department in their own ideology. When testifying before congress, this law school grad really broke out the "A List" material. She eked out some tears and claimed she was only following orders from superiors. INDEED.

Ghost Rider:

There are MANY different ideologies that can be used to motivate and justify suicide bombings, mass killings of civilians etc., than just God or a religious figure. [snip]

You are right that a belief in something "beyond" is likely necessary to carry out such an act, but labelling it as "God" is a fallacy.

Ok, secular mass slaughter certainly exists -- religious ideologies don't have a monopoly on extreme violence. But I think an important distinction exists between belief systems that are subject to rational criticism, and those that aren't. I think Hitchens is saying that those that aren't - religions - are inherently more dangerous.

It seems obvious to me that any belief system that requires you to turn off your mind at times is more likely turn things ugly at some point. As Zygote pointed out in another post, this acceptance of irrationality doesn't have to be religion per se, (e.g. "My country, right or wrong") but religion has its irrationality factory-installed.

So, even if "belief in something 'beyond'" doesn't have to be labelled "God" - we should call it something that clearly identifies it as outside the realm of rational criticism.