By secular standards, how could it not?

All religions, by definition, make claims about a supernatural realm that is a higher reality than the physical one. All religions make claims on their adherants' behaviors that only make sense in light of that belief in that other world. But does that make religion any less believable? It depends.

Many men, for love of country, do things that would otherwise be incomprehensible. What possible motivation would there be for a soldier to risk his life in defense of complete strangers who happen to live in the same geographic area as he does? Only one - a belief in an intangible idea that his country is worthy of defending, that the principles it upholds are more important then his own life. The fact that other men, under a misguided notion of patriotism, may commit atrocities in defense of their own countries, in no way detracts from the first man's belief. Whether he is right or wrong in believing his country worth defending must be determined on its own merits.

Religion is no different. Do some men commit atrocities in the name of their religions? Sure. Believing that killing infidels will get you into heaven is irrational, in the sense that you can't prove or disprove it strictly with your five senses. But so is believing that Christ is really present in the communion wafer irrational in the same sense.

But disproving one of those claims has very little to do with proving or disproving the other. They must be addressed independently, on their own merits. That is the mistake Hitchens makes.

I question your statement that soldiers risk their lives to defend people they don't know. They risk their lives for many reasons: Defending their own lives, defending their own country and that of their friends and family, protecting the lives of fellow soldiers, hatred of the enemy, and professional advancement. Most often soldiers are draftees who have no choice in the matter. Defending strangers is far down on the list of likely resons.

Clark_Kent:

I question your statement that soldiers risk their lives to defend people they don't know. They risk their lives for many reasons: Defending their own lives, defending their own country and that of their friends and family, protecting the lives of fellow soldiers, hatred of the enemy, and professional advancement. Most often soldiers are draftees who have no choice in the matter. Defending strangers is far down on the list of likely resons.

No american soldier has fought because the lives of his friends and family were in immediate danger since the Civil War. And we haven't drafted soldiers since Viet Nam.

That doesn't in any way dispute what he questioned. It still stands that soldiers risk their own lives for many reasons, one of which is in fact to defend the lives of strangers, another to defend the lives of friends and family. That the scope is limited is irrelevant.

As a soldier the only reason I fight is to have bragging rights so I can get all the poontang I want when I get back home, sir!

I knew that you and I would agree on something eventually. I admire your clarity of thought expressed in this posting.

Which comes first -- the chicken or the egg?

Does religion create insanity or do the insane frequently pursue religion?

It is a hard call to make.

So they are conscripts (as they were in Vietnam where they faced the choice of fight or go to jail) or mercenaries (as most of the kids I know signing up today are - because they needed a job, because they want to blow shit up).

Ever since the attack on tourists in front of the Hatschepsut Temple in Egypt in 1996 where medical students, after shooting their innocent victims, went around and slit the throats of every survivor, it was clear to all that the Islamist killers are not illiterate but may come from the professional classes. Yes, it was especially shocking that they personally mutilated those European tourists, former medical students.

Now to the point that it was mainly "Doctors" who are culpable, because of the lenient immigration laws for doctors in Western Europe, this group has easy access to our society and of course, the profession carries instant trust and acceptance. So, it really should be of no surprise to anybody who follows the infiltration of our societies.

Maybe one really needs to be strict about the whole thing and say No to footbaths in Michigan Universities, No to Koran prayers in publically funded schools in San Diego, No to Muslim Doctors, and in general No to Muslim immigrants? Because even if the majority of the so called moderate muslims, what an oxymoron, does not defend the murderous acts of a few, they also do not condemn it and they probably will shelter them against their host countries?

It seems that there will be no other solution as expelling the majority as it was done during the reconquista in Spain. This is all deja vu for historians and even moderate muslims do admit that the constant muslim assault against Europe (that was before the US existed) has been and will always be the raison d'etre of muslim countries. Let's face it: "History will repeat itself unless one learns from it".

Expulsion, no dual citizenship, and absolutely drastic means of protecting the democratic countries where gender equality is one of the foremost qualities have to be taken, and taken fast. No more appeasement, no more: but not all of them are like that...with a birthrate that reminds historians of comments made by former Tunisian presidents in 1972 that the wombs of their women will carry the warriors into our countries (Trojan Horse, anyone?) the survival of the western countries depends on getting rid of as many immigrants as possible and as soon as possible in order to protect Europe. I am sure the logistics can be worked out.

You show a huge lack of understanding of current

evolutionary psychology. Humans thrive when they are

members of a group that encourages kin and group

sacrifice. Google altruism, evolution. You'll stop making

such embarrassing statements.

As any battlefield journalist will tell you, soldiers fight to

protect their buddies on the left and right, back and front.

The join the military for money, for patriotism, for the fun

of killing. But they are trained to protect each other

when the killin' starts

No need to make the call. They are both true.

The weakly rational and emotionally needy invent

God as a security blanket. Reason doesn't interfere.

The power mad invoke religion to accumulate status.

Religion is a Swiss army knife of motivations.

We call it a broadly adaptable mind virus.

There isn't any split. Considering the human mind in the

social matrix will give you the framework you need.

Then the various mental distortions become the result of

the three way interaction between society, the church, and

the individual.

I think neuroscience will be able to detect radical terrorists

through simple screening tests in less than ten years.

Do a search on ScienceDaily.com or SlashDot.org

on lie detection.

the true conservative:

....No american soldier has fought because the lives of his friends and family were in immediate danger since the Civil War. And we haven't drafted soldiers since Viet Nam.

Hmmm, here in the Pacific Northwest, there are still a number of old gun emplacements from WWII, intended to repel an anticipated Japanese invasion, and unless I am misinformed, the Japanese DID attack US territory in Hawaii. Rightly or not, I think American soldiers in WWII DID believe they were defending their families and their friends.

And, of course, a soldier's fellow comrades become his/her friends as well. Numerous studies have shown that bravery in combat situations is motivated as much by not wanting to let your buddies down as by patriotism or any such motive.