...though not an atheist myself, I thought this paragraph indicated a couple of problems I nonetheless have with his attitude:

Wilson isn't one of those evasive Christians who mumble apologetically about how some of the Bible stories are really just "metaphors." He is willing to maintain very staunchly that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and that his sacrifice redeems our state of sin, which in turn is the outcome of our rebellion against God. He doesn't waffle when asked why God allows so much evil and suffering—of course he "allows" it since it is the inescapable state of rebellious sinners. I much prefer this sincerity to the vague and Python-esque witterings of the interfaith and ecumenical groups who barely respect their own traditions and who look upon faith as just another word for community organizing. (Incidentally, just when is President Barack Obama going to decide which church he attends?)

First, note that he admires the more extreme, rather than the more rational, among his religious opponents. This is pretty obviously (to me, at least) because Hitch himself is an extremist. His whole approach to ANY question is to decide what he thinks, and on a more emotional basis than I think he would himself admit, then shove that POV down everyone else's throat as the 'right' view, the one YOU, too, should espouse. Sincerity? Well, yeah, if by that you mean absolute faith. Which, paradoxically, is what Hitch is full of. Absolute faith in himself, his own POV, and in the case of religion, in atheism. Like Dawkins, his atheism is just the flip side of fundamentalism.

Second, if less important, that cheesy shot at Obama. Never mind that most Presidents aren't very fanatical religious believers (Bush and Carter are the two that come to mind from recent decades, and they weren't exactly the two best Presidents of that time period, were they?), or that Obama was attacked for associating with a hardline black pastor, or that Hitch isn't HIMSELF religious, gotta demand that Obama make a church-choice. Sorry, old bean, but disingenuity in the service of partisan, anti-liberal mockery is still disingenuity.

Other than that, I loved it...:)

Note also his glee in the "who will be the dominant white male?" set-up, his candid vanity about such endeavors; the purpose is not really dialogue but a polemic pissing contest. Of course he prefers fundamentalist yoyos; more fun making them look stupid. Knock yourself out, Hitchens.

I am also a non-atheist who finds the "new atheism" refreshing, but usually puddle-deep because it seems to deal with a caricature of spirituality rather than treat it as a serious subject. Yes, most of faith is metaphor. Most of what people say they believe in is metaphorically true, not literally true, and they will dance around this point, maddeningly, forever. So I am very thankful for the likes of Hitchens in calling this out. It needs to be said.

However, there is a deeper truth to these metaphors that address a spiritual reality--the heart of the mystery of existence for which religion and maybe art alone are capapble of addressing satisfactorily. Yes, these are metaphors--but how else to address mysteries?

I would say that Hitchens' brand of "fundamentalism" has vastly, VASTLY, (immeasurably)greater odds of being correct, than his opponent's. It's just a tad disingenuous to place them squarely on equal footing.

So, what is this 'deeper truth'? That existence is 'a mystery'?

screwjack2008:

I would say that Hitchens' brand of "fundamentalism" has vastly, VASTLY, (immeasurably)greater odds of being correct, than his opponent's. It's just a tad disingenuous to place them squarely on equal footing.

Erm..on what basis do you assess the odds of "correctness" for devout atheism? At least you are partly right in labeling such a thing immeasurable. Perhaps you are counting on super-scientists of the future to penetrate the ultimate fabric of the universe and find no God hiding in the seams?

What silliness. As long as there is one unexplored sub-atomic particle, as long as there is one infinitely distant dimensional level of reality unexplored there will always be room for belief in God.

I am an atheist and I was bothered by a few things. First, it really should not come as a surprise that many many religious people are decent, interested in discussion, friendly etc. The overall tone was very respectful for Hitch, but a few of the lines were pretty condescending.

Secondly, what the hell is a "darwinist"? I mean if Dawkin's is his friend he knows that theres more to evolution than what Darwin knew. Darwinist obviously references the common "darwinism" label from creationists who want to imply its just another "ism" and that biologists somehow worship Darwin.

I will tell you this, they will no longer refer to anything as "God." Of that I am certain. Its an antiquated, archaic term which in no way accuratley describes the fundamental nature of reality. And no amount of sarcastic, glib, snark is gonna change that.

A good, albeit condescending, run down of how Hitchen's "fundamentalism" is not equivalent to christian fundamentalism here.

I find the difference between Hitch's interpretation of polling data and Pharyngula's pretty interesting.

To paraphrase Monty Python, I wouldn't want to be an absolute atheist, it'd take all of the mystery out of life....:)

...and well-said. I put them on more-or-less equal footing only in terms of the certainty expressed by those who espouse the two positions. I don't consider them equally likely on an intellectual or rational basis.

...as soon as you're all dead you'll know who was right.

Until then, might as well respect other peoples beliefs as long as they don't infringe on your own.

Personally, I'd much rather it go back to the day when your religion was a private thing that you didn't beat other people over the head with. Let's get back to some humility, people. I grealtly lament the rise of evangelical 'testimony' style religion where works take a backseat to testimony. Anybody can tell a good story.

I'd love for everyone to keep their religion a private thing, but the world of the last, oh, 2000 years tends to militate against that.

reJoinder:

I'd love for everyone to keep their religion a private thing, but the world of the last, oh, 2000 years tends to militate against that.

If God didn't (or doesn't as it were) exist than mankind would have invented Him.

God is not religion. Religion is nothing more than a set practice of ones beliefs. If mankind didn't have religion to use as a tool of oppresion, we'd just make something else up. Religion is not an excuse for mankinds inherent brutality and selfishness. It's a tool, a symptom, but it is not the disease.

So opus, are you saying that the new evangelical religion infringes on your beliefs?

"Religion is not an excuse for mankinds inherent brutality and selfishness. It's a tool, a symptom, but it is not the disease."

Very true.

However, one thing that struck me as odd is that at one point in history, in order to organize society, a tool like religion would have been quite helpful, and since we know that it was this organization of human beings that helped to further the progress of mankind, couldn't we also state that the creation and implementation of religion is an evolutionary process? That without this religion-aided organization of humans into groups, those separate humans would've fared worse off?

Don't have an opinion on it one way or the other, just throwing it out there.