It must be delightful for Mr. Hitchens to knock about those who accept religion like science and let their religious texts compete against science texts. But it is a sophmoric debate and ignores the possibility that faith and spirituality can learn just like science.

Christopher doesn’t want to talk with those evasive Christians who mumble about metaphors – why would he when he is having so much fun using the equivalent of modern automatic weapons against a nave’s sword. But he is uncomfortable discussing science v. religion with people who have evolved their concept and understanding of God beyond the 14th century.

Many people, me included, recognize and incorporate a spiritual place in our lives while embracing Darwin and evolution. For me, a spiritual practice is a way to fully experience -- and be part of -- the human condition. Life would be much less rich without it.

I think one of the reasons is that people like yourself:

A) generally make very few if no actual metaphysical claims once pressed

B) generally do not go about calling for people's murders, stonings, ostracism

C) Are generally a less vocal and thus less influential group of people

So there is not much reason to debate modern minimalist believers (which while a healthy chunk of believers are not an overwhelming majority). They are not influencing policy in regressive ways or polluting the minds of children with superstitious musings from 2000 years ago. And they are not arguing for worldviews which are to the best of or our abilities to determine blatantly absurd.

I have a lot of friends and love ones who profess this kind of luke warm spirituality, unwilling to commit to much of anything, but very firm in their overall feeling. They seem pretty harmless, thoughtful, and well meaning, if not the most curious of people.

Are you implying that these people would be able to properly debate Hitchens because they're "evasive" and "mumble about metaphors"?

Of course it's easier to incredulously deflate the arguments of literalistic Christians. The mildly spiritual are simply quieter, more boring opponents - perhaps slightly more difficult to defame, but still entirely unjustified and dismissible.

Becephalus, seems to me like you're just setting up a narrow straw man caricature of religious people and tossing out anybody who doesn't quite fit within that spectrum.

Umm... I was making a comment about some segment of the religious population. I certainly know enough religious people to do that. At no point did I imply all religious people were like that.

You are right about some things -- rarely do Unitarian Universalists call for murders, stonings or ostracism. However, my church has been and is still very active and influential on public policy matters (currently we are pressing for the the right for all people to marry, for example).

Our members have been a pretty influential bunch including such folks as Thomas Jefferson, Buckminster Fuller, Frank Lloyd Wright, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Tim Berners-Lee. Barack Obama's grandparents were UU's for a while, as was Charles Darwin's mom. Curiosity is a key element of who we are, as seen in the the affirmation that we recite before the Sunday service: "Love is the doctrine of this church, the quest for truth is its sacrament and service is our prayer".

I again assert that only debating extremist religious people is disengenuous and intellectually lazy. It is appropriate to broaden the discussion to those who seek to continue a religous element in their lives as thinking adults. I find it incurious to live a single dimensional life.

"Life would be much less rich without [a spiritual practice]."

How exactly is life enriched by hallucinations and delusions? To fervently believe that for which there is no evidence is borderline mental illness, as far as I can see. And no, I wouldn't go so far as to include things like telling your kids about Santa, or hoping that the Cleveland Browns will have a winning season, but big issues--where we come from, and is there anyone out there looking down on us. Now, dabbling in mental illness is in itself is not a crime, and it is ultimately one's own choice to indulge in that sort of thing, but what dimension does that add to life that doesn't already exist by experiencing the world through one's own five senses?

Five senses? They have eyes but do not see; hearing, they do not understand...

Wordman, what are the hallucinations and dellusions that I am experiencing? You are casting aspersions around from which you have no basis. Not all spirituality iscentered on the concept of an almighty god. Not all who go to my church believe in god at all.

On the other hand, if you believe that life is a purely rational experience which can be entirely explained by science, the sort of Mr. Spock belief structure, I think you miss important elements of life. Can science explain the beauty of a sunset or the sense of loss from a friends death? There are great mysteries left on our planet and in our universe. In your effort to kill god, do not kill what it means to be human or raise science to a lofty pedestal it doesn't desire nor deserve.

"Can science explain the beauty of a sunset or the sense of loss from a friends death?"

It is typical argument from a religious--or, as you insist, "spiritual"--person, that the world is full of mysteries and the atheists should just accept them. But it is exactly the atheist who does accept them as mysteries, by refusing to fall back on the easy all-purpose refuge of believing that a benign deity has created this mysterious universe. I am content to leave such conundrums as how old the universe is in the category of "unknowns", until such time as there is significant data to suggest one answer or another. It is the faithful who are sure of how old the universe is, who made it, and how long it took. Far from being humbled by the awe-inspiring beauty of the natural world, the devout tend to smugly assure the rest of us of certain incontrovertible "facts" that conveniently need never be put to the test in any kind of objective, controlled environment.

Now, McKenney, I may be unfairly painting you with the brush of the "devout"--you suggest from your comments that you have a fairly easygoing approach to relig--excuse me, "spirituality." But you still somewhat smugly suggest that believers in rational thought are Mr. Spock-like killjoys who can't stop analyzing everything. The truth is I don't remorselessly scrutinize every sensation that strikes me--I can still be brought to tears by a beautiful sunset, but the majesty of the moment is still not enough for me to open the door to a belief system that seeks to control my life, and shut down my avenues of investigation and curiosity.

Ok, you are reasonable and 'cool' but you also are casting aspersions. You are saying to agnostic people like me that we are missing out, that there is an empty space in our lives and to me this is an insult and total BS.

We are NOT like Mr. Spock. Look I'm the jazz man! I see the beauty in music and nature and I'm very connected to the earth and all that is around me. I just decided to NOT label these mysteries. I don't like the labels because then traits are attached to the labels and then the mysteries are gone.