Debate: Is God Great? Christopher Hitchens v. John Lennox

I've seen a few other debates on whether or not a god exists and whether or not it's good for society to believe in something beyond themselves. And the more I watch and the more I read about this subject the more it seems like a useless effort.

It is my understanding that once a person decides to believe in a god wholeheartedly, no statement can be made to disprove their belief. When someone chooses to accept anything upon faith, they are assuming the existence of something without any physical evidence. And that assumption leads to the conclusion that it is possible for anything to exist. They effectively open their arms to the supernatural. To combat this ideology the only avenue for the faithless is to disprove, individually, the things that the believer has taken to be true based on faith.

Now the faithless may make an honest effort toward this end, but human imagination is infinite. If you prove a fact based on evidence that was previously explained with faith, you haven't disproved God. All you've done is shed light on a small corner of reality that was previously shrouded in darkness. To expand on this image, to disprove God the faithless would have to shed light on the universe, the infinite universe, every aspect of it. We would need to see everything that exists and be able to explain why it exists. The very definition of the infinite universe makes this impossible.

So... What are we fighting for? Hitchens is under the impression that the believers are dangerous because they use their faith to justify evil and gives myriad examples to support his opinion. He thinks that abolishing religion world-wide would cause people to be more enlightened and generally less-violent, less deceitful.

I disagree with this opinion by equating faith to ignorance. (as an atheist i can do that :p) In a society you inevitably have varying degrees of enlightenment. When one person understands something clearly that another person does not, that information can be used as a weapon. Information can be distorted and presented in such ways as to reinforce the intentions of the enlightened, whether they be good or evil. An atheist is no more honest than a believer. The terrible aspects of humanity will always be present, greed, selfishness, bigotry, the lot of it. There has never been a society in the history of the world that was devoid of these problems and I doubt there ever will be. Therefore religion is no more dangerous than the existence of privileged information. Evil men will do evil things with whatever tools they have at their disposal.

You also have the nasty problem of death. Any atheist who is appreciating their life is not going to want to die. He is going to be terrified of the thought. It is very likely that during their final breath surrounded by loved ones, his eyes will go wide with frightful anticipation, with horror as the darkness comes into sight, as the light around him grows dim and even though biologically we're engineered to feel euphoria in the moment, as long as his mind is operating normally he is going to be fully aware of what is about to happen.

To contrast this, the religious have no fear of death, or at least they shouldn't, because the after life exists and death is just the beginning to an eternity of existence. Any religious person who fears death needs to reevaluate their faith immediately. I see this as a distinct advantage because death then takes on the identity of "the next step." I would argue that a society who believes this is going to be more prepared to die, is going to be less desperate when faced with it, less willing to commit atrocities out of blind fear and aggression when death is imminent.

But again you can immediately say that because of this, the religious might place less value in our life on this planet and may be more willing to commit atrocities even when death is not imminent. On and on.

It's easy to say which side of the argument is more enlightened. It's difficult to say which side of the argument is better.

So the conclusion I always arrive at is, why are we wasting our time trying to convince the other side? The thinkers should be busy thinking, finding new ways to uncover the universe and the believers should be busy imagining what could be waiting for them beyond the universe. Whichever side gives you more peace in your personal existence is the side you should be on, but there's no reason why it has to be a competition.