Before I start, I'd like to issue a blanket apology for creating yet another religion thread. You guys have probably gone through countless iterations of these in the past, and are probably either rolling your eyes or slitting your wrists by now.
However, the reason I wanted to have a discussion is a very interesting debate that I came across the other day. The debate itself was held about a week ago in Notre-Dame University, so it is pretty unlikely that it was covered in previous threads.
It is 1 hour 48 minutes long. At first I figured I'd just watch the parts where Hitchens talks, because frankly I wasn't very interested in what the other side had to say (mainly I was looking for something specific that Hitchens has reportedly say, but I digress).
But a very interesting thing happened: I ended up watching the whole thing, because D'Souza's arguments were actually very well-made and eloquently delivered.
The main point he made was that science is actually "guilty" of a lot of things that atheists accuse religion of. He gave the example of dark matter. Scientists did calculations and found out discrepancies in their measurements of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means. They then said, "hey, there must be something else that is responsible for these discrepancies, something we can't see or hear or feel, but can account for the effects of. So let's call this thing dark matter." D'Souza says this is the exact same reasoning that religious people use when they say God exists. They say the existence of God, while not proven by sight and smell and sound etc., is the current best explanation
for the things that we cannot explain.
There are many other interesting points made by both sides of the debate. The thing I liked the most out of everything Hitchens said was that there are many religions in the world, and by their definitions and claims, only one of them can be correct. He says that this is a very strong evidence that religion is man-made. He also says that many subspecies of humans (such as the Neanderthals) had religions of their own (as seen by their cave paintings), but they went extinct. Which would mean that their gods left them behind. So how do we know that our God, if it exists, will not do the same to us? He supposes that the species that looks upon our Sun as it is dying, millions of years from now, will be a very different species, probably with its own god(s).
Request: Please watch at least some of the debate before responding. I probably haven't done justice to their arguments. Thank you.