It never ceases to amaze me that those who believe in reason and logic fail to understand that a theory of evolution or of a "Big Bang" never meets the standards of the scientific method. It is also amazing to me that scientists do not meet their own criteria for categorizing their propositions as theory. Have any scientists proven beyond a reasonable doubt that man has truly evolved from some form of monkey? Has man recreated a universe, with planets, moons, stars etc.? If not, they have failed to prove the two basic principles of designating their observations as theory. (No additional evidence will likely change our minds about the observation of the phenomena under evaluation and the conclusions are supported by experimental evidences.)

As for Christians assuming that God exists, scientists can only truly assume that a Big Bang occured because they were never there nor could they recreate it. In fact, if you evaluated the probability that a world could create a chain events that has brought man to where we are today (over billions of years in the feeble minds of scientists and carbon-dating fallacies), the chance that the world would have begun in this manner is 1 out of 10 to the 47th power.

Reason would tell me that the likely that this happened is far less than the chance an Almighty Being we call God created it, and we just can fathom how he could do so. (Considering what odds it would take for this to happen, isn't that a more reasonable observation?)

The problems for Christians are two-fold. We surrendered a long time ago to the notion that faith is a leap in the dark and not based on reason or evidence. To the contrary, my faith is based on reason and evidence.

Second, Christians do not live what they believe and I daily struggle with this as well. If we truly believe as we do, people would notice the change it makes in how we act. When it doesn't change how we live and act towards others, why would people believe there is any validity in what we claim?

My final thoughts are about the article and the main reason I wrote. The problems with the New Atheism as well as any disbelief in the existence of God or the knowledge of a personal God revolve around the basic questions of life that have never been answered through the periods of the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Modern and Postmodern ages.

I wonder why that is... (obviously a rhetorical question from my perspective).

Ken Lengel

Charlotte, NC

Mr. Hedges seems to be making the point that since both sides, meaning the atheists as represented by Hitchens and Harris versus Christian fundamentalists, are arguing their points loudly and publicly, both should be dismissed. He goes on to say that the views of these new atheists are linked to the foreign policy attacks on other countries in the Middle East.

Hogwash. Both Hitchens and Harris, not to mention Dawkins, present spirited arguements using sound logic and reasoning to make the case that religion is based upon a false and outdated premise. And I see no evidence whatsoever to suggest that "new atheists" support attacking other Middle Eastern Muslim countries, Hitchens's support for the war in Iraq notwithstanding.

Mark Grein

Prague, Czech Republic

Mr Hedges equates two phenomena that have recently acquired considerable attention: religious fundamentalism and atheism. While I can relate to his arguments in the case of Christopher Hitchens, the atheism itself and its other proponents do not deserve the same treatment. Hitchens's "fundamentalism" stems from his political views, and his particular version of atheism is a political ideology above everything else. Dawkins, on the other case, urges for reason and rational thinking as exemplified by science.

There is one crucial difference between science and religion: scientists are allowed (and indeed encouraged) to permanently question and rethink the basic assumption of their disciplines (this approach gave us evolution, relativity and quantum theory, to mention just a few examples). Religion, on the other side, relies on the assumption of the existence of some supreme being--an assumption that a religious person cannot question under any circumstances.

Dawkins (and other scientist-atheists) then argue that rational thinking based on scientific method is best suited for understanding the world around us and the universe beyond us. I cannot see any fundamentalism that Hedges talks about in that.

Stojan Rebic

Sydney, NSW

Picking two atheists to represent the group is not logical. In general, atheists have been more likely to be peace proponents and tolerant than the religionists. This has been true for a long time. Just read the writings of Ambrose Bierce and Mark Twain in regards to war.

In general, the same is true of modern atheist propagandists. Harris and Hitchens are the aberrations in this respect.

Richard Stratton

San Diego, CA

The current attack on atheists and agnostics claiming that they are as unjustified as fundamentalists and evangelicals is dishonest. When it is carried on by leftists the suspicion arises that it is politically motivated: an attempt to end the Republican stranglehold on religious believers.

When all is said and done--and when all biblical scholarship is read and digested (and see especially the new book God's Problem by Professor Bart Ehrman)--the fact remains that the existence of God is unprovable and most unlikely, while the Christian religion is based at best on a terrible misunderstanding of what Jesus was about and at worst on a conscious fabrication by religious fanatics of a religion which makes no sense historically, ethically, morally or philosphically. Atheists are simply believing what is believable. Christians are the victims of fraud and delusion.

Norman Ravitch

Savannah, GA