When the French scientist Pierre Laplace first explained his nebular theories to Napoleon, the emperor posed to him a single question. "Where is there room in all this for God?" To which Laplace famously replied, "I have no need for that hypothesis."

Christopher Hitchens invokes Laplace's reply in his new book god is not Great. In a sense, Laplace supplies the central argument for the kind of naturalism that Hitchens espouses. The world can be entirely understood on the basis of natural laws and events. Why call upon God when he is entirely superfluous in order to make sense of the world?

As Hitchens' title suggests, his argument goes further than this. God is not merely unnecessary, he is "not great." The subtitle is even harsher, "How Religion Poisons Everything." Everything? Yes, Hitchens would have us believe that whatever religion touches it corrupts and inflames.

Hitchens is an iconoclast, as is indicated by one of his earlier books, a harshly critical biography of Mother Teresa called The Missionary Position. While I found that book quite foolish and distasteful, I found myself applauding some of Hitchens' pungent rhetoric in this one. There is plenty of room for even Christians to be outraged by some of the things going on in the churches—the blatant money-grubbing, the jaw-dropping hypocrisy, the sex scandals that would make even Hugh Hefner blush—and Hitchens is unsparing in his expose of these offenses.

When Hitchens turns to larger political conflicts, however, his arguments droop. He strains to show that the clash between the Catholics and the Protestants in Northern Ireland is motivated by religion, without answering the objection that the two groups seem to be fighting not about doctrine but about land and political autonomy. He baptizes the warfare in the Balkans as "religious" rather than "ethnic" cleansing, even though these feuds are rooted in tribe and blood. Religious differences are only incidental.

Hitchens implausibly suggests that if messianic rabbis and mullahs could be kept out of the Palestinian conflict, the issue would have been settled "decades ago." As a mater of fact, both Zionism and Palestinian nationalism are largely secular movements and the conflict has always been based on a simple, non-religious question: who owns this land? Hitchens even seeks to portray the Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq as a clear strike against religion. In reality the theological differences between Shia and Sunni are non-existent and the real basis of the sectarian warfare is entirely political and power-driven.

The title of Hitchens' book is derived from the Muslims. It is a negation of the Arabic slogan "Allahu Akbar" which means "God is great." Hitchens is, of course, right about the pernicious way in which the radical Muslims use religion to justify their murderous acts of terrorism. But Hitchens never shows that Islam itself is the problem. Most of his anti-religious polemic is in any case directed at Christianity, and here Hitchens is equally ineffective. He doesn't even ponder the central question raised by his title. If he's right that all religions are false and God is a figment of the human imagination, why should imaginary things cause so many problems? Dreams and unicorns don't "poison everything" so why should deities?

Hitchens seeks to place himself squarely in the scientific tradition, arguing that the operations of the universe can be worked out using the theories of Darwin and Einstein and "no divine plan, let alone angelic intervention, is required. Everything works without that assumption." This is a serious point, which gave Napoleon pause and it should us as well. But here too Hitchens does not even begin to sustain Laplace's proposition.

Modern science has discovered that the universe, far from existing eternally, had a beginning. Not only matter but space and time itself came into existence around 15 billion years ago in the fiery burst that scientists term the Big Bang. The laws of physics themselves originated at that point, and those laws were inoperative "before" the founding moment. So what is the secular explanation for how the universe and its laws came into existence? Is there a natural explanation for nature's own origin? If so, what is the evidence for it? Hitchens supplies no such theory and no supporting evidence. His rejection of the God hypothesis seems nothing more than an assertion of atheist dogma.

In recent decades, scientists have found innumerable ways in which our universe—not just our planet but the entire universe—is narrowly tailored to permit life. Change the variables of nature by an infinitesimal amount and this would be a very different universe without observers to perceive and study it. As physicist Freeman Dyson puts it, with an intended mystical touch, the universe behaves as though it knew we were coming! So why are the laws constructed in such a way that we are here to discover them? It's possible that there is a convincing natural explanation, but Hitchens certainly does not produce one. Once again the God hypothesis seems unavoidable.

Now consider man, undoubtedly a product of natural selection, but also possessing qualities such as the ability to tell right from wrong that are unexplained by Darwin and his followers. Neo-Darwinists have labored hard to offer an evolutionary basis for altruism, explaining parental love and loyalty to one's own tribe in terms of Richard Dawkins' "selfish gene." It's an ingenious attempt, but it doesn't account for purely unselfish acts, as when a fellow gives up his seat in the bus to a perfect stranger, or when Mother Teresa devotes herself to improving the lives of the destitute in India. In what way do those actions benefit the selfish genes?

Further, altruism is only one aspect of morality. There is within us all a moral law that speaks to us gently but firmly, urging though not compelling us to do what is right, even when such a course conflicts with our self-interest. If natural selection cannot account for this moral law, where does it come from? I am not saying that science will never explain this, I am saying that science cannot explain it now. It seems much more reasonable, based on existing evidence, to believe that moral laws derive from a divine legislator than to embrace Hitchens' promissory atheism: one day we'll figure out a natural way to account for all this.

Thanks to the astounding discoveries of modern science, I think the God hypothesis has a lot more going for it today than it did in the eighteenth century, when Laplace presented his theories to Napoleon. The appeal of Hitchens is not his scientific rationalism (he is utterly out of his element here) but rather his witty truculence. Hitchens, like Mencken, seems to despise religion, although Mencken was at least candid enough to title one of his books "Prejudices." I like Hitchens, whom I've known for more than two decades, and I wish we had him in the camp of the believers. His latest tract is, well, let's just say it's "not great."

National Day of Prayer, 2007

A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

A prayerful spirit has always been an important part of our national character, and it is a force that has guided the American people, given us strength, and sustained us in moments of joy and in times of challenge. On this National Day of Prayer, we acknowledge God's grace and ask for His continued guidance in the life of our Nation.

Americans of many faiths and traditions share a common belief that God hears the prayers of His children and shows grace to those who seek Him. Following the tragedy at Virginia Tech, in towns all across America, in houses of worship from every faith, Americans have joined together to pray for the lives that were lost and for their families, friends, and loved ones. We hold the victims in our hearts and pray for those who suffer and grieve. There is a power in these prayers, and we can find comfort in the grace and guidance of a loving God.

At this important time in our history, we also pray for the brave members of our Armed Forces and their families. We pray for their safety, for the recovery of the wounded, and for the peace we all seek.

The Congress, by Public Law 100 307, as amended, has called on our Nation to reaffirm the role of prayer in our society and to respect the freedom of religion by recognizing each year a "National Day of Prayer."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 3, 2007, as a National Day of Prayer. I ask the citizens of our Nation to give thanks, each according to his or her own faith, for the freedoms and blessings we have received and for God's continued guidance, comfort, and protection. I invite all Americans to join in observing this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

GEORGE W. BUSH

What does it mean to say that God as a hypothesis has failed? Physicist Victor Stenger would have us believe that it all but settles the case. A close look at his argument, however, reveals quite the opposite.

There are two fundamental defects in the kind of argument Stenger proposes in his recent book, God The Failed Hypothesis. First of all, he sets a standard of proof for theists that he admits simply cannot be met. Let’s look at one example: the fine-tuning of the universe. As many a physicist other than Stenger has noted, the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned in its basic constants and laws to allow for carbon-based life. Not the kind of thing you would expect if it were all thrown together by chance. What is Stenger’s response?

“Theists who argue that the universe is fine-tuned to earthly life have the burden of proving that no other form of life is possible, not just on other planets in our universe but in every conceivable universe that has different physical parameters. They have provided no such proof and it would seem that such a proof is impossible.”

Now think about that. Slow down and read it again. Stenger is saying that the “God Hypothesis” can only win if it can overcome not only every real obstacle in this universe, but also every imaginable one in every imaginable universe as well.

What would it do to Stenger’s argument if we put the shoe into which he tries to wedge theists on his own foot? Stenger asserts that the existence of evil in this universe demonstrates that God does not exist. Imagine a theist replying, “But you haven’t shown that evil exists on all the other planets in our universe. And not only that, but you haven't shown that evil exists in every conceivable universe that has different moral parameters. You have provided no such proof and it would seem that such a proof is impossible.” Theism wins!

There is another glaring defect in Stenger’s argument. For him, hypotheses are just models. Even in physics they don’t tell us about reality. We use them because they “fit” the data better than other models, not because they are either true or false. But then what sense does it make to declare (as he does, several times) that according to this or that model of physics, God does not exist? If the models don’t tell us about reality, then they surely don’t decide one way or another about the reality of God.

Thus, to say that the “God hypothesis” failed is merely to say that it does not gibe with a hypothetical model in physics. In some respects, this kind of argument might have some teeth, but in more than one instance, Stenger admits that he is taking a very slanted minority slant among physicists on the interpretation of the model under consideration. That makes his argument convincing to, at best, only a minority of physicists, and at worst, only to himself.

Benjamin Wiker

World Famous Evangelist John Stott Announces Retirement at age 86

Perhaps John Stott’s greatest international contribution has been through his writing. Stott’s best-known work, Basic Christianity, has sold two million copies and has been translated into more than 60 languages.

Other titles include The Cross of Christ, Understanding the Bible, The Contemporary Christian, Evangelical Truth, Issues Facing Christians Today, The Incomparable Christ, eight volumes in The Bible Speaks Today series of New Testament expositions, and most recently Why I Am a Christian.

After a public falling out, the Guardian interviews anti-theist Christopher Hitchens and his devout Anglican brother Peter

Christopher Hitchens: The real difference between Peter and myself concerns the belief in the supernatural. I'm a materialist and he attributes his presence here to a divine plan.

Ian Katz (Guardian features editor): Were you born a materialist?

CH: Well I think I may have been because I remember thinking it was nonsense, and then thinking it was sinister nonsense, quite young. It still is a big division. If someone says to me, 'We can be pals because I believe in liberation theology,' I say 'No we can't. If you can't recognise a contradiction in terms when you see one, no.' I can't stand anyone who believes in God, who invokes the divinity, or who is a person of faith. I mean that to me is a horrible repulsive thing.

IK: Peter, when did your belief kick in, when did it become an issue between you?

Peter Hitchens: Oh, it's never been an issue. I returned as it were to the Anglicanism of my childhood. Such as it was - it wasn't particularly strong: one has some background music of Hymns Ancient & Modern and the King James Bible, but not very much more than that. I'm probably keener about it now than I was then. I suppose [I returned] in my early 30s when people sometimes do, when various things start happening. As an issue between us I think he overestimates the issue. He has several faiths. He has the faith I think of Darwinism, which is just like Christianity an unproven and unprovable theory, which you can believe in if you want because you prefer that arrangement of the universe. I happen to think the arrangement of the universe based on the belief in intelligent design is more tolerable both morally and aesthetically, but he prefers another. I dislike only the attitude of the atheist that his is not a faith, cause it is. I have absolutely no disgust or anger at anybody who disagrees with me about that. I'm much more worried by people who are indifferent to the question.

CH: Ah, well I agree with that. There may be many things to be said against atheism - I'm not an atheist anyway, I'm an anti-theist. It would be horrible if it were true that we were designed and then created and then continuously supervised throughout all our lives waking and sleeping and then continue to be supervised after our deaths - if that were true, it would be horrible. I'm very glad there's absolutely no evidence for it at all. It would be like living in a celestial North Korea. You can't defect from North Korea but at least you can die. With monotheism they won't let you die and get away from them. It's the wish to be a slave. Who wants that to be true? It's demanding the servile condition. I'll give you a hint of how much I don't like it. We don't need to go regularly to chant a liturgy or a mantra and be reinforced by a priest. We obviously absolutely don't need it. It's the conclusion to which any reasoning, thinking person can come and increasing numbers do. It doesn't put you in conflict with objective reality all the time or under the control of a supposedly spiritual leadership. Peter said one prefers to think Darwin is right. No, one takes the facts and examines them. The fact that one's appearance on earth is a random process conditioned by evolution and will end in extinction isn't a welcome conclusion. It's just an inescapable one, and to be in denial about it is odd. And Darwinism is not the theory of evolution. It is a theory of evolution. The quarrel between say Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, two of the greatest of biologists and palaeontologists, about punctuated evolution shows there is a great deal to argue about and no one disputes that we have evolved. It's in the fossil record.

PH: It actually isn't proven. It is a choice. That's the important thing that you choose to believe it. Your choice may be unwelcome to you and my choice my be equally unwelcome to me, but it's one that you take as a matter of preference. There are many different forms of religion. Christopher in his latest contribution to Slate talks about something called 'serious Islam' which came as something of a shock to me after Islamofascism, but I think there are different forms of religion. And I happen think that the combination of scripture, reason and tradition which is at the heart of serious Anglicanism is both appealing, constructive, and actually leads on to a much greater exercise in liberty than that which tends to result from the actions of political idealists who want to load us with identity cards and put us in North Koreas. And I would much prefer a world governed by conscience than a world governed by idealists who think they know best about how we should run our lives. And conscience is the governor of a world where God is sovereign. It's an immense argument, as I say. For him to dismiss my position or for me to dismiss his, would be wrong. I don't dismiss his. I'm worried by it, I think about it a lot, I would be idle to say it didn't have any strengths. I just prefer mine.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.