Analysis Of Christopher Hitchens On Science Vs. Religion

995 Words4 Pages
Science vs. Religion Christopher Hitchens took a very one-sided approach to the idea of science and religion co-existing. In his work, “Does science make belief in God obsolete?” he made various attempts to poke fun at the concept of religion in modern times. However, the one that stuck out to me the most was when Hitchens said “It is how we came up with answers before we had any evidence. It belongs to the terrified childhood of our species, before we knew about germs or could account for earthquakes. It belongs to our childhood, too, in the less charming sense of a demanding a tyrannical authority: a protective parent who demands compulsory love even as he exacts a tithe of fear.” (4). Religion was a method of our predecessors to give answer the questions they couldn’t solve, and give a purpose to life. But, I believe it is an outdated method since science has become commonplace after 1832.
Hitchens said how religion became accepted in society and became a part of our everyday lives. “But the original problem with religion is that it is our first, and our worst, attempt at explanation. It is how we came up with answers before we had any evidence.” Back when religion first came around, people had many
…show more content…
Many other children have had a similar experience to mine. I was forced to believe all of these things that I did would affect me somehow after I died. It also goes to the childhood of our species. Back then, people believed if they pleased the gods by doing a rain dance, the gods would let it rain. When in reality and proven by science, water evaporated and then condensed to form rain. The earlier Catholic Church believed that the Earth was in the center of the Universe, the Ptolemaic model. Everything, including the Sun, revolved around us, however science has also disproved this. The heliocentric model was formed, where we revolve around the
Open Document