It is universally accepted that an admission of atheism would be instant political suicide for any (U.S.) presidential candidate.

Book critics or theatre critics can be derisively negative and gain delighted praise for the trenchant with of their review. But in criticisms of religion even clarity ceases to be a virtue and sounds like aggressive hostility. A politician may attack an opponent scathingly across the floor of the House and earn plaudits for his robust pugnacity. But let a soberly reasoning critic of religion employ what would in other contexts sound merely direct or forthright, and it will be described as a 'rant'.

We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance.

I think what I'd really like to see would be a mass consciousness-raising movement so that we would all become vegetarian.

Such a bandwidth! God, who may not have a brain made of neurons, or a CPU made of silicon, but if he has the powers attributed to him he must have something far more elaborately and non-randomly constructed than the largest brain or the largest computer we know.

No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth.

It would be really worrying if, as a Darwinian, it was impossible to think of ways in which our behavior could be explained.