All Comments (117)

For E Favorite:

If Maimonides was able to cure people and to prevent infections, then he was not ignorant of the germ theory of disease. True, he wrote "around" the issue by talking about bad blood, bile, etc. but unlike Hitchens, I think practical knowledge is demonstration of real knowledge.

By the way, on page 7 of his book he truly badmouths all these great thinker...the context is negative, and the one redeeming remark -- as you say -- is softpeddled with "may". If you really want to see his condescending arrogance, check out the things he says about Mother Teresa. And note, the "religion" that he considers so reprobate paid him money to be "Devil's Advocate". Not only that it gave him material for his book and then he bad mouths religious leaders as being fools -- Why? because they hired him?

Thank you, ALM. That was very insightful!

Our church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. While modern pundits would say it is a "wide tent" I prefer universal, or catholic with both a small and large 'c'.

I can see its reach in my little parish in East London (England)--about 1/3 West Indian and their children--some formidable matriarchies there and such hats!-- 1/3 Cockney--Irish and their descendents-- and now about 1/3 rest of the Catholic world which in London means Poles and Lithuanians plus continental European--mostly Belgian and Dutch--professionals who live in the neighbourhood. The Brazilians have their own 11 am Mass at St Annes, a mile or so away, other LatAms attend some of the Spanish masses available throughout the city.

There are many more Eastern Europeans at Westminster Cathedral as well as the Ukrainian connection. It is a centre of help for asylum seekers from countries to the east of Poland, especially the Ukraine.

Still the Mass is the same, and we all pray for God's grace through the sacraments and sometimes just through *being* in a sacred space.

The Church is an enormous source of good will and grace for its flock. I believe that sincerely.

The problem with the way Hitchens asks the question is that, to him, the answer is obvious. But as all of you -- and the comments on the other threads -- have made clear, it makes no difference that a human institution should be man-made.
Religion is highly social, and I'm convinced that no two members of a given faith believe exactly the same thing. At its best, this forum gives us a glimpse in to what we all have in common.
I avail myself of the rituals of the Catholic church, but...intellectually and constitutionally, I have trouble believing that the pope or any other person could always be right.
Am I even a good Catholic? All I can say is that I pray for obedience every day.

Maimonides

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides

was born in 1135 and died in 1204. That would make him *twelfth* century, not tenth.

I only mention this because of the typos that atheist posters saw fit to mention regarding Prof. Stevens-Arroyo's post:

Tit for Tat
And all that.

Eloist - You're right about Newmann, and to Hitchens credit, that he said these men "MAY have...been laughably ignorant...." I apologise for my failure to notice that "may."

You have it wrong about Maimonides, though. He was 10th century and Pasteur didn't discover the germ theory of disease until the 19th century.

I'm confused by your PT Barnum comparison. Hitchens, like any author, is just selling a book.

His premise - god is not great - is nothing new. Many people have thought that for centuries, despite intense pressure to believe in a supernatural god and a whole incredible set of myths.

Notwithsatnding the fact that many clergy are good, compassionate people, I think it's more correct to say it's the religious establishment that been selling tickets to the circus.

Thanks, Viejita...I guess :)

To E Favorite:

Newman and Maimonides were not "ignorant" of the germ theory of disease. Hitchens is wrong on that.

Newman certainly understood the place of the earth in the solar system. Hitchens is wrong on that.

Only Hitchens would laugh at a person who didn't understand what wasn't discovered. Just doesn't seem like a laughing matter.

P.T. Barnum had a lot of success in selling things to suckers.

You can call Speed123 a lot of things, but I don't think incoherent is one of them.

My comment to Stan was a bit harsh and I feel for all those who are abused in society; however, bigots and media like to portray this as a Catholic problem when it is a universal problem.

The majority of abuse happens within families and all bureaucracies handle this sensitive issue poorly - including public schools, and all denominations of faith.

Upon further review that last post came out a little meaner than intended. Sorry, but you do come off that way.

I take it that nobody in your family has never been molested by a priest.

My cousin was molested by a priest 6 years ago. Nothing happened to him, he was transferred to a different city. Nobody cared. So, it is a pretty big deal to my family and yeah, those priests and Cardinal Law should be doing time.

I was just wondering. Your posts seem a little incoherent and light on specifics. Maybe your just not very good at these things.

how can I compete with stuff like this, Olive?

special ed?

oh so witty...

fasinating spelling!

Speed123,

Are you in special ed?

In any case, fasinating contribution...low-five!

I am not an athiest. I am a Catholic.

Good one, Olive.

Atheist high-five!

E Favorite:

My guess is that the "Professor Stevens-Arroyo" entries were the work of Speed123. It seems to be about his level of writing.

PS - Stan,

Dan Brown called and said he thinks your onto a really good story on this one...cover ups, the Vatican etc., evading the law, conspiracy!

He will be in touch...

Its called CONTEXT Stan...that is what is missing. The media and you seem to like to portray this as a Catholic problem when it is much higher in other institutions.

Stop your hatefilled slander in regards to the Pope. While Law mismanaged the issue - he was never accused and is not up for trial. If you have a link to a news story that says otherwise I would like to see it.

Stan, just face it - you are very emotional/irrational on this issue and are bigoted against the Catholic Church (a institution with lower claims of abuse than all other major denominations). Its called slander....

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo – Was that really you? It sounded a lot smarter than a kid in the basement but a lot less distinguished than your credentials would suggest.

I happen to have a copy of Hitchens’ book right here, and turning to page 7, I see that he refers to Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides and Newman as “mighty scholars” and goes on to mention them being “laughably ignorant” only in the CONTEXT of not knowing about “the germ theory of disease or the place of the terrestrial globe in the solar system….” Of course, this would apply to anyone before those discoveries were made. Everyone is ignorant of things they do not yet know about.

So, Professor, you misrepresented what he said, quoting him out of context. Anyone who writes peer reviewed articles knows that’s unethical. But maybe you’re applying different standards here because it’s just a blog or because Hitchens isn’t in your league and doesn’t deserve your respect. It’s still dishonest – and so easy to check. The book is on the bestseller list. When I was at the bookstore today they were wheeling in a cartload of them. Many people reading this blog can turn to page 7 in a flash and confirm what it says.

If that was really your post above, I think you owe us another one, confirming it was you and addressing the issue I raised. If it was not you, please let us know that too – and please disregard my comments.

Speed123,

You did not actually address anything that I wrote in my last post. Why are you responding to issues that I did not bring up?

I have had no problem responding to your's. Here goes.

No, I do not hate anything or anybody. I walk in the light my friend. Yes there are child molesters in every faith. I realize that, as does every other reasonable adult human being. Again, I did not address that in my post.

I NEVER believed in WMDs in Iraq or in any of our idiot, man-child President's position there. Another item that I did not bring up in any of my posts.

Yes count me as someone who is against any and all child molesters. I would hope that all decent people everywhere would agree on that. Well apparantly everyone except the Pope.

I do not know the source of your numbers but I do think that the number on public school employees is high. 15%, think about thoses numbers.

I am against mis-management by all those institutions as well. So what? Again, I never brought any of those institutions up nor did I say, claim or otherwise insinuate that the Catholic Church is the only institution, religious or otherwise that employs child molesters.

What I did say very clearly is that the Pope is now, yes RIGHT now giving aid and comfort to a very well known child molester, Cardinal law. This is not an opinion or a point of view. It is an undeniable, unassailable fact.

Cardinal Law is being shielded from prosecution in Massachusetts on charges of child molestation and covering up child molesting priests who were under his supervision.

He did that for decades.

He admitted to it.

Process that. Seriously, think that one through.

And as for your idiotic assertation that LAW is in a minor position akin to being in an outpost in the Artic....He help lead the freakin' ceremonies at the last Popes funeral. He was front and freakin' center. Don't you remember the criticism? I sure do. He was al over the television helping with the festivities!! (he should have been doing time in the state pen)

And since when in the world of the Catholic Church is the VATICAN.

Yes, the VATICAN!!!

considered an "equivalent to an outpost in the artic"? Did you actually write that?!?

Besides which I do not care if he actually was sent to a small church in the Artic. He is still evading prosection in a foriegn country that will not extradite him. When you help a criminal evade prosecution, you are then a criminal yourself. There is no gray area here. The Pope is aiding a known and confessed child molester.

He should have to face his trial.

Stan, Stan, Stan...

Do you belive all that the media tells you?

Still believe that there are WMDs in Iraq I suppose...that the war in Iraq was justified by connections between saddam and al queda?

Hate authority I suppose such as the church; yet you see corporate media as the spoken word? The truth that will set you free?

The media and those who own it have their own agenda and they happen to particually dislike the Catholic Church or any other institution that does not succumb to moral relativism and consumer culture.

Here is the context - thanks to Prof Arroyo - to abuse across all society:

Accused Catholic clergy: 4%
Accused Protestant clergy: 8%
Accused Jewish Rabbis: 11%
Accused public school employees around 15%

What about all of the mis-management by these institutions???

PS - Law is in some obscure position that is equivalent to an outpost in the artic - away from policy or major issues.

Sorry folks, I cannot spell today.

Time for a nap.

"consummate anti-Catholic bigot"? I am sure that might come to a big surprise to my wife and her Catholic family.

Speed123,

It seems as though you understanding of the word consummate is a bit liberal.

I merely pointed out to the good prefessor that his beloved church aided in the filight of a notorious criminal: The child molester, Cardinal Law.

Law was due to be tried in Massachusetts for child molesting and aiding other child molesting priest over the past several decades.

He admitted to it, he did it he is/was a criminal.

Cardinal Law was a very bad man.

Today, Cardinal Law has a cushy job at the Vatican arranged for him by the last Pope. You know, the Pope who everyone seems to think should be a saint.
Now I am not an expert on saints but I am pretty sure that none of the other shielded child molesters from prosecution.

No Speed, you and many other Catholics might not appreciate my bringing this rather uncomfortable subject up, but I happen to find it interesting.

So I bring it up from time to time to allow some of my Catholic friends to explain this, or rather rationalze this situation.

Sadly it is all true.

As an American citizen I am outraged.

If you are not outraged thenb you are a sick and twisted as Cardinal Law and his ilk.

I had a busy night last night!

Well I think there is a difference, especially in the US, between personal belief and political/civic action based on belief - this includes atheism as well.

Seperation of church and state and our consititution protect you and your "mailbox" and me and mine respectively.

I am not tampering or trying to change your mind about the existence or condition of your box...it is you who are trying to make mine disappear!

I am willing to be civil about it - just wondering how you can say that the mail box on my personal property is gone (without evidence)?

Speed 123 blew up my mailbox last night with a homemade bomb.

At least that's what I firmly believe. Now I'm going to have Speed 123 arrested for the crime. It's up to Speed 123 to prove my belief is false. If it's not proven false, Speed 123 goes to jail. It's not my burden to prove the claim, but the burden falls squarely on Speed 123 to prove I'm wrong. In fact, no matter what I claim Speed 123 did, my claim remains undeniably true until proven otherwise. Speed 123 also shaved my dog clean in the night, and buried a pirate ship in my front yard.

Prove you didn't. Does that sound fair, Speed 123?

I hear academia is a tough field these days so I guess they are not mutually exclusive states. :)

However, I would hazard a guess that Stan is not a prof and is writing a basement somewhere...

Speed 123,

You ask, "Are you a professor?

Or are you writing from your mother's basement?"

Why "or"? Are these two states contradictory?

CRH

If someone believes in God...and you or Hitchens say that this false...I think the burden is on those who wish to negate personal belief.

However, Hitchens will probably be too busy counting hundreds to address this issue.

Oh Speed123,

I have made no claims as to the existance of God or the accuracy of the Bible. I have no burden of proof. Besides how can one prove that something or someone that nobody has ever seen does not exist?

Sorry, but the burden of proof exists for those who insist it to be true.

Ah, Stan, the consummate anti Catholic bigot.

Are you a professor?

Or are you writing from your mother's basement?

And, CWS, please enlighten us all with your proof that God does not exist.....

CWS: Don't ask him for proof or evidence. Like Jack Nicholson actually said, he "can't handle the truth." Or more accurately, like he misquoted, he "can't stand the truth."

"Anthony Stevens-Arroyo", 1:03 pm

I noticed you used the words proof and evidence in your rather pithy response. I am sorry, maybe I missed it, where was YOUR proof and evidence again?

You know, God, the afterlife, accuracy of the Bible, etc.

Proof and evidence along those subjects would be nice.

Please enlighten...

Ah, Anthony,

Spoken like a true man of God. I am sure jesus is pleased.

BTW, how is Cardinal Law doing at his job in the Vatican? Thank goodness the last Pope (you remember the "saint") chose to let that poor, misunderstood child molester of the hook from his impending trial in Massachusetts.

Justice indeed.

Thank you, Stan D. for correcting the "e" with an "o". Also "It" should be "If" and ",r" should be inverted.

These are the type of corrections that carefully avoid substance, reasoning, logic, proof, evidence, and rational discourse. Of course, when you write blogs to vent emotional deprivation, insults and dismissals are fine. If it helps you get through the night, I'm glad to oblige.

To the poster who just pretended to be Anthony Steven-Arroyo, you're not doing him any favors with such a lame post.

On the other hand if it was truly from Mr. Stevens-Arroyo then you just made yourself look awfully petty and insecure.

BTW it's Jack Nicholson, "Professor"

“Why would anyone wish to cross over on this man-made bridge?” In his mind, the question is merely rhetorical; but even a first-grader knows the answer: “To get to the other side.”

Very good. And seemingly harmless in a humans-are-naturally-inquisitive sort of way. However, it is the case that religious leaders teach people that the only way to get across the bridge is to violently shove others aside and toss other people over the rails.

That's why the bridge to nowhere is better off being burned.

“Why would anyone wish to cross over on this man-made bridge?” In his mind, the question is merely rhetorical; but even a first-grader knows the answer: “To get to the other side.”

Very good. And seemingly harmless in a humans-are-naturally-inquisitive sort of way. However, it is the case that religious leaders teach people that the only way to get across the bridge is to violently shove others aside and toss other people over the rails.

I get a column in these On Faith blogs and it would seem unfair to try and have the last word. I have learned a great deal from bloggers who are generally both sharp witted and opinionated. After spending so many years as a professor, I am content to have people react to an issue out of their own guts rather than simply accept everything because the “teacher” said so. My ego doesn’t require that everyone agree with me.

Just a few clarifications for this column as well as previous and future ones are merited here.

Mr. Hitchens did not read my books but pronounces a death sentence on what I wrote, so why can’t I do the same? Or is it supposed by some that being British makes him superior to me, a Puerto Rican?

Mr. Hitchens’ list of books does not include a single one that was published by “peer review,” that is, judged by qualified scholars in the field and considered to advance knowledge in the field. This is a requirement for a professor with a doctorate in theology. The list offered on a blog merely proves my point. (Unfortunately, the blogger doesn’t realize that he has verified rather than refuted me.)

But I don’t want to be “cute”. Let me respond like Jack Nickelson: “You want the truth, you can’t stand the truth!”

Mr. Hitchens’ latest book cites John Cornwall as his authority on Pius XII (pg. 239), yet Cornwall book has no standing in the academy because of stupidities like saying “I remember how we all felt when in 1942...” Cornwall was born in 1941, so his memory is invented. But if you are an essayist you can cherrypick any statement, any book and offer it as “proof” for your position. Only the uninformed fall for this. It the next time you need a surgical operation on your heart you call the plumbe,r I would understand how you would prefer the opinion of an essayist to that of a scholar.

If you want to understand what self-centered, non-scientific opinion is like, consider the titles to some of the chapters in this Hitchens’ book: “Religion Kills,” “Why Heaven Hates Ham,” “The New Testament Exceeds Evil...”. Besides being vicious and ill-spirited, Hitchens’ confuses myths with fable (pg. 167, et passim) so that what is symbol and poetry is held to literal scientific language – and then he constantly criticizes religion for not being scientific enough! By changing the premise of the argument to suit his fancy, Hitchens disqualifies his book from serious consideration as a reputable academic publication.

And why would anyone countenance the arrogance of an essayist who writes (pg. 7) that “Aquinas, Maimonides and [Cardinal] Newman were...laughably ignorant”? Disagree with their thinking, if you will, but any decent person would recognize that Aquinas, Maimonides and Newman were anything by “laughably ignorant”.

I would not waste my time refuting such nonsense from Hitchens or anyone else. If some bloggers prefer not to think and suck up to writers like Hitchens who tell them what they want to hear, I simply don’t care: it’s a free country.

"Atheists rear atheists"

True. But people who don't believe in the Seven Flying Heads of Widdi-Widdi rear children who also don't believe in the Seven Flying Heads of Widdi-Widdi. In fact, it's probably not even mentioned at all, because I just made it up.

The difference between atheist parents and religious ones is that religious parents ADD thoughts to children's minds and atheists simply decline to foist fallacious ideas on their offspring.

"Religion can be compared to a bridge we build to link our earthly existence with the great beyond." Key words in Mr. Stevens-Arroyo's sentence are "WE BUILD." In other words, religion is man-made. Not a novel concept, Mr. S-A; I believe Christopher Hitchens has said it before you.

Angela, when you say, "May God's peace find you and cover you through Jesus Christ so that you may repent and be at peace. I will pray for you" does it occur to you that this could be perceived as intolerance when aimed toward someone who obviously doesn't share your faith?

Mr Mark - you are relentless. Please keep it up.

I think that confrontinging religionists who make assertions with little or no basis in fact is an important first step in insisting on honesty and accountability in any discussion about religion. Too bad it's come to this, but definitely time to change it.

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo's comments demonstrate that, when your case is too weak to attack the idea (religion poisons everything), then you attack the source, in this case Christopher Hitchens. It only works with those who have prejudged.

bdm

Yoyo
You are absolutely accurate about the social and cultural aspect of religion. Not only do we tend to choose a faith similar if not identical to that of our parents, but when disillusioned by our family faith, we tend to find a culturally friendly alternative.

The problem is not religion per se, but the wrong religions -- those based on faith and monotheistic lawgivers are the destructive ones. Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism seem better alternatives than simple rejection of rituals and ceremonies. Keep religion; just get the faith and the diety concept out of it... or have thousands of 'imaginary friends' as the Hindus do. Westerners seem 'stuck' on their three religions (Christianity、Islam, and Judaism). Maybe it is simply time to cast a wider net and broaden our horizons.

PforProphet opines:

"pogroms, crusades, and jihads, not to mention the oppression and violence perpetrated in the name of 'divine right to rule', and 'carrying christ to the infidel' among many, many other gruesome chapters of history."

Hmmm...perhaps you are confusing religion with politics carried out in the name of religion?

Atheists are great at SOUNDING rational and intellectual - must get your cue from Hitchens and Freud before him - yet leaving out embarassing facts of your own:

The same way you credit crusades etc to religion, I will credit 100 million dead by rational, scientific and ATHEIST communism in the last one hundred years!

Stop pointing fingers and attempting to infantilize...it makes you look stupid.

IF YOU COMPARE DAVID ARONOVITCH AND HITCHENS,
THEY LOOK LIKE TWINS SEPARATED AT BIRTH.

LISTENING TO THEM, ONE CAN ONLY SUSPECT THEY
HAVE SIMILAR ETHNIC/CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS:

PROBABLY EASTERN EUROPEAN JEWISH, FAR-LEFT TYPES.

PLAYING CONTRARIAN GETS HIM MORE FREE PUBLICITY.

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo's premise that there is, indeed,"the other side," begs a question: I know what you're trying to say, Mr. Stevens-Arroyo. What evidence do you have to support it?
And one last thought. Was Thomas Aquinas one of those, The Earth is Flat guys?

Hitchens is dead right in general; religion as we know it has overwhelmingly been a force for evil in history. The charity programs enacted and drug addicts saved hardly register when weighed against the literally millions of lives lost because of pogroms, crusades, and jihads, not to mention the oppression and violence perpetrated in the name of 'divine right to rule', and 'carrying christ to the infidel' among many, many other gruesome chapters of history.
That said, Hitchens is disappointingly narcissistic and short-sighted in decrying all forms of religion as opiates and cons.
It cannot be denied that a fundamental need in humans exists to connect with the universe at large, and to attempt to do so is to be left staring into an abyss of meaningless and yawning blackness, shouting into a space where the only audience is yourself. Contrary to Hitchens' assertion that this is what takes real guts and that spirituality is merely denial of the facts, faith in spite of doubt is the truest courage, and relying on only the evidence of our senses is not only self-aggrandizing, but cowardly as well. In refusing to admit there is much beyond our knowledge, we fail to eschew the comfort of familiar human experience for the reality of a universe that is staggeringly wide, and, even if it is mostly empty, surely contains more wonders and oddities than even the most powerful imagination can conceive.
Oh, and in a final note to the editor, please do your best to remove the bigoted rants from this space. Serious debate is no place for excited apes who claim to speak for saviors and saints but can barely operate their own brain cells well enough to type...

Dont forget:

Atheists rear atheists...

You think "indoctrination" is a one way street, right?

When Voltaire said that if there were no god the people would have to invent one....he was suggesting of course that that is precisely what happens.
The concept of religion as groupthink supports this way of seeing things. One generally believes what ones group believes.
Mormon families rear mormon children.
Hutterites bring up little hutterites.
Shia muslims rear their children to become big shia,
and Sunnis rear Sunnis. Catholics produce catholic kids,protestants protestant kids,and so on.
Most of us are indoctrinated in childhood...never
to see reason again.
As far as we know there is no supernatural world
or a place called paradise where we go to play golf when we die.As far as we know we just die.

Att: A L M, et al;

Wow,I thought that was nice having me linked to some handsome & potential Eclati-on(s).

Thank You ALM et al. Interesting. Does any body want my Autograph lately? Ha Ha ! <?:+)/ Ya Ya momma Poppas Mons et al! Eeeeeeee Haaaa

Praise the Lord! Halaluya! One Mom One Dad ONE Earth ONE Eclat ONE-O.U.R.S.! Forever together with Eclat as ONE, Yes!

Gaby, check this page for a link to Jozevz:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=29294327

I suspect our friend here is enjoying a metaphysical and gentle leg pull!

That link will allow you to join his youthful circle of friends too.

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo's comments demonstrate that, when your case is too weak to attack the idea (religion poisons everything), then you attack the source, in this case Christopher Hitchens. It only works with those who have prejudged.

bdm

Angela -

Sorry about the typos. I meant to write,

"Have you read anything written by Mr Hitchens...etc"

Dear Angela -

How you read anyhing written by Mr Hitchens, including his latest book, "god is not great," or are you relying on second-hand information to form your opinion?

Please answer honestly.

Thanks in advance.

I share amply, the view of Christopher Hitchens.
I belong to this thought of school, That Human, have largely manufactured religion, and impose, spread it around the world on cripple human, do not forget church was one time the main ruler on earth.

love
Mapuel

Of course it is manmade. That's a no-brainer 4 me.

Jozevz

May God's peace find you and cover you through Jesus Christ so that you may repent and be at peace. I will pray for you.

Wow, I didn't read this entire thread, but how sad. It is a shame that hate found its way to this board. I love Jesus Christ, the Son of God, but I hate no man and blame no one for the choices all people make everyday on how to live their lives from their spiritual beliefs to their moral behavior. It is sad when people "come out the closet" with intolerance and then others react in more intolerance and hate. Rather you're a Jew or a Christian, if you believe in one God, guess what, He's not on the side of any of that kind of crap. It's shameful.

Att: A N G E L A, et al; Hello angel. You said;

ECLAT (g-d) gave each HUMATE (man) a measure of faith (OUR Reality self aware knowledge). QUESTIONs:

1) Was Mankind "Born in SIN?"

2)Is To look upon ones Partly or in whole naked body a Sinfull Act?

3) did Jesus Walk on H2O, a/k/a Water?

That is all now. Thanks. <?:+)/ Ya Ya.

Please answer in the Affirmative. I.E., Yes or No! Thank You Sister(s) ANGEL et al!

While I never stand in the way of anyone and their steadfast views, I love the write-up up top by Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo on this. He hits it. You don't know what you haven't experienced.

I’m a Christian (I love the Lord), but I wouldn’t try to convert a Buddhist or an Atheist, and I wouldn’t write a book to try to invalidate their beliefs. I have too much faith in my Lord for that—God gave each man a measure of faith. Once presented with the option to believe or not to believe, the choice is individual. This Hitchens guy made a choice, but he doesn’t make the rules or set the standard on how the rest of us should think or feel on the subject of God or religion.

Great writing doesn’t make him an authority on anything, and it surely didn’t make him wise in his choice of a topic to expound on. Yes, many religious rituals are man made. Loving God and being connected to Him runs much deeper.