I wish I’d known about Hitchens earlier. In the same way as I read Dawkins and whilst I found it to be quite a long winded way to describe viewpoints I already had, Hitchens also espoused views I resonated with.
Both however seemed to shy away from questions regarding the soul. As if describing someone as soulless would be taken negatively.
Personally I don’t want to shy away from that issue. To say that no one has a soul as described by theists does not bother me in the slightest. I find the emergent properties of the brain fascinating. Saying what we know about the brain and the arising consciousness with its reasoning, creativity and ability to perceive the aesthetic, surpasses the uneducated, simplistic explanation of a soul.
The fact that we are capable of debating subjects like ethics, love, art and philosophy are amazing considering what we have to work with. But I see no reason to postulate an immortal soul.
There is no argument so far which bridges that gap. I am still happy. We are alive. We have conscious thought thanks to billions of years of random events. It took us a long time, even longer if there have been other universes without life due to minute changes in laws of physics or just plain bad luck. We may be the last or indeed only planet ever to have sentient life or life at all. But do I then say the universe was made for me or us? No. We’re just here. Isn’t it marvelous?