One of my favorite people of all time is Cornel West. Two of his most well known books are Race Matters and Democracy Matters where his views on society are for the most part, incredibly on the mark. I've heard him live a couple of times and he is wonderful to listen to. He is also a frequent quest on Real Time with Bill Maher where he rails against the right yet at the same time has been known to call out Obama. Anyway as I was listening to him the other day, I started to think, how could a man of such intelligence, hold onto something as unintelligent as religion? He is a man of deep faith. Expanding on this idea, why is it that many people of incredible intelligence are people of religion? What is it about what they get from religion that allows them all to suspend reason on one day a week and give themselves to the land of the make-believe? One of the main doctors who is treating Hitchens is a man of faith. This is a guy who has studied science in depth and has seen cells divide. He knows there is no scientific basis for his beliefs. Yet he believes. Is it because all these people need to religion to deal with death? Is because it is what is expected in our society and to be otherwise is too difficult? I just don't understand.
But one way of looking at it from a logical AND religious sense is that god created this universe for man to discover.
@ Alexander - Personally, I don't think that is a good way to look at it, because I would like to kick the God that created this universe in the nuts, because there is too much suffering; unless he is not omnipotent and did not intentionally mean for it to turn out this way. In that case, well he would not really be a God, would he?
Students spend 12-16 hours per day reading or in class, essentially working 80% of waking hours. Not much time for entertainment.
I think for many it comes down to willful suppression, imagine the death of a loved one, the prospect of such an event is something one simply does not wish to ponder and understandably so but in the same way I think many folks regardless of intellect just don't desire to face the reality of death.
I didn't read all the responses, sorry if I copied someone.
"Still, your statement "no one would have said it was unjustified." is incorrect as the irrational, illogical, uninformed and retarded were, in their brainless ignorance, saying it was unjustified before it ever started."
There are two sides to the argument (if you leave the absolute peace nicks to their folly): The official casus belli (WMDs) was a roadshow with little substance behind it, thus making the official justification weak. However, the underlying justification of protecting civilians from a cold-blooded murderer which clearly did not mind genocide would have been legitimate.
For comparison, Qadaffi's atrocities pales in comparison to the ones committed by Saddam, and noone (that matters) is saying that the current war in Libya is unjustified. Same goes for the bombs against Milosevic.