Beliefs like these are highly dangerous as they lead to more conflict. In extreme cases, religious law is used to supersede state law, so that people quite literally get away with murder. It seems to me, that beliefs such as these do not prevent us from experiencing hell on Earth, they actually create it.

This is backed up by a recent study by the Pew Research Centre, which found that of the five countries in which religion is considered most important (mostly in Africa), four have been involved in recent religious-based conflicts in which people of conflicting faiths engage in the mass murder of each other. In contrast, countries in which fewer than 60 percent of the public consider religion to be important, with the exception of Northern Ireland, have remained free of such conflicts.

While political affiliation in the United States is not necessarily an indicator of religious leanings, it is a fact that the majority of 'red' or Republican states are primarily of that persuasion due to the influence of conservative Christians. If there is a strong connection between religious belief and moral values, then you would expect such states to have lower crime rates, but actually the opposite is true; 76 percent of the most dangerous US cities fall into the red zone, while 62 percent of the safest cities are blue or Democratic.

Neither is this confined to the US. The Journal of Religion and Society commissioned a study in 2005 which analysed crime rates in 17 developed countries. They reached the conclusion that higher rates of belief in or worship of a creator correlate to higher rates of murder, premature death, teenage pregnancy, abortion and STD's.

We can then safely conclude that the motive to behave in a socially responsible way does not come from religion.

The crux of religion and more specifically Christianity is that according to the Church, we have separated ourselves from God. Because Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they sentenced all their heirs and descendants (us) to a life of separation from God, as we were all born with this indelible stain on our souls. Each and every one of us continues to carry this guilt. If we can show God that we have made efforts to overcome our natural tendency to do wrong then God may concede to forgive us, otherwise we will go to hell.

There are several ways of ensuring this forgiveness, the most important of which is to invite His son Jesus, into our lives and accept that he died on the cross to atone for our sins. We also though have to read the Bible and do as God asks in every aspect of our waking and sleeping lives. Christianity is then a system which is governed by a strict code of conduct, which has become hardened and set in stone until it has become unchallengeable dogma.

Spirituality, in stark contrast to organized religion, encourages you to set your own rules and beliefs, and teaches that you can communicate direct with God. These rules and beliefs are not limitless, but are bounded by the concept of only acting for the highest good of all concerned and the harm of none. God has never set down rules governing how we should or should not behave, for to do so would be an infringement of the free will that He has given us.

Texts such as those contained within the Nag Hammadi library demonstrate that Christianity was originally a Gnostic movement. Gnosticism is an ancient belief system whose adherents were known as Gnostics, translated as 'those who know'. What is it though that they knew? They knew secrets about the true nature not only of the universe, but also of God, and ultimately about themselves.

Gnostic beliefs are veiled in metaphor and allegory and to many, seem undecipherable. However, when you get to the core of Gnostic beliefs, they are remarkably similar to modern spirituality. Namely that we are all one, and the concept of separation between God and man is an illusion. Perhaps more fundamental than this is the belief that God sets down no rules as to how we should or should not behave, in fact he wants nothing from us at all other than the recognition of our own divinity and that we continually strive to know the grandest vision of ourselves that is humanly possible. It is up to us of course as to how we achieve that goal.

Dawkins main argument against the belief in God is that old chestnut 'who created the creator.' While to a scientist at least, this is a valid argument, you could also argue though that if scientists state that God could not have created the universe as someone or something has to have created God, then if the universe began with the big bang, something also had to create that.

I am not however a scientist, so cannot discuss God in these terms. I can only write from my own perhaps more mystical perspective based on my own observations and experiences. Science is if nothing else, based on these same principles of observation and experience, albeit using slightly more measurable methods, but you could arguably say that my own views are scientific, born not though through experiments conducted in a laboratory, but through the University of Life.

Life experience is not subsumed by scientific experiments, but in my opinion, is equally valid. Just because you do not share another's belief system, it does not mean that their beliefs and the experiences that have led them to those beliefs are not equally valid. Science does not have the monopoly on truth any more than religion, for truth is a subjective experience which depends on your own perceptions.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but when these beliefs impinge on the lives of others, they need to be questioned. If we deem our beliefs to be the only truth, and destroy, kill and maim in order to defend or maintain those beliefs, then they are clearly not serving us, or the rest of humanity. Science does not of course take it to these extremes, but scientists such as Dawkins nevertheless do their utmost to discredit those who do not share their views by labelling them as deluded, hence the title of his book. There seems to be a double standard, whereby it is acceptable for science to rubbish religious and spiritual beliefs as deluded or not proven, yet we cannot do the same in return. Much of science is based on theory, but the term theory indicates that something is far from proven, and is just an idea based on little more than conjecture. Scientific theory though is deemed accepted fact until disproved or replaced by another more likely theory, yet mystical experiences, which cannot be measured by scientific means are labelled as delusional.

Many of the bigger questions cannot be explained by the use of scientific methods. Science may for example be able to explain why the moon sometimes blocks out the sun, but it cannot say why. Religion and spirituality is for the whys. Science and religion thus speak two different languages, or perhaps different dialects of the same language. They should not conflict but rather, complement. Science provides the statistics, while religion and spirituality provide the prose.

Einstein posited that energy cannot be destroyed but only converted from one form to another. If God is a non corporeal entity, He cannot be made of atoms, since these are the constituent parts from which matter is made. He therefore exists outside the laws of physics and no matter how hard science looks, they will never find conclusive proof as to whether or not God exists, as you cannot measure something that does not physically exist.

Scientists from CERN laboratories in Switzerland have been working to unlock the secrets of the universe by splitting the atom into smaller and smaller parts. Their latest research suggests that there is still more that they do not understand since according to their calculations, there are further particles which exist in these formulas, but as yet, cannot be found via traditional means. They have named this missing part 'the God particle', since it seems to permeate the entire universe and appears to be the glue that holds everything together.

After the Christianisation of Rome, Europe was thrown into the dark ages, where the Church reigned supreme and was deemed the source of all knowledge. All forms of scientific reasoning that conflicted with their views were deemed heretical. Scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo, who taught that the Earth was not the centre of our solar system, were forced to recant their views. However, as the evidence began to mount, the Church themselves were forced to recant. When religion granted scientists freedom from persecution, it came with the agreement that the two were mutually exclusive and should not impinge on each other's territory. They have for the most part, managed this admirably. Yet whether they care to admit it or not both are searching for the same thing. If religion is on a quest to define God through belief, then science is on a quest to find God through unlocking the secrets of the universe.

It has often been said that life is a school, and we are here to learn a series of lessons that teach us various aspects of life. The two most important questions that most of us ask are, who am I and why am I here? We are ultimately then on a quest to find ourselves. How though do we begin to answer such questions?

If the God particle is the smallest particle that exists, encompassing everything in our universe, then it is what we ourselves are made of. We are therefore in our own way, Gods ourselves. The search for God is therefore a search for ourselves. Science and religion are not exclusive but are searching for the same thing, the knowledge of who we are and what life is about.

As Deepak Chopra so eloquently put it "I used to be an atheist until I realised I am God"