God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

published	May 1st 2007 by Twelve
binding	Hardcover
isbn	0446579807 (isbn13: 9780446579803)
pages	320
description	In the tradition of Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian and Sam Harris's recent bestseller, The End of Faith, Christopher Hitchens makes the u...more [close] In the tradition of Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian and Sam Harris's recent bestseller, The End of Faith, Christopher Hitchens makes the ultimate case against religion. With a close and erudite reading of the major religious texts, he documents the ways in which religion is a man-made wish, a cause of dangerous sexual repression, and a distortion of our origins in the cosmos. With eloquent clarity, Hitchens frames the argument for a more secular life based on science and reason, in which hell is replaced by the Hubble Telescope's awesome view of the universe, and Moses and the burning bush give way to the beauty and symmetry of the double helix. Hitchens speaks to his own religious background and weaves his experiences into an argument that organized religions worldwide are directly related to many of the planet's biggest issues. he tends to be less tolerant of islam than judaism or christianity but he does not spare those religions his argument that they need not exist. [close]
date added	01-29-07 edit book

find at: Amazon | Half.com | Barnes & Noble | Abebooks | more...

discuss this book

topics	replies	last activity
Is criticism enough?	4	28 days ago, 07:12AM
Mad lib	48	03/29/2008 12:01PM

new topic

groups with this book

friend reviews (0)

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

lists with this book

Notable Atheist Books

12 books | 20 voters

Best Books of the 21st Century

105 books | 212 voters

More...

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 4116)

Jason rated it:

06/03/08

bookshelves: religion, summer-reading

So. I've read it, front to back.

Hitchens laments that the faithful (of whatever persuasion) "have believed what the priests and rabbis and imams tell them about what the unbelievers think" (10), and (it follows) he rages that priests, rabbis and imams would presume to know or communicate what atheists think and why. And yet, what is Hitchens's book if not 300 pages of an unbeliever telling other unbelievers what believers think and why? The hypocrisy here, and elsewhere in the boo...more So. I've read it, front to back.

Hitchens laments that the faithful (of whatever persuasion) "have believed what the priests and rabbis and imams tell them about what the unbelievers think" (10), and (it follows) he rages that priests, rabbis and imams would presume to know or communicate what atheists think and why. And yet, what is Hitchens's book if not 300 pages of an unbeliever telling other unbelievers what believers think and why? The hypocrisy here, and elsewhere in the book, is bald as can be. Time and again, he holds religious institutions fiercely accountable for their contempt - e.g. organized religion is "contemptuous of women" (56) - even as he himself exhibits and condones contempt no less virulent for being on the page than one might see in a religious setting. Indeed, he writes that it is with "contempt [one must] regard" (58) believers who reflect on and/or long to witness the end of the world. People "must" regard them with contempt, he writes, "must" allowing for no disagreement, no wiggle room. Hitchens here fashions himself the moral arbiter in his arguments against religions having fashioned themselves moral arbiters. Later still, he criticizes Evelyn Waugh's comments about remarriage constituting an addition of spittle in the face of Christ as a wickedness that outstrips Waugh's own infidelities. At this point, I'll make it known that I, too, am critical of Waugh's opinion on remarriage (and of his having expressed it to a friend on the cusp of remarriage), but who except Hitchens has made Hitchens qualified to rank Waugh's wickednesses? Again, his proclamation is arbitrary, and his authority specious at best. Or earlier in the book when he writes: "The harder work of inquiry, proof, and demonstration is infinitely more rewarding [...] than any theology" (71)...according to whom? Hitchens. Later, writing of Spinoza: "his meditations on the human condition have provided more real consolation to thoughtful people than has any religion" (262)...again, according to whom? Hitchens. Although, what's even likelier here is a subtle dig at religious people on the whole in the suggestion that none of them is "thoughtful." He makes statement after statement that cannot be made, counting on his snide sense of humor to persuade people into believing their intellects are being used in siding with his arguments, when, in truth, their intellects are being appealed to less than their vanities. No one likes to side with the folks being humiliated (except Christ, anyway), and his wit insures his readers will at least want to side with him, even when their consciences and critical aptitudes discourage it.

His incessant rollcall of insults, referring to various believers as "orangutans" (56), "ignoramus" (64), "goons" (275), "barbarian" (275), "pathetic fraud" (270), "boobies" (269), "hypocrites" (212) - all language that suggests Hitchens is every bit the "bigot and [...] persecutor" (180) he rakes Martin Luther over the coals for having been. And when he condemns Mahayanna Buddhism's assertion that sometimes (it is perceived) one should be killed in order to preserve untold numbers of lives (203), one cannot but think of Hitchens's own vocal support for the war in Iraq, for the invasion of a sovereign nation on grounds debatable at best, dubious at worst, and resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. (It also warrants mentioning here that Hitchens's intellectual compatriot Sam Harris has written that a nuclear first strike in which tens of millions might die might be permissible if it meant saving more lives in the long run. Chris Hedges, in his book I Don't Believe in Atheists, takes Harris to task for this.)

And then there is his admiration of Socrates's concession that he might have been wrong, Socrates having said "in effect: I do not know for certain about death and the gods - but I am as certain as I can be that you do not know, either" (257). This is an attribution Hitchens gives to Socrates, and one he applauds, and likely believes he shares. But the book is evidence otherwise. His cherry-picking in the texts he uses, the spin he brings to bear in the historical epochs he unfolds, and the manipulation of context in which he situates certain literary and scientific appropriations (one would think Dostoevsky hadn't been a Christian! or that Stephen Jay Gould hadn't been conciliatory and respectful to religion!) are embarrassments. Hitchens is a bright man, and he should be bright enough to see that replacing centuries of religious hostilities with 300 pages of secular ridicule does nothing to set the bar higher than it has been. The book is a rant in which numerous good points are made - e.g. "Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it." (266) - and in which others are woefully ignored (e.g. that just as human decency precedes religion, so, too, does the impulse - to wreak havoc and cause harm - he attributes to religion itself).

One final thing I'll mention is how unfortunate it is that Hitchens cannot seem to fathom the ways in which truth and facts are different entities, if often compliments. He's a literary critic and should know this better than anyone! Just as Northrop Frye has discussed at length, the Old Testament was never intended as a literal document - the culture that conceived of it understood this, so why can't Hitchens? The stories in the Old Testament are not facts and were not meant to be taken as such, so criticizing their being more akin to fables merely because a contingent of modern religious folk have misunderstood their meaning reveals Hitchens's response to be more a reaction than a response and reveals a misunderstanding in him as deep as the one in the literalist perspective of which he's so unforgiving. Ironically, one of the best explanations of the assertion that truth is as often found in an absence of fact as in fact can be seen in Enduring Love, a novel by Ian McEwan - the writer to whom God is not Great is dedicated. In it, Clarissa, a Keats scholar commenting on a disputed urban legend-like encounter between Keats and Wordsworth, says: "It isn't true, but it tells the truth" (183). Similarly, the Old Testament isn't true as we understand "true" to be "factual," but it does tell the truth - about mankind, his nature, his shortcomings, his sense of longing, his sense of the sacred, etc. Enduring Love's exploration of this question with regard to religion - and not just Keats - plumbs much deeper, too, than I've mentioned here. Again, that Hitchens seems incapable of distinguishing between "truth" and "facts" or "data" is bizarre, given his standing as a literary critic.

However learned he is, and whatever the book's nominal pluses, its tone is offensive, its conclusions misguided and its suppositions the product less of inquiry than of resentment. If there were a 1 1/2 star rating to give it, I would, but God is not Great warrants rounding down far more than rounding up. ...less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

14 comments

Kelly rated it:

03/26/08

bookshelves: non-fiction

Read in March, 2008

All right, Goodreads just ate the huge review that I wrote for this, so clearly it doesn't want me to put you through all that. So I'll just write the shortened version things I thought/you should know about this book in bullet points:

1) If you are a believer, this book isn't likely to convince you otherwise. Hitchens is passionately against the idea of organized religions and their awful history, and doesn't see the need for God, and he's not afraid to say so. And he is often snotty about i...more All right, Goodreads just ate the huge review that I wrote for this, so clearly it doesn't want me to put you through all that. So I'll just write the shortened version things I thought/you should know about this book in bullet points:

1) If you are a believer, this book isn't likely to convince you otherwise. Hitchens is passionately against the idea of organized religions and their awful history, and doesn't see the need for God, and he's not afraid to say so. And he is often snotty about it and he will insert a few sneering remarks to what would otherwise be an entirely serious, convincing pargraph. This is part of the striking, amusing style of his writing, but is likely to put people off as well, I think. It's just with passages like these:

"Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and triabalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive towards children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience. There is one more charge to be added to the bill of indictment as well. With a necessary part of its collective mind, religion looks forward in the purely eschatological sense of anticipating the end. I mean, rather, that it openly or covertly wishes the end to occur. Perhaps half aware that its unsupported arguements are not entirely persuasive, and perhaps uneasy about its own greedy accumulation of wealth and temporal power, religion has never ceased to proclaim the Apocalypse and the day of judgement."

... and chapter titles like "Religion as Original Sin," and "Is Religion Child Abuse?"... I'm doubtful anyone but people who already had their doubts would pick up this book. I personally already had my doubts. I was raised Catholic, but I haven't really believed for awhile now. This book is good for calling you out on that, I think, but if you're not leaning that way.... I don't know. Perhaps it will raise some questions, but I don't think this book on its own will convince firm believers.

2) Major faults of the book: those stated above, plus Hitchens writes with a lot of passion that can sometimes obscure his point. He's often rambling and stream of consciousness in style and I just wish for the sake of his points that he had been more clear and that he had relied less on personal anecdotes. They were interesting, but sometimes made his arguements seem a little too based on narrow or extreme circumstances that he had had the misfortune to experience.

3) Case: Hitchens lays out a number of charges against God and religion that I think are interesting and true. One of the most interesting is the question: If God did not exist, would people suddenly behave immorally? And if people think so, what does that say about the human race? Hitchens told the story of a few church leaders who seemed to imply that they would be dissolute hedonists were it not for the rules of God that they followed. I think it says something interesting about the kind of people that religion can attract. He goes into the atrocities that people have committed in the name of religion, of course, and also asks the question: If people have done good things in the name of religion, would they have done them without them? And of course there are the examples of secular peoples doing things just as selfless and heroic without God standing over them. His case is essentially that religion has done much more evil than good, and that arguement for keeping it is bogus.

Other big points: God is unnecessary and we have outgrown him- religion was an invention of primitive peoples and now we have science and God is unnecessary. We can believe in scientific advance, and wonder at the natural world. Essentially, he calls religion "wish fulfillment" and says that people should at least admit that what they're doing is essentially fanciful and that they have nothing but their faith to prop them up since.. furthermore... the Bible is not historical and cannot be proved to be so. Stories contradict each other, commands contradict each other, and were all written hundreds of years after the fact. There has been no real historical evidence of any of the events in the Bible, and if Jesus existed, he probably wasn't born when or where the Bible says he was. He also believes that religion must atone for the false leading of the innocent and the credulous, and the warping of children's minds. Speaking as someone raised in the Catholic church, I can just comment that the complexes I got there will never go away.

.... it goes on, but you get the idea. I had more to say, but the site eating my review three times has sort of discouraged me.

It was a fascinating, engrossing read though, it really was. Hitchens has been around the world and has a lot of tales to tell of it. He does speak respectfully of many religious figures he's met, and experiences that he's had, and he's clearly been educated in what he's talking about as well as.. everything else. Quite the Renaissance man, in many respects. I think you have to respect his conviction and his brilliance, if nothing else.

Anyway, there you have it. I think I'll read the God Delusion if I come back to atheistic reads. I've heard that's much more soberly, academically done than Hitchens' passionate rant-fest....less

Like this review? yes (8 people liked it)

30 comments

Tucker rated it:

11/11/07

bookshelves: finished

Read in October, 2007

recommends it for: angry atheists

The themes in this book are transparently derivative of Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell and Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion, and the treatment lacks their qualifications as scientists and philosophers, although Hitchens is also smart and witty. He has collected a trove of anecdotes and strange-but-true facts, as flashy and entertaining as the title of his book. But where...more The themes in this book are transparently derivative of Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell and Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion, and the treatment lacks their qualifications as scientists and philosophers, although Hitchens is also smart and witty. He has collected a trove of anecdotes and strange-but-true facts, as flashy and entertaining as the title of his book. But whereas Dennett spent the first third of his book carefully setting up the scope of his question, and Dawkins took pains toward diplomacy, Hitchens does neither. He dives into his thesis with the assumption that the reader either already agrees with him or else needs to be hit on the head with a hammer.

Hitchens's authority for this book, aside from being fairly well-read on the subject, comes from his encounters with violence:

“A week before the events of September 11, 2001, I was on a panel with Dennis Prager, who is one of America’s better-known religious broadcasters. He challenged me in public to answer what he called a ‘straight yes/no question,’ and I happily agreed. Very well, he said. I was to imagine myself in a strange city as the evening was coming on. Toward me I was to imagine that I saw a large group of men approaching. Now--would I feel safer, or less safe, if I was to learn that they were just coming from a prayer meeting? ... ‘Just to stay within the letter ‘B,’ I have actually had that experience in Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem, and Baghdad. In each case I can say absolutely, and can give my reasons, why I would feel immediately threatened if I thought that the group of men approaching me in the dusk were coming from a religious observance.” (p. 18)

He goes on to address the present occupation of Iraq. He says that Muslim issues led to the rise of Saddam's dictatorship, and that since the overthrow of Saddam, there has been more intra-Muslim violence. His point about the essential violence of religion would have been made even stronger if he acknowledged the Christian influence behind the US invasion of Iraq. But he seems to think that the invasion itself was a potentially positive force that the Iraqis could have used to free themselves, had they not been corrupted by religion.

He claims that atheists are better equipped than religious people to politefully respect alien religious customs (and to refrain from attacking their houses of worship), although his personal displays of politeness are spotty. His lapses include “[God's] yokel creationist fans” (p. 85), “vapid and annoying holiday known as ‘Hannukah’,” (p. 273) “Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms," (p. 129), and a reference to the Left Behind novels by LaHaye and Jenkins that were “apparently generated by the old expedient of letting two orangutans loose on a word processor.” (p. 56) (I share his general sentiment on the last point, but I was less harsh when I reviewed Left Behind.)

In other places, he shows a concern for politeness: "My own annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called 'brights,' is part of a continuous argument." (p. 5)

God is not Great predominantly adresses Abrahamic religion, particularly in describing submission to a monarch-like god. A last-minute attempt to debunk “soft” Eastern religion barely scratches the subject, except to mention that India and Pakistan are preparing for nuclear war and to peek at a cult ashram in the United States.

He ignores more innocuous components of religion, including new theories of so-called “neurotheology” which examine religious experiences merely as brain states, which would have brought the book more up-to-date as a philosophical work....less

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

2 comments

Emily rated it:

12/17/07

bookshelves: politics

Read in September, 2007

Hitchens says he's been writing this book all his life, and the passion and wit that pervades gives it the feel of a masterfully crafted diary of his enthusiastic intellectual development in the persistent shadows of all the world's religions. I do not believe this book is for fundamentalist believers any more than the Bible is for atheists - any reader has already established the basis of her own beliefs and thus opens the book awaiting the arguments with either an intrigued mind or sharpened ...more Hitchens says he's been writing this book all his life, and the passion and wit that pervades gives it the feel of a masterfully crafted diary of his enthusiastic intellectual development in the persistent shadows of all the world's religions. I do not believe this book is for fundamentalist believers any more than the Bible is for atheists - any reader has already established the basis of her own beliefs and thus opens the book awaiting the arguments with either an intrigued mind or sharpened weaponry. That said, as an atheist who has already read Harris and Dawkins, I absolutely embraced it.

One could say that Hitchens is preaching to the atheist choir - but aren't they quite unharmonious to begin with? They crave different perspectives, and his is unique. He repeats the well-known fact that all powerful religions have upheld the oppression of women, non-believers, and non-conformists, and it seems this fact needs a great deal of repeating before anything will be done about it on a massive international scale. He is brave enough to dismiss Orthodox Judaism as racist, the New Testament’s urge for proselytizing abhorrent, and Gandhi’s Hindu-leanings divisive. While Harris focuses on the horrors of Muslim theocratic communities, Hitchens is far fairer in his distribution of attacks upon all major religions.

He also points out that the many great leaders (e.g., MLK, Jr.) who claimed religion as their inspiration were nevertheless choosing to adhere to only a few passages and downright ignoring a great many other violent ones.

Though Hitchens says he would gladly allow the religious to privately believe in whatever irrational monsters and fairies they wish, “contempt for intellect is never passive,” and thus he cannot leave them alone because they have steadfastly refused to leave the intellectual alone throughout the course of history and never by using reason but rather by the simple dogmatic threat that they are right because they have the word of god.

Hitchens claims the somewhat good Pope John Paul was primarily good because did so much long-overdue apologizing for the Church. I would take this a step further in pointing out that it took Germany a relatively short time to apologize for the Holocaust once it had been revealed and not a single German is ever allowed to forget it. The Catholic Church, meanwhile, took over 500 years to apologize for the Inquisition and few Catholic children spend up to 2 years learning how to prevent future atrocities in Sunday School. Instead, they learn "Jesus is the only way," which is not too far off from what the Church said to the Jews in Spain all those years ago. All religions continue to repeat this mantra, differing only in the name of the god they choose, and as a result the world is still divided into groups that pity and/or hate one another based on texts as old as reliable as the Greek myths.

Anyone has the right to believe in whatever they wish, but no one should be granted immunity from the intellectual community merely because they refuse to admit that their beliefs and stories are as man-made as all the others. Anyone who reads Heidegger today is compelled to acknowledge and denounce his poisonous anti-Semitic leanings, admitting that he was a flawed individual who obviously did not have all the answers and can only contribute somewhat to our intellectual progress. If only the so-called words of god could be held to the same standard, they would be nullified and the debates would be far more interesting and constructive, as Hitchens's book is.
...less

Like this review? yes (7 people liked it)

1 comments

Paul rated it:

01/12/08

bookshelves: atheology, the-new-atheism

This book received two stars because of the writing. Hitchens writes well. I could have given it five stars for the value it holds for the Christian community - it serves as easy target practice. It is too bad that I only have 4000 characters at my disposal. Otherwise, I would love to go through this book in painstaking detail, pointing out the flabby and flaccid naked emperor while we all point and laugh at how confident the ignorant, intellectually naked emperor struts up and down the stree...more This book received two stars because of the writing. Hitchens writes well. I could have given it five stars for the value it holds for the Christian community - it serves as easy target practice. It is too bad that I only have 4000 characters at my disposal. Otherwise, I would love to go through this book in painstaking detail, pointing out the flabby and flaccid naked emperor while we all point and laugh at how confident the ignorant, intellectually naked emperor struts up and down the street.

There has always been a power struggle between the clear, cogent, and well-reasoned arguments of the philosopher on the one hand, and the bottom-feeding sophist on the other. Hitchens proudly stands in the line of the latter. Hitchens doesn't bother to define "god," "religion," "poison," and how it poisons "everything." Why bother? He and his ilk have already defeated the theist fair and square, no need to take care in how well you argue. Indeed, so sure is Hitchens of the truth of his conclusion that he barely deals with any thing a Christian thinker has had to say, besides Paley. But of course Collins or Dembski would be a better target if you’re going to attack design. (Oh, I think he mentions Agustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, and Newman, just for the purpose of pointing out that they have written "evil and foolish things.") He never bothers to engage any serious Christian thinker or argument (no, I am not saying that Agustine, Aquinas, Lewis, &c. are not serious Christian thinkers. I'm saying that he didn't engage them.) No Plantinga, Swinburne, Collins, Alston, Craig, just to name a few.

Not only that, but his approach is double minded. For example, he begins by saying that the religious adherent is "the intended reader of this book." But for almost every page after that he subjects his "intended reader" to scorn and ridicule. Is this any way to treat your “intended reader?” Indeed, he begins chapter two by asking his reader to imagine that they believe in an all powerful being. But if Christians like me are, as he says, his "intended audience," then we don't have to "imagine", now do we? We might as well top this paragraph off by pointing out that Hitchens has a chapter called "The Tawdriness of the Miraculous and the Decline of Hell." But, after speaking about the miraculous, the chapter ends. ... He says nary a word about hell! These were just a couple of lowlights. I could multiply these types of criticisms all too easily.

The book claims that Hitchens was named #5 on a list of top 100 intellectuals. Which theist does he unleash the artillery of his massive brain power on? His 4th grade teacher, Mrs. Watts! He spends more time critiquing her than any competent theological or theistic philosopher.

He says that we do evil because we evolved that way. So, religion isn't to blame, Mammaw Nature is. He appeals to "Ockham's razor, yet he doesn't use it, like other naturalists have, to whittle away mental states like beliefs and pain (he relies on these states for his arguments, though). He doesn't use it to whittle away moral claims. There’s much he can’t explain using his razor as he does. He critiques the designer because of poor design, yet he gives no indication that he knows what the design plan was aiming to achieve. You can't call the designer a bad designer without knowing his intentions. And, dysteleogy assumes teleology. He never bothers to address the arguments which seek to show that if our cognitive faculties evolved given a naturalistic understanding of the universe, we have no reason to belief our beliefs are aimed at truth. They'd just be aimed at survival. Hitchens drops the ball over and over again.

Unfortunately I don't have the time, or key strokes, to really get into this. Overall, the book was a flop. If this is the best The New Atheism has to offer, theists can relax.

...less

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

10 comments

Melly rated it:

10/17/07

bookshelves: currently-reading

Read in August, 2007

recommends it for: Sara

As a fellow Atheist, Mr. Hitchens is preaching to choir, so to speak, in this informative, captivating work in which Hitchens judiciously provides historically documented and personal examples of what he sees as an ever-increasing war being waged by a variety of religious fundamental organizations. In our very own country we have troops of well-funded, born-again fanatics preaching hatred of anyone who doesn’t fall in line with their standards.

Worse, these groups instill a deep-rooted fea...more As a fellow Atheist, Mr. Hitchens is preaching to choir, so to speak, in this informative, captivating work in which Hitchens judiciously provides historically documented and personal examples of what he sees as an ever-increasing war being waged by a variety of religious fundamental organizations. In our very own country we have troops of well-funded, born-again fanatics preaching hatred of anyone who doesn’t fall in line with their standards.

Worse, these groups instill a deep-rooted fear in the most vulnerable, forced members of their congregation; young, helpless, defenseless children, sometimes as young as three. Hitchens provides chilling eye-witness accounts of these tactics which are slowly tearing away at the fabric of this great nation.

Regardless of your religious beliefs, if you have an open mind and enjoy reading well written, fact-based, relevant nonfiction, then you will enjoy this book. Certainly, deeply religious people may find certain parts upsetting as fundamental beliefs are challenged with factual, cited information. Hitchens has a way of peeling away the absurdity of certain religious beliefs and how these beliefs, at their very core, are contrary to very ideals shouted to the masses during worship services. Something I learned at an early age, as a baptized Roman Catholic about to be confirmed, is that before anyone blindly accepts what they’ve been told over a period of time about a particular religion, it is your right, your responsibility and your duty to pick up a couple of books about Judaism, Hindu, Islam, Buddhism, Heavens Gate Kool-Aid Lovers or whatever they were all about, even Mormonism and Jehovah Witness, and read. Read about each of these religious. Get a book along the lines of Religion for Dummies (there is a joke in there somewhere) and get an overview of what these groups are all about. Then study philosophy and science and art and history. Read Ayn Rand and Aristotle and Plato and study and research and think for yourself. And then, one day, years later, you’ll realize what is true for you and that will be your own religion.

There are too many great stories in Hitchens’ book but some of my personal favorites pertain to religious interference with women’s reproductive rights. Islamic authorities of the Council of Ulemas in Indonesia urged that condoms only be made available to married coupled (HUH?), and then only with a prescription. He also quotes an article from Foreign Policy magazine in which a n official of Pakistan’s AIDS Control Program stated that the [AIDS] problem was smaller in his country because of “better social and Islamic values,” This, in a state where the law allows a woman to be sentenced to be gang-raped in order to expiate the “shame” of a crime committed by her brother.

Good ol’ repression and denial. The building blocks of religion. Pro or con. Christian or Agnostic. Cubs or White Sox. This book will, if nothing else, be educational and thought-provoking.

I give this FIVE Pac Mans
...less

Like this review? yes (9 people liked it)

2 comments

Julianne rated it:

05/03/08

bookshelves: non-fiction

Read in April, 2008

Oh boy. Lest anyone misunderstand the following review, let me first say that I enjoyed reading this book. Not only did I finish it, but I put it down seldom and always looked forward to picking it up again. It is more thought-provoking and substantive than many other books with similar chapter lengths. But I would not call it heavy-hitting or even especially coherent. Mr. Hitchins is no doubt well-read and well-intentioned, but I found several aspects of his, I must believe offered-in-earnest, ...more Oh boy. Lest anyone misunderstand the following review, let me first say that I enjoyed reading this book. Not only did I finish it, but I put it down seldom and always looked forward to picking it up again. It is more thought-provoking and substantive than many other books with similar chapter lengths. But I would not call it heavy-hitting or even especially coherent. Mr. Hitchins is no doubt well-read and well-intentioned, but I found several aspects of his, I must believe offered-in-earnest, polemic very troubling--at least in an intellectual "does-it-hold-water" sense.
First off, Hitchins claims to be writing this book in a sort of anti-John "so that you may come not to believe" kind of way--as a missionary for atheism, if you will--but seems not to grasp that this makes atheism itself into a religious subsect (i.e. in it's very anti-religiousness, it not only mimics religion but can no longer stand by itself).
Second and in a related vein, he often excoriates believers (Muslims, Jains, Christians, Shintoists, Jews, etc. whatever) for their documented intractable intolerance, for not being able to see beyond the box, for...excoriating non-believers......am I the only one who sees a catch-22 in this line of thought? (Mr. Hitchins would no doubt point out that excoriating in print is not equivalent to the torturing and executing various believers of various religions have resorted to in too many cases in their dealings with non-believers. And he is right. However, I say: We all know atheists are just as capable as theists of torture and execution, and before anyone tortures or executes, they first scorn. So in effect, Mr. Hitchins would just be saying, "Well, I didn't go so far," not, "all of my words sprang from a desire to love my neighbor and improve the world." I believe if they did, he would have written a quite different book.)
Third, whenever desirous of cutting a revered (by whatever number of people for whatever reason) historical or current figure down to size, he refers to them as a "mammal." As in, Kim Jong Il is a "mammal," as well as Hitler and Hirohito and the Dalai Lama and Muhammad. Now, I'm not taking issue with the classification; it's true. All human beings are in fact mammals. However, I find the tactic denigrating. By all means, state that Hirohito was not an immortal God incarnated (especially since he himself stated the same, post-WWII), but if you're trying to reduce him to 'merely' human proportions, call him a human being, no more and no less. Otherwise, he's undifferentiated from a marmoset, which as luck would have it was the image that entered my mind at each and every instance of the word "mammal." (I guess this is just one facet of the way I felt Mr. Hitchins's book treats humanity cheaply. Another is the way it erases distinctions in order to make its points.)
Fourth and finally, Mr. Hitchins proclaims the newly-21st-century world to be in need of a New Enlightenment (magnified reverence for Rationalism, freedom of the press, scientific inquiry, increased separation of 'church' and state, etc.) yet makes no specific break with past Enlightenment principles. That is to say, what Mr. Hitchins really seems to be proposing is a resurgence of the 18th century. He has no specific new ideas, no new philosophical branches to graft onto previous tradition.
I say, we've already had an Enlightenment--one that didn't need to be proposed as a prescription. Simple Rationalism has had its day; what comes next must and will be something new. Plus, this treatise, "God Is Not Great," does not read like John Locke, I can tell you that....less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Alex rated it:

03/06/08

bookshelves: books-read-in-2007

Read in May, 2007

GOD IS NOT GREAT BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Christopher Hitchens has spent some time in journalism: a book reviewer for the Times, a staff writer for the New Statesman, chief foreign correspondent for the Daily Express, a regular columnist for the Nation, and is a regular writer for Vanity Fair, Harper’s, and Atlantic Monthly. As a foreign correspondent and travel writer, he has written from more than sixty different countries. He is also the author of such books as Letters to a Young Contrari...more GOD IS NOT GREAT BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Christopher Hitchens has spent some time in journalism: a book reviewer for the Times, a staff writer for the New Statesman, chief foreign correspondent for the Daily Express, a regular columnist for the Nation, and is a regular writer for Vanity Fair, Harper’s, and Atlantic Monthly. As a foreign correspondent and travel writer, he has written from more than sixty different countries. He is also the author of such books as Letters to a Young Contrarian and Why Orwell Matters. Hitchens now takes on a subject of growing discussion and debate in a time when the number of atheists in the United States, as well as the rest of the world, is apparently growing either because they are abandoning all religion or they are simply “coming out” and admitting to their atheist beliefs. A short time ago “atheist” was a hated label for one to admit to having, but now with a slew of atheist and anti-religious books, including Richard Dawkins’ God Delusion, Sam Harris’ End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell, to name a few, with no doubt many more to be published; Hitchens addresses a subject that is slowly creeping into mainstream media (Dawkins made Time’s Top 100 Most Influential People list this year) and becoming a commonplace conversation in many households across the country.

What I find quite uncanny, having read most of the books mentioned above, is how each author avoids covering the same examples and details when discussing the same subject matter. The authors find new and different ways of exposing the futility of religion and pushing forth their atheist beliefs. Hitchens joins the ranks here in presenting a new side to a growing subject matter. What makes God is Not Great different is that while many of the other books calling for the end of the religion gloss over the different faiths of the world, they ultimately focus on Christianity, being the largest and most visible faith in this country; Hitchens doesn’t hold back and has chapters not just on Christianity and its various denominations, but also extensively attacks the Muslim religion and its denominations, Buddhism, Mormonism, as well as small religious sects around the world such as Shintoism and Jainism.

Hitchens puts his journalistic background to good use here in citing many different examples of how each religion causes more pain and suffering than good. In most cases, these are examples that feature situations that Hitchens was either involved in or learned about it while in that specific country. He best illustrates this in the second chapter of the book when he talks about serving on a panel with Dennis Prager – one of America’s notorious religious broadcasters – who challenged him to responding yes or no to a simple question: Hitchens was to imagine himself in a strange city one evening whereupon he saw a group of men coming towards him; the question is would he feel safer or less safe if he was to learn that they were coming from a prayer meeting? Hitchens then spends the next five pages explaining specific situations from a list of places simply beginning with the letter “B”: Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem, and Baghdad. In each city, he gives examples of why he would not feel safe, and in so doing covers the world’s major religions.

Read the rest of the review at www.alexctelander.com

For more reviews, and writings, or to buy yourself a copy, please visit www.alexctelander.com....less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Jules rated it:

08/18/07

Read in January, 2007

Well, it's all there in the title. And in case you missed Hitchens' point, he subtly reminds you of it by interjecting the book's subtitle every time he recounts an example of how Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism (yes -- Buddhism!) have brutalized the human race. (It's the textual equivalent of grabbing you by your collar and shaking you violently while shouting, "See? I'm right! Admit I'm right!") According to Hitchens, religion is really the source of 99% of this world's ev...more Well, it's all there in the title. And in case you missed Hitchens' point, he subtly reminds you of it by interjecting the book's subtitle every time he recounts an example of how Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism (yes -- Buddhism!) have brutalized the human race. (It's the textual equivalent of grabbing you by your collar and shaking you violently while shouting, "See? I'm right! Admit I'm right!") According to Hitchens, religion is really the source of 99% of this world's evils; things like racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, classism, poverty, and nationalism are merely offshoots of humankind's seriously stupid affinity for creating gods. Thankfully for us, Great Thinkers such as himself are here to disabuse us of our pathetic and mystical thinking. And while I'm sure he would call me stupid for saying so, I think that Hitchens has replaced one godhead (God, Jehovah, Allah -- whatever you want to call him) with another (secular -- or maybe scientific? -- humanism). And if there's anything I know, it is that you cannot argue with a secular humanist.

Here's what made this somewhat shrill and monotone book amusing and even enjoyable for me: Hitchens' belief that no one is as fantastic as himself. What did someone once say about Orson Welles: "There but for the grace of God goes God"? Let me give just one example of how Hitchens' stratospheric self-regard colors his view of the world and unintentionally caused me to erupt in laughter. Hitchens tells a story about how he was once on Sri Lanka -- I think -- and was able to get a group of natives out of a potentially dangerous situation, using his wits and his British press card. The men, according to Hitchens, then proceeded to treat him in an extremely respectful, bordering on adulatory, way. Instead of thinking, "Well, maybe their behavior is their culture's way of expressing gratitude," he arrives at the conclusion that they think he is a god. This incident says volumes more about Hitchens' attitude toward himself (or should I say Himself) than it does about the Sri Lankan men.

Don't get me wrong: I love reading polemical texts, and this is about as polemical as you can get. And Hitchens is a highly entertaining, erudite, and amusing author -- the kind of guy who drives you bananas but that you secretly want to hang out with, just b/c he *does* say the most outrageous things. But like all polemical texts (including sacred ones!), this one lacks any kind of depth; it refuses to grapple with the complications and strangeness that make up life. It is the kind of book that an intelligent and rebellious 13-year old would love. It is the kind of book that a grown woman might buy and then place prominently on her bookshelf in advance of a maternal visit, just to raise her mother's blood pressure a little. ("What?! Don't you want to go to HEAVEN?!") It is not the kind of book that imparts any kind of wisdom or knowledge or understanding. ...less

Like this review? yes (5 people liked it)

1 comments

Christy rated it:

12/08/07

bookshelves: religion-and-atheism

Read in December, 2007

Hitchens' book isn't bad, but it isn't all that great, either. His arguments are nothing new (at least to me) and his tone frequently veers too far into the snarky and ad hominem. Given these flaws, God Is Not Great falls short of being a truly interesting and useful argument about the place of religion in human culture.

Having said that, however, Hitchens does some things very well indeed. His arguments may not be unique, but they are clearly and memorably presented, and the book i...more Hitchens' book isn't bad, but it isn't all that great, either. His arguments are nothing new (at least to me) and his tone frequently veers too far into the snarky and ad hominem. Given these flaws, God Is Not Great falls short of being a truly interesting and useful argument about the place of religion in human culture.

Having said that, however, Hitchens does some things very well indeed. His arguments may not be unique, but they are clearly and memorably presented, and the book is filled with vivid and varied examples from history to support his argument. He acknowledges on more than one occasion that he is but a pygmy on the shoulders of giants in this endeavor and his book reads as such, but as a starting point for a reader who may be less familiar with the anti-religion arguments, Hitchens' book works well. He clearly points to the sources of his ideas, making it easy for a curious reader to explore further. He truly isn't interested in plagiarizing their ideas, only in making them more widely available as part of the battle he foresees in his conclusion: "we are in need of a renewed Enlightenment, which will base itself on the proposition that the proper study of mankind is man, and woman," he says.

"However," he continues, "only the most naive utopian can believe that this new humane civilization will develop, like some dream of 'progress,' in a straight line. We have first to transcend our prehistory, and escape the gnarled hands which reach out to drag us back to the catacombs and the reeking altars and the guilty pleasures of subjection and abjection. 'Know yourself,' said the Greeks, gently suggesting the consolations of philosophy. To clear the mind for this project, it has become necessary to know the enemy, and to prepare to fight it."

Conceived as a part of this battle, God Is Not Great's purpose, tone, and structure become much clearer. I only wish Hitchens' idea of this battle were more than a call to attack, also involving a greater sense of what good we can create through such a battle. He writes only very briefly of the renewed age of Enlightenment we can bring forth, of the benefits of doing away with religion; he spends the greatest part of his book elaborating on how awful religion is. For many, this may be necessary information, but criticism without a solution can feel one-sided and can be less than convincing. Hitchens gestures toward a solution, but he waits too long to do so and devotes too little time to it to keep this book from feeling like a series of negatives with no positive.

The final concern I have about Hitchens' book has to do with his audience. If he intends his audience to include those who do not already agree with his position, this negative and exceedingly critical approach may drive away those whose minds need changing. There is little recognition of what people gain from religion and no attempt to meet people on their own terms and lead them from there. As it is, his audience seems to be effectively limited to those who already agree that religion is dangerous but haven't yet marshaled enough evidence for their belief or explored the topic fully themselves--the newly converted, in other words. It is not a conversion tool, nor is it terribly useful for those who have been on Hitchens' side for a while. This, not the information, ideas, or structure of the book, is its primary weakness. ...less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Tony rated it:

11/01/07

bookshelves: non-fiction

Read in November, 2007

recommends it for: Anyone who wants to start a discussion on religion

The constant refrain in America life is that one should never discuss politics or religion, yet these two social constructions govern how human beings organize their lives. In time, Hitchens's book will become required reading for atheists, while most intellectuals of any religious bent will stick in the to-be-read pile, permanently assigning it to a class of books that they should read, but you know how those things are, "so many books, so little time." The underlying premise in ...more The constant refrain in America life is that one should never discuss politics or religion, yet these two social constructions govern how human beings organize their lives. In time, Hitchens's book will become required reading for atheists, while most intellectuals of any religious bent will stick in the to-be-read pile, permanently assigning it to a class of books that they should read, but you know how those things are, "so many books, so little time." The underlying premise in God Is Not Great is that religion is a man-made construct that has been used to justify atrocities in some lord's name It’s not a message that most people want to or are willing to hear.

He attacks most religions for not inviting discourse and dissent, falling into tautologies when logic fails, and for corrupting the young -- here he is particularly exercised over the work of mohels, female circumcision done in the name of religion and catholic church's culpability in hiding the sex scandals.

Hitchens deftly exposes many of the contradictions in the bible, both new and old testaments. But here I don't think he is breaking new ground, merely replaying old argument that the good book was written for earthly reasons. Where he is at his best is exposing religions that were created in the past 500 years and examining their creation and rise to modern day cults. Under Hitchens’s light and any objective review, the Mormon Church doesn’t pass the sniff test.

Hitchens hits Islam hard for it many contradicts and inconsistencies, including the practice of granting short-term marriage licenses to a man who wishes to visit a prostitute. Women need not apply. Like many westerners, he worries about Islam trying to end conversations through the use of violence, for example the bombing of bookstores that carried The Satanic Verses, Salam Rushdie’s take on the Koran verses that Islam feels were devil inspired.

According to Hitchens, religions were created to make sense of the world. Today, science fills that role, but religion is not going down without a fight. My example of this is creationism, a hackneyed contrivance by the new Ptolemyists to once again put man at the center of the known universe, science works until it contradicts the will or word of god. So limited are they in fighting this one battle that puts them at odds with known science, that they are willing to risk looking stupid and damning a city, state, region or nation with their lack of foresight. Though it's hard to imagine it now, the church fought for a long time to suppress the now accepted belief that the earth is not the center of the universe, far from it.

Fast forward five hundreds years later, and the devote are once again fighting a losing battle with science, five hundred years from now, everyone will want to know what was the point.

I have gone on far too long about a minor conflict between the facts and religion; in God Is Not Great Hitchens does the same only more eloquently and with immense scholarship. It’s a good book and a great place to start a conversation that needs to be had, but I doubt many religious folks will read the book, they can’t handle the truth.

...less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Micah rated it:

10/08/07

Read in August, 2007

Ever since I first saw this book in an airport bookstore (Minneapolis? Chicago?), I've been wanting to read it. I usually don't read books of political/social commentary, but I harbor a long-standing interest in the inherent hypocrisy/corruption/evil of religion. Naturally, considering my personal experience and interest in this unfortunate reality, I felt compelled to read Christopher Hitchens's new book. Well, several months later, I've finally borrowed it from my local library (a nice little ...more Ever since I first saw this book in an airport bookstore (Minneapolis? Chicago?), I've been wanting to read it. I usually don't read books of political/social commentary, but I harbor a long-standing interest in the inherent hypocrisy/corruption/evil of religion. Naturally, considering my personal experience and interest in this unfortunate reality, I felt compelled to read Christopher Hitchens's new book. Well, several months later, I've finally borrowed it from my local library (a nice little place with a coffee shop). In God Is Not Great, Hitchens rages against the worldwide religious establishment, paying careful attention to the many heinous results that it has sown on Earth throughout history. Although Hitchens pays careful attention to religious history, he also thoroughly examines the devastating role that religion plays in modern life. The primary victim of his detailed and insightful assault is monotheism, which Hitchens exposes as a lustful, power hungry, deceitful and violent form of human oppression. He demonstrates how religion has been used by those in power to control their subjects and justify grave violations of human rights. We all recognize that the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials, to name two examples, are unfortunate blemishes on religion's historical record, but Hitchens manages to highlight the many religiously motivated injustices (to use an exceptionally mild term) that have been perpetrated during our lives. However, despite God Is Not Great's overwhelming focus on monotheism, polytheistic religions are also criticized and exposed as harmful elements in their respective societies. Although I found Hitchens's argument to be lucid and convincing, there are several points in his thesis that I found especially weak. First, he concludes that, because of religion's corrupt and inhumane history, "god" must be an invention of the human psyche. But can't man corrupt those things that exist independently of himself? Aren't there natural elements that man has used to cause inexplicable harm to others? Second, Hitchens argues that those good deeds done by religious people are a result of the compassionate nature of their great humanism, not their religious devotion. This seems to be an overly simplistic conclusion, for if the good that religion has done is a result of humanism, it follows that the evil deeds perpetrated by the greatest of humanists (and there have been injustices perpetrated by self-proclaimed humanists) must be a result of religion. When considered in the reverse, this proposition makes no sense. Perhaps, Mr. Hitchens, it is possible for religious people to interpret their faith in such a way as to extend compassion to their fellow man. Despite the good that religion has done, the immense evil that it has exposed countless people to is undeniable, and it is Hitchens's recognition of these evils that makes God Is Not Great such a worthwhile book. Unfortunately, most of those who will read this book probably already agree with its author. Those who truly need to read God Is Not Great are those intelligent and kind people who follow religious doctrines that have consequences that they don't truly understand....less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Joel rated it:

07/24/08

Read in July, 2008

recommends it for: theists, atheists, agnostics

Imagine if a basketball fan set out to discredit baseball and converts its adherents to his chosen sport. He would note the rather dubious creation myth still celebrated in the sports' Hall of Fame, the Black Sox scandal, the exclusion of African American players until the 1950s, frequent brawls between teams that literally clear the benches, and two most successful players of the last decade being almost undoubted cheats. He could go on to argue that the uniforms are childish, the habits of ...more Imagine if a basketball fan set out to discredit baseball and converts its adherents to his chosen sport. He would note the rather dubious creation myth still celebrated in the sports' Hall of Fame, the Black Sox scandal, the exclusion of African American players until the 1950s, frequent brawls between teams that literally clear the benches, and two most successful players of the last decade being almost undoubted cheats. He could go on to argue that the uniforms are childish, the habits of players disgusting (and their salaries even more so), and the rules hopelessly complex and inconsistent. Finally, he might say, subjecting children to such a game through organized little leagues is perhaps a form of child abuse. After all, it subjects them to needless stress to perform in an environment where even the most successful fail more than half the time and relies on shouting coaches for motivation. The basketball fan might then make a few comments on the beauty of a Larry Bird jumper, the deftness of a Magic Johnson behind-the-back pass, and the awe-inspiring grace of a Jordan dunk and thus safely conclude the argument convinced that his case was proved.

Replace baseball with religions and basketball with enlightenment rationalism and you've essentially got God is Not Great. Hitchens' book is a catalog of the sins of religions and a well considered and highly pointed one at that. I found much I want to think over a bit more in my faith after watching it fall under Hitchens's inspection. Still, it seems like the same sort of catalog can be written up about any organized human endeavor and the fact that organized religions are not free of the human stain hardly surprises.

What is surprising is the extent to which Hitchens' goes to leave no saint unblemished. Why he chooses to blame Indian partition on Gandhi, when Gandhi advocated contra Jinnah for a united India is beyond me. Similar is the portrayal of Mother Teresa as an opportunistic nun (I am sure the people she served wish there were more such opportunists). I suspect Mother Teresa is cast in such an unfavorable light more from the antipathy Hitchens feels for his fellow polemicist Malcolm Muggeridge, who first filmed her, than anything she's done. (In Hitchens estimation Muggeridge is an idiot as are most people he disagrees with).

I suppose an atheist will find most of this comforting, though he may be pricked by a niggling doubt (a similar doubt to the doubt a theist such as myself has when reading some of C.S. Lewis' work) that the case for atheism is just a little too easily made here. ...less

Like this review? yes (5 people liked it)

10 comments

Man Ching rated it:

06/24/08

bookshelves: commentary-historical, commentary-philosophy, commentary-science, commentary-social, library

Read in June, 2008

This is a mistitled book: it should be titled "How Man made an institution called religion that does very well controlling his fellows."

What follows for nearly 20 chapters is an account of the contradictions of holy books, of holy men, and of their myriad sins. The sins generally fall into power grabs rather than venality (although there is enough of that too.) In other words, the thesis of the book and Christopher Hitchens's examples are not new.

I hesitated reading this book, ...more This is a mistitled book: it should be titled "How Man made an institution called religion that does very well controlling his fellows."

What follows for nearly 20 chapters is an account of the contradictions of holy books, of holy men, and of their myriad sins. The sins generally fall into power grabs rather than venality (although there is enough of that too.) In other words, the thesis of the book and Christopher Hitchens's examples are not new.

I hesitated reading this book, as it a scanning of its table of contents shows that it recapitulates what I already think. However, Hitchens writes much better than I do, and so there is no shame taking notes as to how better to convey the same types of arguments.

Where the book shines is when Hitchens details both the literary and logical consistencies of the Bible, the Pentateuch, and the Koran. He is an exemplary reader, and he treats the text he disassembles with respect. To point out logical inconsistencies, he merely has to accept the arguments as presented within a particular holy book and then ask questions about details. As Hitchens and many others have pointed out, for a God of all the universe, He seems terribly concerned with the local territorial quarrels of illiterate Jewish and Arab farmers, in the Pentateuch and the Koran, respectively.

Hitchens does question the provenance of various passages and whole books in the various bibles and at least cites scholars and historians who are respected within their own faiths. One such instance is in the story of the adultress brought by Pharisees before Jesus (the story in John 8:3-11). This is the one that ends with Jesus saying "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." Hitchens presented arguments from Barton Ehrman, who notes that the writing style and vocabulary in this parable is different from the text immediately surrounding it, that the story is also missing in the oldest and most trusted manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Ehrman concluded that this story was not a part of the original gospel.

Overall, Hitchens does an adequate job of remaining distant enough to present a rhetorical (as in providing "common sense" and literary-analytical arguments) challenge to the faithful. He could have just added to the noise by ranting on the stupidity of believers. But Hitchens does marshall evidence (albeit an actual bibliography would have been nice) and does try to engage religious arguments on their terms (i.e. he very much wishes to hoist the faithful by their own petards.) Despite the attempt at a level head, Hitchens does let his contempt slip out; that, more than anything else, will enable his critics to easily dismiss this work as another polemic. I find it book a good "field guide" to existing critical analysis of religion, based upon philosophy and history and not so much science. That market is cornered by Richard Dawkins....less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Shane rated it: