God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens

Dec 17, 2007 E rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: politics

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 w...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 imperialist, 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 in the fight for social justice (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 supernatural beings they wish, “contempt for intellect is never passive.” 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. (And for daring to challenge this, Hitchens receives countless death threats.)

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 one generation to apologize for the Holocaust and the government continues to rightly assert that 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 and as reliable as Roman mythology.

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 source is as man-made and fallible as all the others. Anyone who reads Heidegger today is compelled to acknowledge his poisonous racism, 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 words of god could be held to the same standard, the debates would be far more interesting and constructive, as Hitchens's book is.
(less)

55 likes · like · see review

Oct 15, 2011 Melly rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Sara

Shelves: philosophy

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 t...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)

58 likes · like · see review

May 28, 2008 Books Ring Mah Bell rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: religion-or-not

I read this months ago and never got around to the review...

Simply stated, Hitchens puts into words all the reasons I shy away from organized religion. The prejudices, sexism, the overall foolishness...

At the same time, he seems oblivious to the fact that there are religious people out there doing great things; feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, building for the homeless.

Hey Hitchens! I get that you are atheist. That's fine, but knock that chip off your shoulder already! Belief that decent...more

64 likes · like · see review

Jul 24, 2008 Joel rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition 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 pla...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)

38 likes · like · see review

Aug 30, 2007 Matthew Wesley rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This book is fundamentally flawed in argument, but can be enjoyable to read. Christopher Hitchens, however, is an exceptionally witty writer, who often finds clever ways to express himself. His writing is conversational, flowing, but sometimes elitist, arrogant, and pretentious. His humor is evident throughout the book, but it is consistently divisive and adversarial.

As an atheist, I find the writing enjoyable, intelligent, and humorous. I do not need to be further convinced of the dangers of fa...more

30 likes · like · see review

Sep 19, 2011 Oceana2602 rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: religious radicals. I'm sure they find common ground with the author.

Recommended to Oceana2602 by: the media

Shelves: 2010, english, male-writers, atheism

Let me begin this review by telling you that I'm an atheist. In fact, I'm with Douglas Adams in calling myself a "radical atheist", just to make sure that everyone gets the point. Yes, really. It's in my profile.

So my opinion about this book really has nothing to do with my personal convictions. Well, not my personal religious convictions, of which there are none. It has everything to do with my personal convictions as an atheist. And as an atheist, I'm offended by this book.

Hitchens is not, and...more

81 likes · like · see review

Sep 06, 2007 Sunni rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

If I could, I would have preferred to give this book 3.5 stars. It was not as good as I had hoped, but not as bad as I feared either. I think Hitchens could have done a better (more logical?) job of defending his premise; still, there's lots of good stuff in here.

The chapter on Eastern religions, though, is troubling to me. Hitchens does hit something on the head in noting the monied, f**cked up set that sometimes accompanies Indian-style gurus, but it's interesting that his Buddhist examples of...more If I could, I would have preferred to give this book 3.5 stars. It was not as good as I had hoped, but not as bad as I feared either. I think Hitchens could have done a better (more logical?) job of defending his premise; still, there's lots of good stuff in here.

The chapter on Eastern religions, though, is troubling to me. Hitchens does hit something on the head in noting the monied, f**cked up set that sometimes accompanies Indian-style gurus, but it's interesting that his Buddhist examples of violence are the only two I ever hear referenced - Sri Lanka and the Japanese oppression of China. I think it should be noted that while there are hundreds of examples of Christian violence, the same two examples come up again and again for "Buddhist violence". One might think this says something about the "damage" done by Buddhism (as compared to the western faiths). Also, while I agree somewhat with his distaste for de-emphasis on the intellect that is sometimes found in zen practice, there are zen schools (namely some Korean) that focus heavily on knowledge. And it's interesting that Hitchens includes no notes/references for the entire Eastern chapter. So, I'm wondering if the Dalai Lama quote on prostitution is taken out of context or if it's very outdated.

All this being said about this one chapter, though, I still liked most of the book. And the other citations included reference a great number of books I'd like to now read, namely what I can find about Spinoza and a number of books by Michael Shermer. And overall, though I bristle like Hitchens at the "Brights" moniker Richard Dawkins supports, I prefer Dawkins' recent The God Delusion. Namely because it approaches the issue of god from a scientific point of view. Hitchens succeeds at showing some strong examples of the audacity and violence of religious figures and groups (the recurring emphasis on the terrible things religion does to children is particularly salient), but it doesn't really get to the heart of the atheist/believer question.(less)

11 likes · like · see review

May 23, 2009 Marc Horton rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: god-and-stuff

Obviously, anyone who can write a less-than-flattering book about Mother Teresa is not concerned with offending anyone. More or less, here's the rub: "God" explained a lot, back before we had Science and The Enlightenment, and now, humanity suffers at the hand of religious zealots whose battles spill over into the lives of the innocent. And one point that I'm sure would make my mother cry: it is possible to live a moral and good life without "God." Given the right subject, he's actually pretty f...more

13 likes · like · see review

Jan 23, 2008 Kerissa Ward rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Everyone with free thought

Shelves: politics

Ever since 'The Trial of Henry Kissinger' I have been a fan of Christopher Hitchens. I knew that he was an atheist, but because of my own spritual searching I was reluctant to read this book when it first came out. I finally picked up the book because I have been on a non-fiction binge lately and I knew that by reading his book I was guaranteed an intelligent treatise. By the time I finished the book, I was very glad that I had read it.

Hitchens doesn't so much attack God as he attacks religion....more Ever since 'The Trial of Henry Kissinger' I have been a fan of Christopher Hitchens. I knew that he was an atheist, but because of my own spritual searching I was reluctant to read this book when it first came out. I finally picked up the book because I have been on a non-fiction binge lately and I knew that by reading his book I was guaranteed an intelligent treatise. By the time I finished the book, I was very glad that I had read it.

Hitchens doesn't so much attack God as he attacks religion. He begins the book by describing himself as a boy, learning passages from the Bible, and the moment he felt that there must not be a God because of a comment his teacher makes. The tales of his boyhood experiences with religion and atheism are used for making his one of his thesis -- that organized religion ruins everything. He points out that it seems one goal of organized religion is to make humans relinquish independent and rational thought.

One of the great things about the book is that the chapters are clearly and concisely laid out. In fact, I found the chapter sequence to be quite methodical. As is his usual trait when Hitchens is arguing against something, he builds his arguments gradually and strongly.

Right after I bought the book I read online that many people who considered themselves evangelical have bought the book in a sort of know-thy-enemy way. I wonder if they felt like they any kind of rebuttal, because Hitchens -- through his extensive readings and reportage -- has built a historically sound case against the three organized religions.

It is worthy to note, while Hitchens does deride some of the beliefs and practices of the big three, he does not sneer of the entirety of the faiths. He knows that there are good people in these faiths who only wish to do good. It the people who take their faiths to the extremes and misinterpret the written word that Hitchens takes most issue with.

My only critique is that I do not think he addressed the evolution vs creationism as effectively as he could have. He makes mention of it several times, but does not explore it deeply.

Otherwise anyone with any kind of brainpower should read this book.(less)

16 likes · like · see review

Aug 18, 2007 Jules rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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; thing...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)

10 likes · like · see review

Oct 25, 2008 William rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

What a book. Its so hard to review a book who's author is both an enormous intellectual and an equally enormous ahole. I certainly would recommend it to every believer and think it will shake their foundations. But like every fanatic and believe me Hitchens is as fanatical in his atheism as any fundamentalist preacher, he overreaches. He spends chapters propositioning that communism is a new religion yet says nothing about the dominate economic worldwide system of capitalism?? He talks only brie...more

11 likes · like · see review

Sep 03, 2007 Radhika rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Any thinking literate person

In the recent past, I have read a couple of books which make the case for atheism as the only reasonable path for a thinking person. Of these, Hitchens' is the most well-written and engaging book which is divided into multiple short essays on various issues such as eastern religions, the pig taboo... This keeps the reader better engaged than for instance Dawkins' book which seems to lose steam midway.

Hitchens' book does seem to contain some strange inaccuracies but perhaps these are forgivable i...more In the recent past, I have read a couple of books which make the case for atheism as the only reasonable path for a thinking person. Of these, Hitchens' is the most well-written and engaging book which is divided into multiple short essays on various issues such as eastern religions, the pig taboo... This keeps the reader better engaged than for instance Dawkins' book which seems to lose steam midway.

Hitchens' book does seem to contain some strange inaccuracies but perhaps these are forgivable in a work that purports to be in-progress. For instance, the flag of India doesn't sport Gandhi's spinning wheel. It does have a wheel but it derives from a different source unrelated to M.K. Gandhi. I do believe that pre-Independence (1947) India had a version of the flag which sported the spinning wheel of Gandhi. (Hitchens will also be glad to know that many Indians tend to agree with his opinion of Gandhi and he is not a universally loved figure inside India. That said, we need to separate his politics and from his religion.)

A reviewer here on gr complains about his hubris in believing that the Sri Lankans who accompanied him saw in him god reincarnated after his presence saved their lives (an incident mentioned in the book). People in South Asia are quite prone to do this and I am quite certain his account of this event is not colored by his ego.

Dawkins' in his book is quite accepting of pan-theism and eastern religions in general. In fact, he is quite clear that his beef is with the dominant mono-theistic trio. Hitchens' on the other hand doesn't really spare any religion. However, his grasp of eastern religions is definitely weaker than of "western" religions.

Eastern religions have a lot that is wrong with them that can be laid bare incisively. Siddharta, who was born a Hindu, and became an atheist is one of the earliest figures we know by name, who rebelled against religion and ritual. Of course, we and our penchant for gods and religion, turned him into a god and now buddhism isn't any better than a religion.(less)

5 likes · like · see review

Jan 12, 2008 Paul rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: the-new-atheism, atheology

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.

T...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)

15 likes · like · see review

Jun 03, 2008 Jason rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: religion

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...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)

15 likes · like · see review

view all 13 comments

Carmen Patrick,
I completely understand your viewpoint and maybe this is really where religious matters get sticky, the organized, communal aspect of
it. I gue...more Patrick,
I completely understand your viewpoint and maybe this is really where religious matters get sticky, the organized, communal aspect of
it. I guess that once religion is presented in a structured and organized format for a large group of people, things can get corrupted, abused or misconstrued. I imagine that undermining the
power structure of organized religion and placing it in the hands of the individual was what Martin Luther was aiming for with his 95 theses, and the world has not been the same since. Well, perhaps it all depends on one's personality. Maybe some people need other people for, as you mentioned, a sense of community or home or an identity. On
the other hand, there are people who see themselves as more self-sufficient in that they don't need other people to provide any of
those aforementioned components. However, consider one of the most basic and essential, and perhaps overlooked, tenets of almost all faiths, and that is humility. With humility, there is the implied act of submission and therefore submitting to the idea that the individual
can not provide him or herself with all the answers, that one cannot or does not have the capability to figure everything out on their own. It is almost as if asking to keep oneself open to the whims and wilds of human interaction. One may
presume that he can provide himself with all the answers and avoid the vagaries involved in dealing with other people and their institutions, particularly when it comes to spiritual matters. However, that may be a way of insulating oneself from associating or engaging with what is out there. I have held the idea that I can practice my faith on my own as well, and that is all well and good, but at times it seems like a cop-out and I believe that feeling can be traced back to trust, which is another essential tenet of faith, and a lack of trust in what is out there and certainly wanting to keep oneself
shielded from abuse or misapplication of doctrine or power. Perhaps some people are just less hesitant to admit that they don't know
everything, they can't figure it all out for themselves and that they look for something outside of themselves. Yes, this puts them in a
vulnerable position in that they are willing to trust something that they are not completely in control of, but there lies a bounty of
wisdom in making oneself vulnerable. There is no reward without risk just as there is no faith without sacrifice, right? Or no? It just always seems to come back to making the Leap of Faith. That being said, a spiritual relationship really seems to return to the individual and his or her God and sharing it is perhaps just an added dimension that deepens one's practice. I don't know......anyways, who's hungry?!

(btw, sorry about using the wrong name before, just caught that)(less)
updated 19 nov. 19:50

Carmen Hey Patrick, You're right, this is an agree to disagree situation, but I thoroughly enjoyed the exchange and I can very much relate to where you are c...more
22 nov. 09:51

Nov 11, 2007 Tucker rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: angry atheists

Shelves: finished, less-relativist

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 to...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)

5 likes · like · see review

Jan 24, 2009 Joshua rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: the choir

Shelves: religion

I suspected that the recently invigorated debate over secularism vs. religion was the most boring topic on earth, and I feel vindicated after reading this book. Christopher Hitchens is a pompous asshole. This actually makes him an appropriate author for the subject, though. When people debate religion in such stark terms they are pretty much always just trying to score cheap points. Hitchens does this one better by managing to write in a way that is offensive even when you agree with him.

UPDATE...more

7 likes · like · see review

Jun 10, 2007 Chad rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I've followed Christopher Hitchens' divorce from the political Left with interest, because he is an extremely talented, provocative writer with an uncompromising intellect. His support for the Iraq occupation has drawn heated ire from his former colleagues, and I have read a fair amount of his work recently, as well as the criticism of his opponents, in an attempt to find his overall political philosophy.

Strangely enough, this refutation of religion has provided quite a few clues.

Hitchens' argum...more

4 likes · like · see review

Mar 02, 2012 Shane rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This book was recommended to me by a friend several times before I finally gave it a shot. I was a little wary from the title...I enjoy books about religion (and people's escapes from them), but don't have a lot of time for openly, anti-religious folks' emotional whining and ranting.
To my pleasant surprise, Christopher Hitchens' book was a joy. Hitchens gradually found himself appalled by the amount of religiously-fueled atrocity on our planet. Our various religious leaders are constantly poin...more This book was recommended to me by a friend several times before I finally gave it a shot. I was a little wary from the title...I enjoy books about religion (and people's escapes from them), but don't have a lot of time for openly, anti-religious folks' emotional whining and ranting.
To my pleasant surprise, Christopher Hitchens' book was a joy. Hitchens gradually found himself appalled by the amount of religiously-fueled atrocity on our planet. Our various religious leaders are constantly pointing to the amount of "evil" on earth as a sign of man's sinfulness (and demonic tampering), but Hitchens shows, in example after example, that most of the atrocities are carried out by these very religious people themselves. Nobody is spared here: Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, on and on.
This book takes an objective look at history and modern life, and points its finger at every instance of war, injustice, persecution, genocide, slavery, racism, ethnic-cleansing, intolerance, child-molestation, etc...and notices that - without exception - these are always propagated by religious ideals. His conclusion is in the title: "Religion poisons everything."
The one chapter where he loses my attention is his expose on evolution, and subsequent conclusion that these "facts" should be enough to silence all the religiously inclined. There are many people, like myself, who have no problem with the concept of evolution. As much as I have examined the evidence though, I see it as simply another theory lacking any hard evidence. It's handled almost religiously by scientists who, I think, sometimes forget that they are supposed to be scientific. (though Hitchens is not a scientist) For those who are decidedly non-evolutionists, this side-track will weaken Hitchens' overall case for you. Vice versa for those of you who embrace it. Personally, I think this book could have stood just as well (or even better) without it. His other information is difficult to argue with, so this just gives his detractors something to nit-pick about.
Hitchen's has an immensely enjoyable writing style, with an elegantly flowing prose resting upon a razor-sharp wit. I had to re-read countless passages many times simply because I was amazed his ability to construct such poignant and humorous sentences.
If you're heavily religious (I know some Christians are fond of saying they're not religious at all. If you are, and that is your stance, then I'm talking SPECIFICALLY to YOU), this book is not for you! You will be offended. This is a book for open-minded people who believe that - if humans are to continually progress - established institutions must be constantly re-examined, and ultimately discarded when they no longer serve their purpose. (less)

8 likes · like · see review

Jun 06, 2008 Audrey rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: atheists, agnostics, doubters, contrarians

Shelves: non-fic, philosophy

Christopher Hitchens makes many good points about why belief in God doesn't make sense anymore, and many excellent points about the evils of religion and how it's held us back. He writes with erudition and wit, and at times, is a pleasant person to visit with. I'm inclined to agree with much of what he writes here (although since I grew up without much formal religious instruction, I don't really need the hard sell on that one) but I was confused about his purpose in writing this book. If he jus...more Christopher Hitchens makes many good points about why belief in God doesn't make sense anymore, and many excellent points about the evils of religion and how it's held us back. He writes with erudition and wit, and at times, is a pleasant person to visit with. I'm inclined to agree with much of what he writes here (although since I grew up without much formal religious instruction, I don't really need the hard sell on that one) but I was confused about his purpose in writing this book. If he just wants to write a polemic for people who already agree with him, his snide tone makes sense, but he seems to feel so strongly about actually dissuading people from their beliefs. Does he think he can mock people into not believing in God? I found the contemptuous tone that intermittently seeps into his writing offensive - and I'm not even religious. I think if you're going to attempt to prod people in the tender parts of their psyche and urge them to give up something that means a lot to them - even if you're convinced it's all bunk - a little care is called for, no?

Also, he seems to think all atheists are enlightened aesthetes who spend their time pondering the fine arts, literature and science just because *he* happens to be an enlightened aesthete who does these things (and discusses Shakespeare with Salman Rushdie to boot). I think that's probably as grave a mistake as thinking that all people who believe in God are Bible-thumping maniacs who are bombing abortion clinics.

I think, in the end, though, belief doesn't really capitulate to reason, ever. It's something felt with an organ other than the brain. I came away the same agnostic I've pretty much always been (although I think that might be a function of my personal tendency towards indecision rather than anything else). I don't fault him for trying, but I wonder if he's done atheists and non-believers a favor in writing this book.

There's an interesting op ed from the nytimes today on morality without religion; click here to go to it.

And apparently, Mark Twain agrees:
There is one notable thing about our Christianity: bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing and predatory as it is — in our country, particularly, and in all other Christian countries in a somewhat modified degree — it is still a hundred times better than the Christianity of the Bible, with its prodigious crime — the invention of Hell. Measured by our Christianity of to-day, bad as it is, hypocritical as it is, empty and hollow as it is, neither the Deity nor his Son is a Christian, nor qualified for that moderately high place. Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilt.
Read more here:http://beyond-school.org/2010/07...(less)

3 likes · like · see review

Sep 03, 2007 Douglas rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Hitchens' broadside against religious faith of all sorts. His debunking of all the justifications for religion, particularly the idea the religion makes people act better, and his defense of the secular idea that morality requires no supernatural source.

His two main targets are Islam and Christianity, but he also takes shots at Mormonism, Judaism, Buddhism and the rest. It is a refreshing change of pace from the usual liberal American secularist argument, which focuses almost exclusively upon fu...more

4 likes · like · see review

Jul 02, 2007 Tom rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Atheists who have never read any atheist literature and want to feel good about themselves

I've never read anything by Christopher Hitchens, so I have nothing to add to others' ranting or raving about the author's other works. I have, however, read Sam Harris's book The End of Faith, and I liked that, so I picked this one up after the NYT gave it a good review.

What's good: It isn't as angry as Harris's book. Most of the arguments are well-reasoned, though there are a few cheap shots. It's very funny in places. For someone who has never read any "atheist" literature, it would be a good...more

4 likes · like · see review

Dec 16, 2011 Joanne Manaster rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The only reason I gave this book four stars instead of five is that he has not said anything new in atheistic arguments, although he says it very well! Hitchens is hilarious and I would run up to anyone who'd listen and read sections of his book out loud to them!

A friend once was on a panel with him and he was completely drunk. She said he was so lucid and his arguments so well thought out and pointed that he was so much better while fueled on alcohol than the rest of us could ever hope to be so...more

11 likes · like · see review

Aug 21, 2007 R. rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 2007

Poking his sausage finger in my chest, getting spittle on my good jacket. Rabid, rabid.

Still, he makes some good points. And, still, I'm able to reconcile (in my head, though not with Hitchens' verbal acuity) the idea of an omnipotent force out there and religion being, mostly, crusty parchment.

No need to throw the baby out with the bath water, Chris.

My one complaint would be that he admits that the book is unfinished and that this is merely the first version (see also Sherman Alexie's Flight)....more

2 likes · like · see review

Jun 06, 2008 Phoebe added it · review of another edition

Shelves: agnostipation

Maybe my primary problem with this book is that Hitchens is preaching to the choir--as an agnostic, I'm familiar with, and agree with, most of the arguments he presents here against organized religion, and he fails to give us any new or innovative arguments here. Additionally, his style is messy, disorganized, and rambling; his paragraphs, particularly, lack cohesion. It does pick up a bit in his discussions of the three major monotheistic religions and their texts, but ultimately, I wouldn't re...more

4 likes · like · see review

May 05, 2009 Patrick Gibson rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: snorgasm

God is not so good (if he/she/it exists at all).

Man(kind) eternally perverts God and the concept thereof (if man exists at all) to his own evil machinations.
Christians are whoremongers with a history of violence, deception, and generally all around evil (if evil exists at all) – but most major religions with God at the center are contributors to the subjugation and degradation of humanity.

This is a venal book, albeit humorous, intelligent and somewhat enjoyable considering it is loaded with arro...more God is not so good (if he/she/it exists at all).

Man(kind) eternally perverts God and the concept thereof (if man exists at all) to his own evil machinations.
Christians are whoremongers with a history of violence, deception, and generally all around evil (if evil exists at all) – but most major religions with God at the center are contributors to the subjugation and degradation of humanity.

This is a venal book, albeit humorous, intelligent and somewhat enjoyable considering it is loaded with arrogant pretentious crap.

We all know religion is dangerous to society—it always has been. The Crusades were picnics?

This must be written for the people of Middle Earth. The faithful will never get past the offensive fallacies (and they may not understand words longer than ‘transubstantiate’); to the Philistines this is preaching to the choir—they know it all already (and luxuriate in big words because it justifies their existence); that leaves the undecided in the middle—and I am not sure the arguments presented are clear enough to convert the pabulum addicted irrational double-wide half educated nit wits who consider a Chevy on cinder blocks a lawn ornament towards any particular argument.
Bill Mahar made the psychosis of religion at least palatable with ‘Religulous,’ which unfortunately will, once again, not be seen or read by the people who should. At least it is clever and witty, unlike this book which is dull and fatuitous, with a few clever little snarky bits. (Not enough snark for the buck, unfortunately.)

The author uses a scorched earth process which denigrates any arguments he tries to make. We get it. We know religion fucks things up. It’s important to bring examples to our attention, but why make us feel so dirty in the process? A little less arrogant perhaps? A few sentences in English instead of convoluted prosaic gobbledegoop? Ayn Rand reads better than this shit.

Christopher Hitchens is not so great.

But if he were . . . could he edit half the book to the bowels of hell and leave us with something worth reading?

Did I mention I have an opinion?
(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Aug 25, 2008 David rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: atheism

Hitchens is a great writer so the book is an engaging read. Christians should listen to and be challenged by what people like Hitchens have to say, though most of what he said has been said before by others who seem to have a better grasp of things.

For example, he writes that Bart Ehrman (his name is Bart, not Barton), found that the end of the Gospel of Mark was not actually in the original manuscripts. Hitchens calls this one of Ehrman's "more astonishing findings" (p. 142). But this so-called...more

3 likes · like · see review

Feb 20, 2008 Anna rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Christopher Hitchens is like the intellectual version of Michael Moore. I first heard of him by way of Charlie Rose:

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2002...

I found him to be extreme and slightly outrageous, which was not disproven by my reading of this book.

It's not that I disagree with what he says, because I don't. But I am not impressed with his attempt to attack and dismantle the value of "faith". Religion, maybe, but he is an atheist who finds faith itself to be wholly unreasonable, irrel...more Christopher Hitchens is like the intellectual version of Michael Moore. I first heard of him by way of Charlie Rose:

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2002...

I found him to be extreme and slightly outrageous, which was not disproven by my reading of this book.

It's not that I disagree with what he says, because I don't. But I am not impressed with his attempt to attack and dismantle the value of "faith". Religion, maybe, but he is an atheist who finds faith itself to be wholly unreasonable, irrelevant, and infantile.

Hitchens is obviously extremely well-read and I appreciate the scholarly research that went into this endeavor, as well as the natural talent that he obviously has for argument. However, my two main criticisms are these:

One, I don't think it is useful to deprive people of faith. Faith, just like reason, is another human capacity that should be appreciated and admired, whether it leads to good or to bad (usually both, as most human qualities do).

Second, I get the feeling that the whole book is Hitchens' opportunity to rant and rave and make all religious people feel foolish. Which is not nice or constructive. He presents only the negative, so his book does not come off in any way as balanced. And he cannot help himself with a few snide comments here and there in paretheses, which I find only adds bitterness to his arguments.

His point can be found (finally) in the last chapter entitled: The Need for a New Enlightenment. After 280 pages of ranting, he finally says something constructive:

"...in our hands and within our view is a whole universe of discovery and clarification, which is a pleasure to study in itself, gives the average person access to insights that not even Darwin or Einstein possessed, and offers the promise of near-miraculous advances in healing, in energy, and in peaceful exchange between different cultures. Yet millions of people in all societies still prefer the myths of cave and the tribe and the blood sacrifice."

And, despite my harsh criticism of this book, I think he is absolutely right.
(less)

4 likes · like · see review

Nov 07, 2007 CB Brim rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This book reads like campaign propaganda. It is not a balanced inquiry into religion as a phenomenon or social force, it is a position piece and a purposefully constructed argument. Just like any effective propagandist Hitchens selects the most outrageous examples possible and attributes them to even the most cursory adherent of the enemy camp. Hitchens paints a black and white portrait of any person who has any ounce of religious thought as a fanatical fundamentalist who implicitly accepts any...more This book reads like campaign propaganda. It is not a balanced inquiry into religion as a phenomenon or social force, it is a position piece and a purposefully constructed argument. Just like any effective propagandist Hitchens selects the most outrageous examples possible and attributes them to even the most cursory adherent of the enemy camp. Hitchens paints a black and white portrait of any person who has any ounce of religious thought as a fanatical fundamentalist who implicitly accepts any story or claim in any religious text ever written.
Because it is largely propoganda, every chapter in this book could be easily countered with an oppositely titled rebuttal. For example 'Religion Kills People' -> 'Religion Saves People'. Anyone with 20 minutes and Google could write that argument (whether it's true or not isnt' the point). This is because Hitchens is not excercising objective thought here, he is running an attack campaign on an opponent of his own dogmatic definition.
At it's core this book is a rant deriding fundamentalists, but with it's strict and extreme definitions, at the end of it all you get the feeling like you are laughing at competitors in the special olympics. Yes, some people are bad at religion. A lot of fundamentalists are raging idiots. However, if someone wonders whether there is a God, or even spiritual forces, they do not automatically believe that God made frogs rain in Egypt and saved the Jews with magic sky-bread, a la Hitchens' tunnel vision viewpoint.
Hitchens fails to realize that it's not the adherents that need discussing, but the impetus and origins, and as such fails to address any of the questions that deserve real inquiry. Why do we find religion in every human culture ever encountered? Why do these ideas resonate with us, not to mention, what about the questions or fears they try to assuage in the first place? Just because some ideas are poorly concieved doesn't mean the inspirations are illegitimate.
At the end of it, this book is little more than the literary equivalent of internet flame bait.

p.s. Hitchens' closing remark that religion is obsolete because the Internet provides wider access to literature and poetry is one of the most laughable things I've ever read. Besides barely making sense, it's a statement that makes me think, after writing an entire book on the subject, Hitchens still has no idea what draws people to religion in the first place.(less)

4 likes · like · see review

Sep 16, 2010 Alex Telander rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: books-read-in-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 Contrarian a...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 here

For more book reviews, and author interviews, go to BookBanter.(less)

3 likes · like · see review

Oct 20, 2007 Dan rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: people who think they have their best ideas when drunk

Shelves: never_finished

Maybe it's because he was preaching to the converted here (pun TERRIBLY intended) but this book just didn't quite fill me with the "Ah HA!" moments I guess I was hoping for. Each chapter, on its own, seems like a decent enough essay, with a presentation of facts to support whatever his claim is, but there is no follow-through in the entire book except to occasionally finish a chapter with something like "See? What'd I tell you? Religion poisons everything!" (and he actually used that line, itali...more

3 likes · like · see review

topics	posts	views	last activity
Did Hitchens militant atheism dim his greater legacy as literary critic?	34	127	04 juin 10:29
Is criticism enough?	101	355	30 mar. 12:43
Mad lib	53	146	09 juil. 15:48
The Hitler button	18	148	09 juil. 15:33

title link	preview: God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
avg rating	preview: God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything Goodreads rating: 3.92 (33371 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9945533-god-is-not-great?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1292650225l/9945533.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9945533-god-is-not-great?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens[/url]

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (55)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Christopher Hitchens

Books by Christopher Hitchens

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About God is Not Great:...

Quotes from God is Not Great: How ...