God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything in Atheists and Skeptics

Nov 11, 2017 Rusty rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: history, prose, religion, non-fiction

I’ve found it hard to sit down and write anything lately. This review being no exception. I can’t recall when I read this book exactly, but I know it was finished before I even marked it as currently reading in my Goodreads list.

But it has occurred to me that I’ve never read a word of Christopher Hitchens before when I picked this little thing up. He’s such a huge name in the “new atheism” movement that it sort of surprised me that I hadn’t. I’d seen numerous debates with him via YouTube and fe I’ve found it hard to sit down and write anything lately. This review being no exception. I can’t recall when I read this book exactly, but I know it was finished before I even marked it as currently reading in my Goodreads list.

But it has occurred to me that I’ve never read a word of Christopher Hitchens before when I picked this little thing up. He’s such a huge name in the “new atheism” movement that it sort of surprised me that I hadn’t. I’d seen numerous debates with him via YouTube and felt I was pretty familiar with the tenor of his arguments to the point that I honestly felt like I’d read this before.

But I had not.

If I had to categorize the nature of Hitchens’ arguments here it would be along the lines of The-history-of-religion-shows-no-signs-of-a-deity-at-work. I think it’s a bit different that more philosophical take that Sam Harris used (although also heavily salted with historical anecdotes – if memory serves me here) and miles away from the more scientific approaches by Richard Dawkins, Sean Carroll, or Lawrence Krauss (I must confess, I’ve not read Krauss either, but like Hitchens, I’ve seen countless debates with him).

In all, I find this particular method of argumentation quite compelling, as I think most people will when it supports their own conclusions, as Hitchens does mine. I think of it like this:

• If religion, any religion, is genuinely divine, then we should see evidence of this in the adherents of the faith
• Religious organizations show all the corruption (in many cases, moreso) than secular organizations of similar size
• In some cases religious dogma actively makes the world a worse place and increases suffering
-- For example, the proliferation of Aids throughout the third world due to the condemnation of condom use by the Catholic Church
-- Religious groups prohibiting vaccinations, or proscribing female circumcision, or refusal of basic medical care for preventable/curable diseases… vastly contributing to the suffering of people that would otherwise be able to live longer healthier lives
• The likelihood of a benign God being the root of these actions is paradoxical. It casts doubt that he/she/it has ever played any hand in the lives of humans at any time in history
• So if there is a creator god(s) then they are uninterested in the lives of individuals, organizations, or nations.
• It is our responsibility to make the world a better place.

That sums me up, I suppose. And it’s with that lens that I read this book. I strongly believe Hitchens was exploring the first half of my bullet points in this work. Showing anecdotes galore that show people doing horrid things in the name of their God.

I don’t think this is a persuasive argument meant to convert (or de-convert) for a true believer. I know when I believed I’d dismiss any piece of similar argumentation as irrelevant. They aren’t following the correct faith, or people have free will and sometimes choose evil, or they innocently misunderstand God’s intent, or there is a reason for this seemingly bad command that is beyond our understanding, etc.

But I’m not a believer any longer. And instead, I see this is an exploration of my own thoughts, put down in a free flowing, cynical, meandering style. Some parts I couldn’t put down, and other parts (especially the first chapter, in my opinion) were tough to get through.

I think this is worth a read. And I also think the larger point that Hitchens is making is valid. People doing bad things in the name of their faith is evidence that their faith is wrongly placed. Actually, it reminded me of a relatively well known quote from Steven Weinberg:

"…good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil – that takes religion."

I don't know the context of his quote, but I actually don’t think that is true, as good people can do all sorts of evil things whenever they blindly follow a creed or doctrine. it might be more accurate to say that when people outsource their moral framework to another party, then they are at the mercy of the values that party may hold at any given time. That can be true of a political party, a religion, or philosophy.

That's not so sexy a quote, when I put it that way. But I also think it's true that today, in the West, we're more likely to see good people doing bad things it as a byproduct of their religious faith than they are because the state told them too. ...more

3 likes · Like · see review