God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007) - Plot & Excerpts
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.
As a recent college graduate who is completely lacking in original thought or any academic substance whatsoever, my choice for the “worst book I’ve ever read” is not likely to warrant interest. However, since giving unqualified opinions without research or context is exactly the style of this book, I thought it would be thematically appropriate for me to give Christopher Hitchens’s God is Not Great such a distinguished and sought-after position, narrowly edging out its turgid counterpart in the so-called New Atheist genre of literature, The God Delusion. For those of you who are unaware, the New Atheist movement is the newest trend in a la mode godlessness, which is comprised entirely of hastily written and ill-conceived screeds, printed at a pace so rapid that the books’ editors (who presumably exist) don’t have time to actually fact check them. The results are less than compelling for anyone who’s actually done some research (or has access to google).I want to be fair to Hitchens, though. He is easily the most readable and the most fun of any of the New Atheist writers. He had many good books, and he was an astute critic and an incredibly witty writer. His political writing should be mandatory reading even for those who disagree, and his writing on George Orwell likewise. Hitchens was a man of real conviction, and he did not allow his political views to be dictated by party lines. His abhorrence of totalitarianism deeply affected his life, and made him a champion of the oppressed all around the world. And his bravery in the face of death was more than admirable.I don’t want to pile on him too much for this book, especially now that he’s dead, but it’s difficult to deal with the book in a neutral tone, since Hitchens himself dispenses with it immediately. He has no interest in being accommodating, understanding the other side, or even bothering with checking facts. He’s only interested in abuse. He hates religion, he lets you know that he does, and that his book is going to be a smattering of his Very Serious Opinions about the issue. The resulting work consists almost entirely of anecdotes, scandalizing horror stories, and completely distorted history and philosophy, but it’s written in an engaging and readable way. There’s nary an argument to be found, but Hitchens doesn’t really care about that. Arguments are not his game.That leads you, then, to the embarrassing question of trying to figure out what this book is actually supposed to be. It certainly isn’t a defense of atheism. It’s not trying to prove God doesn’t exist, or, at least, it isn’t systematically attempting this. It’s not just an attack on Christianity, since Hitchens levels his shotgun blast at anything and everything religious (which, to him, is pretty much the convenient label for “All the Things I Don’t Believe In”). All one gets from the book is a meandering rant about how “religion” just freaking ruins everything that’s good, man. But the worst part of it is not even its nonsensical structure, but rather the simple factual errors littered throughout the text (and I’m trying to limit it to objective things, not debatable opinions—the kind of stuff Hitchens could’ve googled to fix). Highlights include:-tAttributing a damning quote to Thomas Aquinas that not only did he *not* say, but in fact can be found saying the exact opposite.-tWriting that “many lives were lost” when the books of the Bible were canonized. The real number is zero.-tMisunderstanding basic religious terms: thinking that theodicy is a synonym for theology (which is isn’t), and that synoptic is the antonym for apocryphal (which it isn’t).-tRepeatedly calling Bart Ehrman “Barton.”-tClaiming Augustine was a big fan of the Wandering Jew myth, which didn’t exist until almost 1000 years after he died.-tBlaming “religion” for female circumcision (what religion practices this, we are unfortunately never told).-tClaiming Jesus was born in 4 AD, instead of 4-6 BC.-tClaiming all four canonical gospels were based on the Q source, when only two are thought to be.-tClaiming the gnostic gospels were written at the same time as the canonical ones, when virtually every Biblical scholar holds them to have been written decades and centuries later.-tHitchens condemns the Tamils in Sri Lanka for their invention of suicide bombing. Here, he writes, are examples of the horrors that can be wrought by "Eastern religions." Except for one little detail he overlooked: the Tamil Tigers were led by atheists.It goes on and on. These are just the historical facts. One could easily argue that Hitchens also misrepresents Ockham’s Razor, Nietzsche’s “God is Dead” comment, Pascal’s Wager, and everything Thomas Aquinas ever wrote. But that’s getting into value judgment territory and I’ll stay away. Either way, it’s almost impossible to keep track of all the misinformation that permeates the book, and the more you try to grab hold of them, the more star systems slip through your fingers. Hitchens was so against religion that he couldn’t just argue that it wasn’t true. He had to also argue that it was purely malignant and could never grant that a single good thing—ever, in the history of humanity (as the ill-conceived subtitle of the book states)—came from it (whatever “religion” in the abstract is anyway). And not only that, but he’s so intoxicated by the idea of religion causing all of the bad things in the world, that he even attempts (in a passage as illogical as it is appalling) to pass off the mass murder of religious people by communist regimes as being somehow also the fault of religion, while simultaneously (and conveniently) presenting the best use of the No True Scotsman Fallacy ever put to paper:Hitchens: No atheist ever killed anyone in the name of atheism.Gulag Survivor: Communist atheists killed in the name of atheism all the time!Hitchens: Well, they are not true atheists.Check and mate.The whole thing is so surreal, it’s unfathomable how something this riddled with errors could even get published. Even in politics—the only other area of study prone to such sensationalism—this would not be permissible. Imagine, if you will, a lone political critic emerging from the forest and informing you—in tones of stirring pomposity—that he’ll never vote Democrat because they’re currently engaged in illegal war in Tajikistan. How do you even begin refuting this? Tell him there is no war? What if he refuses to admit that? Then what? And yet, this is the experience gained from this book; only, the critic’s understanding of Democratic platforms will look painfully charitable by comparison to Hitchen’s views on religion.In summation: read Christopher Hitchens. Just don’t read this book.
What do You think about God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007)?
Not long ago, I watched a couple of those "How The Universe Works" shows, and it kinda traumatized me. In however many billions of years, the sun is going to die, and slightly before that the Earth will be incinerated, and everything that we are, were, will be, and will have built will cease to exist. I can comprehend that. Earth's only one part of a solar system in a tiny part of one galaxy of hundreds of billions of galaxies that exist in the vastness of the universe. See? I know that someday (thankfully not very soon), Earth is a goner. But what's hard for me to comprehend is that eventually, the rest of the universe will end too. That's just mind-boggling to me. That something so vast, and so seemingly infinite, can just end... well, it makes me almost wish that there was something more, to almost want to have faith that there is some sort of creator who set all of this in place and then breathed life into it, and who has a plan and a purpose for what it will eventually become, rather than there being nothing but a ticking clock until the end of everything. Almost, because it's sometimes comforting in the face of the end of all existence. But I don't. Even if I DID have that faith, that would be all. I could never be religious, because I don't believe in religion. And that is the crux of this book for me. A little anecdote before I continue: A couple weeks ago, The Boy's family came to stay with us for a few days to visit. They are religiousy, grace-before-dinner (heh, almost typo'd 'sinner' there), "God has a plan" types, who give God credit for everything. They hit all green lights driving through town? God was with them, etc. I try not to get sucked into conversations about religion with The Boy's grandma, because she's a sweet lady who just can't see things being other than how she sees them, and she believes that she's only trying to help me "find God". I know she wouldn't understand my lack of desire to have anything to do with religion, so I just avoid the topic altogether whenever possible.The last day of their visit, the inevitable happened and she cornered me while I was making dinner:Her: "So, have you found a church yet?"Me: "Umm, no... OhIhavetocheckthefoodnow... *mumblemumble*"Her: "Oh, well you'll find one... you just have to keep trying! You know, you'd really like my church. It's the biggest in the area. We have to drive 45 minutes to get there, but I really like it because it's got gold on the windowsills and they've got their own TV and radio stations and..." (I zoned out around this point, just holding up my end of the conversation by muttering "Oh?" and "That's nice..." every time she stopped for air.)Then: "So, why don't you go to church?"Me: (DAMMIT!!) "Oh, well... I don't believe in organized religion."Her: "Oh, you mean like those Catholics? They are always standing and sitting and chanting at just the right times! They are really organized!"Me: O_o "Yeahhhhh... that's not exactly the kind of 'organized' I meant..."Hitchens' point, as the sub-title indicates, is that RELIGION poisons everything. Simply put, it's a pissing contest, winner decided by headcount (or body count, as the case may be), between groups who are each claiming that THEIRS is the Right and One True Religion... and thus intolerance and hatred and fear is born. Religions tell people that they are going to spend eternity in suffering unless they Follow The Rules... when The Rules themselves can cause immense suffering in people, from fear of eternal damnation, to circumcision (both male and female), to homophobic violence, to genocide, just to name a few. Seems like a lose/lose to me.Organized religion seeks (and too often succeeds) to exert control over people's thoughts and behavior, imposing standards of purity that are nearly impossible to attain, even in the most pious believer. But more than that, they also insert themselves into politics, seeking to impose their particular brand of 'morality' on everyone, which inevitably leads to human rights violations and less freedom for people of all beliefs. Religion spawns creatures of such vile ugliness and pure evil that I can't even comprehend them... And that's just the Westboro Baptist Church. Ahh, such wholesome, joyful hatred. I agreed with much of what Hitchens said in this book on the subject of religion, because I do think that can be toxic, but we actually differ on the faith aspect. I felt uncomfortable with some of his attitudes toward people who believe in God/Allah/Buddha/Krishna/etc, resorting to dismissive name-calling several times. I realize that this is a fine line for me to walk, because religion and faith/belief are tied so closely together. But I feel like faith/belief in and of itself is not a bad thing, nor does it make the person who holds it stupid or naive or less worthy of respect. I have no problem with faith, or belief in any God, whatever they may be called. That is an individual's decision and it's personal to them. I make no claims of knowing there is NOT a God, so I cannot say anyone who believes in one is wrong. My issue is when faith is bound up in religion as an institution that uses it as a method of control and intolerance. That is when I feel that a line is crossed, and in my opinion, the result is far more harm than good, if viewed in large-scale terms.
—Becky
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.
—Anna
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.
—CB Brim
