Status
Available
Call number
Collection
Publication
Twelve Books (2007), Edition: 1st, 307 pages
Description
Philosophy. Religion & Spirituality. Nonfiction. HTML:Whether you're a lifelong believer, a devout atheist, or someone who remains uncertain about the role of religion in our lives, this insightful manifesto will engage you with its provocative ideas. With a close and studied reading of the major religious texts, Christopher Hitchens documents the ways in which religion is a man-made wish, a cause of dangerous sexual repression, and a distortion of our origins in the cosmos. With eloquent clarity, Hitchens frames the argument for a more secular life based on science and reason, in which hell is replaced by the Hubble Telescope's awesome view of the universe, and Moses and the burning bush give way to the beauty and symmetry of the double helix. In the tradition of Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian and Sam Harris's The End of Faith, Christopher Hitchens makes the ultimate case against religion.… (more)
Media reviews
Observers of the Christopher Hitchens phenomenon have been expecting a book about religion from him around now. But this impressive and enjoyable attack on everything so many people hold dear is not the book we were expecting. . . He has written, with tremendous brio and great wit, but also with an
Show More
underlying genuine anger, an all-out attack on all aspects of religion. Show Less
The Guardian
On the evidence of this book, Hitchens has spent too much time around religion, not too little. Like an ex-smoker who grows to loathe the habit more than those who have not tasted nicotine, he abominates God with the zealotry implicit in dictatorial faith. Anyone who has grown up in the shadow of
Show More
hellfire evangelism will recognise some answering echo here. This is a papal bull for the non-believer. Show Less
A positive review
User reviews
LibraryThing member MeditationesMartini
Life happens, and you have a book finished and a LibraryThing review to write, but you also leave it at home because it's Thanksgiving weekend and you don't want to carry more than you have to when you make the trek back to Victoria and thus all the passages you folded over and want to refer back
So you make a few points quickly and get out. The first is that Terry Eagleton is right--if you're going to read either this or the Dawkins book, read this, because at least it is well written, and there is nary a dangling participle in site.
The second is that it's hard to disagree with Hitch--because, like, what's to disagree with? Religious people have done bad things? Churches have shown hypocritical behaviour? Get out! I mean, obviously all things considered I am on his side here--the side (briefly) of reason and health and not (briefly) superstition and fear. And obviously the religious are disproportionately on one side, unfortunately, and the secular disproportionately on the other.
And okay, in some ways that's worth just saying again and again and again, as Hitchens does here. And it's worth injecting some polemic spite if that will give you power--although for Hitchens it just seems to fall in with a natural pettiness and weaken his stance. And he does a service by insisting on the religious nature of totalitarianism, which is so obvious to the nonfaithful but which gets effaced in a million spurious "the problem is not that without Christ they'll believe in nothing, it's that they'll believe in anything" Christian apologist moves. And the most interesting part of the book is the systematic destruction of the idea that God sacrificing his only son for our sins is anything more than grotesque. I mean really, go ahead and try to argue otherwise.
But these are the handful of gems in a great fetid wash of regurgitated hate, solipsistic argument, and reductive self-congratulation. I don't want to pretend it's not a problem, the "how do you talk to the freaks?" thing, but really the freaks don't have to come on board for positive change--they just have to be marginalized, which is a crueller and less satisfying but ultimately more realistic solution. Stop hacking on religion at its worst, which is so easy; tackle the far more interesting question of what religion at its best--tolerant, compassionate, secular, humanistic, preserver of communal life, a powerful balm for the spirit and spur to political action, to say nothing of simple love--can do for us in the here and now. Anything? Maybe, maybe not. But that's the first step, before we loose the hounds of intolerance(even intolerance-of-intolerance): is religion as a practice separable from the hateful, atavistic aspects of sooooo much actual religion as practiced in the present day, and can it thus be helpful? Looking around at all the religious people I know who are brilliant, amazing, progressive, powerful, and who yes, often have sources of moral strength that are less readily available to us secular types, I say yes. Hitchens doesn't even tackle the question.
Show More
to in making your case are safe on the bookshelf, and inaccessible.So you make a few points quickly and get out. The first is that Terry Eagleton is right--if you're going to read either this or the Dawkins book, read this, because at least it is well written, and there is nary a dangling participle in site.
The second is that it's hard to disagree with Hitch--because, like, what's to disagree with? Religious people have done bad things? Churches have shown hypocritical behaviour? Get out! I mean, obviously all things considered I am on his side here--the side (briefly) of reason and health and not (briefly) superstition and fear. And obviously the religious are disproportionately on one side, unfortunately, and the secular disproportionately on the other.
And okay, in some ways that's worth just saying again and again and again, as Hitchens does here. And it's worth injecting some polemic spite if that will give you power--although for Hitchens it just seems to fall in with a natural pettiness and weaken his stance. And he does a service by insisting on the religious nature of totalitarianism, which is so obvious to the nonfaithful but which gets effaced in a million spurious "the problem is not that without Christ they'll believe in nothing, it's that they'll believe in anything" Christian apologist moves. And the most interesting part of the book is the systematic destruction of the idea that God sacrificing his only son for our sins is anything more than grotesque. I mean really, go ahead and try to argue otherwise.
But these are the handful of gems in a great fetid wash of regurgitated hate, solipsistic argument, and reductive self-congratulation. I don't want to pretend it's not a problem, the "how do you talk to the freaks?" thing, but really the freaks don't have to come on board for positive change--they just have to be marginalized, which is a crueller and less satisfying but ultimately more realistic solution. Stop hacking on religion at its worst, which is so easy; tackle the far more interesting question of what religion at its best--tolerant, compassionate, secular, humanistic, preserver of communal life, a powerful balm for the spirit and spur to political action, to say nothing of simple love--can do for us in the here and now. Anything? Maybe, maybe not. But that's the first step, before we loose the hounds of intolerance(even intolerance-of-intolerance): is religion as a practice separable from the hateful, atavistic aspects of sooooo much actual religion as practiced in the present day, and can it thus be helpful? Looking around at all the religious people I know who are brilliant, amazing, progressive, powerful, and who yes, often have sources of moral strength that are less readily available to us secular types, I say yes. Hitchens doesn't even tackle the question.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mwhel
Almost everyone can find a lot to agree with in this bitingly insightful book. Christians will agree whole heartily with most of what Hitchens says about Jews and Muslims. Muslims will disagree very little with what he has to say about Christians or Jews. Jews will see the reason in most of what he
Hitchens points out the obvious response to G.K Chesterton's famous quote loosely paraphrased "if people cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing, but in everything". His response is that to believe in God is one way to express a willingness to believe in anything (this seems to be his definition of faith). Whereas to reject one's inherited belief system is by no means to profess belief in nothing or everything.
In most belief systems is a mortal sin to doubt one's inherited beliefs and become apostate. At the same time it is a mortal mistake not to do so if you were unfortunate enough not to have been born into the correct one.
In his Acknowledgments section he states "I have been writing this book all my life and intend to keep on writing it..." It's sad that his writing and debating have now been cut short. The world has lost a great and original mind, but his words will live on. I don't doubt that his legacy will continue to grow.
Show More
says about Islam and Christianity. And of course skeptical agnostics will agree with most of what he says about all of the above parties. Of course that also means that three of the above four groups will be grievously offended by at least some of his message. Hitchens points out the obvious response to G.K Chesterton's famous quote loosely paraphrased "if people cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing, but in everything". His response is that to believe in God is one way to express a willingness to believe in anything (this seems to be his definition of faith). Whereas to reject one's inherited belief system is by no means to profess belief in nothing or everything.
In most belief systems is a mortal sin to doubt one's inherited beliefs and become apostate. At the same time it is a mortal mistake not to do so if you were unfortunate enough not to have been born into the correct one.
In his Acknowledgments section he states "I have been writing this book all my life and intend to keep on writing it..." It's sad that his writing and debating have now been cut short. The world has lost a great and original mind, but his words will live on. I don't doubt that his legacy will continue to grow.
Show Less
LibraryThing member nbmars
Christopher Hitchens has added his name to that of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins as an aggressive modern atheist. The subtitle of the book, "How Religion Poisons Everything," pretty effectively states its main thesis.
Hitchens begins by citing "four irreducible objections to religious faith": 1.
Hitchens' writing is not always linear and well organized, but it is usually entertaining. For example, he cites the example of a proposition given him by a Protestant broadcaster. If you were approached by a group of unfamiliar men at night, would you feel more safe or less safe if you knew they were coming from a religious service. Hitchens answers by saying that he has had that experience, but limits his response to the facts occurring in cities beginning with the letter B: Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem, and Baghdad. He hardly needs to add any detail.
All religions are his targets, but the Muslims seem to come off worst, probably because they are the worst of the world's citizens.
He asserts that all religions' metaphysical claims are false because they were all articulated at a time when men were profoundly ignorant about physics and biological evolution. He rails against the arguments for God from the complexity of design. He points out that biological systems are flawed, with much less efficient designs than an omnipotent god [who was a really good engineer] would come up with.
Hitchens attacks all the holy writs. He devotes a chapter to the "nightmare of the Old Testament" with is nasty, capricious god; he ridicules the inconsistencies of the New Testament; and he points out that the Koran contains almost nothing original other than to repeat older tales in Arabic.
As to whether religion causes men to behave better, he cites the defense of slavery put up by American Protestants and the Koran. He argues that India's transition from British rule would have been much less violent had it not been for Gandhi's militant Hinduism: just when India needed a modern secular nationalist leader, it got a fakir and guru instead.
Hitchens concludes by calling for a new enlightenment, taking a pot shot at religion as "fossilized philosophy", or philosophy with the questions left out. He says we show too much respect for crazy religious attitudes, like those of the Muslims who condemned the Danish newspaper for printing the cartoons of Mohammed. He points out that scientific studies have shown that prayer has no effect whatsoever. He wants more confidence in our ability to learn through the scientific method, but to clear the mind for this project, "it becomes necessary to know the enemy, and to prepare to fight it."
(JAB)
Hitchens begins by citing "four irreducible objections to religious faith": 1.
Show More
misrepresentation of the origins of man and the cosmos; 2. combining the maximun of servility with solipsism; 3. it is the result and cause of dangerous sexual repression, and 4. it is grounded on wish thinking. He then goes on to add several other problems, namely that religion is man-made and that it is incapable of leaving the non-religious alone because of its insufferable belief that it is TRUE. Hitchens' writing is not always linear and well organized, but it is usually entertaining. For example, he cites the example of a proposition given him by a Protestant broadcaster. If you were approached by a group of unfamiliar men at night, would you feel more safe or less safe if you knew they were coming from a religious service. Hitchens answers by saying that he has had that experience, but limits his response to the facts occurring in cities beginning with the letter B: Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem, and Baghdad. He hardly needs to add any detail.
All religions are his targets, but the Muslims seem to come off worst, probably because they are the worst of the world's citizens.
He asserts that all religions' metaphysical claims are false because they were all articulated at a time when men were profoundly ignorant about physics and biological evolution. He rails against the arguments for God from the complexity of design. He points out that biological systems are flawed, with much less efficient designs than an omnipotent god [who was a really good engineer] would come up with.
Hitchens attacks all the holy writs. He devotes a chapter to the "nightmare of the Old Testament" with is nasty, capricious god; he ridicules the inconsistencies of the New Testament; and he points out that the Koran contains almost nothing original other than to repeat older tales in Arabic.
As to whether religion causes men to behave better, he cites the defense of slavery put up by American Protestants and the Koran. He argues that India's transition from British rule would have been much less violent had it not been for Gandhi's militant Hinduism: just when India needed a modern secular nationalist leader, it got a fakir and guru instead.
Hitchens concludes by calling for a new enlightenment, taking a pot shot at religion as "fossilized philosophy", or philosophy with the questions left out. He says we show too much respect for crazy religious attitudes, like those of the Muslims who condemned the Danish newspaper for printing the cartoons of Mohammed. He points out that scientific studies have shown that prayer has no effect whatsoever. He wants more confidence in our ability to learn through the scientific method, but to clear the mind for this project, "it becomes necessary to know the enemy, and to prepare to fight it."
(JAB)
Show Less
LibraryThing member spk27
god is not Great, and neither is this book.
I have read, and enjoyed, Hitchens for some time, and agree with most of his comments concerning religion. To a large degree, in my case he was "preaching to the converted".
However, this is a remarkably mean-spirited and nasty little book, and Hitchens'
Just to take one example (of many)- "Thus, dear reader, if you have come this far and found your own faith undermined- as I hope- I am willing to state that to some extent I know what you are going through... But...you will feel better, too, I guarantee, once you leave hold of the doctrinaire and allow your chainless mind to do its own thinking"
Surprisingly enough, and contrary to what Hitchens apparently believes, not everyone who believes in a higher power is a dolt, and I suspect that a great many feel quite capable of doing their own thinking without having him rescue them from the chains of their belief.
The book is absolutely relentless in its attack on religion and its followers and while he does (very)occasionally acknowledge that some persons who believe in God have accomplished significant feats, he does so reluctantly.
For example, Hitchens notes the achievements of Martin Luther King, and states that "It is quite impossible even for an atheist like myself to read his speeches or watch recordings of his sermons without profound emotion of the sort that can sometimes bring genuine tears"
That's very nice but, in spite of his professed admiration for Dr. King, Hitchens makes it a point to note that, after giving a speech on the night before he was assassinated, he "spent the remainder of his last evening in orgiastic dissipation", for which the author pompously proclaims "I don't blame him".
There is not a single positive remark about religion in the entire book but, while I truly do agree with many of Hitchens' comments and to a large degree share his feelings toward organized religion, I also believe that at a local or grassroots level there are many benefits to be found.
I have friends and family who are very actively involved in their local church communities, and who find great comfort and support in doing so. They give their time willingly and generously to others, and work hard to help people who have fallen on hard times or who are less fortunate than they. They do do in the name of God and because they believe that it is the right thing to do. Quite frankly, I don't see many similar communities of atheists.
I was raised as a Protestant but spent two years in a Catholic school. Hitchens would have us believe that every priest or minister is a latent or potential child molester (there is not a single good thing said about any of them, and one chapter is titled "Is Religion Child Abuse?") but in my experience most were very decent people, and one or two had a profoundly positive impact on my life (thank you, Father Braithwaite).
While Hitchens has no difficulty focusing on horrors such as Jonestown (I lost track of how many times he referred to kool-aid), he gives no credit to any of these people or the positive things that they do in the name of God. Instead he claims that any comfort that they provide, or good that they achieve, is based on lies and therefore apparently meaningless.
In summary, I found that in pushing his agenda Hitchens was every bit as blinkered and close-minded as the institutions and people that he so viciously attacks, and that the sense of moral and intellectual superiority that he clearly feels he has over anyone who believes in God is entirely unwarranted.
Hitchens gives no credit to any of these
I have read, and enjoyed, Hitchens for some time, and agree with most of his comments concerning religion. To a large degree, in my case he was "preaching to the converted".
However, this is a remarkably mean-spirited and nasty little book, and Hitchens'
Show More
attitude toward the billions of people who believe in God and follow some form or another of religion is unremittingly condescending and patronizing.Just to take one example (of many)- "Thus, dear reader, if you have come this far and found your own faith undermined- as I hope- I am willing to state that to some extent I know what you are going through... But...you will feel better, too, I guarantee, once you leave hold of the doctrinaire and allow your chainless mind to do its own thinking"
Surprisingly enough, and contrary to what Hitchens apparently believes, not everyone who believes in a higher power is a dolt, and I suspect that a great many feel quite capable of doing their own thinking without having him rescue them from the chains of their belief.
The book is absolutely relentless in its attack on religion and its followers and while he does (very)occasionally acknowledge that some persons who believe in God have accomplished significant feats, he does so reluctantly.
For example, Hitchens notes the achievements of Martin Luther King, and states that "It is quite impossible even for an atheist like myself to read his speeches or watch recordings of his sermons without profound emotion of the sort that can sometimes bring genuine tears"
That's very nice but, in spite of his professed admiration for Dr. King, Hitchens makes it a point to note that, after giving a speech on the night before he was assassinated, he "spent the remainder of his last evening in orgiastic dissipation", for which the author pompously proclaims "I don't blame him".
There is not a single positive remark about religion in the entire book but, while I truly do agree with many of Hitchens' comments and to a large degree share his feelings toward organized religion, I also believe that at a local or grassroots level there are many benefits to be found.
I have friends and family who are very actively involved in their local church communities, and who find great comfort and support in doing so. They give their time willingly and generously to others, and work hard to help people who have fallen on hard times or who are less fortunate than they. They do do in the name of God and because they believe that it is the right thing to do. Quite frankly, I don't see many similar communities of atheists.
I was raised as a Protestant but spent two years in a Catholic school. Hitchens would have us believe that every priest or minister is a latent or potential child molester (there is not a single good thing said about any of them, and one chapter is titled "Is Religion Child Abuse?") but in my experience most were very decent people, and one or two had a profoundly positive impact on my life (thank you, Father Braithwaite).
While Hitchens has no difficulty focusing on horrors such as Jonestown (I lost track of how many times he referred to kool-aid), he gives no credit to any of these people or the positive things that they do in the name of God. Instead he claims that any comfort that they provide, or good that they achieve, is based on lies and therefore apparently meaningless.
In summary, I found that in pushing his agenda Hitchens was every bit as blinkered and close-minded as the institutions and people that he so viciously attacks, and that the sense of moral and intellectual superiority that he clearly feels he has over anyone who believes in God is entirely unwarranted.
Hitchens gives no credit to any of these
Show Less
LibraryThing member Devil_llama
As usual, Hitchens satisfies with a snappy writing style, at times eloquent and passionate, at other times sneering. Some of his arguments fall flat, and sometimes he lets a few of his political views interfere with his main thesis, but overall, it's a satisfying read for anyone who is fighting
Show More
against the more poisonous aspects of public religion. Show Less
LibraryThing member Qshio
This is the last of the Four Horsemen's books that I have read (and I heartily recommend all of them), and I was putting this one off because I assumed it might be something of a retread -- choir-preaching, if you will. Indeed, if you have seen Hitchens debate or appear on television, you've come
Show More
across a lot of what is in this book. What in one unified tome, God is Not Great is an excellent and quick read, at that (though perhaps more like a series of related essays than a single narrative, particularly in the second to last section which is something of a truncation of Jennifer Hecht's "Doubt: A History"). Happily, I can also say that even though it is Hitchens it, like the books of Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett, is not arrogant, it is not mean-spirited. Hitchens takes this subject very seriously, sees real consequences to superstition and theism, and makes a hard-nosed, unapologetic case. Confidence is not arrogance, telling hard truths is not mean. You may find more to disagree with in the more nuanced political positions he takes, but his case against religion is compelling. Show Less
LibraryThing member fpagan
"Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience." -- from the 56th of 300 truth-filled pages. Even for
Show More
readers who already know how utterly nonsensical all the world's religions are, the book is breathtaking in its relentless and irrefutable enumeration of the evil effects they have always had and always will have. Hitchens joins Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Stenger in this genre's hall of excellence. Show Less
LibraryThing member nlavery
I am a liberal, lefty, atheist, and I am proud of the fact that my political GPS places me pretty close to Ghandi. I have conscientiously read the New and Old testaments (a number of times) and struggled through the Koran (in English, I'm afraid).
Chris Hitchens’ book is a refreshing reminder of
On the funny side, Hitchens ranting style reminder me a little of an intelectual Michael Moore (e.g. Dude where's my country), and it amused me to envision some parallel universe in which aetheists pick-up 'God is not great' and start quoting from it and turn it into their own version of The Bible and start bashing a religious minority over the head with it.
Chris Hitchens’ book is a refreshing reminder of
Show More
why religion should be left out of government and any public life. Religious peoples of the world - keep your beliefs at home and do not impose them on anyone else.On the funny side, Hitchens ranting style reminder me a little of an intelectual Michael Moore (e.g. Dude where's my country), and it amused me to envision some parallel universe in which aetheists pick-up 'God is not great' and start quoting from it and turn it into their own version of The Bible and start bashing a religious minority over the head with it.
Show Less
LibraryThing member clamairy
I adored this book. It's so much more accessible than Sam Harris' The End of Faith, in my humble opinion. I have read in several reviews that people think of Hitchens as an 'angry' writer, but I didn't sense that much at all. I did think he comes off as a bit smug at times, but this book is
Show More
fabulous. I wish I could convince all my believing friends and family to read it. He's right when he says we seem to take one tiny step in the right direction, only to be forced back again. Right now the US would appear to be stuck in a backwards phase. The popularity of this book might be a sign that we're creeping forward again. Hitchens' book gives me a bit of much needed hope. Show Less
LibraryThing member John_Vaughan
My Art Professor son bought me several of this author's books as a gift and I have grown to respect and appreciate the wit and scholarship of "Hitch". His prose is sometimes stretching but he makes his points with an eventual clarity that is often surprising and good ... stimulating further
His does not fall into the trap of ranting at religion and shows respect if not for 'the industry' then at least for the sincere believers. As a near life-long disbeliever I, of course, agree with his point of view and conclusions and am envious of the style, research and history, reason and wit with which he forms his argument.
An excellent read, unlikely to change anything of course, but we continue - at least for now - to evolve.
I was particularly impressed that this edition has a book-blurb rave from the Vatican's Preacher!
Show More
thought.His does not fall into the trap of ranting at religion and shows respect if not for 'the industry' then at least for the sincere believers. As a near life-long disbeliever I, of course, agree with his point of view and conclusions and am envious of the style, research and history, reason and wit with which he forms his argument.
An excellent read, unlikely to change anything of course, but we continue - at least for now - to evolve.
I was particularly impressed that this edition has a book-blurb rave from the Vatican's Preacher!
Show Less
LibraryThing member jimrgill
It’s difficult to imagine a more comprehensive, erudite, focused, and—yes—entertaining analysis of all the reasons why religion is ultimately useless and dangerous. Hitchens’ deconstruction of religion is founded upon sharp analysis of history, psychology, philosophy, and other forms of
Show More
intellectual thought, and it’s nearly impossible to argue with his conclusions, the most compelling of which is the idea that religion is a vestige from the infancy of humanity and to persist in valuing it is to maintain an infantile devotion to simplicity and ignorance. I doubt that Hitchens’ book will make atheists of ardent believers, but he, along with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, speaks articulately to those of us who are confident enough to admit our disbelief. Show Less
LibraryThing member hellbent
For my money the best discussion of religion I've ever read. It is rather quaint the way Hitchens refers to some of his subjects as "mammals".
LibraryThing member liehtzu
I know I’m betraying my prejudices here – and Hitchens was preaching to the, ahem, converted – but this is one of the truly great dissections of superstition of the modern era. Let’s hope, as the author suggests, that it hearkens an era of renewed Enlightenment. The only reason I didn’t
Show More
give it five stars is because the readability factor is difficult and I should wish it had a wider audience. Show Less
LibraryThing member HvyMetalMG
Obviously this will be a controversial review. I am an Atheist and many people do not like hearing that people like me do not believe in an almighty higher power. Regardless, I read this book hoping for some stronger arguments and to learn new facts to support my belief. While most of the arguments
However, Hitchens pens his story with am almost arrogant hateful view, like he is saying you must be an idiot to believe in god. I do not, but I understand faith and the necessity to believe, and when you bring up an Atheist point of view in an obnoxious, arrogant tone, it is hard to win people over to your side of the argument. I would have liked the voice to be a little less hostile.
Show More
I knew, I learned many new facts about religions and culture that did shock me. This is a book not so much about disproving the idea of god himself, but of the religions that created him. And it would be hard not to recognize some of these arguments. However, Hitchens pens his story with am almost arrogant hateful view, like he is saying you must be an idiot to believe in god. I do not, but I understand faith and the necessity to believe, and when you bring up an Atheist point of view in an obnoxious, arrogant tone, it is hard to win people over to your side of the argument. I would have liked the voice to be a little less hostile.
Show Less
LibraryThing member sethwilpan
This book is less about the existence of god than it is an examination of the often heinous premises and purposes of religion. Hitchens' erudition and wit make for exhilarating reading.
LibraryThing member midlevelbureaucrat
A wonderfully thought provoking book. The premise being that while one can understand the roots of faith in a god, science and human reason have taken us beyond the need to believe in a god that controls our fates; we know better now than to believe in impossible miracles or to lay our trust in
Show More
something that cannot exist. Beyond that, organized religion - and Hitchens hammers all organized religions, Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, and pantheism - stands in the way of science, politics, medicine, and human advancement. Hitchens puts to paper what many of us know and understand already, but most are afraid of saying out loud. Though the writing dragged and confused at points, it's still the best written argument against blind faith that I've come across. Show Less
LibraryThing member Jsaj
Excellent and entertaining. Hitchens makes smart, clear and direct arguments. The book is pretty rant-like, but it works because there's a lot of thought and intelligence behind it.
LibraryThing member erwinkennythomas
Christopher Hitchens has good arguments against putting our trust in any faith tradition. Undoubtedly all aspects of society are laden with “good” and “bad” attributes. Religion is no different. Still it is up to everyone to become religious literate. That’s why a book like this one ought
God is not Great might not have the effect of driving us away from our religious beliefs, but it would help us in having a more objective look at the history and implications of religions. People would not necessarily become atheists or agnostics, but they could surely be influenced to have a more realistic conception of their God in the Universe.
Believers don’t have to agree with what religion teaches, but they could decide on their own by being knowledgeable about its weaknesses and strengths. This means that people should be independent thinkers. They ought to pursue the truth and decide what is best for them. These goals not only have to be based on knowing the facts, but also what they could discern by intuition. Hitchens’ book definitely helps in this most important decision making process.
Show More
to be read by all “believers” and “non-believers” alike.God is not Great might not have the effect of driving us away from our religious beliefs, but it would help us in having a more objective look at the history and implications of religions. People would not necessarily become atheists or agnostics, but they could surely be influenced to have a more realistic conception of their God in the Universe.
Believers don’t have to agree with what religion teaches, but they could decide on their own by being knowledgeable about its weaknesses and strengths. This means that people should be independent thinkers. They ought to pursue the truth and decide what is best for them. These goals not only have to be based on knowing the facts, but also what they could discern by intuition. Hitchens’ book definitely helps in this most important decision making process.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Meredy
Six-word review:
Where religion's not destructive, it's irrelevant.
Where religion's not destructive, it's irrelevant.
LibraryThing member scottcholstad
Brilliant. Witty. Clever. Not completely perfect. There are other books out there that deconstruct the myth of theism through physics, archaeology, biology, hell -- using thousands of verses from the "holy" book itself (the Bible), Dan Barker and many others show the plain lack of logic,
Show More
consistency, accuracy, the bloodthirsty portrayal of a brutally evil god, etc, so that you really don't even need the sciences to show the Bible, the and any theistic god is completely made up and fictitious, and there's not even virtually any independent evidence at all that Jesus Christ ever even existed! Hitch could have gone in a lot of different directions, but chose to show how evil the Bible and its followers are and have been throughout the past several thousand years, and while I love how archaeology totally destroys Biblical myths, such as the Exodus, the flood, the invasion of Canaan, and so much more, and how the other hard sciences prove there is no evidence for a supernatural being, Hitch does an admirable work himself. And yes, there are some very negative reviews here. The vast majority of them are written by those he criticizes, and are hence defensive, vindictive, and utterly pointless. Skeptics, doubters, agnostics, atheists, and polytheists should read this book, certainly, but theists should try to read this book as objectively as possible, which I realize is asking a lot, but if they took some of his points and didn't automatically pump out a knee jerk reaction, but thought about things, some people may realize they haven't asked all the right questions, they haven't been given all of the information, they've been ... misled! Recommended. Show Less
LibraryThing member TheCrow2
A brilliant book from the late deceased Hitchens about how religion poisons everything... A must read for everyone who is free (or want to be freed) from dogmas.
LibraryThing member Clif
I intended to read this book back-to-back with Richard Dawkins’ God Delusion and Sam Harris’ End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. But I had to wait about a year for the library audio version of "God Is Not Great" because of a long queue. Thus, my comparison of the books is not as
This book, "God Is Not Great," as with other similar books, attacks the more traditional forms of various religions and disregards the more liberal versions. The atrocious actions of the various religions that are pointed out by the book are products of either less enlightened times or are activities of the most fundamentalistic versions of the religion. More liberal and metaphoric interpretations of scriptures are written off as religionist who have morphed into humanism. That makes the task of attacking religion quiet easy for the book. A more nuanced discussion of the pros and cons of less conservative forms of religion would probably hurt book sales since it's a more complex subject.
Show More
fresh as I had hoped. In general I found Hitchens book full of pithy comments with hints of irony and sarcasm. Dawkins I remembered as being more scientific and restrained in his language. Harris I recall being more direct, strident and philosophic. I think Hitchens spent more time parsing the Hebrew and Christian scriptures than the other two. But Hitchens is obviously a good writer and his book easily keeps the reader's interest.This book, "God Is Not Great," as with other similar books, attacks the more traditional forms of various religions and disregards the more liberal versions. The atrocious actions of the various religions that are pointed out by the book are products of either less enlightened times or are activities of the most fundamentalistic versions of the religion. More liberal and metaphoric interpretations of scriptures are written off as religionist who have morphed into humanism. That makes the task of attacking religion quiet easy for the book. A more nuanced discussion of the pros and cons of less conservative forms of religion would probably hurt book sales since it's a more complex subject.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ngood77
Ignore the hype and hyperbole associated with this book, and despite the extravagant title and cover design, this is a very informative and readable work.
Hitchens sets out in themed chapters why he feels various aspects of different religions are increasingly, if not completely, unnecessary in our
The different historical horrors and sins of religions are discussed here many times, and the evidence against religions being institutions that care for their followers is legion. Although religion is now increasingly on the wain, a book such as this is still vital to the task of ridding us of stupidity forever.
Hitchens sets out in themed chapters why he feels various aspects of different religions are increasingly, if not completely, unnecessary in our
Show More
world today, and why many religious teachings are in fact completely in contrast to the ideals of reason and enlightenment that we should all be striving towards today.The different historical horrors and sins of religions are discussed here many times, and the evidence against religions being institutions that care for their followers is legion. Although religion is now increasingly on the wain, a book such as this is still vital to the task of ridding us of stupidity forever.
Show Less
LibraryThing member JeffV
Loved this book. Hitchens is my kind of Atheist, swayed not by dogma (or in blind opposition to it) but who seeks to understands religion then reject it on it's own absurdity. He opens with a discussion about why there are, and will never be, any modern "prophets" along the lines of those so
Hitchens traveled around the world, participated in many religious rituals, and investigated many claims. He doesn't talk smack without backing it up, often using religious texts themselves as ammunition. I look forward to reading more of his work...not since Carl Sagan died have I read such a reasoned, common-sense narrative on this topic.
Show More
seemingly common-place in the Middle Ages and earlier. He discusses how religion grew to be a tool to control the masses, much to the benefit of the few on top. He talks how dangerous some ancient barbaric rituals can be in modern society (a knowingly diseased mohel in NYC infected numerous babies, with two of them dying, but since it was under the auspices of religion, he was not charged with a crime). He also covers some of the same ground Carl Sagan did in Demon Haunted World by associating medieval demonic possession claims with modern UFO abductee nutjobs. And, of course, he discusses the negative effects on national leadership throughout the world and it's influence on war. All of the major religions try to impose social order with variations of "thou shalt not kill," but the also ALL have an exception making it okay to kill people of different faiths. Again, this ties back to control...you want to keep the rabble domesticated until such a time as you wish to wield them as a weapon against your enemies (the "you" being the head of church and/or state). The section where he debases "Intelligent Design" is amusing, but then again, attacking that nonsense (and all creationism) is shooting fish in a barrel. It never ceases to entertain, though.Hitchens traveled around the world, participated in many religious rituals, and investigated many claims. He doesn't talk smack without backing it up, often using religious texts themselves as ammunition. I look forward to reading more of his work...not since Carl Sagan died have I read such a reasoned, common-sense narrative on this topic.
Show Less
LibraryThing member stellaphant
Very compelling read.
Subjects
Awards
National Book Award (Finalist — Nonfiction — 2007)
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
2007
Physical description
307 p.; 6.25 inches
ISBN
0446579807 / 9780446579803
Local notes
MS