God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything Kindle Edition

In “God is not Great” Christopher Hitchens undertook an unrelenting attack on religion. From the opening page he showed his approach with the example of the otherwise apparently admirable Christian lady Mrs Jean Watts, who played a pleasant part in Hitchens childhood until she over-stepped the mark and suggested that God made vegetation green so it would be easier on the human eye.What is remarkable about this example is that it tells us more about Hitchens than Watts. She is abusively labelled an “old trout” out of nowhere, simply because of one relatively innocuous statement probably made quite lightly, yet treated as if it was a full papal edict and myopically scrutinized minutely.Suddenly all the admirable qualities of this lady are forgotten and she is defined purely on one comment that is interpreted by Hitchens as he wishes in order to justify his categorization of her. This sets the pattern for the rest of the book, with the notable exception that while Jean Watts at least gets an initial word or two in her favour, that veneer of balance and fairness is dropped and seldom if ever resurfaces in the entire book.His predictable treatment of the “blood and gore soaked” bible is another example of this biased approach. Regardless of what you think of the bible, there is a huge amount of good in it, including the call to forgive your enemies, love your neighbour, judge not others but look to your own faults first, all things are lawful, and hardships in life should be viewed as an opportunity for growth and learning. It takes a special kind of blinkered approach to see nothing but the bad stuff, but that’s an approach Hitchens had perfected.Hitchens seemed to be a man possessed with a need to create an enemy (in this case all religious people), label them as the source of all evil, and then cite selective cases in isolation while ignoring any evidence that contradicted the picture he wished to paint. ("Religion poisons EVERYTHING")Words like negative, sarcastic, self-righteous, deliberately dishonest, asinine, and bigoted spring to mind to describe his approach. He is like a school yard bully viciously inciting a mob to surround a child with a religious background and accuse them of everything from rape, slavery, sexual repression, misogyny, human sacrifice, and of course genocide. Hitchens himself says that if he was accused of such things, even if he knew he wasn’t guilty of them, he would be tempted to commit suicide, yet his entire approach encouraged people to apply such prejudiced accusations to others equally as innocent, which is appallingly hypocritical.The problem for Hitchens was of course that no church and virtually no religious person in any democratic Western county today fitted his picture, so he constantly dredged up ancient history and times when religion and government were one in order to justify his lurid fantasies.While he claims religion appeals to the darkest and most primal side of humanity, he himself wrote like a tribal elder telling scary stories around a camp fire to wide eyed children of religious monsters waiting in the darkness to consume them. None of his caricatures fit the many religious people I’ve met, indeed Hitchens himself lets the cat out of the bag by admitting that he has religious friends who he wishes would “just leave me alone”.If "religion poisons everything" as he claims continuously, then why have religious friends at all? Is it because they were in reality decent people who didn’t fit the picture he tried to paint? And if he wished they would leave him alone, why didn’t he just tell them? Was he suffering the cognitive dissonance of realizing they made it difficult for him to maintain his hateful public image in the reality of his private life?I welcome specific criticism of religion where it is targeted at the people and organizations responsible. I reject the approach of generalized stereotypes, prejudice and bigotry against any group of people including the religious. This book is little more than a modern atheist version of “Mein Kampf” that encourages people to stop treating other human beings as they find them, and instead to relate to them according to a label, in this case “religious”.You’d think in this day and age we’d have gotten past this kind of propaganda, but sadly it appears bigotry never dies, it just changes sides. Hitchens was certainly a great writer, and if you’re not careful you’ll fall under the spell he weaves. But ask yourself these questions; are his statements backed up by any metrics at all (rather than isolated examples) that support his generalized conclusions? And do the religious people you know act in accordance with the caricatures Hitchens paints?I’m not questioning that there is some truth in much of what Hitchens wrote. What I am questioning is that it automatically applies to the majority of religious people today, and that it’s ever right to apply generalized stereotypes universally, the very definition of prejudice.I also wonder whether in being so abrasive, sarcastic and abusive Hitchens projected an attitude that produced a negative reaction towards him from religious people that confirmed in his own mind the truth of his assertions. As a wise man once said; what you reap you will also sow.Hitchens seemed to match the worst in religion; judgment of others, self-righteousness, and a blinkered narrow approach, while failing to match the best of religion; empathy, compassion, understanding, forgiveness. It’s a shame that an otherwise intelligent man should leave as one of his main legacies a book containing so much gratuitously hateful and childish sarcasm against his fellow human beings. We can only hope it’s not an approach widely adopted by fair minded people on both sides of the philosophical divide, however human nature being what it is, don't hold your breath.

This book provides excellent insight into the fallacies upon which religions, primarily those monotheistic Abrahamic ones although others are covered as well. I knocked off a star, not for the content and quality of logical reasoning, but for the convoluted writing style that frequently caused me to have to read a complex paragraph to correctly parse the intent.The primary gist of the book is that people are indoctrinated from birth into belief systems before they are capable of reasoning for themselves and taught that they must be faithful to whatever the belief system is and reject anything seen or heard that contradicts their belief (or dogma) - to do otherwise is to admit that their belief is wrong and or unfounded.

A concise argument from a wonderful writer. imo religion is the most horrific idea ever foisted upon humanity - a real and dangerous horror show. Nothing really new in this book, nothing that hasn’t been discussed before, but the presentation and arguments are well worth a read. All good.

This book is terrific; I read it cover to cover six times, and then listened to it twice on books-on-tape while driving across Texas. Of course, Dr. Hitchens had easy targets: deities and religions. He unravels both exposing them for the harmful, vessels of hypocrisy and sheer stupidity that both are. He reveals, for example, that Mother Teresa, who to her credit did not believe in god, nonetheless believed in the Church sufficiently to fly all the way from India, where her venom was reserved for the truly helpless, to Ireland to campaign against the bill (that eventually passed) legalizing abortion. Her advise to women beaten by drunken louts who they could not divorce was that they should pray. Hitchen treats all religions with the disrespect that they deserve. His treatment of Islam is particularly seething.

Wonderful perspective. So many arguments that I have explored over many years and yet was afraid to state. Christopher's perspective comes as a great relief that my own thinking is not unreasonable. The discussion is not so much about 'gods' but rather about 'religions' or 'churches' - and how through crass stupidity and self interest, they are destructively hypocritical - and get away with it. As Bill Burr suggested, one brushes off paedophilia like it was as unimportant as dandruff on shoulders. Yes, the enlightenment was the turning point, and humanitarianism is all we need for good behaviour.

This is a masterpiece. Along with "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris, this excellent work by the late Christopher Hitchens is one leg of the 'milking stool' of my atheism. It is provocative, insightful, and beautifully written in fluid and articulate prose. Even if you're a believer, I encourage you to read this book. It's not purely a polemic against religion; rather, it raises questions that every theist should consider and be able to answer.

Great subject and full of brilliant observations. I would have given the book five stars, but many of the sentences were just way too long. At the end, I would have to go back to the beginning to remind myself of what the sentence was about, and I am used to (and enjoy) dense writing. The author was a great thinker and probably a great presenter in person; but he was not necessarily a great writer. Don't get me wrong. The book contained many breathtaking, jaw dropping insights. There just came every other page, with a lot of unnecessary sarcasm and snobbery in between. I wish I had had the opportunity to meet the man. He had great courage and an amazingly insightful mind. He needed a better, braver editor. But then again, I doubt many would haver had the courage to stand up to his.

I really enjoyed this book. Mr Hitchens writes in a superbly eloquent way and structures his arguments around his wordplay, something I haven't seen done before. I also really struggled with this book. It attacks something that I don't feel has any connection to the belief system I adhere to.Hence the 3 *'sI understand that religion has been used to do a lot of harm and wrong. But I am also fully aware that the issue doesn't stop at religion, it goes deeper than that, into the hearts and minds of the people who use religion to share the toxic ideas and beliefs that they hold.Religion can be used. As can politics, science, education and poverty. We can use the tools at our disposal to impact and elevate our ideas and the things we believe holds the most value. For good as well as for bad. We can all do this within our own lives - we do it every day.Trying to push all religious beliefs into the same box, gaffer taping it up and labelling it as poison undermines the whole of society. I understand that some religious teachings and scriptures have moral questions that we SHOULD be talking about today - so let's talk!Whether Mr Hitchens wants to admit it or not, we live in a society (in the West at least) that has formed from a religious belief structure. Religious ideas led to the enlightenment and to science holding the position within society that it does today. We need to recognise that this is a journey, like a tree spreading out its branches. Rather than a level in a platform game, that we complete, reach the next level and then forget about the path that took us here.If we begin to remove religion from our societies, then we saw away at the very branch that brought us to the place where we can honestly critique religion in the first place.I am all for honest conversation - but we need to survey both lines of the battlefield and acknowledge the good religion has done as well.Example? During the first 100 years after Christianity split from Jewdeism, we see small Christian groups within the societies it had spread to beginning to attribute value to the lowliest peoples within those societies. Salves, women, children, people with disabilities - Christians begin to see an intrinsic worth within all people, that the societies they lived in never saw, rather dismissing them without a second glance.We take that idea of worth for granted now, but it wasn't always the case. Christianity changed the Greco-Roman world, and I think it is still doing so today.

Raised Catholic, attending schools run by nuns, church youth group until I was in my very late teens meant I never questioned my faith until around 9 years ago. I am now 39yrs old.This book has opened my mind. The author is right in much of what he says in this book, Religion for a very long time has become a charter for war and human suffering, unfortunately its disciples are now deadly and some even incredibly deluded.The majority of the book was not new to me but I loved the injected wit and I actually found some of the arguements actually entertaining.Regardless of your religious beliefs, if you have an open mind and enjoy reading well written, fact-based, relevant nonfiction, then I would say that you will enjoy reading this book.The deeply religious amoung us, may find certain parts of the book upsetting as fundamental beliefs are challenged with factual, cited information.

A very interesting and informative book, which I’m glad I bought and read. I tend to look at the one star reviews before purchasing most things on Amazon, but this time it’s clear that many of the poor reviews were written by people who hadn’t read the book all the way through.We’ve all heard the phrase “preaching to the converted” and it’s true that this book won’t turn a religious person into an atheist. It’s more likely to just annoy them.I began to have doubts about religion around the age of five or six, realising on my own that the Church of England was spouting a load of rubbish. What I hadn’t realised until recently was the number of people who also came to this conclusion.This book has educated me further in the historical aspects of religion. I’d long thought that it was a method of controlling the mindless populace, I just didn’t realise how evil and cruel this control has been.As to the comments about the title “god is not great” is obviously a play on the phrase “allahu akba” but this has gone right over the heads of some reviewers.Honestly, read the one star reviews. Written by people who didn’t read the book “, or think themselves more knowledgeable than the author. If they can do better why aren’t their books available on Amazon?...

I have this as both book and audio book. The first observation is that this book is more a reflection on the nature of human beings, or mammals (as Hitch likes to describe us and our titular religious leaders). For those people who believe in God, this book is not an attack on whether God exists or not, but on the origin, ethics and practice of religion per se. As such, it an essential read to both believer and non-believer as Hitch examines how religions and religious leaders function, or rather don't function, when examined from the perspective of a calm, rational mind. Although a renowned polemicist Hitchens is never patronising, nor does he fall into the trap used by so many theologians or self professed 'experts' like Dawkins, of preaching to his audience. Frequently humorous, he dissects the subject with rapier like logic, and succeeds in making the reader think, 'if God does exist, would he approve of the way religions are founded, organised, and who speaks in his supposed name?' (my quotes not his). The message is quite clear tho. If you believe in God, that's fine. If you don't believe, that's fine too. However, religion as a methodology is redundant. We should use the time dedicated to religion to instead concentrate on working toward a new enlightenment. An example of him pricking unthinking orthodoxy is highlighted by the anecdote of a US State Govenor, who when asked if the State should have a spanish edition of the Bible replied, 'If English was good enough for Jesus, its good enough for them'. He also directed a barb at Richard Dawkins pretentious and patronising suggestion that atheists should be renamed as 'The Brights'.Whatever else your view of religion is, this book WILL have you thinking long after the last page is turned. And I'm sure that's exactly what Hitch intended.

This book has received extravagant praise from many quarters and comment of the opposite kind from others. It stands to reason, I suppose, that a pugnacious atheistic tract will divide opinion in just such a way. What does not stand to reason is the veracity or probability of even the most revered scriptures, and that much seems to be true of all religions. One obvious instance springs to mind, the Agony in the Garden, as recounted in St Matthew. The first and most obvious absurdity is that the supposed witnesses to these events were all asleep. However there is more to it than that, and in his splendid The Evolution of the Gospel’ Enoch Powell (yes, that Enoch Powell) finds the whole tale to be ‘transparent fiction’ without even relying on that particular detail.Back to what stands to reason, then. What surely stands to reason is that religious faith does not take its stand on reason. Nor is that any matter of fine shades of interpretation. ‘Beliefs’ that men (and women) will kill or die for are self-commending. Indeed, so strong is their persuasive power in some quarters that they can be required as a matter of religious law. Hitchens’ text does not delve deeply into the question ‘What is this thing called faith anyhow?’ To me for one the truth seems to be that only our actions can be subject to someone’s commands, or even to our own decisions; and holding a belief is not an action, it is a state of affairs, like having a headache.Continuing our lesson in truisms, people who think thoughts like these had better be careful how, when, where and in whose presence they give expression to them. Hitchens presents this matter vividly, calling on such mighty figures as David Hume in his support. Hume ca’ed canny and did not provoke dangerous reactions. So why did he need to? What is it about religious doctrines that they exert such control? Ordinary reason subverts them, and I wonder what exercises there are in the application of thought via Housman-style textual criticism of the texts that underlie them. Not, I suppose, that such instances as the miracles that abound require any Housman to refute them. Any one of us can do that, provided we want to.One very deep and thoughtful book that may be found of help in this connection is one that I was surprised not to find cited by Hitchens. The book is In the Shadow of Mount Sinai, and it is by Peter Sloterdijk. As the title suggests, Sloterdijk restricts himself to the Abrahamic religions. So does Hitchens for the most part, although he determinedly expands into Asiatic religions for a shortish stretch of the book. What Sloterdijk studies is the need for authority, either personal leadership or abstract authority (often focused on some idol or other) that cultures and ‘nations’ experienced in their cultural development. Naturally this was no matter of the likes of Hume, Dawkins or any of those, it was a matter of an underlying need. I have no learning or expertise in such matters, but at a superficial ‘helicopter’ level this makes sense to me in attempting to account for the religious focus on the irrational and the power it exerts.So what does one suppose Hitchens is trying to achieve with this book? He is a brilliant journalist and a brilliant writer, and his book is a pleasure to read, at least when the reader is receptive to the author’s cast of mind and personal values. I had the impression that he saw himself as a soldier of rationality fighting the good fight for reason against what he perceives as superstition, indeed often as plain old nonsense. He recognises that the fight has been going on for a while, and he cites Lucretius in the first century BC. I had never before thought of Lucretius as witty, but our author here is no doubt more perceptive than I am. One phrase often used by Lucretius is ‘patrii sermonis egestas’ – ‘the poverty of my native language’ – to complain about how difficult the doctrines of Epicurus were to represent in Latin. For the student that usually flagged a warning that we were in for a hard bit too. More accessible, and closer to our own era, is Arthur C Clarke’s short but awesome novel Childhood’s End. In this mighty story one aspect of the Overlords’ utopia is that they gave humanity extensive glimpses of humanity’s own history that humanity’s own resources had denied them. And as this unfolded, Clarke remarks laconically that religions which had bolstered mankind for centuries now dissolved in the face of proper knowledge. Hitchens was no Karellen, but he makes a worthy and strenuous effort of his own to help us understand.