| God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything | 
 enlarge | Author: Christopher Hitchens
Publisher: Atlantic Books
Category: Book
List Price: £8.99
Buy New: £3.48
You Save: £5.51 (61%)
New (25) Used (5) from £3.48
Avg. Customer Rating:  25 reviews
Sales Rank: 515
Media: Paperback
Pages: 320
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.7
Dimensions (in): 7.7 x 5.1 x 1
ISBN: 1843545748
EAN: 9781843545743
ASIN: 1843545748
Publication Date: March 1, 2008
Availability: Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days
Condition: IN STOCK - BRAND NEW - SENT FIRST CLASS - IMMEDIATE DISPATCH
|
| Customer Reviews:
 An irrational case for rationalism June 3, 2008
9 out of 24 found this review helpful
It's ironic that in claiming that God is fiction Christopher Hitchens has written his own work of fiction, disguising it as a contribution to the contemporary debate on religion and the existence, or otherwise, of God. Of course Hitchens is not a philosopher, he is a polemicist and displays the polemicist's weakness of only identifying two sides to an argument - his and the wrong one. Buoyed by favourable reviews from fellow atheists Daniel Dennett and A C Grayling (a bit like asking Goering and Goebbels to write a review of Hitler's Mein Kampf) Hitchens butchers the past with the bigoted misrepresentation of religion he learned from his Trotskyist education. For example, he claims that William Jennings Bryan supported Bishop Usher's theory that the world was created in six literal days although in his testimony at the Scopes Trial Bryan specifically rejected this notion - but why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
By seeking to identify Communism as a religion (The God That Failed) Hitchens seeks to continue his theme, despite the evidence that Lenin's atheistic policy was an attack on God rather than an attack on religion. Similarly, by denying his own Marxism was a faith - and an irrational one at that - Hitchens seeks to distance himself from the conclusion that it is human beings who provide the vital ingredients for intolerance.
This inability to penetrate beyond the immediate betrays Hitchens' intention of "proving" a pre-determined conclusion. He quotes the old Belfast joke about the man who was stopped by paramilitaries and asked for his religious affiliation. When he replied atheist he was asked "Is that a Protestant or a Catholic atheist". Hitchens uses it to berate religion without understanding that the man's atheism was irrelevant to the social and political conditions that gave rise to the question.
Hitchens's suggestion that people can live virtuous lives without recourse to religion is undermined by his inability to recognise that not only do people tend to believe what they want to believe but that their beliefs have little affect on their daily lives until those beliefs are politicised. The "conversion" of Constantine changed Christianity from being a minority faith into becoming part of the institutions of the day and changed belief from one of conviction to one of convenience. Hitchens fails to perceive the distinction. More importantly he fails to perceive that it's not religion that poisons everything but the political use of religion, or whatever else is to hand, that poisons everything through human agency. His support for the invasion of Iraq has clearly poisoned his judgement.
Hitchens assumes that he is revealing some hidden truths when referring to the history of some religious sects. I was brought up in the Plymouth Brethren and the notion that the institutionalised church was a perversion of New Testament Christianity was an integral part of my education. It's clear from his only reference to the Plymouth Brethren that he doesn't understand the theology of the movement, its original impulse or the difference between the various interpretations of the Bible held by "Exclusive" or "Open" Brethren. In particular, he seeks, as he does with other faiths, to impose his own version of their truth instead of examining their truth in the context of their own beliefs.
But then, as Hitchens is so intent on finding quotations for his cause, he is not interested in history as an accurate portrayal of the past. It never appears to strike him that while he regards the existence of God as untrue, people holding the opposite viewpoint are not necessarily fools, although that's how he characterises them all. "The fault dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves that we are underlings" said Cassius in Julius Caesar. According to Hitchens, human beings bear no responsibility for their contribution to the evils in the world unless they hold a religious faith.
Hitchens is well read but disturbingly selective. He alleges that Socrates was killed for advocating atheism, although his crime was attacking the political establishment (don't worry Chris, things have moved on). After Socrates' defence speech those voting for his execution increased because of his arrogance. It was not the Heliocentric view of the world that got Gallileo house imprisonment but his lampooning of his friend the Pope.
Myth has a part to play in history and Hitchens certainly produces a lot of mythology, including his own supposed steadfast backing for Darwinsim and the scientific method. Unfortunately, his book provides nothing but conjecture on finding the "missing link" between man and apes,leaving the question of evolution as open and unproven as ever. Even Darwin's finches have been seen as varieties of the same species instead of species in their own right. He abandons the scientific method in favour of scientism, claiming for the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant proof that it does not provide.
Hitchens was fired up by 9/11, conveniently forgetting that Osama Bin Laden has a political programme expressed in quasi-religious terms, rather than a religious programme fashioned for political purposes. His biggest beef is the response to the fatwah issued against Salman Rushdie by the late Iranian leader Khomeini (issued without him having read the book!).
My Christian faith is based on an acceptance of the Christian gospel. It requires no intermediaries between God and myself for a relationship to exist. It depends on me. It depends on God. Ironically in this respect Hitchens and myself share something in common. Like him I prefer to be left alone with my beliefs (atheism is a belief) something which he professes he wants for himself but seems incapable of allowing others to enjoy.
The decision to award the book one star was not based on my own opinions. Hitchens has an opinion and he is entitled to express it in the marketplace of ideas but to receive more than the minimum a book has to rise above propaganda which, regrettably, "God is Great" fails to do. Which is a pity because the arguments for the existence or otherwise of God remain, as they are likely to remain, with us for all time (inasmuch, of course, as time actually exists).
 Much better than expected May 26, 2008
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
Reading the previous comments I was expecting an unfounded biased rant and was positively surprised that this is an most of the times well researched book with first hand experience of a far traveled journalists to supplement historical readings.
Of course there are shortcomings in scientific explanations compared to a Richard Dawkins but that was not to be expected from Hitchens anyway.
The only weird things are the attempt (in vain) to get Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot and Co somehow linked into a religious (own semi God) status to blame religion even for them. The arguments are on such a fabricated low level usually only known from Christian apologists, so the book would do better without this few pages. These could be filled then with a more detailed evaluation of the Christian anti-Semitism for 2000 years and the collusion between both German churches and the Nazi's.
Compared to his religious critics Hitchens is restrained May 24, 2008
5 out of 6 found this review helpful
Hitchens hits the ground running and he rarely slows. He has been consigned in the USA fundamentalist belt to the deepest depths of hell. Interestingly the fulminating pastor I heard thought there were different depths.
This is free speech. You may not like it but it is still only words. He hasn't killed anyone, racked them, burned them at the stake. He hasn't employed bombs or bullets to make his case. The balanced Christians, and that does include Roman Catholics, are ready to admit that they have enjoyed the fireworks (metaphorical) and, unlike the poorly educated denizens of the bible belt, these christians don't need an ill educated pastor to tell them what to think.
Hitchens knows his subject and his punchy writing kept me entertained.
 HItchens May 17, 2008
4 out of 7 found this review helpful
A previous reviewer warned fellow readers that this book is a rant. Of course it's a rant, this is hitchens. the real pleasure of Mr. Hitchens work is being carried along by the greatest ranter of our time.I am a roman catholic and even though he attacks my faith this book is a devine pleasure. ha ha.
Missing the point April 19, 2008
8 out of 24 found this review helpful
Hitchens writes with a certain wit but completely misses the point. As early as chapter 2 [Religion Kills] he refers to the sectarian war in Northern Ireland citing it as an example of the evil of religion. Then he states, '....the street language used by opposing rival tribes consists of terms insulting to the other confession [he means religion]. He further compounds the error later when he suggests the Croat/Serbian conflict should have been called an Orthodox Christian/Catholic conflict. The point, of course, is that these were tribal conflicts which happened to be described by religious affiliations. He seems oblivious to the fact that, on both sides, plenty of atheists were involved. If he thinks the Provisional IRA and Protestant paramilitary groups didn't contain significant numbers of atheists he is deluded.
I was looking forward to chapter 17 entitled, 'An Objection Anticipated: the Last-Ditch Case Against Secularism. It starts off well with the statement, '..is it not true that secular and atheist regimes have committed crimes and massacres that are...at least as bad if not worse [than religious crimes]? And does not the corollary hold that men freed from religious awe will act in the most unbridled and abandoned manner?' This is an extremely promising start to an interesting question. We then have about 14 pages describing the role of religion in establishing totalitarian states and an attack on the Vatican's role in WWII. Finally, we get to a paragraph which begins 'Turning to Soviet and Chinese Stalinism..' At last, you might think - but no! He now criticises the Russian Orthodox church for its support of the czar and Christian churches in China for being associated with imperial powers. He admits that 'Lenin and Trotsky were certainly convinced atheists' then switches to Stalin with not much more criticism than he 'repeated the papal routine of making science conform to dogma'. Later he visits North Korea and describes how the atheist Kim Il Sung turns himself into a demi-god. He finally reverts to criticising the Greek Orthodox Church, the Khmer Rouge [who sought protection from Chinese Stalinists], and the Taliban. All in all there is no attempt to address the 'Case against Secularism' nor why atheist regimes can behave in a worse way than religiously influenced ones - other than they seem inevitably to degenerate into totalitarian regimes.
On a couple of occasions he begins his sentence with, 'For most of human history religion has......' and makes no attempt as to why for ALL of human history humans have had a need for a sense of the spiritual. Certainly, it can confer no adaptive advantage in natural selection so it would have been interesting to hear his views on why it evolved. It seems clear that Hitchens thinks that if the world was rid of religion all would be well. This is incredibly naive and shows a complete lack of understanding of human nature, religious or otherwise. His failure to acknowledge with any conviction the damage atheists inflict proves he is misguided.
Finally, he criticises a book by Jonathan Wells, saying, 'Mr Wells's book is unlikely to even rate a footnote in the history of piffle....' describing it as a laughable antievolutionist diatribe. I think Mr Wells's book will soon be accompanied by Mr Hitchen's own 'laughable antireligious diatribe'.
|
|
|
