 Cover of the U.S. hard-cover edition | |
| Author | Christopher Hitchens |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Subject | Criticism of religion |
| Publisher | Twelve Books imprint of theHachette Book Group USA |
Publication date | May 1, 2007 |
| Publication place | United States |
| Media type | Print (hardcover andpaperback), andaudiobook |
| Pages | 307 |
| ISBN | 978-0-446-57980-3 |
| OCLC | 70630426 |
| 200 22 | |
| LC Class | BL2775.3 .H58 2007 |
God Is Not Great (sometimes stylized asgod is not Great)[1] is a 2007 book[2] by journalistChristopher Hitchens in which hemakes a case against organized religion. It was originally published in the United Kingdom byAtlantic Books asGod Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion and in the United States byTwelve asGod Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, but in 2017 Atlantic Books republished it with nosubtitle.
Hitchens posited that organized religion is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied toracism,tribalism, andbigotry, invested inignorance and hostile tofree inquiry, contemptuous of women andcoercive toward children" andsectarian, and that accordingly it "ought to have a great deal on its conscience". He supports his position with a mixture of personal stories, documented historical anecdotes and critical analysis of religious texts. His commentary focuses mainly on theAbrahamic religions, although it also touches on other religions, such asEastern religions. The book sold well and received mixed reviews, with some critics finding historical inaccuracies in the text and some finding the book highly important.
The title of the book negates the Muslim affirmationAllahu akbar, which translates as "God is great".[3][4]
Hitchens begins by describing his early scepticism toward religion and argues that faith persists due to human fear of mortality (ch. 1). He claims religion imposes itself on others and frequently incites violence, citing his experiences in cities like Belfast and Beirut andthe reaction toSalman Rushdie's novelThe Satanic Verses (ch. 2). He discussesreligious prohibitions against pork. He critiques religious interference in public health, referring to the Catholic Church's stance on condoms in Africa, resistance to vaccines in someIslamic groups,religious circumcision andreligious female genital mutilation (ch. 4).
He argues that religiousmetaphysics are false and that advances in science makeleaps of faith increasingly redundant (ch. 5). He challenges theargument from design, claiming religion promotes both human inferiority and self-importance while failing to explain natural flaws (ch. 6). He describes theOld Testament as violent and inconsistent, with laws that contradict its own commandments (ch. 7), and presents theNew Testament as derivative and historically unreliable, marked by contradictions and retrofitted narratives (ch. 8). He argues that Islam borrows myths from Judaism and Christianity and is shaped by political motives and linguistic control. He criticises Islam's resistance to reform, suppression of dissent, and claims of divine authority as signs of insecurity rather than truth (ch. 9).
Hitchens contends that all reportedmiracles are unverified and that belief in them relies on fabricated or unreliable testimony (ch. 10). He argues that many religions originated in fraud or delusion, citingMormonism andcargo cults as examples (ch. 11), and asserts that religions do die out over time despite claims of permanence (ch. 12). He disputes the notion that religion improves morality, pointing to theabolitionist movement as an example of secular virtue (ch. 13), and critiquesEastern religions for encouraging mental submission and failing to offer consistent spiritual insight (ch. 14).
He argues that religion promotes doctrines such as eternal punishment, blood sacrifice, and sexual repression, which he views as ""positively immoral" (ch. 15), and says it harms children through fear and physical abuse (ch. 16). Responding to claims that atheists likeStalin committed worse crimes than the religious, he contends thattotalitarianism is political rather than a result ofatheism (ch. 17). He concludes that humanity is likely to outgrow religion, comparing its end to other abandoned practices (ch. 18), and suggests that meaning and community can be found through secular, non-coercive means (ch. 19).
Michael Kinsley, inThe New York Times Book Review, lauded Hitchens's "logical flourishes and conundrums, many of them entertaining to the nonbeliever". He concluded that "Hitchens has outfoxed the Hitchens watchers by writing a serious and deeply felt book, totally consistent with his beliefs of a lifetime".[5]
Bruce DeSilva considered the book to be the best piece of atheist writing sinceBertrand Russell'sWhy I Am Not a Christian (1927), with Hitchens using "elegant yet biting prose". He concludes that "Hitchens has nothing new to say, although it must be acknowledged that he says it exceptionally well".[6][7]
The book was praised inKirkus Reviews as a "pleasingly intemperate assault on organized religion" that "like-minded readers will enjoy".[8]
InThe Sydney Morning Herald, Matt Buchanan dubbed it "a thundering 300-page cannonade; a thrillingly fearless, impressively wide-ranging, thoroughly bilious and angry book against the idea of God"; Buchanan found the work to be "easily the most impressive of the present crop of atheistic and anti-theistic books: clever, broad, witty and brilliantly argued".[9]
Jason Cowley in theFinancial Times called the book "elegant but derivative".[10]
David Bentley Hart, reviewing the book in the Christian journalFirst Things, interpreted the book as a "rollickingburlesque, without so much as a pretense of logical order or scholarly rigor".[11] Hart says "On matters of simple historical and textual fact, moreover, Hitchens' book is so extraordinarily crowded with errors that one soon gives up counting them." Hart claims that Hitchens conflates the histories of the1st and4th crusades, restates the discredited assertion thatthe early church destroyed ancient pagan texts, and asserts thatMyles Coverdale andJohn Wycliffe were burned alive when both men died of old age.[11]
Stephen Prothero ofThe Washington Post considered Hitchens correct on many points but found the book "maddeninglydogmatic" and criticized Hitchens's condemnation of religion altogether, writing that "If this is religion, then by all means we should have less of it. But the only people who believe that religion is about believing blindly in a God who blesses and curses on demand and sees science and reason as spawns ofSatan are unletteredfundamentalists and their atheisticdoppelgängers."[12]
Responding to Hitchens's claim that "all attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule",Peter Berkowitz of theHoover Institution quotespaleontologistStephen Jay Gould. Referencing a number of scientists with religious faith, Gould wrote, "Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science ofDarwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism."[13]
William J. Hamblin of theFARMS Review criticized Hitchens for implying unanimity amongbiblical scholars on controversial points and overlooking alternative scholarly positions, and felt that Hitchens's understanding of biblical studies was "flawed at best." "[F]or Hitchens, it is sufficient to dismiss the most extreme,literalistic, andinerrantist interpretations of the Bible to demonstrate not only that the Bible itself is thoroughly flawed, false, and poisonous but that God does not exist." Hamblin felt that he misrepresented the Bible "at the level of a confusedundergraduate", failing to contextualise it. Hamblin concluded that the book "should certainly not be seen as reasonable grounds for rejecting belief in God".[14]
Daniel C. Peterson attacked the accuracy of Hitchens's claims in a lengthy essay, describing it as "crammed to the bursting point with errors, and the striking thing about this is that the errors are always,always, in Hitchens's favor. ... In many cases, Hitchens is 180 degrees wrong. He is so far wrong that, if he moved at all, he would be coming back towardright."[15]
Curtis White, writing inSalon, criticized the book as "intellectually shameful". White, an atheist critic of religion, asserted that "one enormous problem with Hitchens's book is that it reduces religion to a series of criminal anecdotes. In the process, however, virtually all of the real history of religious thought, as well as historical and textual scholarship, is simply ignored as if it never existed."[16]
The book was published on May 1, 2007, and within a week had reached No. 2 on theAmazon bestsellers list,[citation needed] and reached No. 1 onThe New York Times Best Seller list in its third week.[17]
Media from Commons
Quotations from Wikiquote
Data from Wikidata| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
