|
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything | 
 enlarge | Author: Christopher Hitchens
Publisher: Twelve Books, Hachette Book Group
Category: Book
List Price: $24.99
Buy Used: $6.95
You Save: $18.04 (72%)
New (52) Used (41) Collectible (9) from $6.95
Rating:  794 reviews
Sales Rank: 754
Media: Hardcover
Pages: 307
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.1
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 6.4 x 1.1
ISBN: 0446579807
Dewey Decimal Number: 200
EAN: 9780446579803
ASIN: 0446579807
Publication Date: May 1, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Condition: ex-library copy - usual markings/clean pages
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
In the tradition of Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian and Sam Harris's recent bestseller, The End of Faith, Christopher Hitchens makes the ultimate case
against religion. With a close and erudite reading of the major religious texts, he 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.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 789 more reviews...
 English majors will especially like this book April 24, 2007
Santi Tafarella (california)
2246 out of 2810 found this review helpful
In the genre of athiest criticism of religion, Hitchens' book fills a niche. Where, for example, Bertrand Russel approaches religion with a philosophical mind, and Richard Dawkins approaches religion with a scientific mind, Hitchens approaches religion with a literary mind. This makes for some fresh and caustic athiest insights that you might not expect to find in either Russell or Dawkins. Hitchens, for example, begins his book by offering three quotes from classic pieces of literature, and within the first few pages he also alludes to George Eliot's "Middlemarch" without even mentioning Eliot's name (presuming his readers will know who wrote "Middlemarch"). In other words, Hitchens is a man of letters writing to educated, thoughtful people with more than a smattering of English literature classes in their background. In this sense, Hitchens, unlike Russell or Dawkins, leads his readers not just to think their way through the book's issues, but to feel them emotionally, in the way that one might feel one's way through a novel by Dostoevsky. Hitchens is always on the side of suffering individuals, and resists at every turn religion's dogmatism and "one size fits all" obtuseness. And in this sense Hitchens has hit upon an angle to come at religion that is not usually trodden: popular religion, unlike great literature, resists the tragic, the ambiguous, and the particular. Thus if you love literature, and identify with frail humanity via literature, you will resist the easy platitudes of religion. It is not just science and religion that are in tension for Hitchens, but literature and religion, or more accurately, the literary sensibility and religion.
Hitchens hits another one out of the park April 29, 2007
Cactus Ed (Pacific Northwest)
1665 out of 2218 found this review helpful
I think Christopher Hitchens is a national - no, make that Global - treasure, and his newest book here only underscores this. To carry on with my baseball metaphor, when Hitchens stepped up to the plate with this book on religion the bases were already loaded: Daniel Dennett on third, Sam Harris on second, and Richard Dawkins on first. Hitchens knocks 'em all in with one swing of the bat. He cuts through the BS of religion and "faith" better than anybody. His excellent writing style enlivens and enriches the soul at the same time. What more could a reader want?
I would add that perhaps what motivated Hitchens to write this book and so to "come out" more publicly with his critiques of religion and faith is what has also motivated me: the increasingly publicly-accepted insanity of religion in this, the 21st century. This insanity threatens to bring down all of civilization and, in the case of American fundamentalists in our government with their quivering fingers poised atop the launch buttons of our nuclear weapons, the end of Everything, which religious nut-jobs anticipate with unrestrained glee, so certain they are that they, at least, will be OK in the aftermath. This is just absolutely nuts, and Christopher Hitchens does us all a great service in pointing this out.
Update a week later: I've now read the book all the way through again, and I just want to add here what a distinct pleasure it has been to read this book. Some people are putting Hitchen's book into a sort of trilogy along with The End of Faith by Sam Harris and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I agree with this, and I would only add that I think Hitchen's book is by far the most enjoyable of the three. I am glad to have all three right next to each other on my bookshelf.
 From someone who's actually read the book! May 14, 2007
Scott Bresinger (New York, USA)
1305 out of 1431 found this review helpful
After looking through some of the other customer reviews found here, I was dismayed by the amount of "blog-style" entries: that is, people who may have only glanced at the title or saw Hitchens promoting the book on CNN or YouTube and decided to just speak up, either in support or condemnation. However, if you're curious about the book and just want to know what to expect, may I humbly offer some actual information?
Hitchens, a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, author of books too numerous to mention and contributor to smaller magazines such as Free Inquiry, adds to the recent renaissance of pro-atheist books with his own provocatively-titled contribution. Whereas Sam Harris (The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason) sees dire warnings and Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion offers a defense of science, Hitchens uses his long experience in journalism to illustrate the madness that results when faith is unchallenged by reason. Dawkins has been criticized for adopting a harsh tone (an assessment I disagree with), but Hitchens is the one who really pours on the anger and witty derision. Some sample chapter titles make it clear he's playing for keeps:
Chapter two: "Religion Kills"
Chapter Four: "The Metaphysical Claims of Religion Are False"
Chapter Seven: "Revelation: The Nightmare of the Old Testament"
Chapter Eight: "The 'New' Testament Exceeds the Evil of the 'Old' One"
Chapter Nine: "The Koran is Borrowed From Both Jewish and Christian Myths"
That should give you a pretty good idea of the tone, but the chapter titles prove to be no mere cheap provocations. Drawing on decades (if not centuries) of scholarship that exposes the cobbled-together recipes for the holy books of the three "great" monotheisms, he shows them to be products of a violent time when scientific information about the world was unavailable and most people were entirely illiterate. He then gives modern day examples of how these myths have been put to horrendous use (yes, 9/11 is mentioned). In one section, he revisits the sins of "Agnes Bojaxhiu, an ambitious Albanian nun who had become well-known under the nom de guerre of 'Mother Teresa'," which he covered at greater length in his previous controversial expose The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, and reiterates how the "miracles" ascribed to her are so slap-dash and false they're almost comical.
While he devotes much of his outrage at "the big three" (my phrase), he also offers a chapter titled "There Is No 'Eastern' Solution," which would have to find disagreement with Sam Harris, who argues that many of the spiritual practices of Buddhism, shorn of their supernatural trappings, could be beneficial. Hitchens, ever the realist, wants us to know that history doesn't bear these claims out.
Hitchens often delivers his ideas like he's trying to splash his martini across your face at a party--at one point he muses "Why do people keeep saying, 'God is in the details'? He isn't in ours, unless his yokel creationist fans wish to take credit for his clumsiness, failure and incompetence"--and the result is often thrilling reading. His vitriol can be unnerving sometimes, like when he asks "Is Religion Child Abuse?", not to mention the full title of his tome. Never trust a book that splashes the word "everything" on its cover; it's usually a sign that the author is either desperate or foolishly grandiose. After reading the book, I don't think Hitchens is either, but in his worst moments he shows symptoms. In any event, I'm sure he doesn't intend this to be a work of (pardon the phrase) "evangelism"--he doensn't hope to influence even the mildly religious--but like that martini in the face (followed, perhaps, by an olive to the noggin), he wants to deliver a wake-up call. Some may see only a plea for attention, but he would quickly redirect you the the world outside.
 No Wonder So Many People Believe in God June 6, 2007
Danusha Goska (Bloomington, IN)
281 out of 510 found this review helpful
If "God Is Not Great" is the best argument for atheism, it's no wonder that so many believe. There is much wrong with this book. Given the word limit on Amazon reviews, one can only scratch the surface.
Hitchens' style: So many names are dropped you need an umbrella. Hitchens rubs elbows with glamorous people; he reads famous writers. On the other hand, Hitchens refers, repeatedly, to anyone who believes in God as a "yokel." This patina of sophistication shielded by venom intimidates some into deferring to Hitchens as a great mind.
Namedropping equals leftovers. Hitchens innovates no paradigm in relation to his, and humanity's, grave concern -- ending religiously-justified atrocity like 9-11. Given this, it is egregious that Hitchens does not mention works that have responded to criticisms he quotes. For example, he rehashes John Cornwell's accusations against Pope Pius XII, without ever mentioning Ronald J. Rychlak's or David G. Dalin's refutations of Cornwell. This approach -- airbrushing out of his picture anything that weakens his point -- would not be possible in a volume published by a reputable academic press. So much for scholarship.
Hitchens' method is the classic one of prejudice: create an enemy, an "other"; insist that all members of this category are an undifferentiated mass; voice an entrenched bigotry -- people of faith are stupid, hypocritical, and evil; scapegoat this other as the cause of all the world's problems, and then "support" this construct with decontextualized anecdotes.
Hitchens conflates Hinduism, Judaism, Shinto, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism. Obvious facts prove this false: Jews, for example, don't proselytize, and, therefore, constitute less than one percent of the world's population. Male to female ratios are skewed in Muslim countries like Pakistan, where conditions mitigate against female survival. The Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon: very different books. But, in Hitchens' construct, all are undifferentiated.
Then Hitchens voices, about this undifferentiated "other," bigoted stereotypes, using the classic imagery of prejudice that associates the scapegoated "other" with subhuman life forms. In an appearance with David Horowitz promoting this book, Hitchens equated persons of faith with plague-bacilli-ridden, sewer-breeding rats.
To "prove" bigotry true, Hitchens, rejecting the scientific method, cites anecdotes. Hitchens repeats as true the slander that Jews have sex through holes in sheets. Hitchens fills his reader's mind with pornographic images in relation to the Jewish practice of circumcision.
The Christian Rev. Martin Luther King, as Hitchens mentions in one anecdote, was, indeed, a plagiarist, and a rabbi did, indeed, give a child VD via circumcision. Neither of these true anecdotes, though, sums up the most important truth about MLK, Jewish ritual, or faith. MLK played an irreplaceable role in the Civil Rights Movement, and that is more important than his failures. The Talmud is a vast document that has been the foundation of a people, Jews, who have contributed greatly to mankind, and that is more important than one rabbi's crimes.
Hatemongering, though, snips out isolated, true anecdotes, *decontextualized*. If you Google Hitchens' most inflammatory claims, about MLK, for example, chances are the first website you find will be Stormfront, a white supremacist site. And quoting isolated verses from the Talmud has long been the anti-Semite's favorite tactic -- visit the David Duke website. No, Hitchens is not a supremacist. Yes, he uses the same tactic as they.
Hitchens, in reporting anecdotes about the failures of persons of faith, never cedes that faith has been the sine qua non -- the indispensable element -- in much that humanity cherishes. For example, Hitchens mocks the founder of Mormonism -- easy to do -- but fails to mention the awesome achievements of Mormonism, as chronicled by scholar Harold Bloom.
At the same time, Hitchens refuses to acknowledge the failures of organized atheists and atheism. The largest pile of corpses in human history was left by atheist, scientifically-inspired "reformers:" Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. In a shameless and transparent ploy, Hitchens claims that Stalin, et al, were religious! By that "logic," up is down, war is peace, and hate is love. How convenient.
As a solid critique of faith, "Not Great" is toothless. Devastating critiques of faith: Carroll's "Constantine's Sword," Collins' "Language of God," Bawer's "Stealing Jesus," Garry Wills, Daniel Boyarin, Rachel Adler, Ali Sina, Brian Victoria, William Wilberforce, the 88th psalm. For a heart-wrenching, take-no-prisoners, fully invested critique of the failures of religion, read Jesus Christ. Excepting Ali Sina, a former Muslim, these authors -- Jews, Catholics, Evangelicals, Buddhists, are *still* persons of faith, and they have authored soul-rattling critiques of their religions.
Hitchens' anecdotes of badly behaved persons of faith -- his *entire bag of tricks* -- have already been addressed, and acted upon by . . . persons of faith. Collins, a Christian, doesn't just go after Intelligent Design rhetorically -- he is a key DNA researcher. Wilberforce, an Evangelical, didn't just critique the irreconcilability of Christianity and slavery, he devoted his life to ending slavery.
In the plus column: Hitchens, unlike so many published writers today, knows how to construct a sentence. And he is, weirdly, endearing. He is like the child -- in the very best sense -- in all of us who recoils when he discovers that revered figures have feet of clay. MLK plagiarized. Recoil! These recoils have resulted in Hitchens checkered ideological history. He is a former Trotskyite; currently he's a red-white-and-blue, Iraq-quagmire-cheerleading, chicken hawk -- a harsh term but an accurate one -- neo-con. And, by his own admission, he is drunk all the time, to help him deal with his disappointment in his fellow mortals.
 A strong effort at an impossible task April 24, 2007
John Zxerce (Colorado ^^^)
171 out of 367 found this review helpful
The swath Hitchens mows is so wide and his mower so huge that to pose even basic questions against his over-sized harvest is akin to shooting a b-b gun at a Sherman tank. It almost seems silly to oppose such brute force. And yet, I'll give it a try.
- Hitchens believes all religions are mere fabrications. Is it possible that he's 99% right? If one were true, he just threw the pearl out with the hogwash.
- It often seems Hitchens' reaction is against the misuse and abuse of a religious claim rather than a right following. For instance, if a person is told to love their neighbor, but kills them instead - Hitchens seems to blame the original commandment.
- Hitchens scoffs at those who suggest religion brings comfort and hope. While I agree that comfort and hope are misplaced if the religious claims they are based on are not true. The better question to then evaluate is, are there good reasons for comfort and hope? That is, is it reasonable to believe regardless of it we like it or not?
- Hitchens suggests all religions are bad. However, what is `bad'? Is he borrowing capital from a worldview which supports the idea of good and evil in order to demonstrate that worldview is false?
- It would bolster Hitchens argument if he were to give examples of how religion-less cultures resemble a utopia. However, the times that's been tried in history are more counter-examples than supporting ones.
Stating that all religions are false is an awfully big claim - one that seems to require omniscience. And that's an attribute I don't believe Hitchens possesses. At least, I'm not putting my faith in it.
|
|
|
|
| |
