God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens "god is not Great" is a one of the most fascinating books you will ever read. A scholarly, passionate, and witty book that challenges religious dogma with panache. This 336-page book is composed of the following nineteen chapters: 1. Putting It Mildly, 2. Religion Kills, 3. A Short Digression on the Pig; or, Why Heaven Hates Ham, 4. A Note on Health, to Which Religion Can Be Hazardous, 5. The Metaphysical Claims of Religion Are False, 6. Arguments from Design, 7. Revelation: The Nightmare of the "Old" Testament, 8. The "New" Testament Exceeds the Evil of the "Old" One, 9. The Koran Is Borrowed from Both Jewish and Christian Myths, 10. The Tawdriness of the Miraculous and the Decline of Hell, 11. "The Lowly Stamp of Their Origin": Religion's Corrupt Beginnings, 12. A Coda: How Religions End, 13. Does Religion Make People Behave Better, 14. There Is No "Eastern" Solution, 15. Religion as an Original Sin, 16. Is Religion Child Abuse?, 17. An Objection Anticipated: The Last-Ditch "Case" Against Secularism, 18. A Finer Tradition: The Resistance of the Rational, and 19. In Conclusion: The Need for a New Enlightenment. Positives: 1. Hitchens writes with panache. 2. Thought-provoking does not begin to describe this book. 3. Hitchens is the ultimate intellectual entertainer. It takes a brilliant mind and command of the language to be able to convey such lucid thoughts. 4. Any book by Hitchens is a quote fest but this is his Magnum Opus. 5. Hitchens is able to put into words what many of us think. 6. Challenges many religious beliefs of various faiths. 7. The uncomfortable nature of religion and sex. Many poignant examples. 8. The truth about how agnostic cadets are bullied by "born again" cadres. 9. Violations against the Establishment Clause illustrated. 10. How religion and faith distort our whole picture of the world. Example, condoms and AIDS. 11. Debunks many religious beliefs with compelling arguments. As an example, destroys the absurd notion of a young earth. 12. A look back at some fascinating doomsday predictions. 13. The clash of science and religion and how religion thwarted scientific progress. 14. The arrogance of religion exposed. 15. An eye for evolution...you will understand my pun once you read this page-turning book. 16. The fallacy of Noah's Ark. We are all wet to believe such things. 17. The truth behind the ten commandments and what they don't say. 18. The "divine" authority to commit evil. A well developed theme throughout this book. 19. The religious dogma that lead to witch hunt. 20. Instruments of evil illustrated, oh my. 21. What archaeology hasn't uncovered. 22. Faith as a mask of insecurity. 23. No such things as miracles. 24. Many apologetic arguments destroyed. 25. Religion as a political source of control. 26. This book lead me to watch the Oscar-award winning documentary, "Marjoe". A tale of American evangelical hucksterism. Highly recommended. 27. How some religions were invented by opportunists. 28. The cruel practice of slavery and its misguided religious justification. 29. The impact of Dr. King. Fascinating take. 30. Many religious icons presented in a different light. 31. Colonel Robert Ingersoll, enough said. 32. Cruel creeds at work throughout the planet. 33. Vicarious redemption as only Hitchens can express it. 34. Dictatorships and their tools of oppression. 35. Apartheid and its connection to religion, racism and totalitarianism. 36. The lack of evidence for "intercessory" prayer. 37. Very few people are as well read as Hitchens, but what sets him apart is his ability to relay topic-appropriate narratives with flair and this book exemplifies that. 38. Well researched and referenced book. Negatives: 1. This is not an even-handed book and Hitchens makes no bones about it. Hitchens did not write this book to give you the positives about religion so if you are looking for a fair assessment, you must look elsewhere. 2. His brutal unrelenting honesty will rub those who oppose his views in a bad way. 3. I have no problems going after immoral dogma, but I do have some reservations about equating immoral dogma with immoral believer. I think that distinction gets lost in this book. 4. Clearly religion doesn't poison everything as evidenced by many of the good works of religious believers. That much we can say for certain, however I do have a problem with good acts in conjunction with proselytizing. Hitchens has done a very good job of clearing this issue up after the book was released. 5. Having to wait for Mr. Hitchens next great book. In summary, this is one of the most thought-provoking books you will ever read. Hitchens establishes the premise of his book and he never relents. He never holds back and does so with an intellectual passion rarely seen. Fascinating, witty, enlightening, and irreverent but never boring. In the proper context, this is a "bad" book that is good for you. Highly recommended. Further suggestions: "Cruel Creeds, Virtuous Violence" by Jack David Eller, "Why I Became an Atheist..." by John Loftus, "God's Problem" by Bart D. Ehrman, "Godless..." by Dan Barker, "The God Virus" by Darrel Ray, "The End of faith" by Sam Harris, "The Religion Virus" by Craig A. James, "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, and "God and His Demons" by Michael Parenti.

In his public life Hitch was crass, honest, abrasive, confrontational, critical, and courageous. As such, he is a hero and will be missed. As to God is Not Great... My first and most probably still most profound experiences with the author were in the way of video and live conferences and/or debates. His ability to compose ideologically superior rhetoric within moments was a testament not only to his genius, but to his efforts in humanism. Hitchens knew his material better than anyone (knew religion and religious doctrine better than the follower), and was more prepared than anyone to voice both fact and opinion based on fact. I couldn't resist but to examine a handful of the one-star reviews of God is Not Great. Mostly in the voice of the determined apologist, those authors (should I dare label them such) attacked Hitchens for his style, his diction, his argumentative logic, and more. I found it pleasurable reading for a Tuesday morning. Unfounded and lacking evidence (something with which Hitchens harbors no such dilemma), these attacks were near comical. That out of the way, I felt obligated and eager to record my own review. As a member of a community of local authors, I was eager to share with my comrades (hope you video followers note my tribute in diction) my experience with this book, its ideas, and its other factors of greatness. Rhetoric: Hitchens's style is wonderfully abrasive at times, thorough and factual at others. I loved it. A true militant atheist, Hitchens pulled no punches in his endeavor to attack the institution of religion--and for all the most moral reasons. No one would challenge these techniques if Hitches was as well-spoken and well-researched on a topic such as torture, murder, or rape (all of which, subsequently, have been condoned and promoted to various degrees and at various times by nearly all religious groups). Another, and perhaps the most important tool in Hitchens's toolbox, is evidence. I remember one reviewer lambasting the book for its reliance on anecdotal backing. First, they must have been reading another book--facts here are presented and cited as such and often. Second, that very claim is one of the best arguments against all modern religious texts. Hitchology: I willingly admit myself to the ranks of the third/fourth (we're coming Islam) largest belief system in the world: the lack thereof. I am an atheist. BIAS, BIAS I can hear the crowd screaming. The best I can do there is to suggest my own honesty. I gave a rather low-scoring review recently to another hero, Mr. Stephen Hawking. All I can to is speak to the character of my own experience with a piece of literature, and I thoroughly enjoyed my time reading God is Not Great. I learned some, not a lot, in terms of new information (though I am well-read in the genre). However, the value gain here is the cogent and thorough argument in making a case against religion at all levels. As an atheist, I felt my own ideas finding structure. For the believer, consider the read a `knowing your enemy' endeavor. Maybe you'll even be enlightened by rational thought. The chapter "There is no `Eastern' Solution" was one section that is most memorable, as much for its assertions as for its more unique material in the voice of atheism. Most speakers and writers attack the power-trifecta of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Not often do authors take the time to be thorough and universal enough to reveal the misconceptions, violence, and veritable vulgarities of the `other' systems of belief. If you don't have the time or inclination to buy the book, maybe just read this chapter one day over a coffee at your local book shop. Just don't crease the binding; I hate that. Prediction and Hope: One day, common man will see Christopher Hitchens as something of a forefather of the Age of Rationalism (and no, I don't mean god), a time when man (as a race not a gender) will come to understand the silliness, cruelty, and horror that is religion--a time when today's God will join the pantheon of the other 2,769 or so from recorded history that find a home in the realm of mythology.

My first (and so far only) reading of anything by Christopher Hitchens. Not a 'page turner' but I did find several things worth saving for future use (some profound, some just funny). See below. The book is, more or less, what I expected. The author concentrates on the three Abrahamic monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) with only a brief chapter addressing other "Eastern" religions. (I would have been interested in a more thorough assessment of other / "Eastern" religions). The book is well written and easy to read. This is not a book that dives into the deeper sociological or anthropological questions of why people believe what they believe. It is much more a review and summary of the existing and historical contradictions and hypocrisies of the three Abrahamic monotheisms - with many relevant examples. For me, the book's focus and conclusions were effectively, "preaching to the choir" but it certainly provides plenty of examples of obvious, fundamental problems with these religions that an honest adherent would/should (presumably?) have difficulty rationalizing, contradicting or refuting. I do not recall reading much/anything here regarding the, "religion causes bad/immoral behavior" vs. "religion is used to justify bad/immoral behavior" 'split.' Hitchens' conclusion (based on the book's title and the content) seems to come down primarily on the "religion causes bad behavior..." side. It's not really an either/or question in any case but I expected some discussion of 'true' (very rare?) vs. 'faux' (the majority?) believers. The tendency for people to pay only lip service to whatever religion dominates their culture and to selectively use bits of that religion to justify their bad behavior when convenient. It seems clear (to me) that most "believers'" religion is simply what they were born into (like their nationality or ethnicity), not something they truly 'believe.' Noteworthy excerpts: Chapter 4: "I move, therefore, that candles be brought." While discussing religious preoccupation with the (often/always 'imminent') end times, Hitchens refers to the story of a day in the late 18th century when a (puritanical) Massachusetts state legislative session experienced a severe darkening of the midday skies prompting some legislators to request a suspension of business so that they could go home to die. The speaker responded with, "Either the day of judgement is here or it is not. If it is not, there is no occasion for alarm and lamentation. If it is, however, I wish to be found doing my duty. I move, therefore, that candles be brought." Chapter 5: "I had no need of that hypothesis." Laplace's famous (possibly apocryphal) response to Napoleon's question of why Laplace's Celestial Mechanics model/calculations did not include the figure of god. ("Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.") Chapter 7: "Though shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." Hitchens' example of one of the more "moral" rules in the Bible/Exodus (especially in contrast with many of the others like, "Though shalt not suffer a witch to live" used for centuries to justify the torture and burning of women who did not conform.) Chapter 13: [On the various religious justifications for American slavery] "The chance that someone's secular or freethinking opinion would cause him or her to denounce the whole injustice was extremely high. The chance that someone's religious belief would cause him or her to take a stand against slavery and racism was statistically quite small. But the chance that someone's religious belief would cause him or her to uphold slavery and racism was extremely high,..." ... "If I search my own life for instances of good or fine behavior I am not overwhelmed by an excess of choice." Chapter 14: "Make me one with everything." So goes the Buddhists's humble request to the hot dog vendor. But when the Buddhist asks about the missing change from this $20 payment, the vendor replies, "Change comes only from within." ... "Scientists have an expression for hypotheses that are utterly useless even for learning from mistakes. They refer to them as being, 'Not even wrong.' Most so-called spiritual discourse is of this type."

[Repeated from my blog at geoffarnold.com] Over the last year, there have been three important books published on belief and non-belief : * Dan Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon * Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion * Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything I've already written - appreciatively - about the Dennett and Dawkins books, and I must admit that I approached Hitchens with some trepidation. After all, people have been lambasting Dawkins and others for their "intemperate" and "disrespectful" attacks on religion, and that's the kind of thing that seems likely to get Hitchens' juices flowing (metaphorically and literally). But I needn't have worried. First, let me say directly and unambiguously: this is a really good book. Hitchens is a mercurial toper, and he may be (nay, he is) dead wrong on Iraq, but he is a great writer. I find myself reading all of the book reviews that he writes, even if I have no interest whatsoever in the book, just for the pleasure of his prose. He is a literate writer, and he assumes that his readers will recognize quotations and literary allusions without having to be spoon-fed. And he achieves this in an utterly contemporary voice, without retreating into anachronism. So please buy this book, to keep the author well supplied with the vodka which seems to fuel his muse. We need more of his work. Enough of the style: what of the substance? I think that I can best describe my reaction to this book by considering the different uses to which I would put it and its two companions. If a committed theist asked me why she should pay attention to the "new atheism", I would give her Dennett's book. I would hope that she would realize that the modern world provides clear evidence of the diversity of beliefs and non-beliefs, and that perhaps she would agree that this was a subject worth studying, worth considering from outside her (probably exclusive) world-view. What explains belief? Why has belief changed over the years? I wouldn't expect to change her beliefs, but perhaps she could accept that belief and non-belief were legitimate subjects of inquiry. If I met a curious man, embedded in a religious tradition but uncertain of whether (or what) he believed, or if he might actually be losing his faith, I would give him Dawkins' The God Delusion. I'd be hoping that he could appreciate the role of science (and its stepchild, technology) in both understanding and creating the world in which he lives. It's not just iPods and cruise missiles, but also polio vaccine, and clean water, and instruments like the Hubble Space Telescope that help us understand our universe, and DNA sequencing that allows us to diagnose disease but also to see our place in the web of life on this planet. And I would hope that he might come to realize, with Carl Sagan, that the realities of the universe are far more majestic and beautiful than the myths of religion. But suppose that an old friend came to me and asked, "Why are you so fired up about atheism and religion these days? I remember you 15 years ago, and back then you were posting on alt.atheism, and having fun roasting creationists on talk.origins, and reading books on the philosophy of religion. But you didn't talk - and write - about it all the time, and you certainly didn't publically define yourself by your disbelief. So what happened?" Instead of trying to explain all of my reasons, I think I'd simply give them Hitchens' new book and say, "Read this. He puts it better than I ever could. I merely experience the occasional (but increasingly frequent) feelings of frustration, impatience, outrage, and even anger. Hitchens is an unequalled exponent of the art of the rant: he says what I feel, with passion, intensity and wit." This is not a book that seeks to convert. Its purpose is, first and foremost, to explain. To explain why atheists are no longer willing to sit meekly on our hands when the President of the United States says that I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens", or when the Archbishop of Canterbury excuses the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, or when Catholic cardinals and archbishops preach that condoms transmit AIDS. Yes, Hitchens also explains why he is an atheist, and the things that he finds mad, bad, or ridiculous about religion. Individual believers will naturally snort, and say that he's not talking about their belief, but that's not the point. He's not seeking to win a debate, or persuade the uncertain: he's laying out facts about the world and his opinions of those facts. And I agree with most of what he says. Perhaps because he is a student of history, and a former Marxist Trotskyite, Hitchens pays particular attention to what he calls An Objection Anticipated: The Last-Ditch "Case" Against Secularism. He's talking (p.230) about the charge that "secular totalitarianism has actually provided us with the summa of human evil." Hitchens' response is lengthy and detailed, and rejects the simplistic lumping-together of the various dictators of the 20th century. He describes how fascism and National Socialism co-opted religious institutions, which responded with unseemly enthusiasm. On the other hand, Communism in Russia and China had more in common with the anticlericalism of the French Revolution. Obviously Communists wished to eliminate any competing source of ideology or loyalty; beyond this, their secularism was less an expression of ontological atheism than of hatred towards the religious institutions which had supported the previous autocracies or imperialists. In fact, Communists were not trying to negate religion, but to replace it, complete with saints, heretics, mummies and icons. It's a complex topic that could fill an entire book, and Hitchens handles it very well. As you may have gathered by now, I really like this book. I really think that it's my favourite of the three, mostly because I learned more from it than the other two, and because it caught my mood so well. Of course there are many things to learn from Dennett and Dawkins, but I've been steeped in their works for the last twenty years, and I think I understand the world from their perspective. With his literary and historical bent, Hitchens provided an intriguingly different point of view. And, as I think I mentioned, the writing is simply superb.

Christopher Hitchens' "god is not GREAT: How Religion Poisons Everything," is resoundingly superior to what one might expect from a guy who is a bit untidy, chain-smoking, not far from a bottle, and prompt in interviews with a line of epithets. You might expect the writing to be weighty and dense, sloppy and poorly edited, smoke-screeny and obfuscatory, drunkenly weird, and vilely profane. You'll not find it. Hitchens is clear, a straight talker, courageous, unpretentious, and egalitarian. He writes precisely and as simply as the subjects permit. He is brilliant, thoroughly grounded in the breadth and history of his topics. Add to that, yes, a basic humility, with much humor. Three cheers. Do I promise you will like Christopher Hitchens? No. Not if you have taken the Leap of Faith, not if you are content with your religion, never conflicted about your beliefs, need the worship service to get through the week, value the social contacts of the fine, loving people in your congregation, and believe your own revealed book is sacrosanct. You and your fellows will not like him, might even approach disdaining, if not hating, and surely pitying him. He is fine with that. Peace. Stay with it. All he asks is that the faithful leave him alone, though he doubts they can, will instead try to "save" him, pray for him, convert him or, if not, ultimately consign him to the hell they think he deserves. Hitchens denies the metaphysical, denies any supernatural entity who creates and personally sustains each and every believer, denies an afterlife, heaven or hell, and rejects the heavy guilt engendered by clerics who profit and attain power by keeping followers in need of present and eternal forgiveness. He believes religions intentionally keep members subservient emotionally and mentally, subjugate women, repress sexuality, brainwash everyone, especially children, and destroy real happiness. Religions seek to enslave. And not succeeding, will do their godly best to ostracize, shun, and righteously obliterate the outsider, the infidel. Hitchens is a voice of reason, loving freedom, not intending harm, seeking to enjoy brief life's moments. Joy to him and to the world. * * * As a title, "god is not GREAT" is more of a sales grab than "Religion Is Not Great," which would be more applicable. "How Religion Poisons Everything" shares some of the title's hyperbole, although "poisons everything" appears close to Hitchens' true evaluation. It almost goes without saying that Hitchens attempts no definitive proof or disproof of any god's existence, whether ancient Greek, Roman, Pagan, or Yahweh, which he knows has forever been beyond human capacity. My read is that Gertrude Stein's lovely statement stands: "There ain't no answer. There ain't gonna be any answer. There never has been an answer. That's the answer." Hitchens' immediate and continuing focus is on religion, all religions. Where is a person to turn for help in this life of ups and downs and ultimate demise? Not vertically to any god, but horizontally to those sharing our time and space. The vertical impulse is deception, a false hope, empty. Interdependence, with complementary skills, talents, and knowledge, is our only practical and valid answer. Caution.

Setting aside the question of the books subject matter. Which some will obviously take issue with, because it is rebuking the entire enterprise of faith. Speaking purely on literary grounds there aren't any glaring faults with this work. The author is concise, clever, articulate, structurally sound, and methodical. Which is what you expect from a great debater. This is a work of art. Even if one isn't particularly pleased with the underlying message. Books such as these aren't made for consumption. They are intended to choke the reader. They are meant to force you to consider what is being put forward, and that is the primary joy derived from them. They serve to spark a inner dialogue. They give you a point of view to play against, or to play along with. In either case it leaves the reader with some prickly questions to be resolved. Regardless where they stand on the subjects before having read the book. This book definitely creates a interesting paradigm. That all said it is scathing, but not entirely unfair. The author does go to pains even when it isn't in the best interest of his case to present the basic counter argument to his assertions, and to give credit when it is most obviously due. This does appear to be a intellectually honest work, but I would be remiss not to point out that the author does seemingly take huge delight in presenting religion at its most ghastly, and I am not even referring to the recurring themes of genocide, misogyny, torture, or terrorism. There are things in this book which are truly gag worthy, and while they are fair in the context of his overall argument. They are decidedly disconcerting. In other words there is real shock value at play. I recommend this book to those who love spirited debates, deep contemplation, and good use of the written word. I also highly recommend the narration in this case, because it does add even more nuance then is already there. I do not recommend this book to those who are of weak constitutions. If you prefer subtler more superficial arguments, or are unwilling to question, or have long standing convictions challenged. I would recommend you stand clear. This author is less a loveable beagle, and more of a pit bull. You shouldn't play around with fire unless you are at least willing to get singed.

Even many of Hitchen's most uncharitable opponents agree he has a way with words and his excellent language shines through in this book. It is worth noting, the subtitle "How religion poisons everything" is what this book is about. It is not in any way a refutation of god itself or a censure on religious people. This is intentional and a good thing. He does an excellent job of laying out a lot of religion's widespread negative* influence and his language carries what could have been a dry recitation of information and actually makes it interesting and dare I say it entertaining at times.** Unfortunately, like I think most of the 'atheist propaganda' as it is considered in some circles, I feel it may end being mostly useless. Though due in no fault of it's own, that while it may indeed convince the odd person to critically analyze the evidence most people are unlikely to be moved from their entrenched positions. The atheist's who read it don't need to be convinced, and the theist's who read it will mostly not budge. This is partially due to a worrying psychological phenomenon where two (or more) people can witness the same event and take two (or more) different stories from it. You can't of course have your own facts, but that does not stop people from trying. Hitchens does a good job of attacking religious policy, practices and history and the odd demagogue in his entreaty to secular humanism, showing quite well the dissonance between many religions in what they say they are, and what their established history shows them to be. He does not attack religious people in general but I fear that is exactly how many will see it. To be honest, if you are a strong theist this book will probably only annoy you. If you are however an atheist or anti-religion you can reaffirm your views, or if you are a theist who might be convinced then this book does an admirable job at showing the churches for the mortal institutions full of fallible people that they are. Again at this point it is worth noting this book debates religion, not god. It should be perfectly reasonable to maintain your belief in a god even if this book convinces you utterly of the fallibility of religion. * From memory he doesn't touch on it's positive influence but that isn't what the book is about, and it isn't what it needs to be about either. ** That is when it isn't frustrating when you consider the crimes he lays bare.

The notion of a creator - "God" as we know it - has been around since at least the start of civilization. In recent centuries, science has unveiled and made lucid some of the most perplexing problems in all humanity. Discovery has and continues to replace revelation, and perpetually, proceeds to diminish the need of a God/creator. Despite the lack of usefulness, the truth is that many people continue to believe in a creator and that's fine if they keep it to themselves. This is not the case with people of religion, which is always premised on a God(s). If you are reading this book to evaluate arguments for and against God itself you wont find much. For that, i'd recommend Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion". The subtitle "How Religion Poisons Everything" as polemical is at is, serves as a better description of the book and perhaps should have been switched with the title. As some already know, Hitchens does not hold back; with wit and verve, combined with an intellectual arsenal of experience and knowledge, he indiscriminately decimated every religion he mentioned. If Dawkins (among others) have sent a seismic blow to the religious foundation (i.e. God), then Hitchens has ultimately shaken the identity of the whole religious enterprise itself. Chapter 2 (Religion Kills) was particularly powerful. In this chapter, the author talks about millennia of slaughter and transgression that was perpetuated by various religious organizations under the name of God. He argues against the notion of religion doing good things and instead proposes the opposite (religion and behavior has it's own chapter). Also in another chapter he talks about religion on health. On two chapters he more than less evaluates arguments for God - the metaphysical and design arguments. The author spends chapters talking about the Old Testament, the New Testament, and The Koran (which he accuses of being borrowed from both Jewish and Christian myths). It was a great read, and it's no wonder that it enraptured so many people (probably a plethora that can't disclose it). All of the four henchman of atheism (Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Hitchens) castigate religion differently. With the writing skills that emanate from his prominent career in journalism, Hitchens brings his years of infield experience and variegated expertise. This book will incite you as well as make you laugh; it will open your mind as well as reinforce what you suspected; and last but not least, it will leave you satisfied as well as better off. 4.8/5

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.

Having finished reading this book the first thing I would point out to a potential reader is that the subtitle provides a better description than the main title. Hitchens goes to great length to point out the many and varied crimes of institutionalized religion. This is something that not even the most devout Catholic would deny. The crusades, the inquisitions, burning people alive and other horrible and immoral acts fill the history of religion like a syringe filled with poison. Hitchens' main point, and also something that I thing most people of any religion would agree with, is that these acts shouldn't be forgotten or forgiven simply because they were done in the name of any particular religion. Immoral acts are immoral no matter who does them. Indeed in the varied reviews that people have given of this book, critical reviews nearly always forget to even mention these crimes and immoral acts. They might get caught up with something as pedantic as the wording of a scriptural quote. To me this seems like a rather pathetic argument. It's much like a murderer in court saying "Look, forget about him saying I killed all those people - he said I wore brown shoes when I was clearly wearing black!". It picks at minute details to distract from the larger ones. That's not to say that reasonable religious readers will agree with this book wholeheartedly. Hitchens makes no attempts to hide the fact that he does not believe in God, and feels there is absolutely no compelling reason to do so. He even goes on to point out that if you were to practice your religion and beliefs in the comfort of your own home, he wouldn't have the slightest problem with it. He does, however, object to the god described in the old testament as an immoral monster. Overall there is a lot to take from this book, regardless of your personal views on the matter. Its focus is perhaps less controversial than The God Delusion in that the crimes detailed are a matter of historical record and considered horrific mistakes even by the most conservative of church-goers. If I had to make only one complaint about this book it would be that I didn't always feel that the examples given fell exactly in the subject of the particular chapter where they were placed. The examples were compelling and important to know about, but sometimes I feel they would have been better used at different points in the book to support some other argument. I would recommend this book to anybody regardless of their beliefs if only so that they can be aware of the wrong that can be done in the name of religion and do their best to avoid it ever happening again.

Todas las religiones merecen análisis y justo escrutinio sin nublarlo con sentimentalismos o posturas dogmáticas, exactamente fue lo que hizo Christopher Hitchens en este excelente libro, fue un erudito preocupado y ocupado por una mejor humanidad, llevando en alto la razón y la verdad.

Um grande estudo mostrando porque religião não tem nada de divino ou sobrenatural, tendo sido contruida por seres humanos. E que causou e continua causando um mal imenso!

Christopher Hitchens folgt mit diesem Buch dem derzeit populären Outing der Agnostiker/Atheisten/Humanisten, und haut in dieselbe Kerbe wie Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett (in USA) sowie Michael Schmidt-Salomon, Franz Buggle und Hans Albert in Deutschland. Im Gegensatz zu manchen anderen vermeidet er jedoch die theologisch/philosophische Debatte um die Existenz Gottes und konzentriert sich stattdessen auf die im Namen der Religionen oder von religiösen Menschen ausgeübten Untaten. Auch hier kann man den Inhalt mit dem alten Spruch zusammenfassen: Es gibt auf der Welt gute Menschen, die Gutes tun, und böse Menschen die Böses tun, aber nur durch Religion bekommt man eigentlich gute Menschen dazu, Böses zu tun. Im Falle des Christentums wissen wir das eigentlich schon lange (zumindest in Deutschland) durch das Lebenswerk von Karlheinz Deschner. Christopher Hitchens ist jedoch in den USA lebender Engländer, und dort scheint diese Erkenntis erst in den letzten Jahren Anhänger gefunden zu haben. Er bleibt jedoch nicht bei einer Religion hängen, sondern zeigt auch im Kapitel über den Islam (die Weitergabe von Gottes Wort durch einen Engel an einen analphabetischen Kaufmann in der Wüste), die überall auf der Welt existierenden Schattenseiten dieser Religion auf. Ein weiteres Kapitel ist den östlichen Religionen gewidment, die er ebenso als ungeeignet für ein ethisches Verhalten entlarvt (Konflikt zwischen Hindus, Moslems und Buddhisten in Indien bzw Sri Lanka, Rolle des Buddhismus bei Japans Imperialistischer Politik im letzen Jahrhundert). Spätestens hier bringt er Facetten, die bei den anderen derzeit populären Religionskritikern fehlen. Das Buch ist flüssig zu lesen, und die Argumentationsweise ist weniger polemisch als bei Dawkins oder Harris. Dennoch wird das Buch dem dogmatisch Gläubigen jeglicher Religion die Zornesröte ins Gesicht treiben, denn der Autor spricht schonungslos aus, was viele weichgespülte Pseudokritiker zu relativieren suchen und euphemistisch umschreiben: Alle Religionen disqualifizieren sich als ethische Grundlage für ein vernünfitiges Zusammenleben in der heutigen Zeit. Auch wenn in der Bibel oder dem Koran auch "Gutes" zu finden sein mag (was immer exemplarisch herausgepickt wird), so steht darin so viel menschenverachtender Unsinn, dass man diese für nomadisierenden Hirtenvölker der Eisenzeit geschriebenen Stammesregeln einfacht nicht als Richtschnur seines heutigen Handelns nehmen kann.