NUMBER: 43TITLE: god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
AUTHOR: Christopher Hitchens
STARTED: July 27, 2007
FINISHED: August 6, 2007
PAGES: 307
GENRE: Religion
FIRST SENTENCE: If the intended reader of this book should want to go beyond disagreement with its author and try to identify the sins and deformities that animated him to write it (and I certainly have noticed that those who publicly affirm charity and compassion and forgiveness are often inclined to take this course), then he or she will not just be quarreling with the unknowable and the ineffable creator who - presumably - opted to make me this way.
SUMMARY: [From barnesandnoble.com] Christopher Hitchens' exorcism of religion proves that the Great Contrarian doesn't tiptoe around anybody's altar. True to its unabashedly blasphemous title, God Is Not Great dishes the dirt on all the major religions of the world, accusing them of high crimes including -- but certainly not limited to -- inhuman cruelty, superstition, fabrication, corruption, sexism, racism, and internal contradictions. It is not by accident that as the epigraph of one chapter, Hitchens has chosen Freud's "Where questions of religion are concerned, people are guilty of every possible sort of dishonesty and intellectual misdemeanor." Stoking the fires of a hot topic.
REASON FOR READING: It was on my TBR list and we just happened to get it in at the library.
THOUGHTS: Before I review this book, I'm writing a disclaimer because personal characteristics and experiences of mine have no doubt skewed my reading. First, I work at a (or rather the) Catholic university. Second, I am born, baptized, and confirmed Catholic. Third, despite all of this, I'm a secularist in practice - I have faith in some higher being(s), but I do not believe in organized religion. Fourthly, when you come right down to it, I believe in the strident separation of church and state, I believe religion (not matter what religion) is a personal choice - one that should never be demeaned, even if one disagrees with that person's beliefs as a whole.
Now onto the review! *finger point as if on a quest
Hitchens tackles quite the issue in his book. Religion, in its broadest definition, has been around with us most likely since the dawn of rational man. (<-- That sentence in and of itself is probably enough to write a whole book about.) I'm of two minds about this book. First, I agree with everything Hitchens says. Second, I agree with nothing his says because his argument relies on bully tactics while also employing the same characteristics of religion that he hates so much. This book was a "good" read simply because it caused me to think about the broader implications of how religion and the secular society interact. On that level, this made Hitchens book a spectacular work. In the end, I can't actually say I enjoyed god is not Great because I was to disillusioned with the way Hitchens chose to present his argument.
Substantively, Hitchens make a staggering case that greatly favors his thesis that "Religion poisons everything." It is hard to argue with the evidence he describes and, unlike most books that make the same argument, he actual breaks his argument down to examples that support his case. On the other hand, he does not always bring in the opinion of the other side. The best way to win an argument is to also show why the arguments the other side would make are faulty in either logic or fact. Hitchens does not do this. He just relies on the simple style of "here is the evidence I found, I'm right, you're wrong, I win."
It is this style that kills the reading of the book. Hitchens employs the very tactics he despises so much in religion. Time again he turns his view of secularlism and the non-existence of god into a religion of its own. Towards the end of the book, he states, "To 'choose' dogma and faith over doubt and experiment is to throw out the ripening vintage and to reach greedily for the Kool-Aid" (278). He wants to sway people away from religion to the side (or as he would have everyone believe, pure rational) of non-religious life. But, in making that the goal of his book, he becomes his own worst enemy.
To make matters worst, Hitchens stoops to name-calling and mudslinging to make his point. Time and again he demeans those who follow a specific faith or dogma. This is never correct. In one instance, he discusses Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" which is all well and good except he says the movie "is also an exercise in sadomasochistic homoeroticism starring a talentless lead actor who was apparently born in Iceland or Minnesota..." (111). There is absolutely no reason for that sentence or any of the many others like this to appear in the text.
Sadly, without these moments of inane drivel, Hitchens' book could be called remarkable well written. He balances his argument with equal amounts of persuasive argumentation and entertaining narratives or anecdotes. His vocabulary is extensive but well chosen. For the most part, when he's not demeaning those who follow a specific religion, Hitchens' keeps from sounding arrogant or snooty. He is able to incorporate certain personal experiences without sounding like he is naming dropping or bragging.
Hitchens' book is based on the idea that religion is the cause of the most evils in the world. Instead of leaving it at that, he actually ends the book by stating that religion is something to be fought against. On the last page he says, "... it has become necessary to know the enemy, and to prepare to fight it" (283). This alone would void his point. When throw in all the other faults, while his substance is quite persuasive, his argument crumbles to dust.
MISCELLANEOUS: A book like this could never be written without bias.
RATING: 6/10 [Good]
Comments