Publisher’s write-up:
‘In god is Not Great Hitchens
turned his formidable eloquence and rhetorical energy to the most controversial
issue in the world: God and religion. The result is a devastating critique of
religious faith.
god Is Not Great is the
ultimate case against religion. In a series of acute readings of the major
religious texts, Christopher Hitchens demonstrates the ways in which religion
is man-made, dangerously sexually repressive and distorts the very origins of the
cosmos. Above all, Hitchens argues that the concept of an omniscient God has
profoundly damaged humanity and proposes that the world might be a great deal
better off without 'him'.’
For far too long, this book was
in my ‘to read’ list. I had always enjoyed reading columns, speeches and
debates of Christopher Hitchens and had actively followed his works even when
he was alive and I find it hard to believe that it has been ten years since his
death; such is the power of his rhetoric and writing considering the impact he
has to this day. It was a matter of time before I started reading this book and
would assess whether it was worth my wait.
The earlier UK publication had a
caption attached to the title – a case against religion; and that is exactly
what Hitchens builds during the course of this book, a case against organised religion.
It is an indiscreet take on the role religion has historically had on the
society and continues to have to this date, which in the author’s opinion is an
influence that does more harm than good. A usual criticism of a fellow lead
figure in the new atheism sphere, Richard Dawkins, is that most of his books
focus on the Abrahamic religions (which is a criticism that I do not accept –
to read why, click here to read my review on The god delusion by Richard Dawkins). However, Hitchens cannot be accused of that in this book as he
has elaborate sections for Asian and native American religions – often with
interesting personal anecdotes (from India, Iraq, etc.).
Hitchens’ primary arguments are
as follows: how religion is a root for many obnoxious but normalised practices
across the world, how there is no connection between morality and religion, how
there is nothing to suggest that these books written centuries ago are not human
inventions, and even if we take the books as is – there is very little morality
to derive out of it unless you consciously exclude certain portions out of it
(which most religious people do) and finally, debunking questions often posed
to atheists (like Pascal’s wager).
The author played to his
strengths in this book; he is known to be excellent at debates (having watched
so many, I can vouch for that) and thus, he was effective in building this
case. The other strength of his that was apparent was his ability with the
words and how, a subject that could be considered boring and sometimes having
to discuss very uncomfortable events / practices was put forth well. At first,
I felt that the author was quoting multiple people and books without a footnote
but towards the end, I found a very elaborate section for ‘References’; and
in my Kindle edition, they were all hyperlinked and thus, if anyone wants
to factcheck his claims made during the book, that is simple.
There was a good contrast between
reading Dawkins and Hitchens, where the former is a scientist – a lot of his
arguments were centred around science and with the latter being a journalist, it
had many anecdotes from history, news (much of it would seem like
history now, but those are issues he actively reported on) and also references
from his extensive travelling around the world. Hitchens’ arguments are quite
powerful and as an atheist myself, I have often used arguments inspired from
him – but that was sometimes the downside of the book for me personally because
I had already read a lot his essays and listened to his speeches and debates;
thus, a lot of contents here, seemed like a repetition to me (and could be true
for anyone who has followed Hitchens before reading this book).
Of course, someone would always
say that Hitchens has misinterpreted the scriptures and he is presenting a one-sided
picture – but that is precisely the point; that you cannot be the absolute
truth and be subject to interpretation at the same time. That is without
mentioning the multiple contradictions within organised religions and how,
their organisations have often justified and abetted the worst crimes against humanity.
Even a single exception collapses the argument for religion being the source of
morality and knowledge though in reality, there are multiple contradictions as
elucidated by the author in this book.
One could always say that my
endorsement of this book is arising out of a confirmation bias, but I would
still be bold enough to hazard a guess that people with an open mind regardless
of their religious affiliation will enjoy this book. It is a well written case against
religion made by the author. While I do not believe in an afterlife, the
closest we have to one has been enabled by great human inventions (writing,
printing, internet, etc.) owing to which, thoughts of Hitchens resonate to this
day. On that note, I would award the book a rating of nine on ten. Thus, it was
certainly worth the wait.
Rating – 9/10
Have a nice day,
Andy
Andy
