Missing the point - Rated 
Hitchens writes with a certain wit but completely misses the point. As early as chapter 2 [Religion Kills] he refers to the sectarian war in Northern Ireland citing it as an example of the evil of religion. Then he states, '....the street language used by opposing rival tribes consists of terms insulting to the other confession [he means religion]. He further compounds the error later when he suggests the Croat/Serbian conflict should have been called an Orthodox Christian/Catholic conflict. The point, of course, is that these were tribal conflicts which happened to be described by religious affiliations. He seems oblivious to the fact that, on both sides, plenty of atheists were involved. If he thinks the Provisional IRA and Protestant paramilitary groups didn't contain significant numbers of atheists he is deluded.
I was looking forward to chapter 17 entitled, 'An Objection Anticipated: the Last-Ditch Case Against Secularism. It starts off well with the statement, '..is it not true that secular and atheist regimes have committed crimes and massacres that are...at least as bad if not worse [than religious crimes]? And does not the corollary hold that men freed from religious awe will act in the most unbridled and abandoned manner?' This is an extremely promising start to an interesting question. We then have about 14 pages describing the role of religion in establishing totalitarian states and an attack on the Vatican's role in WWII. Finally, we get to a paragraph which begins 'Turning to Soviet and Chinese Stalinism..' At last, you might think - but no! He now criticises the Russian Orthodox church for its support of the czar and Christian churches in China for being associated with imperial powers. He admits that 'Lenin and Trotsky were certainly convinced atheists' then switches to Stalin with not much more criticism than he 'repeated the papal routine of making science conform to dogma'. Later he visits North Korea and describes how the atheist Kim Il Sung turns himself into a demi-god. He finally reverts to criticising the Greek Orthodox Church, the Khmer Rouge [who sought protection from Chinese Stalinists], and the Taliban. All in all there is no attempt to address the 'Case against Secularism' nor why atheist regimes can behave in a worse way than religiously influenced ones - other than they seem inevitably to degenerate into totalitarian regimes.
On a couple of occasions he begins his sentence with, 'For most of human history religion has......' and makes no attempt as to why for ALL of human history humans have had a need for a sense of the spiritual. Certainly, it can confer no adaptive advantage in natural selection so it would have been interesting to hear his views on why it evolved. It seems clear that Hitchens thinks that if the world was rid of religion all would be well. This is incredibly naive and shows a complete lack of understanding of human nature, religious or otherwise. His failure to acknowledge with any conviction the damage atheists inflict proves he is misguided.
Finally, he criticises a book by Jonathan Wells, saying, 'Mr Wells's book is unlikely to even rate a footnote in the history of piffle....' describing it as a laughable antievolutionist diatribe. I think Mr Wells's book will soon be accompanied by Mr Hitchen's own 'laughable antireligious diatribe'.
come on, it's better than that. - Rated 
What an odd/interesting bunch of reviews. This book is not just a rant, and by the way, an informed and rationally-argued case is not the same as a belief (jn the religious sense.) CH is formidably well-informed, witty and bitterly angry at man's inhumanity to man (and in particular, to women and children.) And that is how he judges religion, for the damage it causes. He does not try to explain the origins of religion or find scientific reasons for its spread, and so he is not vulnerable to charges that he doesn't understand theology. (He probably understands much more about their religion than do the literalists, fundamentalists and extremists, in any case.) Reviewers who claim it is hard going should consider their own capacities in a more critical light, I'm afraid. It is lucid and forceful. It also modest and moving in places. And how about some humility, some of you - he has been to places that would cause the rest of us to need to change our underwear very frequently indeed. But if -( aha! perhaps this it!) you are yourselves looking for absolute answers, you won't find them here, because it is not of course a bible. That's the point, my good fellow-travellers. No more holy texts we have to obey under threat - they are proven to be toxic.
CH is also bravely (in the current circumstances) outspoken about Islamists.
Look - this is a very fine book indeed. Read it and make your own mind up about any kind of dogmatic or religious belief, but don't duck his arguments. That would be cowardly, and we can't give way to the cowardice of dogmatism any more. The planet is too small and crowded for that sort of nonsense.
An enthralling rant - Rated 
It must be admitted at the outset that, as other reviewers have noted, this book is a rant. This leads on occasions to digressions which can detract from the cohesion of the arguments being presented. The arguments themselves, however, are compelling and well-constructed.
The questions Hitchens poses cut to the core of whether religion serves a useful purpose in the world, or not. He asks, for example, whether religious explanations of the origins of man and the world are adequate and whether the presence of religion in the world helps man to act in a more moral way and so make the world a better place. His categorical answer to both of these questions is `no' and he marshals ample evidence from history and from religious texts to prove his point. Some critics have claimed that he selectively uses passages from the holy books to serve his purposes. If one examines the passages he has chosen, however, their very existence in the holy books at all often proves the points he is trying to make.
Hitchens' style is dry, conversational, often sarcastic and occasionally very amusing. The book is quite an enjoyable read.
drily amusing and conversational - Rated
I cannot start by saying, " I am an atheist, but.." as a couple of previous reviewers have begun - that's always a peculiar opening, like, " My best fiend is black, but...". So I claim no particular stance and picked up the book to browse through it. I was instantly captivated by Hitchens' conversational style and dry wit. Some people have called it a "rant" but to me it was more like having the professor round for a couple of drinks and him feeling free to expound his real thoughts in a way he would not do in a formal lecture. In this sense it was a comfortable and easily readable book with lots of information and interpretations of religious beliefs which at times had me chuckling out loud. He expresses his opinions with a sense of astonishment that anyone could think otherwise, and if he really were in that chair across the room I would hesitate to challenge his erudition and conclusions. Yet he does this in a way that entertains, and I was surprised that I wanted to continue reading to the end rather than discard it halfway through, as I often do with polemical books, usually thinking, "yeah, yeah, you've made you point", and return to my thriller.
To be recommended as a provocative and entertaining read.
He certainly ain't - Rated
Christopher Hitchen's "God is not great" is an interesting contrast to Dawkins' "God Delusion". Dawkins seeks to prove that religion does not make sense of the world but evolution does, and he is better at this than at the philosophical arguments. He writes eloquently and well and makes many of the points that I would. However he falls into the trap of the liberal who can understand anyone except someone who can't understand him, as Lennie Bruce put it. He's only really going to convince atheists. Hitchins on the other hand works to the theme "religion makes things worse" though he makes a principled rejection of terms such as "dogma" and "mantra". He also does not restrict himself to the great monotheistic religions, and the wealth of examples of recent world faith experiences he quotes is most impressive. As a former Marxist and a Christian of several variants he is a bit subject to ad hominm arguments, but I find his views impressive.
|
