God Is Not Great 4

This review was written in 2007, the year the book was published. It needs to be on our pages.

Christopher Hitchens has cancer and may not live much longer. He has expressed some opinions that chime well with those of The Atheist Conservative, and some that are decidedly different. As an atheist he has won our approbation; as a political commentator he has often earned our criticism. In agreement with him or not, we have always appreciated his eloquence and wit.


God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens,Twelve, New York , 2007, 307 pages.

Religion cannot survive in our Age of Science. Until I read this book I thought that there was life in it yet, enough for it to continue as an important force in human affairs for another century or so. But I am persuaded by Hitchens that it is already dead, even though there are many millions who still believe in gods or God and even more who observe the rituals of worship, and even though some act politically and devastatingly in its name.

How then is it dead? Hitchens puts it this way, with characteristic elegance: ‘Religion spoke its last intelligible or noble or inspiring words a long time ago … We shall have no more prophets or sages from the ancient quarter, which is why the devotions of today are only the echoing repetitions of yesterday.’

So – Hitchens encouragingly claims – although Islam has risen all over the globe to fight for its life with fire and tongue against scientific truth, against criticism, against freedom of body and mind, and continues successfully to rake in its converts by intimidation and even persuasion, it is doomed just as the other religions are doomed, being but the ritual perpetuation of a long-outdated belief, and will dwindle away to nothing as so many religions have done before it. Coming generations in an ever more closely communicating world will find it harder and harder to believe in the unbelievable.

We know that there are scientists who are religious. Amazingly, there are quite a few who find it possible to accept all that cosmology and physics tell us about the nature of the universe and yet still believe in a Creator God with mysterious purposes for His Creation. Of course – Hitchens says – you can do this, but ‘the theory works without that assumption’. God can be retained, but is not required. Believe in him if you will, but to questions of how the world has come to be as it is, God is irrelevant, superfluous, an added extra, an unnecessary decoration contributed by nostalgia and habit. Further knowledge of the stars will not come through prayer, and though an astronomer may pray for knowledge and go to church every seventh day to win the approval of his god, it is to his telescope he will go to find the truth.

Hitchens dismisses the argument for ‘intelligent design’ – part of religion’s last-gasp vocabulary of euphemism – with illustrations of how if nature were indeed the result of design, unintelligence would better characterize the designer who achieved such results: the ‘useless junk’ in our DNA string left over from lower creatures; our appendix; our vestigial tails; all of which are explained satisfactorily by evolution but make no sense at all as intelligent design. One could add many more. I like to cite the inability of bees to alight easily on a flat surface.

The presence among us of tormenting and life-destroying viruses does not say much for the designs of an intelligence that is also supposed to be beneficent to the human creature. Scientific discovery and skepticism have removed the need to justify horrors, to answer such questions as to ‘who inflicted the syphilis bacillus or mandated the leper or the idiot child’.

‘Intelligent design’ implies that intelligence existed before anything else. But we are aware that what we call intelligence requires human physiology – including most immediately a brain – which, of all things known, has taken longest to evolve. It has come at this – our – end of the process. An assertion that such a thing was already there at the very beginning is not rationally persuasive

I have long wondered why so many find it easier to conceive of there being an original Nothing then Something (the universe) and then again eventually Nothing, than to conceive of Something always having existed and forever to remain. We know Something exists. We know that matter is imperishable: it changes but does not dissolve into nothingness. Why, if we can accept the idea that it will have no ending, do we need to think of it as having had a beginning?

In the grip of the belief that there was ‘a beginning’ of existence, believers like to raise their favorite ‘logical’ argument that since everything must have a cause there must be a First Cause, Hitchens logically asks for the cause of the First Cause, or ‘Who designed the designer?’ No theologist or philosopher has ever satisfactorily answered that (Thomas Aquinas’s argument that God could set the cause-and-effect chain working in the universe because he is outside it does not abolish the question of how he came into existence) – or ever produced a sound argument for belief in a god of any sort.

The onus rests always on the believer to prove his case. It is not necessary for the unbeliever to prove that the object of others’ belief is not there. As Karl Popper expressed it: ‘Seeing no reason to believe is sufficient reason not to believe.’ It is an argument against belief most useful to be armed with. Another of course is David Hume’s, who asserted, in the light of the immense suffering that God coolly watches his creatures undergoing, that if he is omnipotent then he must be evil, or if good he cannot be omnipotent. (Hitchens mentions both philosophers but neither of these arguments which would have served him well.)

Hitchens does not accept the shop-worn argument that without religion there would be no morality. He is as certain as I am that religion is not the indispensable source of ethics or law. Reason and experience teach people, and have surely always taught them, that it is better and safer to live in a world where certain kinds of behavior are by and large avoided and certain rules by and large obeyed. I was interested to find, when I got round not long ago to reading the Hammurabi Code that it deals chiefly with what punishments should be imposed on those who disobey rules of conduct rather than in laying down or even reiterating the rules themselves. Rules against murder, adultery, lying, stealing pre-date all recorded codifications, any tablet of commandments. As Hitchens says, ‘Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.’

There surely cannot be any doubt that religion has been the cause of much human misery, cruelty, torture, oppression, and probably the majority of wars. It is fair to add that some religions have inspired good deeds as well as evil ones. But then, people have always done good and evil regardless of what they do it in the name of. And surely always will. As for great works of art which it has inspired, it is not unreasonable to suppose that if religion had not supplied the inspiration something else would have done for the same artists. There must be at least as many marvelous pictures of mortals and ordinary scenes as there are of angelic gatherings and Christians suffering; at least as many admirable buildings dedicated to secular as to religious uses; and many more great poems and plays without religious themes than with them. Hitchens points out that beautiful and valuable things that have grown out of religions can be and are as much enjoyed and valued by civilized non-believers, such as himself, as by the pious. (My own list of such things is long, including: the King James translation of the bible; La Chapelle; certain painted angels and saints of the Renaissance; Bach’s compositions dedicated to God.) Hitchens cites, among things that do not require faith to treasure and preserve them, and in this case would have lasted better without it, the Buddha statues blown up by the Taliban in Afghanistan in the name of their religion – a type of vandalism that atheists are very unlikely to commit, having no reason to.

The author confesses to once having had a faith of his own, the secular faith of Marxism. He is now recognizably conservative, even traces of his former leftism becoming almost imperceptible. We welcome him among us.


Jillian Becker

Posted under Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Marxism, Religion general, Reviews by Jillian Becker on Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Tagged with ,

This post has 4 comments.

  • Scrims2

    Your perspective on “intelligent design” – how religion sees intelligence as coming at the beginning of the process, as opposed to evolution, which shows it to have come at the end, as a result of the process – shows how completely and diametrically opposed these views are.
    I hope it’s true that the primitive religious view becomes increasingly obsolete, but to a believer, making that transition is like leaping off the edge of the flat earth into the dark bottomless dragon filled chasm of nothingness…If they would only open their eyes, they would discover that they are actually only a couple of inches off the ground, and such a small step was all that was needed!  

  • George

    I get so sick & tired of  Christians  using terms like  ” the secular faith of Marixm” . What utter BS.   Secularism has NOTHING to do with Marxism.  Just because one wacko , Karl Marx claimed not to be religious or made statements against religion such as ” Religion is the opiate of the masses ”  does NOT equate that secularism = Marxism.    With this illogical form of argument one could in his/her opnion make the claim as well and say that groups like the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan means that Christianity represents hate-mongering white racism  , or that a group like the Black Muslims ( aka- Nation of Islam ) means that Islam represents hate-mongering black racism as a matter of opinionated perception.  I am a capitalist and support free enterprise and capitalism and the free market. I hate Marxism, socialism and communism.   I detest BIG GOVERNMENT. I support individual rights and freedom of speech and freedom in general and the right of the individual to own his/her own private property and /or private business.
                          As far as the term — ” God is not great”  , I simply say —  ” God is simply NOT”  .  ” God is non-existing”.  God is fantasy.  God is make-believe.  God is mythology. God is wishful thinking. God is a Fairy Tale  folklore. Here we have this  so-called supernatural  being that Christians claim to be so great yet all around us ( even recently) we have earthquakes, tornados, blizzards, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, etc.  galore.  These ACTS OF GOD have killed mass multitudes of innocent men, women ,children and babies . And yet we are supposed to give praise and thanks to such a mass murdering being while christians shout that – GOD IS IN CONTROL . What sins did little children do to deserve such  horrible deaths ?  What sins did little babies do to deserve such  horrendous suffering and death ?  If there is a GOD , then this deity is the most psychopathic murderous monster that ever esisted. This GOD therefore created cancer, Ebolo, The Bubonic Plague , The spanish Flue, West Nile Virus, small pox, polio, whooping cough, meningitis, and a massive number of other diseases that kill or have killed  innocent men, women , children and babies.  What loving and caring GOD would cause babies to be born as Siamese Twins ( which is the ultimate child abuse and child mutilation ) ? What GOD would create a tsunami that would destroy entire cities and inhabitants who are overwhelmingly religious people ? What deity that claims to be so beneficent and merciful would cause tornados, hurricanes , drought and blizzards that causes massive suffering , death and home destructions   ?      Even if someone did in fact prove to me that a superbatural being did exist , I still would NOT worship and praise such a murderous, egotistical and psychopathic a**hole.  I would curse, condemn, and hate such a being if he was proven to exist and justifiably so. So even if christians or any other religionists did prove the existence of their deity ( deities) I would admonish such an evil and disgusting being. Even if they did prove the existence of a devil , then the devil itself couldn’t be as awful as this tyrannical dictator maniac called GOD.   Religion is the biggest bunch of bulls*** ever invented for the enslaving, controlling, oppressing, exploitation  and manipulating of the massive world populace.

    • George

       Oh, pardon the typos above . I had to run real quick and grabbed the laptop. Furthermore, allow me to  add that if this so-called GOD wanted us to believe in him/her/it , then this deity would obviously make itself visible, identifiable and knowable instead of making demands that we all must BELIEVE in him/her/it or we will all be damned and suffer forever.  What a stupid god. What an utter idiotic god. And yet this is supposed to be the  SUPREME BEING of all beings .   Spare me !

  • Hitchens is awesome.  Check out this video of him on the Bill Maher show.  Hilarious!