God Is Not Great

God Is Not Great

Company type	Publication
Industry	Book publishing
Founded	2007
Founder	Christopher Hitchens
Products	Book

God Is Not Great is a 2007 publication by journalist Christopher Hitchens that delivers a thorough critique of organized religion. The book was first released in the United Kingdom by Atlantic Books under the title God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion, while in the United States it appeared from Twelve as God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. A subtitle-free edition was issued in 2017.

Hitchens contends that institutional religion is characterized by "violence, irrationality, intolerance," and is closely linked with racism, tribalism, and bigotry. He argues it fosters ignorance, opposes free inquiry, disrespects women, and exerts coercive control over children. Ultimately, he concludes that religion "should bear significant moral responsibility." His case is supported through personal experiences, historical instances, and critical examination of religious scriptures, concentrating largely on the Abrahamic religions but also addressing other belief systems. The book enjoyed considerable commercial success and sparked mixed critical responses, with some reviewers pointing out historical errors while others acknowledged its importance.

The book's title serves as a direct counter to the Muslim phrase Allahu akbar, meaning "God is great."

Summary

Hitchens opens by recounting his early doubts about religion and suggests that faith endures primarily because of human anxiety about death (ch. 1). He asserts that religion often forces itself upon others and can provoke violence, referencing his own observations in Belfast and Beirut, as well as reactions to Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses (ch. 2). He challenges religious restrictions such as dietary laws against pork and critiques their interference in public health matters, including the Catholic Church’s opposition to condom use in Africa, vaccine hesitancy among certain Islamic communities, and practices like religious circumcision and female genital mutilation (ch. 4).

He maintains that religious metaphysical claims are unfounded and that scientific progress increasingly renders faith-based leaps unnecessary (ch. 5). Addressing the argument from design, he argues religion simultaneously diminishes human significance and inflates self-importance while failing to account for natural imperfections (ch. 6). He portrays the Old Testament as violent and contradictory, containing inconsistent commandments (ch. 7), and views the New Testament as historically dubious and derivative, filled with contradictions and retroactive storytelling (ch. 8). Regarding Islam, he argues it incorporates myths from Judaism and Christianity, shaped by political agendas and linguistic manipulation; he criticizes its resistance to reform, suppression of dissenting voices, and assertions of divine authority as indicators of insecurity rather than truthfulness (ch. 9).

Hitchens claims all alleged miracles lack credible verification and depend on fabricated or unreliable accounts (ch. 10). He suggests many religions originated from deception or delusion, highlighting Mormonism and cargo cults as examples (ch. 11), while noting that religions do eventually fade despite claims of eternal endurance (ch. 12). He disputes the notion that religion enhances morality, pointing instead to secular initiatives like abolitionism as evidence of ethical progress (ch. 13), and critiques Eastern spiritual traditions for promoting mental submission without consistent or genuine spiritual insight (ch. 14).

He argues that religion endorses doctrines such as eternal damnation, blood sacrifice, and sexual repression—concepts he regards as "positively immoral" (ch. 15)—and asserts that it damages children through fear tactics and physical punishment (ch. 16). Addressing accusations that atheists like Stalin committed atrocities worse than those associated with religion, he maintains that totalitarian regimes are politically motivated rather than stemming from atheism itself (ch. 17). Hitchens concludes by suggesting humanity is likely to move beyond religion over time, likening its decline to other obsolete customs (ch. 18), and proposes that purpose and community can be achieved through secular, non-coercive avenues (ch. 19).

Positive critique

In The New York Times Book Review, Michael Kinsley commended Hitchens for his "logical flourishes and conundrums, many entertaining to the nonbeliever," ultimately concluding that "Hitchens has outfoxed the Hitchens watchers by writing a serious and deeply felt book, totally consistent with his lifelong beliefs."

Bruce DeSilva considered this work the finest atheist literature since Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian (1927), highlighting Hitchens's "elegant yet biting prose." Although he acknowledged that the content is not original, DeSilva praised the exceptional manner in which it is delivered.

The review in Kirkus Reviews labeled the book as a "pleasingly intemperate assault on organized religion," likely to resonate with readers who share similar viewpoints.

Matt Buchanan, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, described it as "a thundering 300-page cannonade; a fearless, wide-ranging, bilious, and angry critique of God," calling it "the most impressive among current atheistic and anti-theistic books: clever, broad, witty, and brilliantly argued."

In the Financial Times, Jason Cowley characterized the book as "elegant but derivative."

Negative critique

Reviewing for the Christian publication First Things, David Bentley Hart dismissed the book as a "rollicking burlesque" that suffers from a lack of logical coherence and academic rigor. Hart pointed out multiple factual inaccuracies, including confusing the 1st and 4th crusades, repeating debunked assertions about early Christians destroying pagan manuscripts, and erroneously claiming that both Myles Coverdale and John Wycliffe were executed by burning when they actually died of natural causes.

Stephen Prothero, writing for The Washington Post, acknowledged some valid observations but criticized the book as "maddeningly dogmatic," faulting Hitchens's sweeping denunciation of religion for misrepresenting religious belief and alienating both fundamentalists and atheists alike.

Contradicting Hitchens's claim that faith is incompatible with science, Peter Berkowitz of the Hoover Institution referenced paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, who maintained that Darwinism can coexist with traditional religious faith as well as atheism, illustrating a more complex interaction between science and religion.

In the FARMS Review, William J. Hamblin reproached Hitchens for offering a skewed perspective on biblical scholarship by dismissing literalist interpretations to depict the Bible as inherently flawed. Hamblin argued that Hitchens’s grasp was superficial and contended that this book should not serve as a credible foundation for rejecting belief in God.

Daniel C. Peterson, in an extensive essay, disputed many of Hitchens’s assertions, describing the book as "crammed to the bursting point with errors," nearly all of which favored Hitchens’s argument but were frequently incorrect.

Writing for Salon, Curtis White condemned the work as "intellectually shameful," accusing it of reducing religion to mere criminal anecdotes while neglecting the broader context of religious history and scholarship.

Sales performance

Released on May 1, 2007, the book rapidly ascended to the second position on the Amazon bestseller rankings within just one week and attained the top spot on The New York Times Best Seller list by its third week.

References

• .
• .

External links

• "Critique of God Is Not Great", FARMS
• "Selected excerpts from God Is Not Great", Slate
• "Book discussion", Talks at Google