Oceana2602’s review of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything > Likes and Comments
1014 likes · Like
Thanks for this. The book is on my tbr, and I added it because I was hoping for all the things you'd hoped. After reading this is, it now loses a lot of spots on my pile. Maybe I'll give it a try someday - but not very soonish.
Perhaps you should try reading the title of the book, then re-assesing your initial expectations.
Ryan wrote: "Perhaps you should try reading the title of the book, then re-assesing your initial expectations."
::reads title::
Nope, still not working. What Hitchens writes about is not religion, it's religious fanaticism. And the way he dies it is flawed and full of poor, polemic argumentation. This book is, frankly, an offense to me, and should be an offense to everyone who thinks that the future of religion (or not-future) will be THE determining factor in the evolution of mankind in the immediate future.
And to everyone who is intellectually capable of presenting a good argument, which Hitchens obviously is not, ot chooses not to be.
"Or wait, maybe he does mention that somewhere in the 241 pages I chose not to read, because I have better things to do with my time."
So... you're saying that you basically didn't read the book.
How much of your review is devoted to the (rather whimsical) chapter "A Short Digression on the Pig?". A chapter which accounts for 3 of the 341 pages in the book.
Then again, you chose to review a book you didn't read. You have a tremendous future in literary criticism.
Ryan wrote: "Perhaps you should try reading the title of the book, then re-assesing your initial expectations."
I think she was taking the book too seriously. I thought it was hilarious.
Oceana2602 wrote: "Ryan wrote: "Perhaps you should try reading the title of the book, then re-assesing your initial expectations."
::reads title::
Nope, still not working. What Hitchens writes about is not religi..."
Well, I read the other 241 pages and I don't think the reviewer got it wrong. Why should he or she waste any more valuable time.
After reading a diatribe of such length I can't help but question whether or not your comments are coming from a place of objectivity. It seems you hold some personal bias against Mr. Hitchens' views of which you curiously went out of your way to squash in your opening paragraph. I found myself actually questioning whether or not you're truly an atheist. Forgive me if you are, but I don't think you can blame me for entertaining the thought. I also have to ask how you can possibly say Hitchens is not a polemist. Quite the contrary. By definition he's a polemist. Polemic – A controversial argument, especially one attacking a specific opinion or doctrine. All other arguments aside, you have to admit it's rather silly to say he's no polemist, especially if you've watched any of his debates.
It's annoying, because Hitchens (with Stephen Fry) was so much more articulate when it came to the Intelligence Squared debate. We know he could have done better; hell, he could have lined his book up with Dawkins's God Delusion, but this book just felt more self-congratulatory than rigorous.
Let's see, two paragraphs of me, me, me and then ...more. um no thanks. Write your own book.
As a pastor I often preach to my congregation presupposing that they already believe, so the message I preach is not always concerned with proof, just proclamation, and application of the scripture that was chosen. When I read this book my presumption after a few pages was that this book was written more with the 'already atheist' in mind and was not overly concerned with 'converting' the faithful to his viewpoint. And frankly that is a fine thing to do, I have no qualm with it. My thoughts were that the 'already atheist' would be encouraged by the book and thankful to Hitch for writing it. As for the faithful, naturally this book is not a bombshell to us like some other atheistic works might be, just like most of what I would preach on a Sunday morning is not intended to be an elaborate bombshell argument against atheism.
Needless to say this review surprised me.
I’m with Oceana2602, and I have only read the first chapter so far. This will be the first time I’ve put up a “pre” review on my profile before reading the rest. Hitchens has come across as pompous, bigoted and an inexperienced writer of sound argument. I already don’t like him as a person. Yet to see how far I get through it myself. I’m never overly concerned if I agree wholly or not, still hope to gain some good arguments against my many friends believing in the imaginary fellow. And as Oceana2602 mentioned most “religious” people I know aren’t radicals, Dawkins suffered from the same syndrome in the god myth or whatever it was. We all know radicals of any stripe are bad .. be nice to see one of these authors tackle the garden variety grandmother’s belief, give sound arguments for the little mundane rather than attack the already undefendable. .. my 2c : ) I liked your review. For what it’s worth I’m also atheist and see no absurdity in saying the idea of the book is already preaching to the choir. As when I was in the choir I didn’t believe either, a child has no power against the absurd brainwashing oppressors of little folk : )
Goes without saying, how ridiculous to write a condemning review after a single chapter. Your words, both Gavan and Ocean, are a waste of everyone's time that troubled to read them.
For perspective, I condemn your reviews after reading only the first few sentences. Makes perfect sense right?
Joshua wrote: "Goes without saying, how ridiculous to write a condemning review after a single chapter. Your words, both Gavan and Ocean, are a waste of everyone's time that troubled to read them.
For perspectiv..."
true : ... still going and he is getting better, not like his first chapter. That was awful. ... and i did point out more to come, not suggest I was leaving it there. His first chapter was appalling. I hope he does not continue in the same but you must admit he has already lost credibly … Your opening generally sets the tome of the book, the point you capture your readers interest. I hold with my opinion so far.
Hmmm... I loved the book, but I funnily enough also quite liked your review. Though I thought your criticism rather too harsh, you raise some valid points. Obviously Hitchens style does not agree with you, and it's true he does not structure a careful academic argument, as Dawkins, for instance, might. For my part, I enjoy Hitchen's colourful language, and his (you have to admit excellent) rhetorical style, and I don't mind a loose structure. I've read other more academic takes on the subject, and they are certainly important. However, they may not agree with many who don't respond solely to crisp, dry, academic argument. I think this personal 'from the heart' view of what is wrong with religion has a valuable place.
He does focus on extremism, which I think is warranted. As an analogy, you might think of the 'semi-religious' civilised CoE style of religion as (relatively) benign moles, with fundamentalism being the potential (which is always there) for these to blossom into full-blown cancer. When doctors caution people to stay out of the sun, they are not wrong to focus on cancer - the most dangerous form of the disease. Hitchens does the same, for the same good reason.
Also, he is very clear that 'benign' forms of religion (as exemplified by his RE / natural science teacher), while well-intentioned, is fundamentally misguided, and therefore leads to a topsy-turvy view if the world and our place in it.
Hitchens was an idiosyncratic and colourful person, with an expansive style, and a facility to cut to the heart of the matter. I see could come across as bombastic to some. I'm sorry he got up your nose. I think he's awesome, and really wish he was still with us.
Jim Jefferies was right... When people start a sentence with "I'm a Christian" it makes my brain scream... Can't believe it feels worse when people use "As an Atheist"... You should know better..
It seems to me that you may have missed the underlying point in his inclusion of various examples of religious fanaticism. The idea, I think, was to express through these examples the irrationality that theistic beliefs inherently bring about. This is not to simply bash or label believers as "bad people", but to reinforce his argument that theists will suspend reason in order to keep with the faith, even to the extent of committing atrocities without a lapse in conscience. In this way neutral, rational people are willing to act contrarily for fear of or because of silly superstition. You might be a vegetarian, but it is because of your own thoughts and opinions. I would imagine it isn't the result of indoctrination from a young age or because of what a centuries old book says. Additionally, as a rational human being you wouldn't be persuaded to shun or kill people that do eat meat.
you provide a polemic that seems to boil down to, '' i read less than a third of the book and tossed it aside with a sneer when the small part i read didn't agree with my world view''. not very useful as a review please try harder or if that is your best effort then please don't waste your time or anyone elses. no stars, must try harder.
Adam wrote: "It seems to me that you may have missed the underlying point in his inclusion of various examples of religious fanaticism. The idea, I think, was to express through these examples the irrationality..."
Adam, I just saw your comment toady. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. The underlying point that you are talking about is exactly what I "missed". And when I say "missed, I mean that this is the point that I would have loved to find, because it is something that I totally agree with. But I didn't find it in Hitchen's "arguments", which is one of the reasons why I was so disappointed by the book.
Hitchens premise is that "religion poisons everything," which is a bit different from, "the world would be better if we were all atheists."
I pick up and toss aside many books after reading only a few pages all the time. But I don't review them. How could I? Yet you can. Quite a feat.
And your point is Javier? I formed a similar opinion at a early point in the book and was no different by the end. I lost respect for the author for the same reasons as in this review, it didn't take long to note the author did not really add much to the subject.
One of my favourite reviewers here on Goodreads is Trevor from Melbourne, Australia. He was rounded upon by people for reading only a few chapters of Tuesday Afternoons with Morrie, and then writing a bad review. He argues his right to do so very well. Check it out.
Sorry, that's Tuesdays with Morrie. Musta had that old Moody Blues song in the back of my head. Out of Dawnkins, Hitchins and Sam Harris, Harris wins for me.
God is not the problem. Man is the problem. Removing God from any/all aspects of our lives does not eliminate God nor will it eliminate the evil nature in man. People condemn the Creator for giving us a glorious universe, a planet in which to thrive, wonderful foods to nourish ourselves (of which we are destroying with GMOs), water to quench our thirst (which our depraved leaders have tainted with fluoride), the beauty of nature, the ability to love and propagate, and the list goes on. Yet we find ways to destroy the goodness of God which man does of his own free will and we blame God. It does not matter what good thing you give man, he will turn it into an evil.
Man is incapable to define his own morality and virtue and without morality and virtue, our world community will continue to spiral into the 9th circle of hell as it is today. Islam is an evil philosophy and a topic I've studied for many, many years. But more than the religious aspect of it is the fact that the culture's central focus is hate. Islam is an excuse to hate and destroy and to dominate. Apostasy brings death to the withdrawing adherent. That's why so-called "moderate muslims" don't speak out against Islamic atrocities. These people would be this way without Islam/Allah--they are listening to the wrong god. People who worship power and greed, the Clinton's, the Bushes, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, etc., have made power and money their god but I don't hear you denounce them or their vices. You are willing to honor and make wealthy media stars that are corrupting the behavior of our children. Consuming mind-altering drugs that harm mankind are glorified. This is madness but many have been lulled into a false sense of security that wrong has become right. It takes strength to fight temptation and it takes a person with no character to gravitate to temptation.
All I hear is the hatred and resentment of a loving, benevolent God who has given us good things that we've destroyed. So many of you atheists hate him because of the sanctity of life and would prefer to kill that life in the womb so that you can continue to behave imprudently and shamefully and without virtue. You hate Him because you want to change the natural order of creation and co-habitate in decadent ways that will change the natural order of the world for the worse and turn us into uncivilized demonic creatures. Moral relativism is a philosophy that will destroy man as you can't make wrong things right. There is an order to creation and laws that can't be thwarted without consequences. Life is not random as you've been deceived by so-called scholars. There is no way to avoid consequences, cause and effect. Man will suffer the ravages of immorality as a consequence and effect of a purposely twisted morality by the dark forces of the "power elite" that they've foisted upon us but by the time that epiphany becomes apparent to a sufficient number, we may be on the precipice of extinction or minimally enslavement.
There is a great plan to delude the masses. Through schools, media, churches and government influences, we have been conditioned to disbelieve theses notions and deny truths. One of the strongest proponents of this "great plan" is the Vatican. The power and opulence of this heretic institution is staggering and not something that Jesus Christ would have endorsed. Their feigned beliefs are a smokescreen to their hidden intent/agenda. Wake up and do your own research and find the truth. Don't be deceived by the nefarious elites with an agenda that is likely to cause extinction. Don't think for a minute these evil institutions don't believe God exists. They just hate Him and glorify Lucifer who has lied to man that he could become like God since the beginning of the fall. Time is of the essence, folks. God bless. . .
Janice - you start with a fantastical logical fallacy.
You assume there is a creator AND your embedded doctrine washed your mind to believe humanity is inherently evil, therefore, removing god won't change that.
That's just circular logic with no basis in reality.
This is a really great review. You should consider writing your own book about religion and your research. I think you're more interested in the reason I was interested in reading the book, which is why society would better from a world without religion. You make some really great points here and I'm glad I found a review from someone who wasn't just arguing about god. Thanks!
In the words of Dawkins, 'so what if you're offended...'
kristin, thank you!
Everyone else, thanks for your discussions, I find them really interesting, and there's nothing better than a good discussipn to keep one's mind open ( even if or maybe because one is not convinced.) Please keep going!
I know there were some haters. I am a fellow atheist and your review made me laugh. I expected what you expected and couldn't believe what he chose to write about. Thanks for the warning. Might still pick it up at some point, but I won't treat it like it's the Bible (pun intended).
Buuuuuut my husbands family are fundamentalists and you would be shocked at how extreme they are. So they do exist. You're just very lucky not to know any ;)
If he is, I feel sorry for us "old atheists". And I'm calling myself that because I most certainly do not want to be connected to a movement that does itself exactly what it criticizes in religious radicals: attack and condemn, without reason or explanation. That's what Hitchens does in this book. Hitchens may think that he is an atheist, and he may argue on behalf of atheism. But in doing so, he turns his atheism into the one thing that I am strongly against: a new religion.
This was an interesting take on the book.
Not too long ago, I watched a debate on youtube in which Hitchens was asked why he was so passionate about "attacking" religion and had literally dedicated his life to doing so. His answer was quite impressive. He first pointed out that he is far more than an atheist and or a poster boy for atheism, but admitted that he had taken a growing interest in the force behind religious belief and its impact on society, and then he gave an eloquent;y stated reason as to why.
But I always got the feeling that one of his strategies was to show that the "radicals" or "fundamentalists" are really the ones who are adhering to the religious texts held up as "law" and "divine truth" by various religions. And therefore if a moderate tries to distance himself from the "radical" he is really distancing himself from his "divine truth". Moderates are really nothing but watered-down fundamentalists, who ultimately claim and believe in the same teachings, though they may act on those beliefs differently.
Many contemporary religious people are in deed moderates who happen to believe in a prevalent myth, even while cherry picking through their "bibles" and religious texts. Yet, even though these moderates don't blow up our houses or wish us ill will on earth, they do condemn us to an eternity of a pain and misery in the afterlife. They also continue to perpetuate and strengthen myths that are then used as a justification for atrocities committed around the world, atrocities that are often deemed untouchable (sometimes even by the more moderate) because of their religious significance.
I think part of Hitchens' strategy is (or rather was) to show the hypocrisy and cherry-picking that occurs, which in itself firmly establishes that religion is not the litmus test for morality...rather our innate sense of right vs. wrong (partly formed by science and social norms) tells us what is immoral, and what guides the cherry-pickers in their picking. And not only do we not need religion to provide us "morality" but in many cases adhering to literal interpretation of texts often leads to immoral behavior.
In that sense, I think much of the book is centered on dismantling the argument that we would have no morality without religion (as this tends to be one of the main arguments made by those of faith). So not only is religion not the epitome of good, but in many cases it has been the epitome of evil.
That said, while I enjoyed the book, I found it somewhat less satisfying than his debates. It did seem a little unfocused in parts, and if I had not seem him debate and heard his arguments before I might have been less inclined to give it four stars.
But honestly, the same criticisms have been brought up against Dawkins, Harris, and to a lesser extent that I've seen Dennett. Like it or not they have been painted as the face of new-age atheism. But atheism will never be a religion, nor is it capable of being a religion. It's the null hypothesis. The fact that there is a concerted effort to promote reason in the face of outrageous claims (and for the lack of a better word it has been dubbed atheism) doesn't put it in the same country let alone the same planet as religion (moderate or fundamentalist).
Shaun thank you for inserting some sense into this discussion. The opening review felt more as a personal attack rather than a legitimate book review.
While I agree with your statements that such a book should be made presenting the arguments you inquired..this book did not, nor did it have to. Just because you wanted A and got B does mean the book was not good, well thought out, well written or not of merit in the debate on religion. I wanted pancakes for breakfast but got french toast, you know what..both satisfied my hunger.
Shaun makes a valid point of people cherry picking their way to middle ground..but if you follow the holy books without cherry picking (as they are supposed to be the word of God, how can you pick and choose what the Almighty has said?) Then u end up with the Westboro Baptist Church and crazy fundamentalists. If you can muddy up your thinking into believing the nonsene then who knows where it can take you even if you start out on middle ground.
To me Hitchens has one of the most entertaining and interesting styles of speaking and writing of the past few decades. Its obvious you feel otherwise...why else would you write a negative review of a book you didnt even read. Your expecations are too high, no one is gona live up to them bc they are YOUR expectations that you created in your presumably spoiled mind. Try doing something without such high and specific expectations and you just might enjoy it.
This review seems to lack any real depth in criticism. I mean, for a start, the subtitle of the book is "How Religious Poisons Everything" not "why we would be better off without religion", therefore it seems strange to me that the reviewer would expect it to be a book explaining why we would be better off without religion, rather than what was intended; a book detailing the myriad ways in which religion somehow manages to pervade almost every aspect of live. It's somewhat akin to me picking up his book 'Hitch-22: A Memoir' and saying "Hey, I'll bet this is an awesome piece of fiction."
Anyway, I'm sure there are Hitchens interviews where he states that even thought it would be nice if we could do away with religion completely, he neither believes it to be realistic nor necessary.
The purpose of this book is not to explain why the world would be better without religion, but "how religion poisons everything", you just wrote a worthless review of this book.
I'm still vastly amused by the reactions I'm receiving on this review. Religious people and so called atheists alike really can't handle one of their idols beimg criticized.
Which, if you've read my review carefully, is EXACTLY what I've been saying. QED, as the academic snob in me likes to say.
Keep going please, I really do find all of this quite interesting.
Oceana2602 wrote: " Religious people and so called atheists alike really can't handle one of their idols beimg criticized."
You're absolutely right there. Read a book called "Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control" by Kathleen Taylor and she suggests that our brains have actually evolved to fiercely protect and defend ideas that have become deeply ingrained whatever those ideas might be...religious, political, philosophical. This is done subconsciously and to the point of, one could argue, self-delusion.
I sometimes write articles in Nutrtion which I studied during my undergrad and have continued to study. I am always amazed how viscerally some people respond when I critically review a diet like the paleo diet...I have even said it's as if I attacked their religion. Personally, I liked the book and realize it was partly because I already had decided I like Hitchens and his ideas...so I think you make a valid point. I can't help but be biased...or I can but it's hard.
"Academic snob" writing "beimg"?
I do agree with some things you wrote in your review, but my point is that you are not actually riviewing the book, you are just saying that you wanted it to be a book showing "why the world would be better off without religion". Hitchens clearly wrote in the subtitle "how religion poisons everything" thus the purpose of this arguement is to explain how religion has, throughout history, made huge mistakes while selling redemption.
You also said in your riview " attack and condemn, without reason or explanation" while the only thing this book does is explain, though historical evidence, that religion is not a force for good in the world and has to be criticized so it can overcome its faults and at least avoid comitting the same mistakes.
The only part you are acctually reviewing the book is this "The language, especially the first chapter, is pompous. The structure of the arguments is, at best, random. Also, the author seems to have chosen not to religiously follow the rules of logic. Or to, you know, be logical at all." I do think the book has some faults, but is generally very well written, though that is merely my humble opinion.
I also think that you judge Hitchens very harshly, while he was one of the few individuals who stood up for what he truly believed was right and he is, without doubt, one of the main causes of people leiving religion and start thinking by themselves "de omnibus dubitandum est".
I mean no disrispect with this replay, it is merely (as previously stated) my humble opinion. I acctually do think you did well by coming to your OWN conclusions about the book, since that is what is what atheism is all about, thinking for yourself, but I do not think you expressed it the right way.
P.S: As an advice, you need to be a little more humble on your writing, it helps convicing people and making them consider your view point.
cheers
Jeke, thanks for taking the time to comment. Since the first thing you pointed out was my typo (My old fingers can't seem to get used to those dreadful touchscreens..., let me just quickly mention that it is 'review, not 'riview, and 'leaving' , not 'leiving' , ong others. But hey, those are clearly typos, right?
But let's get to the point. I actually think that you make a valid argument by saying that a lot of what I disliked about the book is caused by my expectation that I would find - in book by someone who is, as I was unterstand, considered as one of the thought leaders of modern atheism - a validation that the world would actually be a better place without religion. That the continuing evolution of humanity needs to lead to a world without religion. Maybe not today, but one day in some more or less distant future.
You point out that this is not what Hitchens wanted to say, and you could be right. Though I do wonder how that would NOT be the logical conclusion to a religion poisoning everything, but it may not have been the subject of this book.
However, I still think that Hitchens doesn't succeed in showing me how religion poisons everything, because he focuses on the extreme, and, as pointed out above, it is very easy to distance yourself from that if you are, like the majority of religious people, a moderate person and not a fanatic.
As for being humble: my 'review' is a personal opinion and I'm putting it out there for everyone to criticize. Sure, I could have been more moderate and humble, but would that have lead to such an interesting exchange of opinions? I doubt it.
Sometimes one needs to voice strong opinions (just like Hitchens did, btw...). And then keep an ear open for the people who disagree. Which I'm continuing to do. And I hope those of you who disagree - or agree - will do the same. :-)
I apologize for any typos. Darn touchscreens. ..
Let me understand this. Out of a 307 page book you decide to not read 241 pages. Amazing, that's 66 pages for a revue. You mention that the writing is 'pompous', have your read your review? There is a phrase here in Australia, it's said that some people are up themselves.
This review is unreserved snark from someone who seems to have nothing to offer by way of substance. Ironic. A Post Script in a book review?
Granted, you could have made your point by saying God is Not Great was more of a rambling treatise (of which there is a long English tradition of) than a well plot out argument against religion. Hitchens writes in a journalistic manner that isn't as academic and thorough as say Naomi Klein's work. If he'd been trying to write such a work I'm sure he or his publishers would have picked a more apt title.
I find it hilarious how people assume that a book "review" should be anything but the personal opinion of the reviewer. Yes, it's snark, It's a rant. It's also my thoughts about this book, which you may agree with or not.
I'm a bit baffled at the fact that I'm not surprised anymore that strangers no the internet would attack me for not succumbing to their standards of a book review (you should go and read some of my other reviews, but be warned, they might scar you for life! :-)
The ones of you who just disagree with what I'm saying (or agree with it, or have anything else useful to say) - please continue discussing. Or ranting. Or doing anything else you like.
If all you contribute to this discussion is that my "review" is not a "review" in your oh-so-important-point-of-view, you might want to take a look at my icon and re-think what you are saying - Kiley, if I understand you correctly, the essence of your comment is that I didn't write the review you wanted to read, right?
Oh, the irony...
*is amused*
No, please don't delete! Unless you feel you have to. We are all just here to have fun (I hope) - sometimes that fun can be a goid intellectual exchange, sometimes it's silliness, and sometimes good rant and a bit of snark. So, no harm done, and thanks for commenting again. And just to make it clear - I'm perfectly fine with you disagreeing with me - how boring would it be, if everyone agreed with me all the time? What would I rant about? ;-)
Oh, wow, an insult (or something that wishes to be one when it grows up) from a stranger on the internet! How novel!
*points to icon*
Thanks for commenting anyway, we value any effort over here on the world of grown-ups, even you, my dear Benji, with your - judging from your photo - tender 20 years and your Misfits poster and the impressive array of, uhm, what WOULD one call that genre that most of the five (!!!) books you have listed belong to? Fantasy-horror-young-adults-something? Not judging, though, still better than watching TV ALL the time, right?
Btw, not a guy. But hey, I'm sure that's not the first time you made THAT particular mistake...
*laughs girlishly and is amused for the rest of the day*
The problem with this book is that Hitchens has an enormous logical fallacy in his basic premise, which I've written in 2 point style below.
1. Religion is man-made and bad.
2. Without religion, humans would be better off, because religion is bad.
The problem with this assertion is that Hitchens is right about the origin of religion; it most certainly did begin with humans, as any religious-thinker would know.
As such, it is unlikely that simply eliminating religion would fix the vast array of social problems that Hitchens pins on it. Sexual repression? Please; the atheist artistic movements of the 1960s and 70s certainly didn't treat women any better than the religious fundamentalists.
A desire to control resources and the means of production is at the heart of nearly all human evil. Wars are fought over resources, not religious faith, or is it mere coincidence that every single major war or set of skirmishes takes place between people who have something & people who want that something?
The thinking is naive and never reaches a satisfying conclusion. The man may be a brilliant journalist, but in this case, he let his own ideology blind him; which is why the comparison of him to a religious fundamentalist is so apt.
back to top
message 1:
by
Anika
(new)
Sep 19, 2011 06:08AM
Thanks for this. The book is on my tbr, and I added it because I was hoping for all the things you'd hoped. After reading this is, it now loses a lot of spots on my pile. Maybe I'll give it a try someday - but not very soonish.
reply
|
flag
Perhaps you should try reading the title of the book, then re-assesing your initial expectations.
Ryan wrote: "Perhaps you should try reading the title of the book, then re-assesing your initial expectations."::reads title::
Nope, still not working. What Hitchens writes about is not religion, it's religious fanaticism. And the way he dies it is flawed and full of poor, polemic argumentation. This book is, frankly, an offense to me, and should be an offense to everyone who thinks that the future of religion (or not-future) will be THE determining factor in the evolution of mankind in the immediate future.
And to everyone who is intellectually capable of presenting a good argument, which Hitchens obviously is not, ot chooses not to be.
"Or wait, maybe he does mention that somewhere in the 241 pages I chose not to read, because I have better things to do with my time."So... you're saying that you basically didn't read the book.
How much of your review is devoted to the (rather whimsical) chapter "A Short Digression on the Pig?". A chapter which accounts for 3 of the 341 pages in the book. Then again, you chose to review a book you didn't read. You have a tremendous future in literary criticism.
Ryan wrote: "Perhaps you should try reading the title of the book, then re-assesing your initial expectations."I think she was taking the book too seriously. I thought it was hilarious.
Oceana2602 wrote: "Ryan wrote: "Perhaps you should try reading the title of the book, then re-assesing your initial expectations."::reads title::
Nope, still not working. What Hitchens writes about is not religi..."
Well, I read the other 241 pages and I don't think the reviewer got it wrong. Why should he or she waste any more valuable time.
After reading a diatribe of such length I can't help but question whether or not your comments are coming from a place of objectivity. It seems you hold some personal bias against Mr. Hitchens' views of which you curiously went out of your way to squash in your opening paragraph. I found myself actually questioning whether or not you're truly an atheist. Forgive me if you are, but I don't think you can blame me for entertaining the thought. I also have to ask how you can possibly say Hitchens is not a polemist. Quite the contrary. By definition he's a polemist. Polemic – A controversial argument, especially one attacking a specific opinion or doctrine. All other arguments aside, you have to admit it's rather silly to say he's no polemist, especially if you've watched any of his debates.
It's annoying, because Hitchens (with Stephen Fry) was so much more articulate when it came to the Intelligence Squared debate. We know he could have done better; hell, he could have lined his book up with Dawkins's God Delusion, but this book just felt more self-congratulatory than rigorous.
Let's see, two paragraphs of me, me, me and then ...more. um no thanks. Write your own book.
As a pastor I often preach to my congregation presupposing that they already believe, so the message I preach is not always concerned with proof, just proclamation, and application of the scripture that was chosen. When I read this book my presumption after a few pages was that this book was written more with the 'already atheist' in mind and was not overly concerned with 'converting' the faithful to his viewpoint. And frankly that is a fine thing to do, I have no qualm with it. My thoughts were that the 'already atheist' would be encouraged by the book and thankful to Hitch for writing it. As for the faithful, naturally this book is not a bombshell to us like some other atheistic works might be, just like most of what I would preach on a Sunday morning is not intended to be an elaborate bombshell argument against atheism.Needless to say this review surprised me.
I’m with Oceana2602, and I have only read the first chapter so far. This will be the first time I’ve put up a “pre” review on my profile before reading the rest. Hitchens has come across as pompous, bigoted and an inexperienced writer of sound argument. I already don’t like him as a person. Yet to see how far I get through it myself. I’m never overly concerned if I agree wholly or not, still hope to gain some good arguments against my many friends believing in the imaginary fellow. And as Oceana2602 mentioned most “religious” people I know aren’t radicals, Dawkins suffered from the same syndrome in the god myth or whatever it was. We all know radicals of any stripe are bad .. be nice to see one of these authors tackle the garden variety grandmother’s belief, give sound arguments for the little mundane rather than attack the already undefendable. .. my 2c : ) I liked your review. For what it’s worth I’m also atheist and see no absurdity in saying the idea of the book is already preaching to the choir. As when I was in the choir I didn’t believe either, a child has no power against the absurd brainwashing oppressors of little folk : )
Goes without saying, how ridiculous to write a condemning review after a single chapter. Your words, both Gavan and Ocean, are a waste of everyone's time that troubled to read them.For perspective, I condemn your reviews after reading only the first few sentences. Makes perfect sense right?
Joshua wrote: "Goes without saying, how ridiculous to write a condemning review after a single chapter. Your words, both Gavan and Ocean, are a waste of everyone's time that troubled to read them.For perspectiv..."
true : ... still going and he is getting better, not like his first chapter. That was awful. ... and i did point out more to come, not suggest I was leaving it there. His first chapter was appalling. I hope he does not continue in the same but you must admit he has already lost credibly … Your opening generally sets the tome of the book, the point you capture your readers interest. I hold with my opinion so far.
Hmmm... I loved the book, but I funnily enough also quite liked your review. Though I thought your criticism rather too harsh, you raise some valid points. Obviously Hitchens style does not agree with you, and it's true he does not structure a careful academic argument, as Dawkins, for instance, might. For my part, I enjoy Hitchen's colourful language, and his (you have to admit excellent) rhetorical style, and I don't mind a loose structure. I've read other more academic takes on the subject, and they are certainly important. However, they may not agree with many who don't respond solely to crisp, dry, academic argument. I think this personal 'from the heart' view of what is wrong with religion has a valuable place.He does focus on extremism, which I think is warranted. As an analogy, you might think of the 'semi-religious' civilised CoE style of religion as (relatively) benign moles, with fundamentalism being the potential (which is always there) for these to blossom into full-blown cancer. When doctors caution people to stay out of the sun, they are not wrong to focus on cancer - the most dangerous form of the disease. Hitchens does the same, for the same good reason.
Also, he is very clear that 'benign' forms of religion (as exemplified by his RE / natural science teacher), while well-intentioned, is fundamentally misguided, and therefore leads to a topsy-turvy view if the world and our place in it.
Hitchens was an idiosyncratic and colourful person, with an expansive style, and a facility to cut to the heart of the matter. I see could come across as bombastic to some. I'm sorry he got up your nose. I think he's awesome, and really wish he was still with us.
Jim Jefferies was right... When people start a sentence with "I'm a Christian" it makes my brain scream... Can't believe it feels worse when people use "As an Atheist"... You should know better..
It seems to me that you may have missed the underlying point in his inclusion of various examples of religious fanaticism. The idea, I think, was to express through these examples the irrationality that theistic beliefs inherently bring about. This is not to simply bash or label believers as "bad people", but to reinforce his argument that theists will suspend reason in order to keep with the faith, even to the extent of committing atrocities without a lapse in conscience. In this way neutral, rational people are willing to act contrarily for fear of or because of silly superstition. You might be a vegetarian, but it is because of your own thoughts and opinions. I would imagine it isn't the result of indoctrination from a young age or because of what a centuries old book says. Additionally, as a rational human being you wouldn't be persuaded to shun or kill people that do eat meat.
you provide a polemic that seems to boil down to, '' i read less than a third of the book and tossed it aside with a sneer when the small part i read didn't agree with my world view''. not very useful as a review please try harder or if that is your best effort then please don't waste your time or anyone elses. no stars, must try harder.
Adam wrote: "It seems to me that you may have missed the underlying point in his inclusion of various examples of religious fanaticism. The idea, I think, was to express through these examples the irrationality..."Adam, I just saw your comment toady. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. The underlying point that you are talking about is exactly what I "missed". And when I say "missed, I mean that this is the point that I would have loved to find, because it is something that I totally agree with. But I didn't find it in Hitchen's "arguments", which is one of the reasons why I was so disappointed by the book.
Hitchens premise is that "religion poisons everything," which is a bit different from, "the world would be better if we were all atheists."
I pick up and toss aside many books after reading only a few pages all the time. But I don't review them. How could I? Yet you can. Quite a feat.
And your point is Javier? I formed a similar opinion at a early point in the book and was no different by the end. I lost respect for the author for the same reasons as in this review, it didn't take long to note the author did not really add much to the subject.
One of my favourite reviewers here on Goodreads is Trevor from Melbourne, Australia. He was rounded upon by people for reading only a few chapters of Tuesday Afternoons with Morrie, and then writing a bad review. He argues his right to do so very well. Check it out.
Sorry, that's Tuesdays with Morrie. Musta had that old Moody Blues song in the back of my head. Out of Dawnkins, Hitchins and Sam Harris, Harris wins for me.
God is not the problem. Man is the problem. Removing God from any/all aspects of our lives does not eliminate God nor will it eliminate the evil nature in man. People condemn the Creator for giving us a glorious universe, a planet in which to thrive, wonderful foods to nourish ourselves (of which we are destroying with GMOs), water to quench our thirst (which our depraved leaders have tainted with fluoride), the beauty of nature, the ability to love and propagate, and the list goes on. Yet we find ways to destroy the goodness of God which man does of his own free will and we blame God. It does not matter what good thing you give man, he will turn it into an evil.Man is incapable to define his own morality and virtue and without morality and virtue, our world community will continue to spiral into the 9th circle of hell as it is today. Islam is an evil philosophy and a topic I've studied for many, many years. But more than the religious aspect of it is the fact that the culture's central focus is hate. Islam is an excuse to hate and destroy and to dominate. Apostasy brings death to the withdrawing adherent. That's why so-called "moderate muslims" don't speak out against Islamic atrocities. These people would be this way without Islam/Allah--they are listening to the wrong god. People who worship power and greed, the Clinton's, the Bushes, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, etc., have made power and money their god but I don't hear you denounce them or their vices. You are willing to honor and make wealthy media stars that are corrupting the behavior of our children. Consuming mind-altering drugs that harm mankind are glorified. This is madness but many have been lulled into a false sense of security that wrong has become right. It takes strength to fight temptation and it takes a person with no character to gravitate to temptation.
All I hear is the hatred and resentment of a loving, benevolent God who has given us good things that we've destroyed. So many of you atheists hate him because of the sanctity of life and would prefer to kill that life in the womb so that you can continue to behave imprudently and shamefully and without virtue. You hate Him because you want to change the natural order of creation and co-habitate in decadent ways that will change the natural order of the world for the worse and turn us into uncivilized demonic creatures. Moral relativism is a philosophy that will destroy man as you can't make wrong things right. There is an order to creation and laws that can't be thwarted without consequences. Life is not random as you've been deceived by so-called scholars. There is no way to avoid consequences, cause and effect. Man will suffer the ravages of immorality as a consequence and effect of a purposely twisted morality by the dark forces of the "power elite" that they've foisted upon us but by the time that epiphany becomes apparent to a sufficient number, we may be on the precipice of extinction or minimally enslavement.
There is a great plan to delude the masses. Through schools, media, churches and government influences, we have been conditioned to disbelieve theses notions and deny truths. One of the strongest proponents of this "great plan" is the Vatican. The power and opulence of this heretic institution is staggering and not something that Jesus Christ would have endorsed. Their feigned beliefs are a smokescreen to their hidden intent/agenda. Wake up and do your own research and find the truth. Don't be deceived by the nefarious elites with an agenda that is likely to cause extinction. Don't think for a minute these evil institutions don't believe God exists. They just hate Him and glorify Lucifer who has lied to man that he could become like God since the beginning of the fall. Time is of the essence, folks. God bless. . .
Janice - you start with a fantastical logical fallacy.You assume there is a creator AND your embedded doctrine washed your mind to believe humanity is inherently evil, therefore, removing god won't change that.
That's just circular logic with no basis in reality.
This is a really great review. You should consider writing your own book about religion and your research. I think you're more interested in the reason I was interested in reading the book, which is why society would better from a world without religion. You make some really great points here and I'm glad I found a review from someone who wasn't just arguing about god. Thanks!
In the words of Dawkins, 'so what if you're offended...'
kristin, thank you!Everyone else, thanks for your discussions, I find them really interesting, and there's nothing better than a good discussipn to keep one's mind open ( even if or maybe because one is not convinced.) Please keep going!
I know there were some haters. I am a fellow atheist and your review made me laugh. I expected what you expected and couldn't believe what he chose to write about. Thanks for the warning. Might still pick it up at some point, but I won't treat it like it's the Bible (pun intended).
Buuuuuut my husbands family are fundamentalists and you would be shocked at how extreme they are. So they do exist. You're just very lucky not to know any ;)
If he is, I feel sorry for us "old atheists". And I'm calling myself that because I most certainly do not want to be connected to a movement that does itself exactly what it criticizes in religious radicals: attack and condemn, without reason or explanation. That's what Hitchens does in this book. Hitchens may think that he is an atheist, and he may argue on behalf of atheism. But in doing so, he turns his atheism into the one thing that I am strongly against: a new religion.This was an interesting take on the book.
Not too long ago, I watched a debate on youtube in which Hitchens was asked why he was so passionate about "attacking" religion and had literally dedicated his life to doing so. His answer was quite impressive. He first pointed out that he is far more than an atheist and or a poster boy for atheism, but admitted that he had taken a growing interest in the force behind religious belief and its impact on society, and then he gave an eloquent;y stated reason as to why.
But I always got the feeling that one of his strategies was to show that the "radicals" or "fundamentalists" are really the ones who are adhering to the religious texts held up as "law" and "divine truth" by various religions. And therefore if a moderate tries to distance himself from the "radical" he is really distancing himself from his "divine truth". Moderates are really nothing but watered-down fundamentalists, who ultimately claim and believe in the same teachings, though they may act on those beliefs differently.
Many contemporary religious people are in deed moderates who happen to believe in a prevalent myth, even while cherry picking through their "bibles" and religious texts. Yet, even though these moderates don't blow up our houses or wish us ill will on earth, they do condemn us to an eternity of a pain and misery in the afterlife. They also continue to perpetuate and strengthen myths that are then used as a justification for atrocities committed around the world, atrocities that are often deemed untouchable (sometimes even by the more moderate) because of their religious significance.
I think part of Hitchens' strategy is (or rather was) to show the hypocrisy and cherry-picking that occurs, which in itself firmly establishes that religion is not the litmus test for morality...rather our innate sense of right vs. wrong (partly formed by science and social norms) tells us what is immoral, and what guides the cherry-pickers in their picking. And not only do we not need religion to provide us "morality" but in many cases adhering to literal interpretation of texts often leads to immoral behavior.
In that sense, I think much of the book is centered on dismantling the argument that we would have no morality without religion (as this tends to be one of the main arguments made by those of faith). So not only is religion not the epitome of good, but in many cases it has been the epitome of evil.
That said, while I enjoyed the book, I found it somewhat less satisfying than his debates. It did seem a little unfocused in parts, and if I had not seem him debate and heard his arguments before I might have been less inclined to give it four stars.
But honestly, the same criticisms have been brought up against Dawkins, Harris, and to a lesser extent that I've seen Dennett. Like it or not they have been painted as the face of new-age atheism. But atheism will never be a religion, nor is it capable of being a religion. It's the null hypothesis. The fact that there is a concerted effort to promote reason in the face of outrageous claims (and for the lack of a better word it has been dubbed atheism) doesn't put it in the same country let alone the same planet as religion (moderate or fundamentalist).
Shaun thank you for inserting some sense into this discussion. The opening review felt more as a personal attack rather than a legitimate book review.While I agree with your statements that such a book should be made presenting the arguments you inquired..this book did not, nor did it have to. Just because you wanted A and got B does mean the book was not good, well thought out, well written or not of merit in the debate on religion. I wanted pancakes for breakfast but got french toast, you know what..both satisfied my hunger.
Shaun makes a valid point of people cherry picking their way to middle ground..but if you follow the holy books without cherry picking (as they are supposed to be the word of God, how can you pick and choose what the Almighty has said?) Then u end up with the Westboro Baptist Church and crazy fundamentalists. If you can muddy up your thinking into believing the nonsene then who knows where it can take you even if you start out on middle ground.
To me Hitchens has one of the most entertaining and interesting styles of speaking and writing of the past few decades. Its obvious you feel otherwise...why else would you write a negative review of a book you didnt even read. Your expecations are too high, no one is gona live up to them bc they are YOUR expectations that you created in your presumably spoiled mind. Try doing something without such high and specific expectations and you just might enjoy it.
This review seems to lack any real depth in criticism. I mean, for a start, the subtitle of the book is "How Religious Poisons Everything" not "why we would be better off without religion", therefore it seems strange to me that the reviewer would expect it to be a book explaining why we would be better off without religion, rather than what was intended; a book detailing the myriad ways in which religion somehow manages to pervade almost every aspect of live. It's somewhat akin to me picking up his book 'Hitch-22: A Memoir' and saying "Hey, I'll bet this is an awesome piece of fiction."Anyway, I'm sure there are Hitchens interviews where he states that even thought it would be nice if we could do away with religion completely, he neither believes it to be realistic nor necessary.
The purpose of this book is not to explain why the world would be better without religion, but "how religion poisons everything", you just wrote a worthless review of this book.
I'm still vastly amused by the reactions I'm receiving on this review. Religious people and so called atheists alike really can't handle one of their idols beimg criticized.Which, if you've read my review carefully, is EXACTLY what I've been saying. QED, as the academic snob in me likes to say.
Keep going please, I really do find all of this quite interesting.
Oceana2602 wrote: " Religious people and so called atheists alike really can't handle one of their idols beimg criticized."You're absolutely right there. Read a book called "Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control" by Kathleen Taylor and she suggests that our brains have actually evolved to fiercely protect and defend ideas that have become deeply ingrained whatever those ideas might be...religious, political, philosophical. This is done subconsciously and to the point of, one could argue, self-delusion.
I sometimes write articles in Nutrtion which I studied during my undergrad and have continued to study. I am always amazed how viscerally some people respond when I critically review a diet like the paleo diet...I have even said it's as if I attacked their religion. Personally, I liked the book and realize it was partly because I already had decided I like Hitchens and his ideas...so I think you make a valid point. I can't help but be biased...or I can but it's hard.
"Academic snob" writing "beimg"? I do agree with some things you wrote in your review, but my point is that you are not actually riviewing the book, you are just saying that you wanted it to be a book showing "why the world would be better off without religion". Hitchens clearly wrote in the subtitle "how religion poisons everything" thus the purpose of this arguement is to explain how religion has, throughout history, made huge mistakes while selling redemption.
You also said in your riview " attack and condemn, without reason or explanation" while the only thing this book does is explain, though historical evidence, that religion is not a force for good in the world and has to be criticized so it can overcome its faults and at least avoid comitting the same mistakes.
The only part you are acctually reviewing the book is this "The language, especially the first chapter, is pompous. The structure of the arguments is, at best, random. Also, the author seems to have chosen not to religiously follow the rules of logic. Or to, you know, be logical at all." I do think the book has some faults, but is generally very well written, though that is merely my humble opinion.
I also think that you judge Hitchens very harshly, while he was one of the few individuals who stood up for what he truly believed was right and he is, without doubt, one of the main causes of people leiving religion and start thinking by themselves "de omnibus dubitandum est".
I mean no disrispect with this replay, it is merely (as previously stated) my humble opinion. I acctually do think you did well by coming to your OWN conclusions about the book, since that is what is what atheism is all about, thinking for yourself, but I do not think you expressed it the right way.
P.S: As an advice, you need to be a little more humble on your writing, it helps convicing people and making them consider your view point.
cheers
Jeke, thanks for taking the time to comment. Since the first thing you pointed out was my typo (My old fingers can't seem to get used to those dreadful touchscreens..., let me just quickly mention that it is 'review, not 'riview, and 'leaving' , not 'leiving' , ong others. But hey, those are clearly typos, right?But let's get to the point. I actually think that you make a valid argument by saying that a lot of what I disliked about the book is caused by my expectation that I would find - in book by someone who is, as I was unterstand, considered as one of the thought leaders of modern atheism - a validation that the world would actually be a better place without religion. That the continuing evolution of humanity needs to lead to a world without religion. Maybe not today, but one day in some more or less distant future.
You point out that this is not what Hitchens wanted to say, and you could be right. Though I do wonder how that would NOT be the logical conclusion to a religion poisoning everything, but it may not have been the subject of this book.
However, I still think that Hitchens doesn't succeed in showing me how religion poisons everything, because he focuses on the extreme, and, as pointed out above, it is very easy to distance yourself from that if you are, like the majority of religious people, a moderate person and not a fanatic.
As for being humble: my 'review' is a personal opinion and I'm putting it out there for everyone to criticize. Sure, I could have been more moderate and humble, but would that have lead to such an interesting exchange of opinions? I doubt it.
Sometimes one needs to voice strong opinions (just like Hitchens did, btw...). And then keep an ear open for the people who disagree. Which I'm continuing to do. And I hope those of you who disagree - or agree - will do the same. :-)
I apologize for any typos. Darn touchscreens. ..
Let me understand this. Out of a 307 page book you decide to not read 241 pages. Amazing, that's 66 pages for a revue. You mention that the writing is 'pompous', have your read your review? There is a phrase here in Australia, it's said that some people are up themselves.
This review is unreserved snark from someone who seems to have nothing to offer by way of substance. Ironic. A Post Script in a book review? Granted, you could have made your point by saying God is Not Great was more of a rambling treatise (of which there is a long English tradition of) than a well plot out argument against religion. Hitchens writes in a journalistic manner that isn't as academic and thorough as say Naomi Klein's work. If he'd been trying to write such a work I'm sure he or his publishers would have picked a more apt title.
I find it hilarious how people assume that a book "review" should be anything but the personal opinion of the reviewer. Yes, it's snark, It's a rant. It's also my thoughts about this book, which you may agree with or not. I'm a bit baffled at the fact that I'm not surprised anymore that strangers no the internet would attack me for not succumbing to their standards of a book review (you should go and read some of my other reviews, but be warned, they might scar you for life! :-)
The ones of you who just disagree with what I'm saying (or agree with it, or have anything else useful to say) - please continue discussing. Or ranting. Or doing anything else you like.
If all you contribute to this discussion is that my "review" is not a "review" in your oh-so-important-point-of-view, you might want to take a look at my icon and re-think what you are saying - Kiley, if I understand you correctly, the essence of your comment is that I didn't write the review you wanted to read, right?
Oh, the irony...
*is amused*
No, please don't delete! Unless you feel you have to. We are all just here to have fun (I hope) - sometimes that fun can be a goid intellectual exchange, sometimes it's silliness, and sometimes good rant and a bit of snark. So, no harm done, and thanks for commenting again. And just to make it clear - I'm perfectly fine with you disagreeing with me - how boring would it be, if everyone agreed with me all the time? What would I rant about? ;-)
Oh, wow, an insult (or something that wishes to be one when it grows up) from a stranger on the internet! How novel!*points to icon*
Thanks for commenting anyway, we value any effort over here on the world of grown-ups, even you, my dear Benji, with your - judging from your photo - tender 20 years and your Misfits poster and the impressive array of, uhm, what WOULD one call that genre that most of the five (!!!) books you have listed belong to? Fantasy-horror-young-adults-something? Not judging, though, still better than watching TV ALL the time, right?
Btw, not a guy. But hey, I'm sure that's not the first time you made THAT particular mistake...
*laughs girlishly and is amused for the rest of the day*
The problem with this book is that Hitchens has an enormous logical fallacy in his basic premise, which I've written in 2 point style below.1. Religion is man-made and bad.
2. Without religion, humans would be better off, because religion is bad.
The problem with this assertion is that Hitchens is right about the origin of religion; it most certainly did begin with humans, as any religious-thinker would know.
As such, it is unlikely that simply eliminating religion would fix the vast array of social problems that Hitchens pins on it. Sexual repression? Please; the atheist artistic movements of the 1960s and 70s certainly didn't treat women any better than the religious fundamentalists.
A desire to control resources and the means of production is at the heart of nearly all human evil. Wars are fought over resources, not religious faith, or is it mere coincidence that every single major war or set of skirmishes takes place between people who have something & people who want that something?
The thinking is naive and never reaches a satisfying conclusion. The man may be a brilliant journalist, but in this case, he let his own ideology blind him; which is why the comparison of him to a religious fundamentalist is so apt.
