Review of "God is not Great"

Christopher Hitchens, Atlantic Books, London, 2007, God is not Great.

This book is a gripping read.  The arguments for the prosecution are well marshalled in Mr Hitchens’ hands.  He writes like an angel, though admittedly, there are those dyed-in-the-wool believers who would say possibly that our author writes like a devil.  However, Christopher Hitchens would be happy with both sentiments as he would judge them as mere metaphors.

Hitchens, unfortunately, is now dead, Resquiescat in Pace!  However, during his lifetime he was an internationally respected journalist and intellectual. As an intellectual, he was a colourful character with the quickest of minds, well able to engage in debate with anyone who wished to take up the challenge with him.  Moreover, he was a gifted polemicist, too.  He knew what he believed in, and was all too sure of his opinions and beliefs.  Perhaps, being a would-be philosopher myself in the Socratic mode, I’d be somewhat sceptical of anyone who does not rigidly question his/her own motives and presuppositions.  Further, as a philosopher, I would love to have had the opportunity to have met the good man.  At least we would have a laugh at any rate.

This last point in the previous paragraph is apt as this book shows what a wonderful sense of humour Hitchens possesses.  He can get the reader to howl with laughter as well as, in turn, having him or her growl (or even roar) in protest at some of the horrific crimes committed over history in the name of religion.

Now, any believers worth their salt should, of necessity, read what Christopher Hitchens has to say, as it makes sound philosophical sense for people to be able to defend their beliefs and views by being cognisant of those beliefs and worldviews diametrically opposed to them. Whether God exists or not is not a huge existential concern for me, and certainly whether one religion is “truer” than another holds absolutely no interest for me at this stage of my life.  Hence, I have no “axe to grind” with Christopher Hitchens.

Another thing that struck me was how authentic and sincere our author is in his views and beliefs.  One cannot help liking this roguish and intellectual polemicist as he succinctly (and humorously) names his chapters in this masterly book.  For instance, chapter three is surely wonderfully titled “A Short Digression on the Pig; or, Why Heaven Hates Ham.”  I laughed out loud as I typed the title above.  This chapter is worth reading for the more ludicrous rules of religion.  He also makes an interesting aside where he underlines the fact that cannibals of a certain region called the human animal “long pig” because our flesh tasted rather similar to ham.  Hence, Hitchens surmises that perhaps this was one of the reasons that Heaven hates ham.  I also loved his use of alliteration, too.  One just has to laugh with our author at how ludicrous religious beliefs can be.

That the most horrendous things have been done in the name of religion, and indeed of God, is now pretty much accepted by everyone except the most obtuse amongst us. If one were to find fault with the book, it is that it is a litany of the worst things done in the name of religions in the short history of humankind on this planet.  It reads as an endless litany of evil.  That there could have been or could be a good side to religion is ignored completely.  Let me use an analogy here for the sake of clarity.  Let’s say that I was writing a biography of Prime Minister X of any country and that I chose only to recount the bad mistakes, transgressions and perhaps crimes the person X was guilty of.  In such a proposed book I should, needless to say, end up with a very one-sided and indeed lop-sided story.  However, this book was written not too long after the destruction of The Twin Towers, along with the immolation or murder of thousands of innocent workers therein, by Osama Bin Laden’s crazed followers.  That those who hijacked those great jet planes on 9/11 2001 could have shouted Allah Akbar or God is Great as they flew their aircraft bombs with hundreds of human beings on board into what was then the greatest symbol of modern America is quite unbelievable and incredible to us Westerners, schooled as we are in Western logic and reason.  Having visited Ground Zero with my cousin in 2002, I could say, with the good Mr Hitchens, that God is not great at all, at all.  And what a desecration or violation of religion it is, indeed, for these murderers to be mouthing prayers as they go about their evil deeds.

However, Mr Hitchens is a polemicist and he is an atheist who wishes to defend his position as an unbeliever.  He is also doing more, though.  He is arguing that the case for God has long since been lost.  Reading this book, you realise that he has no time for the reasoned opposite position that God could be "good if not great," except that it is humankind who has made God into that monster or indeed the mass murderer he has become.  But Mr Hitchens would rightly retort here that we have argued his case precisely as we have indeed made up the idea of God in the first place.  He would further contend that it is surely about time we got rid of an idea which has patently brought about so much evil and hatred in the world.

One general point I would like to make before finishing is about the psychology and sociology of religion, which Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins all leave out of their polemics from the word go.  The great eminent Victorian Cardinal John Henry Newman remarked on many occasions that believing is a matter of both head and heart and never either alone.  Indeed, one of Newman’s brothers, Charles, was an atheist all his life and Newman wrote his atheism down to a fault of the heart, not of the mind.  Yet again, here, I can hear Christopher Hitchens reply that the Victorian era was hardly a great one with open repression of all things sexual.  And, he certainly is correct there.  Then, he might say that we must marshal sound, reasonable, empirical and verifiable facts, and not get bogged down in wishy-washy and woolly feelings.

However, my point remains valid.  On a personal level, I have long since grown out of a religious response to life.  However, that religion provides meaning, and most of all security for many poor, lost, bewildered and bedraggled souls in this world of ours is both a psychological and sociological fact.  Yes indeed, there are fanatics, who will do the worst of evil in the name of religion, but there are also many millions who will do their best to follow the teachings of their religions in a moral and ethically sound way.  Some poor souls just would not be able to function at all in life if the support offered by religion were pulled from under them.  This is the sense in which I mean that Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins omit the psychology and, indeed, sociology of religion from their very much within-the-box debate of the religion-science question.  They argue on a purely rational level within that box and omit both the psychology and sociology of the religious phenomenon.  They have drawn up very narrow parameters for their debate which they conduct firmly within the logic of that box only.

I will finish with the words of Hamlet to Horatio in the eponymous play:  “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”  Hamlet could just as well address his words to Christopher, Daniel and Richard as well as to Horatio.