Buy new:
$20.00$20.00
FREE delivery:
Aug 24 - 28
Payment
Secure transaction
Ships from
MiamiBookSellers
Sold by
Returns
Eligible for Return, Refund or Replacement within 30 days of receipt
Buy used: $8.12
Other Sellers on Amazon
FREE Shipping
98% positive over last 12 months
+ $3.99 shipping
96% positive over last 12 months
100% positive over last 12 months
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything Hardcover – May 1, 2007
Purchase options and add-ons
against religion. With a close and erudite reading of the major religious texts, he documents the ways in which religion is a man-made wish, a cause of dangerous sexual repression, and a distortion of our origins in the cosmos. With eloquent clarity, Hitchens frames the argument for a more secular life based on science and
reason, in which hell is replaced by the Hubble Telescope's awesome view of the universe, and Moses and the burning bush give way to the beauty and symmetry
of the double helix.
- Print length307 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherTwelve Books
- Publication dateMay 1, 2007
- Dimensions6.25 x 1.25 x 9.25 inches
- ISBN-100446579807
- ISBN-13978-0446579803
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Frequently bought together

Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did.Highlighted by 1,436 Kindle readers
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.Highlighted by 1,260 Kindle readers
The true believer cannot rest until the whole world bows the knee. Is it not obvious to all, say the pious, that religious authority is paramount, and that those who decline to recognize it have forfeited their right to exist?Highlighted by 1,094 Kindle readers
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
From Booklist
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
Review
"An intellectual willing to show his teeth in the cause of righteousness." -- ―The New Yorker
"Thank God for Christopher Hitchens." -- ―Esquire Magazine
One hell of a religious read." -- ―New York Post
About the Author
Washington, DC.
From The Washington Post
A century and a half ago Pope Pius IX published the Syllabus of Errors, a rhetorical tour de force against the high crimes and misdemeanors of the modern world. God Is Not Great, by the British journalist and professional provocateur Christopher Hitchens, is the atheists' equivalent: an unrelenting enumeration of religion's sins and wickedness, written with much of the rhetorical pomp and all of the imperial condescension of a Vatican encyclical.
Hitchens, who once described Mother Teresa as "a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud," is notorious for making mincemeat out of sacred cows, but in this book it is the sacred itself that is skewered. Religion, Hitchens writes, is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children." Channeling the anti-supernatural spirits of other acolytes of the "new atheism," Hitchens argues that religion is "man-made" and murderous, originating in fear and sustained by brute force. Like Richard Dawkins, he denounces the religious education of young people as child abuse. Like Sam Harris, he fires away at the Koran as well as the Bible. And like Daniel Dennett, he views faith as wish-fulfillment.
Historian George Marsden once described fundamentalism as evangelicalism that is mad about something. If so, these evangelistic atheists have something in common with their fundamentalist foes, and Hitchens is the maddest of the lot. Protestant theologian John Calvin was "a sadist and torturer and killer," Hitchens writes, and the Bible "contain[s] a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre."
As should be obvious to any reasonable person -- unlike Hitchens I do not exclude believers from this category -- horrors and good deeds are performed by believers and non-believers alike. But in Hitchens's Manichaean world, religion does little good and secularism hardly any evil. Indeed, Hitchens arrives at the conclusion that the secular murderousness of Stalin's purges wasn't really secular at all, since, as he quotes George Orwell, "a totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy." And in North Korea today, what has gone awry is not communism but Confucianism.
Hitchens is not so forgiving when it comes to religion's transgressions. He aims his poison pen at the Dalai Lama, St. Francis and Gandhi. Among religious leaders only the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. comes off well. But in the gospel according to Hitchens whatever good King did accrues to his humanism rather than his Christianity. In fact, King was not actually a Christian at all, argues Hitchens, since he rejected the sadism that characterizes the teachings of Jesus. "No supernatural force was required to make the case against racism" in postwar America, writes Hitchens. But he's wrong. It was the prophetic faith of black believers that gave them the strength to stand up to the indignities of fire hoses and police dogs. As for those white liberals inspired by Paine, Mencken and Hitchens's other secular heroes, well, they stood down.
Hitchens says a lot of true things in this wrongheaded book. He is right that you can be moral without being religious. He is right to track contemporary sexism and sexual repression to ancient religious beliefs. And his attack on "intelligent design" is not only convincing but comical, coursing as it does through the crude architecture of the appendix and our inconvenient "urinogenital arrangements."
What Hitchens gets wrong is religion itself.
Hitchens claims that some of his best friends are believers. If so, he doesn't know much about his best friends. He writes about religious people the way northern racists used to talk about "Negroes" -- with feigned knowing and a sneer. God Is Not Great assumes a childish definition of religion and then criticizes religious people for believing such foolery. But it is Hitchens who is the naïf. To read this oddly innocent book as gospel is to believe that ordinary Catholics are proud of the Inquisition, that ordinary Hindus view masturbation as an offense against Krishna, and that ordinary Jews cheer when a renegade Orthodox rebbe sucks the blood off a freshly circumcised penis. It is to believe that faith is always blind and rituals always empty -- that there is no difference between taking communion and drinking the Kool-Aid (a beverage Hitchens feels compelled to mention no fewer than three times).
If this is religion, then by all means we should have less of it. But the only people who believe that religion is about believing blindly in a God who blesses and curses on demand and sees science and reason as spawns of Satan are unlettered fundamentalists and their atheistic doppelgangers. Hitchens describes the religious mind as "literal and limited" and the atheistic mind as "ironic and inquiring." Readers with any sense of irony -- and here I do not exclude believers -- will be surprised to see how little inquiring Hitchens has done and how limited and literal is his own ill-prepared reduction of religion.
Christopher Hitchens is a brilliant man, and there is no living journalist I more enjoy reading. But I have never encountered a book whose author is so fundamentally unacquainted with its subject. In the end, this maddeningly dogmatic book does little more than illustrate one of Hitchens's pet themes -- the ability of dogma to put reason to sleep.
Copyright 2007, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved.
Product details
- Publisher : Twelve Books; First Edition (May 1, 2007)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 307 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0446579807
- ISBN-13 : 978-0446579803
- Item Weight : 1.16 pounds
- Dimensions : 6.25 x 1.25 x 9.25 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #51,647 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #9 in Reference & Collections of Biographies
- #13 in Atheism (Books)
- #1,876 in Social Sciences (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
Important information
To report an issue with this product, click here.
About the author

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was the author of Letters to a Young Contrarian, and the bestseller No One Left to Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family. A regular contributor to Vanity Fair, The Atlantic Monthly and Slate, Hitchens also wrote for The Weekly Standard, The National Review, and The Independent, and appeared on The Daily Show, Charlie Rose, The Chris Matthew's Show, Real Time with Bill Maher, and C-Span's Washington Journal. He was named one of the world's "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonReviewed in the United States on August 28, 2021
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Over the last year, there have been three important books published on belief and non-belief :
* Dan Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
* Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion
* Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
I've already written - appreciatively - about the Dennett and Dawkins books, and I must admit that I approached Hitchens with some trepidation. After all, people have been lambasting Dawkins and others for their "intemperate" and "disrespectful" attacks on religion, and that's the kind of thing that seems likely to get Hitchens' juices flowing (metaphorically and literally). But I needn't have worried.
First, let me say directly and unambiguously: this is a really good book. Hitchens is a mercurial toper, and he may be (nay, he is) dead wrong on Iraq, but he is a great writer. I find myself reading all of the book reviews that he writes, even if I have no interest whatsoever in the book, just for the pleasure of his prose. He is a literate writer, and he assumes that his readers will recognize quotations and literary allusions without having to be spoon-fed. And he achieves this in an utterly contemporary voice, without retreating into anachronism. So please buy this book, to keep the author well supplied with the vodka which seems to fuel his muse. We need more of his work.
Enough of the style: what of the substance? I think that I can best describe my reaction to this book by considering the different uses to which I would put it and its two companions.
If a committed theist asked me why she should pay attention to the "new atheism", I would give her Dennett's book. I would hope that she would realize that the modern world provides clear evidence of the diversity of beliefs and non-beliefs, and that perhaps she would agree that this was a subject worth studying, worth considering from outside her (probably exclusive) world-view. What explains belief? Why has belief changed over the years? I wouldn't expect to change her beliefs, but perhaps she could accept that belief and non-belief were legitimate subjects of inquiry.
If I met a curious man, embedded in a religious tradition but uncertain of whether (or what) he believed, or if he might actually be losing his faith, I would give him Dawkins' The God Delusion. I'd be hoping that he could appreciate the role of science (and its stepchild, technology) in both understanding and creating the world in which he lives. It's not just iPods and cruise missiles, but also polio vaccine, and clean water, and instruments like the Hubble Space Telescope that help us understand our universe, and DNA sequencing that allows us to diagnose disease but also to see our place in the web of life on this planet. And I would hope that he might come to realize, with Carl Sagan, that the realities of the universe are far more majestic and beautiful than the myths of religion.
But suppose that an old friend came to me and asked, "Why are you so fired up about atheism and religion these days? I remember you 15 years ago, and back then you were posting on alt.atheism, and having fun roasting creationists on talk.origins, and reading books on the philosophy of religion. But you didn't talk - and write - about it all the time, and you certainly didn't publically define yourself by your disbelief. So what happened?"
Instead of trying to explain all of my reasons, I think I'd simply give them Hitchens' new book and say, "Read this. He puts it better than I ever could. I merely experience the occasional (but increasingly frequent) feelings of frustration, impatience, outrage, and even anger. Hitchens is an unequalled exponent of the art of the rant: he says what I feel, with passion, intensity and wit."
This is not a book that seeks to convert. Its purpose is, first and foremost, to explain. To explain why atheists are no longer willing to sit meekly on our hands when the President of the United States says that I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens", or when the Archbishop of Canterbury excuses the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, or when Catholic cardinals and archbishops preach that condoms transmit AIDS. Yes, Hitchens also explains why he is an atheist, and the things that he finds mad, bad, or ridiculous about religion. Individual believers will naturally snort, and say that he's not talking about their belief, but that's not the point. He's not seeking to win a debate, or persuade the uncertain: he's laying out facts about the world and his opinions of those facts. And I agree with most of what he says.
Perhaps because he is a student of history, and a former Marxist Trotskyite, Hitchens pays particular attention to what he calls An Objection Anticipated: The Last-Ditch "Case" Against Secularism. He's talking (p.230) about the charge that "secular totalitarianism has actually provided us with the summa of human evil." Hitchens' response is lengthy and detailed, and rejects the simplistic lumping-together of the various dictators of the 20th century. He describes how fascism and National Socialism co-opted religious institutions, which responded with unseemly enthusiasm. On the other hand, Communism in Russia and China had more in common with the anticlericalism of the French Revolution. Obviously Communists wished to eliminate any competing source of ideology or loyalty; beyond this, their secularism was less an expression of ontological atheism than of hatred towards the religious institutions which had supported the previous autocracies or imperialists. In fact, Communists were not trying to negate religion, but to replace it, complete with saints, heretics, mummies and icons. It's a complex topic that could fill an entire book, and Hitchens handles it very well.
As you may have gathered by now, I really like this book. I really think that it's my favourite of the three, mostly because I learned more from it than the other two, and because it caught my mood so well. Of course there are many things to learn from Dennett and Dawkins, but I've been steeped in their works for the last twenty years, and I think I understand the world from their perspective. With his literary and historical bent, Hitchens provided an intriguingly different point of view. And, as I think I mentioned, the writing is simply superb.
Top reviews from other countries
This is Goya’s Print #43 from his eternal etching collection Los Caprichos (The Caprices) and is captioned: "El sueno de la razon produce monstruos" - When reason sleeps, monsters are produced.
If this haunting image and its message are a foreshadowing of what awaits the reader in this book, then Richard Dawkins' quote on the cover is an apt summation of its author:
"If you are a religious apologist invited to debate with Christopher Hitchens, decline"!
A pertinent warning since with his lucid polemics, Hitchens takes no hostages, cutting relentlessly to the heart of the matter: Mankind's almost primordial need to cling to religion, any religion, a condition - even a phenomenon, one might say - described by Marx as "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world... the spirit of a spiritless situation".
But why such a yearning? Why the vast array of eclectic varieties of religion? Why such an impressive, a-la-carte menu of choices for expressing a singular universal truth? To this, Hitchens provides a simple yet profound answer: Religion was "our first and worst attempt at understanding the universe", the pre-requisite to which, as Aristotle postulates in his conceptualization of a concentric cosmos, was a "prime mover" - God - who sat beyond the "final sphere".
Then, perhaps, it was not God who made man in his own image but rather quite the opposite: God, and by extension religions, were in fact man-made constructs, manufactured here on earth and not in the heavens, an idea expressed succinctly by the Pre-Socratic philosopher, Xenophanes of Colophon:
“…Men make gods in their own image; those of the Ethiopians are black and snub-nosed; those of the Thracians have blue eyes and red hair.”
The historian and political philosopher Montesquieu echoes the same notion in a more tongue in cheek fashion:
“If triangles had a god, he would have three sides.”
Quoting Heinrich Heine, Hitchens then brings his logic full circle: "...in a pitch-black night, a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind old men as guides".
For the better part of four centuries, it is light that has increasingly cast its shadow on darkness, thanks to the scientific enlightenment brought about by the sacrifices of countless brave souls - notwithstanding the exactitudes and cruelties of (inter alia) the Inquisition, Catholic Church’s sinister veil over free thought. Heine’s analogy is exact if only we replace "blind men" with "high priests" (of any denomination), except perhaps through the ages, the latter knew the "roads and paths" less well than the former!
Hitchens is a true practitioner of "the profession of disbelief", a phrase coined by Thomas Huxley, who also rejected the doctrine that "there are propositions which men ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence". Here is the absolutism and rigidity of religion contrasted sharply with the relativism and flexibility of science, which Carl Sagan describes eloquently in his book "The Demon-haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark":
"At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes - an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly sceptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense."
If Sagan is a shining example of a standard bearer of “deep truths”, then Hitchens is an outstanding specimen of the slayer of “deep nonsense” – polite Sagan-speak for institutionalized ignorance and superstition – systematically dismantling the status quo of religious dogma with his cold and unforgiving yet frank logic; not for him this “transparent fiction”, to quote one Enoch Powell!
To my delight, Hitchens also challenges the lexicon of religious debate, dismissing as "vulgar" (I consider it offensive and condescending) the often-used term "a-theist", preferring the more appropriate (in his view) descriptive of "anti-theist". After all, he argues, in common discourse we have no specific term for referring to someone who does NOT believe in fairies (hence no “a-fairy-ist”), for instance (or in Santa Claus, for that matter)! Why should we have one for yet another equally mythical figure? (In any case, I posit, is it not high time that we place this dysfunctional terminology in the same dustbin in which other such politically incorrect and long-obsolete words have been discarded?)
For those who still insist on using the term, I am reminded of Richard Dawkins' excellent riposte when HE is branded an “a-theist”: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
So, let's ponder the divine a while lest we forget Zeus, the protector of all gods and humans; his daughter Tyche, the goddess of luck; Aphrodite, the goddess of beauty and passion; Artemis, the goddess of nature; Nemesis, the goddess of retribution against hubris; and for good measure, Palamedes, the inventor of the first dice which he dedicated to .... Tyche. And that's only some of the Greek deities!
In his debates, Hitchens took pleasure in occasionally referring to the humourist Peter De Vries’ novel, “The Blood of the Lamb” and a conversation between Stein, the tormented soul agonized by his child’s incurable illness, and a supercilious interlocutor:
"You ought to be ashamed," a woman in an Easter bonnet told Stein. "Your race gave us our religion. From ancient polytheism, the belief in lots of gods," the woman continued a little more eruditely, "the Hebrew nation led us on to the idea that there is only one." "Which is just a step from the truth," said Stein.
In Hitchens-speak, this is simply stating the obvious: “We were polytheistic at first; we then became monotheistic... we are getting closer to the real figure all the time!”
But what of religion itself? Here Hitchens delivers his decisive coup de grâce:
"Monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to the fabrication of a few non-events."
Frankly, in my view, I would love to see a theist read the book and look me in the eye afterwards. It is a damnation of all that is marketed as god. Hitchens makes wonderful analogies and observations, like 'god certainly has never favoured Africans' given the treatment they received. And even better is the faith that the slave and the slave driver both had in the same god - what greater evidence that religion is man made than the mere fact that both pray to the same god whereas one of these groups is the oppressed and the other the oppressor, therefore where in this equation of twisted faith lies the forgiving god? Was the annihilation of the jews not a religious mandate? and what of the conduct of the jews ever since they occupied palestine? Three sects, each plagiarised to pblivion off one another, occupy a single hill in what is not occupied Palestine and all three scream and kill to the tune of their supposed chosen diety. It's a pathetic scene demonstrative of how humanity is stunted in the dark ages of superstition and black magic. The drawing of the blood routines that dominate all the main monotheisms, the masked tolerance of the church, the suppression of all forms of natural human emotion and feeling from love to devotion to masturbation and anal sex. In the illustrious words of Hitchens 'the most prolific masturbating homosexual in history has not managed to commit the atrocities of the clergy'!
Even the apparently friendly monks don't escape a damning crtique of their abuse of humanity. But don't be fooled, Hitchens always gives credit where it is due.
It is time that humanity woke up to the repulsive regressive retarded belief in a god or a life after death and hailed the new messiah Christopher Hitchens!
and a final word to those who claim that he is biased. Yes he is biased, extremely biased too. But biased in the sense of a mother who knows that the milk being fed to her child is rancid and screams and protests to try and save the child from swallowing that rancid milk!












