Enjoy fast, FREE delivery, exclusive deals and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Instant streaming of thousands of movies and TV episodes with Prime Video
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
Buy new:
$38.76$38.76
FREE delivery:
Friday, June 2
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: RAINBOW TRADE
Buy used: $9.90
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $4.99 shipping
98% 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
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
|
Audio CD, Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" | $17.95 | $15.54 |
|
Multimedia CD
"Please retry" |
—
| — | $73.99 |
- Kindle
$11.99 Read with Our Free App -
Audiobook
$0.00 Free with your Audible trial - Hardcover
$38.76186 Used from $1.75 15 New from $24.99 6 Collectible from $32.98 - Paperback
$11.99168 Used from $1.36 38 New from $9.49 2 Collectible from $12.89 - Audio CD
$17.956 Used from $15.54 1 New from $17.95 - Multimedia CD
from $73.991 Used from $73.99
Explore your book, then jump right back to where you left off with Page Flip.
View high quality images that let you zoom in to take a closer look.
Enjoy features only possible in digital – start reading right away, carry your library with you, adjust the font, create shareable notes and highlights, and more.
Discover additional details about the events, people, and places in your book, with Wikipedia integration.
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

What do customers buy after viewing this item?
- Highest ratedin this set of productsThis item:
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons EverythingHardcover - Lowest Pricein this set of products
Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of GodPaperback
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 1,379 Kindle readers
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.Highlighted by 1,226 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 1,058 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: #123,366 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #28 in Reference & Collections of Biographies
- #50 in Atheism (Books)
- #4,882 in Social Sciences (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
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.
to prove the existence of God,and without a doubt Hitchens gives the best arguments against the possible existence of any kind of divine being.In the end in my perhaps crazy belief system I believe in the existence of God but not in any way in the positivity of any type of religion.Though I am not a Marxist I think Marx's statement that religion is the opioid of the people is perfectly justified when looking at history which this book so well articulates
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
Hence the 3 *'s
I understand that religion has been used to do a lot of harm and wrong. But I am also fully aware that the issue doesn't stop at religion, it goes deeper than that, into the hearts and minds of the people who use religion to share the toxic ideas and beliefs that they hold.
Religion can be used. As can politics, science, education and poverty. We can use the tools at our disposal to impact and elevate our ideas and the things we believe holds the most value. For good as well as for bad. We can all do this within our own lives - we do it every day.
Trying to push all religious beliefs into the same box, gaffer taping it up and labelling it as poison undermines the whole of society. I understand that some religious teachings and scriptures have moral questions that we SHOULD be talking about today - so let's talk!
Whether Mr Hitchens wants to admit it or not, we live in a society (in the West at least) that has formed from a religious belief structure. Religious ideas led to the enlightenment and to science holding the position within society that it does today. We need to recognise that this is a journey, like a tree spreading out its branches. Rather than a level in a platform game, that we complete, reach the next level and then forget about the path that took us here.
If we begin to remove religion from our societies, then we saw away at the very branch that brought us to the place where we can honestly critique religion in the first place.
I am all for honest conversation - but we need to survey both lines of the battlefield and acknowledge the good religion has done as well.
Example? During the first 100 years after Christianity split from Jewdeism, we see small Christian groups within the societies it had spread to beginning to attribute value to the lowliest peoples within those societies. Salves, women, children, people with disabilities - Christians begin to see an intrinsic worth within all people, that the societies they lived in never saw, rather dismissing them without a second glance.
We take that idea of worth for granted now, but it wasn't always the case. Christianity changed the Greco-Roman world, and I think it is still doing so today.
This book has opened my mind. The author is right in much of what he says in this book, Religion for a very long time has become a charter for war and human suffering, unfortunately its disciples are now deadly and some even incredibly deluded.
The majority of the book was not new to me but I loved the injected wit and I actually found some of the arguements actually entertaining.
Regardless of your religious beliefs, if you have an open mind and enjoy reading well written, fact-based, relevant nonfiction, then I would say that you will enjoy reading this book.
The deeply religious amoung us, may find certain parts of the book upsetting as fundamental beliefs are challenged with factual, cited information.
I tend to look at the one star reviews before purchasing most things on Amazon, but this time it’s clear that many of the poor reviews were written by people who hadn’t read the book all the way through.
We’ve all heard the phrase “preaching to the converted” and it’s true that this book won’t turn a religious person into an atheist. It’s more likely to just annoy them.
I began to have doubts about religion around the age of five or six, realising on my own that the Church of England was spouting a load of rubbish. What I hadn’t realised until recently was the number of people who also came to this conclusion.
This book has educated me further in the historical aspects of religion. I’d long thought that it was a method of controlling the mindless populace, I just didn’t realise how evil and cruel this control has been.
As to the comments about the title “god is not great” is obviously a play on the phrase “allahu akba” but this has gone right over the heads of some reviewers.
Honestly, read the one star reviews. Written by people who didn’t read the book “, or think themselves more knowledgeable than the author. If they can do better why aren’t their books available on Amazon?...
In defense of religion, it can be argued that Hitchens does not address what he himself admitted (elsewhere) is the strongest argument on the other side, namely the fine tuning of basic physical constants to produce a universe conducive to evolution of life. The validity of near-death experiences is not discussed either. Hitchens believed that free will is not just an illusion, but, like others, hasn’t reconciled this with science. Some of his arguments could be described as ad hominem attacks (e.g. C.S. Lewis was “dreary and absurd” , St Augustine “was a self-centred fantasist and an earth-centred ignoramus” or Sun Myung Moon was “a jailbird and tax-evader” ). In other cases he could be said to be pushing at an open door in arguing for positions which many religious folk now accept. Thus in the case of Christianity, most accept that the earth was not created in 6 days, that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, that John 8:3-11 was a later addition to John’s Gospel, that the two gospel accounts of the birth of Christ do not agree about most of the details, and that eternal punishment in hell or a future day of judgement need not be taken literally.
Hitchens has described his position as atheism, though when he says “we do not hold our convictions dogmatically”, and his approval of Socrates who said all he really knew was “the extent of his own ignorance”, Hitchens sounds more like an agnostic.
I was really looking forward to reading this having heard him talk on a podcast and couldn't wait to digest his views further. However, the way in which the book is written is almost incomprehensible, I found myself reading passages and pages over and over again to try and understand what his point was. He's clearly an intellectual person, however it seems as though he's written it for his peers rather than the masses using language I can only liken to legalese. From what I read he doesn't seem to have his own voice or opinions, everything he says is quoting or paraphrasing other people's opinions or thoughts which to me makes him comes across as very wishy-washy and lacking a spine.














