Lessons from the Book 📚 God is not Great

Overview

In God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007), journalist Christopher Hitchens argues that religious faith is not necessary for humanity’s progress. In fact, faith in supernatural beings has slowed scientific advancement, led to human rights violations, and facilitated the creation of totalitarian regimes. Even if religious belief never resulted in human rights violations, like genocide and holy wars, it would still stymie humanity’s ability to improve. Religion, by nature of its existence, encourages belief in something without providing sufficient evidence, which is antithetical to scientific advancement.

The existence of religious faith is problematic in four unsolvable ways. First, it provides an incorrect explanation for how the universe and life on Earth began. This might not be an issue if clerical leaders were willing to update their religions’ claims as new scientific discoveries come to light, but many faiths have a history of persecuting those who contradict official doctrine. Second, religions encourage adherents to act subservient to their deities while simultaneously telling practitioners that they are special and potentially ordained by their gods to carry out a divine will. Thus, religious people often consider themselves to be both inferior to their gods and superior to other people, which can result in a mindset that condones holy wars and human rights violations. The third unresolvable issue with religion is that it often punishes healthy sexual urges and requires adherents to abstain from normal sexual behavior. Religion also exploits devotees whose sexual development has been stunted by promising sexual rewards in the afterlife. The fourth issue is that religion is grounded in the need for comfort in the face of death, and springs from the human desire for an overarching divine plan where none exists. Religion allows for more evils than it cures, particularly because it can be used to beguile gullible populations.

Religions share other factors that prove they are without moral value in a modern world. A number of faiths promote the idea of an eternal afterlife in which some are given paradise and others, either because of their disbelief or their crimes against the gods, are sentenced to eternal torture. The willingness to believe another sect of humanity is damned for not following the same god has led a number of religious people to feel justified in suppressing or murdering minority faiths. Last, religion demands the impossible of its followers and then instills guilt when they are unable to meet doctrinal requirements. For example, one of the Ten Commandments forbids God’s followers from experiencing jealousy if their neighbors are wealthier or otherwise better off. People cannot control their emotions or thoughts; they can only control how they express those thoughts and emotions. By asking followers not to experience emotions like envy or lust, religions ask believers to chastise themselves for natural human inclinations.

Religious faith, at one point in human history, may have been understandable, if not strictly necessary. Science was still in its infancy, and people naturally look for explanations for the phenomena they are experiencing. For early humans, a monsoon or a major earthquake must have seemed so terrifying that they could only be explained by powerful deities. We now know, however, the causes of earthquakes and other natural phenomena. Gods are no longer needed to explain what humanity doesn’t understand. Science can usually provide those answers, and if it cannot, it can provide methods for obtaining them. Religious leaders and prophets can no longer provide wisdom or information that isn’t discernible through scientific methods. Religion has outlived its usefulness, and should be dispensed with entirely; if abandoned, faith will no longer be able to hinder humanity’s ability to better itself.

Key Insights

Humanity’s tendency to believe in fate is, to some degree, innate.

Faith can easily be used to manipulate people’s desires for wealth or emotional comfort.

Religions have shown an inability to tolerate differing beliefs or a lack of belief.

Many religions borrow doctrine from other faiths to develop their ideologies or to support their claims.

Religion can facilitate the spread of diseases and can prevent adherents from adopting healthier practices.

Social stigma may have caused some historical philosophers and scientists to falsely profess religious belief.

Sincere religious belief does not guarantee the presence of good morals or ethics.

Non-religious notions that hinge on superstition and conspiracy theories are no less problematic than religious beliefs.

Key Insight References

[#1: Chapters 6; #2: Chapter 11; #3: Chapter 2; #4: Chapters 9 & 11; #5: Chapter 4; #6: Chapter 18; #7: Chapters 7 & 13; #8: Chapter 10]

Key Insight 1

Humanity’s tendency to believe in fate is, to some degree, innate. 

When tragedy befalls religious people, they might be tempted to think they’re being punished for a sin. Even devout atheists might claim they’re experiencing bad luck if they suffer an unwanted calamity. The human mind is naturally prone to look for causes and effects; it’s also geared toward self-centered and self-serving explanations. Crediting a good or bad outcome to luck or divine design is an attempt by humans to circumnavigate uncertainty and place themselves at the center of the story.

Some evolutionary biologists have hypothesized that the tendency to believe something without evidence developed because early humans relied on associations and instincts to avoid danger. If a prehistoric hunter heard noises in the bushes behind him, he might decide to start running, even if the noises he heard were only the wind. By failing to flee, the hunter would be running too high of a risk; running from nothing is better than being eaten by a wild animal. Over time, humans would come to associate additional factors with the appearance of predators; rustling leaves combined with a crescent moon, for example, might become a portent that hunting should be avoided for the night. Superstitious beliefs spread when they address a pressing fear; that fear has to have worse consequences than any repercussions caused by belief in an unprovable idea. [1]

Key Insight 2

Faith can easily be used to manipulate people’s desires for wealth or emotional comfort. 

In the 1940s, a child named Marjoe Gortner was trained by his parents to preach the Christian gospel and solicit donations from his audience. As an adult, he invited a film crew to follow him around during one of his preaching tours, so that he could demonstrate the manipulative tactics he learned from his parents. Religious people continue to fall for similar grifting tactics today. Humans are quick to believe a supernatural claim if they think that belief will lead to financial, personal, or spiritual prosperity.

In modern Christianity, a number of churches have adopted a doctrine called the prosperity gospel, which teaches the faithful that if they donate money to their church or its preachers, they will be rewarded by God. These rewards may come in the form of vast riches, or miraculous cures to otherwise untreatable illnesses. Critics have argued that pastors who employ the prosperity gospel are manipulating their flock to become wealthy themselves. In 2019, televangelist Kenneth Copeland, who is famous for preaching the prosperity gospel, was confronted by a TV crew who wanted to know why he had claimed that flying on commercial airlines would put him in the company of demons. Copeland made that statement while justifying his use of luxury private planes, one of which he purchased from film producer Tyler Perry. Even after Copeland used donations from his followers to purchase the plane, he solicited his congregation for another $2.5 million, which he claimed would be used to upgrade the interior. Copeland is not alone in demanding extravagant gifts from his followers; a number of other prosperity gospel preachers have demanded private planes and other expensive goods, supposedly to better spread the gospel. While Copeland argues that the Bible condones the procurement of wealth, his critics assert that his actions are more in line with con artists than with holy men. People are prone to believing in what they are told, especially if their community condones those ideas. Religious people who were raised to believe that preachers are usually good, and that God rewards obedience, might fall more easily for the teachings of a preacher who promotes the prosperity gospel. The instinct to conform to group expectations might override their ability to recognize that they’re being taken advantage of. [2]

Key Insight 3

Religions have shown an inability to tolerate differing beliefs or a lack of belief. 

Religious apologists often argue that faith poses no threat to human progress if practiced privately. However, history has shown that sincerely held religious convictions rarely encourage coexistence with differing opinions. Most devout practitioners tend either to attempt to convert nonbelievers or shun heretics. Even in death, a nonbeliever isn’t free from the threat of conversion; some religious sects, like Mormons, induct the dead into their ranks, without regard to what those people would have believed in life.

In some cases, religious adherents will claim, without evidence, that famous skeptics converted on their deathbeds. Christopher Hitchens was essentially subjected to that same treatment after he died of esophageal cancer in 2011. Five years after Hitchens’s death, evangelical Christian Larry Taunton released a book titled The Faith of Christopher Hitchens (2016). The book claimed that in his final years, Hitchens largely abandoned his atheism in favor of Christian belief. As writer David Frum pointed out in a 2016 article in The Atlantic , Taunton’s claims were taken at face value by a number of publications, despite the fact that Taunton did not quote directly from his subject or provide any evidence for this supposed change of heart. Taunton’s claim also ignores the fact that Hitchens predicted such claims would be made by religious people after his death; he instructed his readers not to believe any such stories, as he could not foresee a situation in which he would change his mind. Taunton’s claims don’t make sense when compared to the actual statements Hitchens made, and are more akin to speculations than to revelations. Yet, because Hitchens was so dedicated to his atheism, and because he argued so adamantly against the existence of God, the possibility that he secretly died a Christian is appealing to a number of his critics. Religious adherents are so uncomfortable with the idea of lasting doubt that some are willing to make up a skeptic’s conversion rather than accept that person’s point of view. [3]

Key Insight 4

Many religions borrow doctrine from other faiths to develop their ideologies or to support their claims. 

When comparing religions, one might notice that some of them bear striking resemblances to others. The Koran, for example, largely consists of stories and scripture from the Old Testament, as well as anecdotes and passages from early Christian texts. Despite its use of holy texts from other religions, Islamic imams claim that the Koran is the ultimate revelation from their divine creator. Mormons, too, cling to a religious text that seems to be cribbed from other works. Much of the Book of Mormon, another text said to be divinely revealed, can be found in the Old and New Testament.

Even religious holiday traditions are often borrowed from other faiths. Many of the modern practices in the United States associated with Easter, for example, are borrowed from pagan spring festivals that celebrated the end of winter and the approach of summer months. Such festivals were usually held around the spring equinox, a tradition that continues today. Since the lengthening of the days was such an important focus of these celebrations, services were often held at sunrise. Christian churches continue to hold Easter services at sunrise to welcome the return of the Son of God, along with the literal sun. The exchange of chocolate bunnies in the United States, too, has its origins in pagan belief; the Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre, from which the English name for Easter is derived, was often symbolized using rabbits. On a more naturalistic level, rabbits and baby chicks both represent new life, which is usually associated with spring because a number of animals give birth during that season. Rather than invent their own holidays and traditions, early Christians borrowed from other faiths. By doing so, Christianity made it easier for those from other faiths to convert, and rebranded common social practices to fit its ideology. [4]

Key Insight 5

Religion can facilitate the spread of diseases and can prevent adherents from adopting healthier practices. 

Even though condoms are effective for preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, high-ranking Catholic officials have told parishioners that they should not trust or use them. One official warned that condoms are manufactured with tiny holes that allow AIDS to pass through; another argued that condoms shouldn’t be used because God hadn’t created condoms for animals to use in nature. Religion causes people to discount medical science in favor of religious prohibition or superstition, which can make it easier for sickness to spread unhindered.

In the 2010s, a number of organizations began promoting scientific methods for preventing the spread of the Ebola virus in West African countries. The disease spread through a number of cultural practices, especially religious burial practices in the region. Scientists learned that some members of some tribes believe loved ones can only be connected to their ancestors if their body is ritualistically washed and prepared by family members, who are also expected to wash their hands in a shared bowl before touching the deceased. Family members are also expected to touch their face after touching the dead, to better facilitate connection with the ancestors. Since Ebola spreads through contact with infected bodily fluid, these burial practices quickly spread the virus throughout the communities the scientists were examining. Scientists could not easily convince West African communities to abandon these funeral traditions, so some decided to form “Dead Body Management Teams” which would spirit the deceased away before the family could perform the usual burial rites. The scientists taking away the bodies encouraged some tribe members to keep the death a secret, which made it harder for health workers to track the spread of the virus. If scientists and health professionals want to change unsanitary traditions that spread disease, they could work with religious leaders instead of attempting to institute a new practice by force. Those religious leaders would be able to craft compelling reasons for changing the tradition, and could potentially come up with new traditions that would still be in line with the community’s beliefs. [5]

Key Insight 6

Social stigma may have caused some historical philosophers and scientists to falsely profess religious belief. 

Religious apologists sometimes point out that many famous scientists and thinkers professed a faith in God. However, it’s unclear how sincere that faith was. A number of scientists and philosophers have followed in the footsteps of philosopher Baruch Spinoza, who posited that God is essentially synonymous with nature. For those who lived before the twentieth century, expressing lack of belief would have been considered heretical, and therefore dangerous. After Spinoza introduced his conception of God in the seventeenth century, pantheism became a middle ground between theism and atheism that allowed scientists and freethinkers to avoid public scorn. Until recently, it’s been necessary for atheists and agnostics to hide their opinions regarding religion, or else face persecution.

In his posthumously published book, Brief Answers to the Big Questions (2018), theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking describes how he received harsh criticism after he published a book questioning God’s existence. His detractors seemed to believe that since he was a scientist, and not a priest, he should have nothing to say on whether a divine being was even theoretically possible. Hawking’s primary scientific focus, however, was on the origin of the larger universe. It stands to reason, then, that he would have an interest in examining how that universe came into being. Since a number of religions had hypothesized for centuries that the universe was created by one or more beings, Hawking naturally felt the need to examine this claim from a scientific perspective. Hawking argued that the existence of a personal god is unlikely because that entity would be incapable of violating the natural laws it put in place. He conceded that it remains a possibility that some divine being sparked the creation of the universe, but said that possibility only remains because it’s presently difficult for scientists to hypothesize about what happene

d before the Big Bang. In all technicality, there was no before, since time and space were unified before the expansion of the universe. Rather than an intelligent supreme entity being in charge of the universe’s beginnings, Hawking theorized that a more likely explanation is that the universe spontaneously generated. His theories are still controversial, even though his musings on religion were strictly confined to the subject he was already studying. [6]

Key Insight 7

Sincere religious belief does not guarantee the presence of good morals or ethics. 

Sometimes, religious authorities will claim that without religion, people would be incapable of acting ethically. These authorities claim that religion provides moral guidelines that humans do not develop naturally. However, most religious prohibitions are crimes that society tends to punish anyway. Murder and theft are outlawed in most societies, and humans do not need a divine being to tell them those crimes are unacceptable. The inconsistent behavior of supposedly holy leaders also demonstrates that religion does not always make someone behave admirably. Mohandas Gandhi, a Hindu activist who is affectionately referred to as a sage, or mahatma , by his admirers, was prejudiced against Muslims in his country. He also argued against scientific and technological development. Belief in a god does not facilitate moral behavior, even among famous activists who use religion to spread their messages.

Gandhi seemed to be fine with accepting modern medical research when he could personally benefit from it, despite his public efforts to stymie scientific and medical advancement. When his wife, Kasturba, contracted pneumonia, he refused to let doctors treat her with penicillin, arguing that taking Western medicine would violate their principles. A few years after her death, he came down with malaria. Rather than suffer without Western treatment, as he forced his wife to do, he decided to let doctors treat him with quinine. He also harbored racist beliefs about black South Africans, and argued that India’s untouchable caste was not worthy of liberation or equal voting rights. Despite this, Gandhi is still revered today as a noble figure who advanced humans rights and helped to bring about a more equal society in India. The cultural amnesia surrounding his misdeeds has allowed his supporters to elevate him to a kind of sainthood; those who otherwise support nonviolent and nonracist principles turn to his popular image as a source for guidance. Society must stop pretending that important religious figures are without flaws just because their messages hold broad, humanitarian appeal; if it does not, it risks excusing Gandhi’s egregious character flaws as simple errors committed by an otherwise great man. By promoting Gandhi’s faith and activism above his objectionable behavior, Gandhi’s admirers provide abusive people with a path for justifying their actions. Conflating goodness and spirituality is dangerous because it allows people to mask manipulative and cruel tendencies if they are pious or charismatic. [7]

Key Insight 8

Non-religious notions that hinge on superstition and conspiracy theories are no less problematic than religious beliefs. 

Religious adherents aren’t the only ones who sometimes cling to a belief without first procuring the requisite evidence to support their claim. In recent decades, some people have claimed to see unidentified flying objects supposedly piloted by alien beings; some even say they have been abducted by these aliens. However, no hard evidence has ever been produced that these extraterrestrial visits actually occurred. Superstitions don’t have to be religious in nature to be harmful; they just have to ignore scientific principles in favor of shaky evidence.

A major conspiracy theory that is causing harm in the twenty-first century in the United States is the belief that vaccines cause diseases and disabilities, particularly autism. While this belief can be held by religious people, it’s also found among communities within the United States that reject faith in a deity. Those who refuse to vaccinate their family members, also known as anti-vaxxers, often share a general suspicion toward science and government instead of a unified belief in a particular god. Since the internet allows anyone to publish information without verifying its veracity, anti-vaxxers are able to curate their information sources and ensure that their data conforms to their worldviews. Scientific institutions that attempt to persuade anti-vaxxers that their fears are unfounded are seen as part of the larger conspiracy. Anti-vaxxers’ refusal to vaccinate their children has allowed diseases that were once rare or nearly eradicated, like measles, to emerge once more in the United States. Their superstitions damage the medical community’s efforts to prevent disease, even when those superstitions are devoid of religious content. [8]

Important People

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a British American columnist and author. He was a staunch atheist who frequently focused on the problems caused by religious belief.

Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) was a Jewish Dutch philosopher who posited the theory that divinity is synonymous with natural law.

Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948) was an Indian activist who fought for India’s independence from British rule.

Author’s Style

Journalist and author Christopher Hitchens was famous for his combative debate style, and he shows his penchant for provocative discourse throughout God Is Not Great . He frequently asserts that religious faith is not only unnecessary, but also dangerous and stupid. Hitchens chooses examples that aim to make both belief in a god and famous followers of specific gods look patently absurd. He makes a fair number of humorous asides, either in the form of puns or in joking references to earlier material; these more lighthearted statements inject levity into an otherwise acidic topic.

Hitchens vacillates between attacking religious hypocrisy, addressing common critiques of atheistic perspectives, and examining his own shortsighted tendencies and biases. He also explores the contradictions inherent in several different religions, which makes it harder for religious people reading his work to claim that he is singling out a single faith tradition for attack. The Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, are the primary faiths explored in the book, but Hitchens does dedicate a chapter to Eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism. He also mentions the existence of smaller faiths like modern paganism and Wicca that are, in his view, equally worthy of skepticism and rejection.

Hitchens’ best-selling work has 19 chapters, as well as epigraph, an acknowledgement, and a dedication. An afterword, added in 2009, addresses public reception to the book; it also corrects a factual error Hitchens included in the book’s first printing regarding Orthodox Jewish sexual practices. At the beginning of most chapters, Hitchens includes quotes and passages from scientists, philosophers, and others who have expressed similar doubt toward the existence of a divine creator.

Author’s Perspective

In God Is Not Great , Hitchens examines the lives of several complicated men and women whose ideologies earned them a cult following, if not a deified status of sorts. He cites Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr. and even the Islamic prophet Muhammad as figures who achieved historical renown despite acting controversially, or even immorally, in their personal lives. Hitchens, who died of cancer in 2011, might be surprised that among some atheistic circles, he has achieved his own version of sainthood. Author Michael Wolff, in a 2013 GQ Magazine article, recalled a debate he moderated involving Hitchens in which the journalist seemed to be drunk, and appeared to be reciting his arguments by rote without responding to his opponent’s attacks directly. Despite this unprofessional appearance, he was still swamped by adoring fans after the event. Wolff further remarked that much of Hitchens’ work is repetitive, and appears to be slightly reworded material that has appeared in previously published essays and columns; Hitchens seemed content to retread old debates instead of forging new arguments. [9] Still, even with his failings, Hitchens remains a popularly cited author. He is considered to be one of the original New Atheists, a group of skeptical authors and polemicists who published works denouncing religion around the same time as God Is Not Great ’s release. That group includes Richard Dawkins, who wrote The God Delusion (2006), and Sam Harris, who authored The End of Faith (2004). [10]

Despite his clear disdain for the institution of religion, Hitchens doesn’t seem to hold the same animosity toward the average religious adherent. Instead, he seems to believe that many religious people already secretly harbor doubts, and hopes that by supplying those quiet skeptics with logical, secular arguments, he can convert them to an atheistic perspective. In that way, Hitchens is perhaps not so different from the religious zealots that he criticizes, in that he too feels an urge to persuade others to join his cause. The difference, he would argue, is that religion relies on adherence to a set of beliefs that are usually based in fiction; atheism, on the other hand, only requires skepticism toward extraordinary claims.

References

Callaway, Ewen. “Superstitions evolved to help us survive.” New Scientist , September 10, 2008. Accessed June 5, 2019. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14694-superstitions-evolved-to-help-us-survive/

Brice-Saddler, Michael. “A Wealthy televangelist explains his fleet of private jets: ‘it’s a biblical thing’.” The Washington Post , June 3, 2019. Accessed June 5, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/06/04/wealthy-televangelist-explains-his-fleet-private-jets-its-biblical-thing/?noredirect&utm_term=.483727b13f49

Frum, David. “Betraying the Faith of Christopher Hitchens.” The Atlantic , June 22, 2016. Accessed June 5, 2019. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/larry-tauntons-the-faith-of-christopher-hitchens-a-betrayal-to-reader-and-subject/486164/

McDougall, Heather. “The pagan roots of Easter.” The Guardian , April 3, 2010. Accessed June 5, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism

Manguvo, Angellar, and Benford Mafuvadze. “the impact of traditional and religious practices on the spread of Ebola in West Africa: time for a strategic shift.” The Pan African Medical Journal 22, no. 9 (October 1, 2015). Accessed June 5, 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4709130/

Hawking, Stephen. Brief Answers to the Big Questions . New York: Penguin Random House, 2018. Chapter 1.

Sen, Mayukh. “Gandhi Was a Racist Who Forced Young Girls to Sleep in Bed with Him.” Vice , December 3, 2015. Accessed June 5, 2019. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ezj3km/gandhi-was-a-racist-who-forced-young-girls-to-sleep-in-bed-with-him

Bruni, Frank. “The Real Horror of the Anti-Vaxxers.” The New York Times , March 9, 2019. Accessed June 5, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/09/opinion/sunday/the-real-horror-of-the-anti-vaxxers.html

Wolff, Michael. “The damnation of St Christopher.” GQ Magazine , September 11, 2017. Accessed June 5, 2019. https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/michael-wolff-on-christopher-hitchens

Poole, Steven. “The Four Horsemen review - whatever happened to ‘New Atheism’?” The Guardian , January 31, 2019. Accessed June 5, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/31/four-horsemen-review-what-happened-to-new-atheism-dawkins-hitchens