Book Review: God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens

Introduction

Christopher Hitchens’ God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007) stands as one of the most provocative and controversial contributions to contemporary atheist literature. Published during what has been termed the “New Atheist” movement alongside works by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett, Hitchens’ polemic against organized religion represents both a philosophical treatise and a cultural critique of unprecedented scope and ferocity. The work emerges from Hitchens’ extensive career as a journalist, essayist, and public intellectual, bringing to bear his formidable rhetorical skills and encyclopedic knowledge of history, literature, and politics. This review examines the book’s central arguments, methodological approach, strengths, and limitations, ultimately assessing its contribution to contemporary discourse on religion, secularism, and ethics.

Central Thesis and Argumentative Structure

Hitchens’ fundamental claim, embedded in the book’s provocative subtitle, is that religion systematically corrupts human morality, inhibits scientific progress, and perpetuates suffering across cultures and throughout history. Unlike more measured critiques of religious institutions, Hitchens argues that the problem lies not in the misapplication of religious principles but in the very nature of religious faith itself (Hitchens, 2007, p. 4). He contends that religion 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” (Hitchens, 2007, p. 56).

The book’s architecture reflects this comprehensive indictment. Hitchens organizes his critique into nineteen chapters, each addressing different dimensions of religion’s alleged malevolence. Rather than focusing exclusively on theological or philosophical arguments against God’s existence, Hitchens adopts a historical-empirical approach, marshaling evidence from diverse religious traditions, historical epochs, and geographical contexts. This methodological choice reflects his background as a journalist rather than a professional philosopher, privileging concrete examples and historical narratives over abstract logical syllogisms.

The Historical-Empirical Critique

One of the book’s most substantial contributions lies in its extensive historical documentation of religious violence, intolerance, and intellectual suppression. Hitchens draws upon cases ranging from the Crusades and the Inquisition to contemporary religious conflicts in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, and South Asia (Hitchens, 2007, pp. 23-36). His treatment of religious opposition to scientific advancement—from the persecution of Galileo to contemporary creationism—demonstrates religion’s historical tendency to resist empirical inquiry when it threatens doctrinal orthodoxy.

Particularly compelling is Hitchens’ discussion of totalitarian religious regimes and theocratic governance. His analysis of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, Khomeini’s Iran, and other religiously motivated authoritarian systems illustrates the practical consequences of merging religious authority with political power (Hitchens, 2007, pp. 193-208). Drawing on his extensive reporting from conflict zones, Hitchens provides firsthand accounts that lend visceral immediacy to his arguments. These passages demonstrate religion’s capacity not merely for abstract error but for tangible human suffering.

However, Hitchens’ historical method reveals certain limitations. Critics have noted his tendency toward selective presentation, emphasizing religion’s failures while minimizing or dismissing its positive contributions to art, education, social welfare, and moral development (Eagleton, 2009). The book provides limited engagement with scholarship documenting religion’s complex role in social movements for justice, including abolitionism, civil rights activism, and liberation theology. This selective approach, while rhetorically effective, raises questions about the comprehensiveness of Hitchens’ historical analysis.

The Moral Argument

Central to Hitchens’ critique is his argument that morality neither originates from nor requires religious foundation. He challenges the widespread assumption that religious belief provides necessary grounding for ethical behavior, noting that secular societies often demonstrate superior moral outcomes compared to highly religious ones (Hitchens, 2007, pp. 205-229). Hitchens argues that human beings possess innate moral intuitions that predate and transcend religious teaching, pointing to evidence from evolutionary psychology and cross-cultural moral commonalities.

The book’s treatment of religious sexual ethics proves particularly scathing. Hitchens documents religious institutions’ historical obsession with controlling human sexuality, their opposition to contraception and reproductive rights, and their complicity in covering up sexual abuse by clergy (Hitchens, 2007, pp. 41-54). These critiques resonate powerfully in light of subsequent revelations about widespread clerical abuse and institutional cover-ups in various religious denominations.

Yet Hitchens’ moral philosophy remains underdeveloped. While effectively demonstrating that religious moral systems contain problematic elements, he provides limited positive articulation of secular ethical foundations. His appeal to innate moral sentiments and evolutionary origins of altruism, while plausible, lacks the systematic development necessary for a comprehensive moral theory. Critics have argued that Hitchens relies heavily on moral intuitions that he assumes his readers share, without adequately defending these intuitions or explaining their normative authority in the absence of transcendent grounding (Haught, 2008).

Theological and Philosophical Engagement

Hitchens engages extensively with theological arguments, particularly those concerning God’s existence, nature, and relationship to human suffering. His treatment of the problem of evil—the apparent incompatibility between divine omnipotence and benevolence with pervasive suffering—follows classical lines while adding contemporary examples (Hitchens, 2007, pp. 63-71). He argues that no coherent theodicy can reconcile the magnitude of human and animal suffering with belief in a loving, all-powerful deity.

The book also addresses religious epistemology, questioning the reliability of revelation, scripture, and religious experience as sources of knowledge. Hitchens emphasizes contradictions within and between sacred texts, the dubious historical credentials of scriptural narratives, and the implausibility of miraculous claims (Hitchens, 2007, pp. 97-122). His discussion of biblical textual criticism draws upon mainstream scholarship to demonstrate that scripture reflects human authorship shaped by cultural context rather than divine revelation.

However, Hitchens’ theological engagement exhibits significant limitations. He primarily addresses relatively unsophisticated versions of religious belief, neglecting more refined theological positions developed within various traditions. His treatment of sophisticated theological arguments—from natural theology to contemporary philosophical theism—remains cursory. Scholars have noted that Hitchens largely ignores academic theology and philosophy of religion, engaging instead with popular religious apologetics and fundamentalist positions (McGrath, 2009). This approach, while accessible and rhetorically effective for popular audiences, undermines the book’s claim to comprehensive refutation of religious belief.

Religious Moderation and the “No True Scotsman” Problem

Hitchens explicitly rejects the distinction between religious extremism and moderation, arguing that moderate religion provides cover for fundamentalism and that scriptural texts themselves contain the seeds of intolerance and violence (Hitchens, 2007, pp. 17-19). He contends that moderate believers who reject scriptural literalism and violent interpretations do so by cherry-picking texts and interpretations, thereby demonstrating that their moral judgments actually precede and supersede their religious commitments.

This argument raises important questions about religious interpretation and authority. If moderate believers select benign interpretations while rejecting harmful ones, Hitchens suggests this demonstrates the superfluity of religious texts themselves—moral judgment performs the real work. However, critics argue that Hitchens misunderstands religious hermeneutics and the complex processes through which religious communities interpret and reinterpret traditions (Pinn, 2013). The evolution of religious interpretation in response to moral progress might indicate religion’s adaptability rather than its irrelevance.

Rhetoric, Style, and Accessibility

Hitchens’ prose style deserves specific attention as integral to the book’s impact and limitations. His writing exhibits characteristic wit, erudition, and rhetorical force. The text brims with literary allusions, historical references, and sardonic observations delivered in Hitchens’ unmistakable voice. This stylistic brilliance makes complex arguments accessible to general audiences while entertaining readers.

However, the book’s rhetorical ferocity occasionally undermines its persuasive potential. Hitchens’ contemptuous tone toward religious believers may alienate precisely those readers who might otherwise engage seriously with his arguments. The subtitle’s claim that religion “poisons everything” represents rhetorical overreach that critics have exploited to dismiss the book’s more measured claims (McGrath, 2009). While polemic certainly has its place in public discourse, the book’s stridency sometimes obscures legitimate points beneath layers of invective.

Contributions and Limitations

God is not Great makes several significant contributions to contemporary discourse on religion. First, it brings journalistic concreteness and global perspective to philosophical debates often conducted in abstract terms. Hitchens’ reporting from conflict zones and encounters with religious authoritarianism provide empirical grounding frequently absent from academic treatments. Second, the book articulates a thoroughgoing secularist position that refuses to grant religion automatic respect or privileged status in public discourse. This unapologetic secularism has emboldened others to question religious authority and contributed to growing public acceptance of atheism and religious criticism.

Third, Hitchens’ critique of religious sexual ethics and institutional authoritarianism has proven prescient, anticipating subsequent revelations about clerical abuse and institutional corruption. His emphasis on religion’s impact on women’s rights, LGBTQ+ equality, and bodily autonomy has influenced contemporary secularist activism on these issues.

However, the book exhibits significant limitations. Its historical selectivity, limited engagement with sophisticated theology, underdeveloped positive ethics, and rhetorical excess all constrain its scholarly credibility. The work functions more effectively as polemic than as systematic philosophical critique. Additionally, Hitchens’ sweeping generalizations about “religion” fail to adequately distinguish between diverse traditions, interpretative communities, and lived religious practices. His treatment implicitly privileges Abrahamic monotheisms, particularly Christianity and Islam, while giving limited attention to non-theistic traditions, indigenous religions, and the tremendous internal diversity within religious families.

Conclusion

Christopher Hitchens’ God is not Great represents a significant, if flawed, contribution to contemporary debates about religion, secularism, and ethics. The book’s historical scope, journalistic concreteness, and rhetorical force make it an accessible and provocative entry point into religious criticism for general audiences. Hitchens successfully challenges the automatic deference often accorded to religious belief and demonstrates religion’s historical complicity in violence, intolerance, and intellectual suppression.

However, the book’s limitations prevent it from achieving definitive refutation of religious belief or comprehensive philosophical critique. Its selective history, limited theological engagement, underdeveloped positive ethics, and rhetorical excess undermine its claims to thoroughgoing analysis. The work functions most effectively not as systematic philosophy but as impassioned polemic—a genre with its own value in public discourse but also inherent limitations.

Ultimately, God is not Great should be read as one voice in ongoing conversation rather than as final word on religion’s merits and demerits. Its value lies less in providing definitive answers than in raising important questions about religious authority, the relationship between faith and reason, and the proper role of religion in pluralistic societies. For readers approaching the text critically—engaging its arguments seriously while recognizing its limitations—the book offers stimulating provocation and valuable historical documentation, even as it leaves fundamental questions about meaning, morality, and transcendence productively unresolved.

References

Eagleton, T. (2009). Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate. Yale University Press.

Haught, J. F. (2008). God and the new atheism: A critical response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. Westminster John Knox Press.

Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not great: How religion poisons everything. Twelve Books.

McGrath, A. (2009). The Dawkins delusion? Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine. InterVarsity Press.

Pinn, A. B. (2013). Writing God’s obituary: How a good Methodist became a better atheist. Prometheus Books.