2011-08-07
God is not Great
While at the Bulldog Cafe in Solvang, I came across Christopher Hitchens’ book God is not Great. I had recently finished Why Orwell Matters, and having liked Hitchens’ writing style, decided to pick it up. It took me a while to get around to actually read it, but it was worth the time.
God is not Great takes a very serious look at religion and why it does not deserve the praise or respect that we normally give it. Pretty much all the religions you’ve likely heard of are covered to some extent, with most of the book focusing on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Hitchens does an excellent job of proving his thesis, which is nicely spelled out in the title, and a convincing case for why reasonable people should not believe in god or even respect the idea of it. The latter is what initially drove me to this book, through his notion of antitheism. Antithesism goes a step further than atheism: practitioners here are not just non-believers, but are opposed to the notion of god altogether, with all that entails. Hitchens spends a lot of time going into the “all that entails” part, and is very readable throughout.
I’d say the book is aimed either at converting people who are “on the fence” about religion (that is, they tolerate it but are not too religious) or need ammo to use against religious people they run into. If you’re in either one of those categories, the length of the book is probably about right, but if you already accept Hitchens’ premise or don’t need a whole lot of convincing (e.g., me), then the book is a good read but a little bit long. Recently I read and reviewed Sam Harris’ book The Moral Landscape, and while I liked the general idea, I had a few issues with it. Primarily, I didn’t like how Harris stepped outside of his comfort zones (e.g., atheism and neuropsychology) to try to boost his arguments with things like evolutionary psychology, which didn’t really get spelled out very well and brought down the book as a whole. God is not Great does not suffer from this problem: Hitchens sticks with his specialties (e.g., atheism and history, especially recent history) and the book as a whole comes out a lot stronger than The Moral Landscape.
What also came out as a great plus for this book was how specific arguments / counterarguments were spelled out. Specifically, the usual question of “didn’t atheists kill more people than people of faith” comes up, and instead of the standard answer of “yes but atheists didn’t kill because of their lack of faith”, Hitchens actually goes the history approach and talks about how the church co-opted the big fascist and communist movements throughout to ensure their own survival and well-being. I haven’t seen an approach like this taken before, so it was a very interesting way to go about questions I’ve seen posed many times and answered by others like Harris and Dawkins.
So the book is a great read - believers of faith may want to read it slowly and take it all in, while non-believers should have no problem reading it at full speed. The last few chapters also diverge a bit and talk about alternatives to religion, with a specific focus on philosophy and science. This nicely fills out the book and is done in a compelling manner, and stays largely in line with Hitchens’ thesis. I’m looking forward to checking out his book on Thomas Jefferson, so check back later for a review of that!
I’d say the book is aimed either at converting people who are “on the fence” about religion (that is, they tolerate it but are not too religious) or need ammo to use against religious people they run into. If you’re in either one of those categories, the length of the book is probably about right, but if you already accept Hitchens’ premise or don’t need a whole lot of convincing (e.g., me), then the book is a good read but a little bit long. Recently I read and reviewed Sam Harris’ book The Moral Landscape, and while I liked the general idea, I had a few issues with it. Primarily, I didn’t like how Harris stepped outside of his comfort zones (e.g., atheism and neuropsychology) to try to boost his arguments with things like evolutionary psychology, which didn’t really get spelled out very well and brought down the book as a whole. God is not Great does not suffer from this problem: Hitchens sticks with his specialties (e.g., atheism and history, especially recent history) and the book as a whole comes out a lot stronger than The Moral Landscape.
What also came out as a great plus for this book was how specific arguments / counterarguments were spelled out. Specifically, the usual question of “didn’t atheists kill more people than people of faith” comes up, and instead of the standard answer of “yes but atheists didn’t kill because of their lack of faith”, Hitchens actually goes the history approach and talks about how the church co-opted the big fascist and communist movements throughout to ensure their own survival and well-being. I haven’t seen an approach like this taken before, so it was a very interesting way to go about questions I’ve seen posed many times and answered by others like Harris and Dawkins.
So the book is a great read - believers of faith may want to read it slowly and take it all in, while non-believers should have no problem reading it at full speed. The last few chapters also diverge a bit and talk about alternatives to religion, with a specific focus on philosophy and science. This nicely fills out the book and is done in a compelling manner, and stays largely in line with Hitchens’ thesis. I’m looking forward to checking out his book on Thomas Jefferson, so check back later for a review of that!
2011-04-10
Why Orwell Matters
A long long time ago I read George Orwell's classic Nineteen Eighty-Four and much more recently picked up his equally classic Animal Farm. I instantly loved both (but the former is still my favorite of the two), and when I stumbled upon Christopher Hitchens' Why Orwell Matters, I knew I had to give it a read.
Why Orwell Matters is not as much a biography of Orwell's life as it is a sober and concise attempt to show exactly who George Orwell was. It dispels the notion that he should be worshipped as a genius as well as the notion that he was some kind of monster, and presents him as a complex individual, more times than not correct about the battles he fought, and strangely prescient about how the twentieth century would unfold. It also spends a good chunk of time outside of the works we know Orwell best for, which is interesting but requires more than a single reading if you haven't read the original material involved.
It also turns out that Hitchens is a particularly interesting author for this book, as he was quite involved in the events surrounding discourse on Orwell after his death. This is nice, as Hitchens is able to add material you can't find elsewhere on many of the authors that either stood for or against Orwell (as Hitchens got to talk to them personally long ago).
The book is pretty readable throughout, and as I really only knew Orwell through his books before this book, and nothing about his life in general, this was a great way to remedy that problem and see the profound influence he has had over the last hundred years. With that, I don't want to spoil too much about exactly "why Orwell matters", but hopefully that has piqued your interest, so get reading!
