1. Comment #34920 by mjwemdee on April 25, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Wow. That's it. I'm buying the book.

Other Comments by mjwemdee

2. Comment #34922 by MIND_REBEL on April 25, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Powerful, yet brillant prose. It's wonderful that Hitchens has come out in support of reason and logic.

Religion is the most evil force in the history of the world. It's like an evil tree supporting the branches of racism, sexism, blind faith, anti-scientific bigotry, sectarianism, and truth warriors like Hitchens are chopping it down using only the erudite powers of thier mind. When the tree of religion has fallen perhaps, if we try, mankind will finally live in peace and harmony.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

3. Comment #34929 by krypto on April 25, 2007 at 3:31 pm

The man can write. I hope the reviews aren't just "he supported the war, so why should I listen to anything he says?"

Other Comments by krypto

4. Comment #34933 by chauvinj on April 25, 2007 at 3:47 pm

I may not agree with his supporting of the war, but that is an entirely seperate argument. With this one however, he is spot on --not to mention utterly cogent.

Can't wait to get my hands on this book. Anyone know how long it is?

Other Comments by chauvinj

5. Comment #34942 by Jolly Bloger on April 25, 2007 at 4:15 pm

This is certainly one of the best written articles I have read on the topic. I first saw Hitchens on Bullshit! talking about mother Teresa and he was great there as well. I'm getting his book.

Other Comments by Jolly Bloger

6. Comment #34951 by flyingscot on April 25, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Excellent! Could not have put it better myself!
Looking forward to reading this book.

Other Comments by flyingscot

7. Comment #34954 by hightrekker on April 25, 2007 at 5:24 pm

Yes, he can write-
Yes, he is right on with this analysis--
I have been listing to Hitchens for years (he was on the radio frequently with Marc Cooper on KPFK in LA), and watched his swings in ideology and political direction. His problem with alcohol may be a factor, but for a long term perspective, he appears ethically challenged, and could be Christopher Khomeini in the near future.
Just a warning-- He is smart, a good writer, but not to be trusted-
Just my opinion from 15 years with Hitchens

Other Comments by hightrekker

8. Comment #34955 by zeous on April 25, 2007 at 5:31 pm

283 pages, chauvinj

Other Comments by zeous

9. Comment #34956 by Friend Giskard on April 25, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Don't pussyfoot, Hitch. Tell us what you really think.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

10. Comment #34965 by sir_russ on April 25, 2007 at 6:26 pm

The local Barnes and Noble here in Lansing MI has "god is not Great" available. I got my copy yesterday. It's a great read. I've read four of his books and this is the best yet.

Other Comments by sir_russ

11. Comment #34974 by neander on April 25, 2007 at 7:35 pm

This is great. I only wish I could speak and write as well as he does.

Other Comments by neander

12. Comment #34976 by Spinoza on April 25, 2007 at 7:53 pm

He's bang on about this:

While some religious apology is magnificent in its limited way—one might cite Pascal—and some of it is dreary and absurd—here one cannot avoid naming C. S. Lewis—both styles have something in common, namely the appalling load of strain that they have to bear. How much effort it takes to affirm the incredible!

Reading Leibniz, I got the same feeling... it actually causes severe frustration to any well versed reader... you can actually FEEL the struggle in his mind, to reconcile the irrational, incredible dogma he "so" believed in, with the rationalist dogmatic philosophy he had developed on his own... and though he ultimately, and clearly fails, to anyone who can struggle through and come to understand such things... one can at least admire the amount of effort it took to make such silliness look as though it fit any semblance of logic.

I am speaking of Leibniz's "Theodicy"... which damn near gave me a brain hemorrhage this past week, having to write a paper on it.

Other Comments by Spinoza

13. Comment #34978 by HappyPrimate on April 25, 2007 at 7:57 pm

Since I really enjoy listening to Mr. Hitchens speak I ordered his book as an audio book (8 CD Roms). If anyone wants to do the same, it is available at AudioEditions.com. Should be here next week.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

14. Comment #34983 by N_Martin215 on April 25, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Does anybody who has or has read the book know if he deals with how religion retards science? He hinted toward it breifly. I think it is a very important, undeniable, and easily provable fact that hasn't been touched upon enough or in enough detail. As the saying goes: "if it weren't for religion Christopher Columbus would have landed on the moon."

Other Comments by N_Martin215

15. Comment #34984 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2007 at 8:30 pm

Thomas Paine awakes because we need him.

It's possible to accept a poet for his art without idolizing him as greater than the rest of us.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." 1 Corinthians 13:11

Human beings can change. We no longer bind the feet of female babies. Likewise, we can shrug off the mental bondage of ancient superstions.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

16. Comment #34995 by Audley Strange on April 25, 2007 at 9:49 pm

Hightrekker, spot on. I've always thought he was in the business of self promotion through controversy, though he does have razor sharp focus in his writings.

Other Comments by Audley Strange

17. Comment #35001 by Steven Mading on April 25, 2007 at 10:38 pm

I agree about the complaint over the word "brights". While I've felt the incorrect strawmanning that comes from people's misconception over atheism (and their inability to tell that it's not just a case of common-usage-is-right-because-thats-how-language-work, , because their definition includes predjudices), and so I can understand the desire to coin a new term, I think the term "Brights" was a horrendous choice to pick for that new word. If you want to say that unbelievers are brighter than believers, I might even agree, but do it AFTER the definitions are picked - don't do it INSIDE of the definitions - because making your argument inside the definitions of your terms is called propaganda, and I can't support that.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

18. Comment #35006 by Atticus_of_Amber on April 25, 2007 at 11:18 pm

On the issue of what to call ourselves, why not "faith free"?

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

19. Comment #35008 by JDAM on April 25, 2007 at 11:37 pm

re comment #7 by hightrekker:

I am trying to figure out your point. As best I can discern thusfar, you seem to be one of those flaming Lefties (my god...I've met SO many in my days as a denizen of KPFA) so immersed in the insufferable righteousness of your philosophical position, that to witness any change of heart and mind by one who was formerly of your stripe automatically brands that person as a traitor to the "cause" (whatever that is) and, at the least, unethical for making that change.

The self-righteously laughable jutzpah of such a position was only one of the many reasons that I made the same change as Hitchens, but about 1988.
So many real, dyed-in-the-wool lefties with the same attitudes ultimately became perfect boors, particularly when asked pointed questions about the basis of their philosophy and answering with real intelligence like, "Well! If you don't KNOW, its a waste of my time to try to explain it all to you!"

The tip-off to such an attitude is the fumbling around for the "reason" for the change. Never philosophical, the "change" is always attributable to something external like, "He was paid off by the Right" (David Horowitz) or, in Hitchens' case, "It must have been the booze..." The thought that there might be something profoundly and substantively defective in the original philosophy that the "defector" simply could no longer tolerate never comes to mind.

As Dr. Thomas Sewell said, "The most common argument used by the Left is that there is no argument!" I believe that is because there is no thinking, either.

I immensely enjoyed the exchanges between Hitchens and Alex Cockburn in THE NATION. Both men are past masters in the art of using the English language with devastating effectiveness. In Hitchens' case, "the booze" certainly hasn't taken any edge off of that. I'm thankful that he finally saw the error of his political ways. A pity that more Lefties simply aren't capable of at least a critical self-examination of their beliefs from time to time.

His book is on the way!

Other Comments by JDAM

20. Comment #35009 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 25, 2007 at 11:39 pm

Phew!!! I've always been dubious about him because of his position of the Iraq war, but maybe he's the kind of guy who will be read by people that would never, ever read Dennett, Dawkins or Harris.

Go for it, Hitchens.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

21. Comment #35019 by Rtambree on April 26, 2007 at 1:41 am

Just released on Amazon UK today.

Other Comments by Rtambree

22. Comment #35022 by Suffolk Blue on April 26, 2007 at 1:49 am

"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species."

Love it! :-)

Other Comments by Suffolk Blue

23. Comment #35030 by Vaal on April 26, 2007 at 3:34 am

Wow. Excellent. I will have to dig out my dictionary and thesaurus. I agree that "Brights" is not a great name, as I have many friends who are believers who are well educated and very bright, but are strangely deaf to reason when their religion is challenged. However, I believe that laying a seed to germinate in their minds is sometimes a better course than outright attack. I have even managed to persuade a fairly devout Muslim guy at work to buy "The God Delusion". He has read some of it and has come out with the usual vacuous and woolly headed arguments, but he isn't stupid, and he has acceced to many points.
I will definitely be buying Mr Hitchens rich diatribe on religion.

Other Comments by Vaal

24. Comment #35037 by Abdi Sanati on April 26, 2007 at 4:01 am

Hightaker

Your new name for Hitchens made me laugh! Good humour!

People who are interested can find detail of Hitchens' debate with Chomsky on the web. Links to original articles are available from Wikipedia.

Other Comments by Abdi Sanati

25. Comment #35059 by Thor on April 26, 2007 at 5:24 am

Longtime Hitchens fan that I am I find myself immensely grateful to Josh for posting this piece here.

Hitchens is, by his very nature, controversial and many here might have been for various reasions averse to buying his book. The best antidote to such ideological squeamishness really is to showcase his powerful and amazing writing skills - this time beautifully employed in arguing against religion.

I have most of his books and I often enjoy reading his articles; however, that does not mean that there aren't many times points of disagreement. But that is exactly what Hitchens - or, as friends and enemies alike often like to call him, "Hitch" - refers to above:
disagreements on various issues, even if they are very deep and prinicpled disagreements, should never preclude rational and well-meaning people from working together on entirely different issues where we do agree.

Anyway, I have already ordered his book, but since I don't live in the "anglosphere" I will have to wait longer than some of you. So to those among you closer to the source, so to speak, I can only say:
Go and buy this book. I promise you will not regret it - but, actually, you don't have to believe me, someone who is very favorably biased towards Hitchens.
Just look at this excerpt above: isn't this just a terrific and powerful piece of writing?
Trust me, this man KNOWS how to write and polemize - even on the danger of sounding overly reverential: I would be grateful if I had only half of his skill.

Other Comments by Thor

26. Comment #35071 by bitbutter on April 26, 2007 at 6:06 am

Great excerpt, i will be buying it too i think.

The title is a dreadful choice though, the "How Religion Poisons Everything" part. This is seriously overstating the case and needlessly supplies his critics with potent ammunition before they even open the book (in a way that i don't believe 'The God Delusion' did - despite the widespread complaints about that title).

Religion doesn't poison _everything_, sometimes religion is even useful, or even leads to Good Things.

Other Comments by bitbutter

27. Comment #35074 by HunterZolomon on April 26, 2007 at 6:15 am

This is going to be interesting! Just ordered mine from Amazon.

I'm not too sure about Hitchens being untrustworthy as some posters here claim. Just because he has changed his mind on a political issue. So what?
Rationality does not have a political color. I am certain that rational people of a liberal inclination have far, far more in common with rational conservatives than they do with the more dogmatic left and vice versa. From what I've read and heard of Hitchens it seems to me he is quite reasonable. Provocative sure, but maybe he just refuses to let political camps dictate his sense of ethics.

Other Comments by HunterZolomon

28. Comment #35082 by Bookman on April 26, 2007 at 6:47 am

A good article, though I'm not quite as over-the-moon about it as others. I did like the line, "And as it happens, I will continue to do this without insisting on the polite reciprocal condition—which is that they in turn leave me alone. But this, religion is ultimately incapable of doing."

I agree, however, with comment #7 from hightrekker -- the way in which Hitchens has treated his friends and former allies is reason to keep a safe distance from him. From reading his articles one might conclude that Hitchens is the only one who cares about human rights and fighting tyranny. His drunken public outbursts reveal a core of instability that people dealing with him must be aware of. His last book, on Thomas Paine, was a bit pedestrian, but I may buy this one anyway. Contrary to what JDAM thinks, Hitchens isn't nearly as sharp as he once was, but the flashes of brilliance that still come through are enjoyable.

Other Comments by Bookman

29. Comment #35093 by ksskidude on April 26, 2007 at 7:18 am

I am 100 pages into the book and its worth every penny! Hitchens has a knack for being able to say exactly what I have been thinking for years. It is inspiring, because I am getting more and more prepared to get in the fight.

I am planning on writing an op-ed titled, "An Agnostic turned Atheist," Over the battle of embryonic stem cell research. But am a little leary because I am in the public eye, and am fairly worried about the backlash that might ensue.
However reading Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens has given me more than enough ammo to stand up for what I believe to be truth, based on evidence or lack there of. I spent an entire year on the campaign trail to keep Embryonic Stem Cell research legal in my state. I have been called "baby killer," told I walk with the devil, and had to listen to yokel zealots tell me how it was aginst God's will. I had to hear Alan Keyes, tell everyone that "God hates people who are in favor of ESCR."
But the worst part for me, was that I was unable to challenge those idiotic superstitious beliefs because I was a part of a coalition that was trying to win votes. Talkings points were key, along with a perverbial muzzle.

We won and the amendment did pass, but only by 50K votes out of 4million. Needless to say, the dim witted representatives who are "Christian" are again trying to ban and outlaw ESCR once again. It is mind boggleing.



Other Comments by ksskidude

30. Comment #35097 by willerror on April 26, 2007 at 7:35 am

OMG! This writer is someone who is quite occasionally brilliant, is a drinker and might not be such a great guy to know personally? Heaven forfend! There's never been anyone like that before! Good grief, people.

I have to say, I think I like the above excerpt even more than Dawkins on the same topic. I'm awaiting the book from Amazon at this moment.

Other Comments by willerror

31. Comment #35107 by Philip1978 on April 26, 2007 at 8:12 am

ksskidude, pardon me for asking but exactly what is it you do, sounds very interesting
Your fight for Stem cell research is invaluable, congratulations on your results. It sounds like it was some fight, being called a "baby killer" when in fact you are fighting for the right for scientists to SAVE the lives of babies is ludicrous. I am glad you stuck to your guns, well done
Well, in the words of Winston Churchill, K.B.O (Keep Buggering On!)and get that book written, I for one will buy it, your story sounds an exciting one (There you go, some praise instead of abuse!)

Other Comments by Philip1978

32. Comment #35124 by ksskidude on April 26, 2007 at 9:38 am

Phillip1978

Thanks for your kind words! I speak to students on brain and spinal cord injury prevention. Since there is no cure at this moment, prevention is the best strategy. I inform them that these catastrophic injuries happen most often in car crashes, falls from skate boarding, bike riding, diving into pools, etc...

As for the battle for stem cell research, I for one am sick and tired of religion getting in the way of life saving cures.

Other Comments by ksskidude

33. Comment #35130 by sane1 on April 26, 2007 at 9:48 am

This excerpt is from the first chapter, which I am past. My recommendation: buy the book.

Other Comments by sane1

34. Comment #35132 by Suffolk Blue on April 26, 2007 at 9:58 am

I don't know anything at all about Hitchens the man and don't really understand why people are making a fuss about whether he is a likeable bloke or not or what his stance on the Iraq War is.

If our desire is for all people to lose their religion / supersition and come to their senses (and that is certainly my desire) - then we have to accept there will be six billion atheists out there with all sorts of different political views.

Other Comments by Suffolk Blue

35. Comment #35143 by jshuey on April 26, 2007 at 10:34 am

Embryonic stem cell research is not only legal, it is being carried on in most areas of the U.S. (And i am not speaking of only "the Shrubs'" 60 +/- "approved" lines.)

What is not being done, except in a few states, is that the research is not being funded by public monies, but rather through private investment and grants.

This state of affairs bothers me not in the least. Indeed, I would ask those who support public funding of this (or any such) research to point me to that clause in the Constitution of the U.S. which authorizes Congress to spend public funds on any such undertaking.

But back to Hitchen's -- He was once a leftist but now he's matured into a reasoning individual. Jolly good, what?

Other Comments by jshuey

36. Comment #35167 by waxwings on April 26, 2007 at 12:55 pm

"It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted."

ROFLMAO. You gotta appreciate the man's wit. I cannot say I disagreed with a single word of it.

Other Comments by waxwings

37. Comment #35169 by waxwings on April 26, 2007 at 1:03 pm

"But back to Hitchen's -- He was once a leftist but now he's matured into a reasoning individual. Jolly good, what?"

The implication here is presumably that 'leftist' ideas like, say, funding stem cell research are immature and/or unreasonable. You would do well to take a 'mature', 'reasoned' step by examining the effect of withholding funding for stem cell research more carefully.

Most scientific facilities, especially those at the university level, receive at least some public funding. If a lab, a staff member, a test tube, or any other resource is paid for in any part by government funding, then it cannot be used at all for certain kinds of stem cell research. The same labs that are available for any other avenues of study are therefore withheld from those doing research on stem cells. The same labs that other scientists get to share the costs of must be paid for in full by any scientists doing stem cell research. The prohibition on stem cell funding is extremely and disproportionately destructive to scientific research.

Other Comments by waxwings

38. Comment #35232 by rooz on April 26, 2007 at 4:20 pm

jshuey "Indeed, I would ask those who support public funding of this (or any such) research to point me to that clause in the Constitution of the U.S. which authorizes Congress to spend public funds on any such undertaking."

Well, that would be the taxing and spending clause Article 1 Section 8. Congress has broad--in fact plenary--authority to tax and spend for the general welfare.

Other Comments by rooz

39. Comment #35250 by atheisticism on April 26, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Excellent article. It justifies the recent uprising of militant atheism in a very clear and concise manner. The only problem i had was with using the word "soul" even if it was metaphorical. I too have a problem with using the word "brights." I don't even think the word atheist should be used. Labeling non-theists with any name seems to lend credibility to theism. Do we call people who don't drive adrivers? Are those who don't play musical instruments amusicians? The only thing people who don't believe that a magical super-being said "abracadabra" and everything appeared, should be called, is sane! It's difficult to understand how anyone, much less this fine writer, could support the completely unjustified invasion of iraq. Jawge Dubaya is the worst war criminal since Hitler in my book.

Other Comments by atheisticism

40. Comment #35266 by foxfire on April 26, 2007 at 6:33 pm

I pre-ordered the book from Amazon US and it came 3 days ago. I'm into Chapter 9 of 19.

If Dawkins is a Rottweiler snarling at religion to back off its attempt to contaminate science, then Hitchens is Panthera tigris tigris striking for the soft underbelly of religion. Hitchens does not give a break to superstitious beliefs anywhere, including past icons of science.

Rough stuff and I can see this book hitting the charts soon (given that Amazon is already shipping and the the publication date on the inside cover is May 2007).

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright,
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

I think Tyger would laugh, light another cigarette and ask "what &@$#* immortal hand?"

Awsome book - Hitchens got guts!

Other Comments by foxfire

41. Comment #35361 by hozi on April 27, 2007 at 2:06 am

No doubt this excerpt reads very well. Reading eloquently worded sentiments that I have not been able to formulate myself is welcome. But Hitchens' fluid prose detracts from some things I am uncomfortable with. Namely:
1. Lumping together "brothel-keeper" with an "ethnic cleanser" in one morally reprehensible category.
2. The generosity he shows the religious camp in the last paragraph of the excerpt is in sharp contrast with his overall tirade against it (unless it is meant tongue-in-cheek.)
3. He states "Literature, not scripture sustains the mind." Since religious sentiment did infuse a number of writers (Tolstoy at least from the list he quotes,) this fact weakens the argument.

Overall, I am cautious of prose that reads too well, and pronounces rather than argues. It can take away from the rigorous and arduous argument based approach that the subject deserves, and which the likes of Dawkins and Harris have been admirably doing.

Other Comments by hozi

42. Comment #35395 by padster1976 on April 27, 2007 at 3:58 am

I love Hitchins' writings!

As for the war stance, wellll, thats a different matter. No-one is right all the time.

That's one of the benefits of having an open mind and the fuction of dialogue.

I'm sure Chris has his reasons. I haven't a clue what they are but in terms of his opinion I'd like to hear it as I have great respect for him.

Doesn't mean I have to agree though. Provided my objections are valid!

Other Comments by padster1976

43. Comment #35494 by Ole on April 27, 2007 at 11:24 am

When I read this, I changed my mind and ordered the book. When I first saw info about it here, I decided: I do not need yet another (I have Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and "old timers" like Russell).

But like others, I liked his writing. Alone, it is one of the best essays I've read on this subject.
(Hope he has more of this in the book)

Of course he struck a nerve in me in the opening here - I was 9 and several years away from loosing my boyish soprano voice, when I realised that God was not more likely than Santa Claus. So, in fact I was never a believer.

Ole

Other Comments by Ole