The Case Against Religion – A Word Or Two From Christopher Hitchens – 2007 – Past Daily After Hours Reference Room

The Case Against Religion: Christopher Hitchens and God Is Not Great

In 2007, Christopher Hitchens published God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, a book whose title announced its argument with characteristic bluntness. Hitchens was not interested in making a polite distinction between “good” religion and “bad” religion, nor was he simply asking whether the existence of God could be proved. His larger question was what religion has actually done to human beings and human civilization—and whether humanity would be better off without it. In an interview with Simon Mayo on BBC Radio 5 on June 18, 2007, Hitchens expanded upon the arguments of his book, presenting religion not as an indispensable source of morality, but as a system of belief that too often depends upon fear, obedience, superstition and the surrender of intellectual freedom.

At the heart of Hitchens’s argument was a deceptively simple proposition: human beings should not be required to believe something merely because they have been told it is sacred. Religion, he argued, makes precisely that demand. Its claims about the origins of humanity, the nature of the universe and the existence of supernatural beings are presented as revealed truths rather than propositions that can be tested, questioned or disproved. Hitchens regarded this as fundamentally incompatible with the scientific method and with the intellectual tradition of skepticism. The book therefore begins with four broad objections to religious faith: its false explanations of human origins and the universe, its encouragement of human servility, its repression of sexuality, and its dependence upon wishful thinking.

For Hitchens, however, the problem went considerably beyond questions of scientific accuracy. Religion becomes dangerous when belief is transformed into authority. Once a person or institution claims to possess divine truth, disagreement can become more than disagreement—it can become heresy, blasphemy or even an offense deserving punishment. Hitchens points to religious conflicts, persecution, terrorism and the suppression of dissent as examples of what happens when human beings become convinced that their beliefs have been sanctioned by God. His experiences in places such as Belfast and Beirut, and his concern over the threats directed against writers such as Salman Rushdie, reinforced his conviction that religious certainty could have very real and sometimes violent consequences.

He was equally skeptical of the familiar argument that religion is necessary because it provides morality. Why, Hitchens asked, should human beings require supernatural commandments to understand that murder, cruelty, theft or oppression are wrong? Indeed, he turned the question around: if morality depends upon obedience to God, does that make an act good because it is intrinsically good, or simply because someone claims that God has commanded it? Hitchens believed that human beings were capable of developing ethical principles through reason, empathy, experience and an understanding of the consequences of their actions. The history of moral progress, he argued, did not belong exclusively to religion.

Another of Hitchens’s major objections concerned the relationship between religion and the human body. He regarded religious restrictions on sexuality, contraception, abortion and other aspects of private behavior as evidence of a deeper problem: religion frequently attempts to regulate areas of human life that should belong to individual conscience. He was particularly scathing about doctrines that teach people to regard their natural desires as sinful and their bodies as sources of guilt. In his view, the consequences could be especially damaging when such teachings were imposed upon children.

Yet God Is Not Great is not simply an attack on religious institutions. Hitchens also challenged the psychological foundation of belief itself. Religion, he suggested, answers one of humanity’s oldest fears: the knowledge that we are mortal. The promise of an afterlife offers comfort in the face of death, while belief in divine purpose can provide reassurance in a universe that may otherwise appear indifferent. Hitchens did not regard this comfort as evidence that religious claims were true. In fact, he considered the human desire for consolation one of the reasons religion has proved so durable. As he explained elsewhere in discussing the book, he believed religious belief was unlikely simply to disappear because fear of death and the unknown is deeply rooted in human nature.

And this leads to an important distinction in Hitchens’s argument. He was not proposing that religion be outlawed. Nor did he believe that atheism could simply sweep religion away. He was arguing instead for the right to question it—and for the right of individuals to live without having religious beliefs imposed upon them. He could admire religious art, literature and architecture while rejecting the supernatural claims behind them. What he objected to was the demand that reverence should replace inquiry.

Ultimately, Hitchens believed that humanity already possessed an alternative to religious certainty: the intellectual tradition of the Enlightenment. Science could replace mythology as an explanation of the natural world; reason could replace revelation as a guide to knowledge; and human solidarity could provide an ethical foundation without requiring divine authority. He invoked figures such as David Hume, Thomas Paine, Spinoza and Einstein as part of a tradition that valued skepticism and intellectual freedom.

The case Hitchens made in 2007 was therefore larger than the assertion that “God is not great.” It was a challenge to the assumption that human beings need God in order to be moral, purposeful or compassionate. Hitchens believed that accepting uncertainty was not a weakness but a form of intellectual courage. We may not know why we are here, what ultimately awaits us, or whether the universe has any purpose at all. But, he argued, admitting what we do not know is preferable to inventing answers and declaring them sacred.

For Hitchens, the future therefore belonged not to another religion, but to a renewed confidence in human curiosity. The question was not simply whether God exists. It was whether human beings were finally prepared to take responsibility for finding their own answers.

Here is that episode of Mayo from BBC Five Live for June 7, 2007.