That Christopher Hitchens is very angry is hardly a news story. The man is permanently grumpy about something. That he is very angry about religion is even less of a news story. The whole point of Hitchens is that he is meant to be a controversialist. When Thatcherism and Reaganomics ruled the political landscape, Hitchens was one of the last - and the loudest - of the Trots. When everyone had long since conceded that the US and Britain had been wrong to invade Iraq in 2003, Hitchens became the voice of the neocons. This is what he does. He sides with a minority viewpoint - it doesn't really matter what - and argues passionately in its defence.
So what's the deal with his latest book, God is Not Great, a 250 page tirade against all forms of religion? Aren't there already enough paid-up secularists, ably led by Richard Dawkins, for Hitchens not to need to bother? And, in any case, what does he tell us that's new? That religions helped make society more cohesive when the world was a scarier place. That evolution and Big Bang disprove the existence of God. That millions of people have been persecuted in the name of religion. That some priests are paedophiles. That the Bible and the Qur'an are not based on fact. That religion panders to superstition. And on and on. It's all the same old stuff we've heard before elsewhere. Endlessly.
It's not even as if Hitchens believes his book will make a difference. He fully accepts that no believers are going to renounce their faith after skimming through his arguments. Faith is faith, and therefore by definition irrational, so no amount of argument - even from a Hitchens that is blue in the face - is going to persuade anyone to change their mind. Just as no Jehovah's Witness stands a cat in hell's chance of converting Hitchens on his doorstep. All in all, it seems to be a great deal of effort for not much return.
After shocking people with the radicalism of his ideas, Hitchens' secondary aim is usually to remind us all how much cleverer than everyone else he is. But he even falls short in this department. Sure, he's very good at dropping heavyweight names and ideas, but he still comes across as a rather needy and pompous student, out to impress at a university debating society, rather than as the rationalist academic he would like to be seen as. Which is a pity. Because Hitchens can be very good value and highly entertaining. God is Not Great is neither Hitchens at his best, nor is it entertaining. Surprise us next time, Christopher. Tell us something we don't know. And, if you're stuck for ideas, you could start with why Santa Claus is real.
