I’ve not read this book, just the title. Already, though, I can point out a major flaw in the author’s reasoning. The author assumes that the two statements are related, implying that since (from his perspective) religion poisons everything, God is therefore not great.
But do the actions of humans determine God’s greatness? You would have to begin with the assumption that God is nothing more than a sociological phenomenon created to satisfy human wants and needs; purely an extension of created by humans. Unfortunately for the author, categorically disproving the existence of something (in this case, God) is pretty tricky stuff. At best, you can claim that “Based on my experience and all credible evidence I’ve seen …” Of course, if you only consider evidence to be credible when it supports your hypothesis, you’re practicing delusion, not logic. Another approach would be to say, “I’ve not seen any evidence to support …” Even so, that leaves room for the existence of all manner of things that are outside of your perception.
My experiences (real or imagined) have left me with the distinct belief that there is a God who is an actual being, though quite different in nature from us. I’m humble enough to admit that I could be wrong, though, and what I call personal anecdotal evidence is nothing more than false perception and misunderstanding. I don’t see how, which is what forms my belief, but admit the possibility.
Along those lines, I’ve observed that atheists fall into one of two categories: those who lack of credible evidence (implicit atheists), and those who are unwilling to believe (deliberate atheists). A person could also be both (have no evidence, and would reject it even it they did). I’ve noticed that deliberate atheists tend to get very emotional when debating God/religion, and practice logically inconsistent thinking that they would never practice or accept in any other context. Bertrand Russell is one who comes to mind. In most cases, atheists who categorically reject the possibility of God as a sentient being are deliberate atheists.
The funny thing is that believers fall into the same two categories, for the same reasons. And they react in much the same way. When they run out of rational arguments, they reach for the next ones in line. Rather than examining their own experience and evidence, they launch attacks on others’.
Rather than saying that religion poisons everything, I would assert that the deliberate element in any religion (or anti-religion) has the tendency to poison things. Meanwhile, the implicit elements sit down for a nice dinner with stimulating conversation and respectful debate. At the end of the night, they evaluate what they’ve learned and perhaps tune their own position … or not. Either way, they see their beliefs as the path of their discoveries thus far rather than a direction for future conquest.
Oh, and when humans do stupid things, blame the humans, not God.