| Title | : | The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0310320313 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780310320319 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Hardcover |
| Number of Pages | : | 224 |
| Publication | : | First published October 24, 2009 |
The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith Reviews
-
Thank you Peter for writing a book like this. I doubt it will open many peoples eyes to the danger of a society without the morality and love of Jesus. But maybe a few will stop and think for a moment.
I think this book will be confusing for many people who lump all of religion as a goodness on humanity. Sorry, but all religions are not the same. All sects of Christianity are not the same. Even Christians who go to the same church and listen to the same Bible and Pastor are not the same. Here's why this is dangerous and applies to Peter's book:
Everyone wants to have their opinion on what's best for the world spread throughout all the globe. Every belief system thinks "If only everyone knew and followed what I know..." the world would be a perfect place. This is dangerous thinking and has been proven to not work (especially by Peter's journeys).
Here's how true Biblical Christianity is different: The Bible says the nastiness of humanity is going to win. The majority of the world will turn against Christian beliefs. Christians are NOT going to win - until Heaven.
Every other religion actually kinda believes they are going to win and the world will oneday be theirs. That means that their beliefs are worth fighting for and inflicting (if possible) on mass society for the good of all. But from the research ive done and the chats i've had with numerous New-atheists and Muslims: the ball is rolling for these two forces to have their way forced upon everyone.
Christians should not be even interested in this world. God gave it to Satan for a time. We are to do the best we can and love everyone. This world is not our to conquer.
The last book of the Bible tells it all. I have a feeling this is the beginning of the end. Peter's book seems to show that. -
This was a very fine book. Peter hit it out of the park, or whatever it is you do in cricket.
-
Not good at all. It's 50% a lackluster spiritual biography of how Peter Hitchens became Christian, and 50% a combination of very brief arguments against atheism and a lot of talk about the Soviet Union.
The biography part just isn't that good. It's fairly brief, spends time meandering about what a bad 12 year old he was, and doesn't really list any real spiritual influences from people. It's really all about him, and it's dull. It's kind of an aimless circling to faith done really without any memorable input by others. The few interesting things tend to center around him being a foreign correspondent, but oddly he is much too brief on them.
The atheism part isn't either. I'm not a fan of modern atheism: I can be described as a lapsed Christian and a fellow traveler of that faith. But the latter part talks much more about Communist Russia really than argues against atheism. It felt like someone trying to argue Christianity is bad solely from the Spanish Inquisition, which he then goes on to describe in middling detail. He's no
Robert Conquest, sometimes barely giving a page to a facet of his argument. It's sophomoric debate, mostly because modern atheists are really different from them as much as modern fundamentalists are different than Savronola. Both are reactive and committed to upholding truth over political and legislating it. It may seem not, but the media tends really to overblow efforts by both sides when they do react.
He also throws some pointless jibes about Neocons and the Iraq war. They are pointless because they have nothing to do with either atheism or his spiritual formation, but since he is a Eurocon, he has to throw them in. Honestly, I think all the five star reviews here are expressing solidarity over reviewing the quality of the book. For a real book like this, G.K. Chesterton's
Orthodoxy manages to be an excellent spiritual journey, and some devastating arguments against atheism that are fresh and unusual even now. This book simply isn't very good at either of its aims. -
This bizarrely frames his position as a declaration that there is a god, it is his version and we ( at least christopher) was mad at it. I am as mad at his god as i am mad at at Thor for the thunder, sigh. The supra (?) title /header "how atheism led me to faith" is problematic 1- sheep / dog language, being led is passive unthinking. Atheism if there was such a thing would be sad to see somebody following imaginary gods in the first place LOL. Rather stupid, i am having a bad feeling about this, he mostly cones across as a nice guy but i think there are moments of homophobia and anti women's rights / abortion hints already. Some bland waffle about communists are evil therefor god exists or something (?)
Read this in four hours which I would rather have back. Like reading cotton wool. Homophobic, anti women's rights, shallow, poor thinker, functionally a deluded person who speaks nicely but would throw you off the team if you don't go by his rules. Library book fortunately, would be a waste of money to buy.
^ two minute review, to do a full review would take me hours and yet the homeboy team would still cheer this lightweight
on regardless. -
Peter Hitchens, the brother of famed atheist polemicist Christopher Hitchens, tells the story of his personal journey to faith in the pages of The Rage Against God: How atheism led me to faith. This story is a fascinating and brilliantly written one, and well worth reading.
That is not to say it is a perfect book. Far from it. It strikes me that Peter is definitely of the same seed as his brother, and at times The Rage Against God can certainly descend into polemic mirroring his brothers, though always filled with more charity. I do not think this book is the sort that would persuade anyone to faith, nor, in fact, does Peter. This is his story, and when it focuses on that it is at its strongest. As such, the beginning section where Peter tells his own story, and the final section where he reflects closely on the case of Soviet Russia (a world he lived in for quite some time as a reporter) are the best parts of the book. In the middle, Peter goes through a rapid-fire examination of some of the more famous arguments of the "New Atheists," and while it is interesting I doubt it could change anyone's mind.
The personality that comes across in the book also varies. At times, Peter seems the compassionate prophet, concerned deeply with the decay he has seen progress in his society during his lifetime, targeting genuine problems and weeping for his nation. At other times, Peter can come across as an old cranky man complaining about this new-fangled modern art.
But in the end, reading this book, I find myself quite likely Peter, and his command of prose is to be envied. I also share with Peter his largest concern, the fear over the totalitarian nature of the New Atheist rhetoric. On my good days, I like to think the best of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and their ilk. I don't believe they have any desire to harm the religious, though they certainly seem to fear us. Yet, their language carries with it the seeds of just such injustice. The world is broken, they rightly say, and it could be made better if only religion were gone. Of course, religion is not something that stands on its own, religion is only there because of the religious, and so they are the ones in the way of utopia. That is, as Peter points out, always the language of bloody revolutions, "the world would be perfect if only these people were gone." Again, I do not think Dawkins or the elder Hitchens want this, nor do I think Peter believes they do, but it's only a matter of time until the language they use inspires someone to think in just such a way.
So, pick up this book if your interested in the heart and journey of a man so close to one of the vanguards of the New Atheist movement. In many ways, Peter is man Christopher might have been had he taken a different road. Don't expect to be persuaded one way or another on the questions he addresses, but enjoy the exploration of the man's heart and his skill with words. -
I had high hopes for Christopher Hitchens' brother.
If nothing else, I expected some kind of unique approach to the faith vs atheism argument.
What I got was nothing of the sort.
In Chapter 1 he admits that as a youngster he was an atheist because, "I haughtily scorned those adults who, out of alarm, concern, love, or duty, sought to warn or restrain me." "I was engaged at the time in a full, perfect, and complete rebellion against everything I had been brought up to believe."
In other words, he wasn't an atheist, just a rebellious little shit.
He goes on in a later chapter to state that he is only a Christian due to fear, essentially of the unknown.
But the real premise of this book is that atheism equals Communism. I'd estimate that 50% of The Rage Against God is a rage against Communism, and a misrepresentation of Communism as atheism.
Again, I expected more from Christopher Hitchens' brother. -
This book isn't bad, but I think most of what he says has been treated elsewhere more coherently.
The first half of the book is supposed to be autobiographical, his journey from atheism to Christianity. However, there is SO much social and political commentary that the threads of his journey are lost in the flood. Also prevalent is, what I am going to start terming, "Christian Pessimism". This worldview is, in my humble opinion, one of the very reasons Peter has cause to moan the "decline of Christianity". If the world is going to hell in a handbasket, what reason have we to try? Christians everywhere are backing off, and this kind of pessimism does nothing to encourage them to take up the arms of love and good deeds again., to change the world, so to speak.
The second half of the book is a bit more cohesive. He attacks three failed arguments of atheism. As mentioned above, one of them, the issue of atheism and morality (or lack thereof), has been treated elsewhere more thoroughly.
The other two deal with anti-theistic claims about religion/atheism and political states and wars. This is where Peter was at his best. Although his general comments about religion and wars have been addressed elsewhere, he offers a close-up perspective from his time as a journalist in communist Russia (at one point he was even a socialist sympathizer), arguing pretty effectively that Atheist states ARE, in fact, atheist and that conflicts fought in the name of religion are not always about religion. This is contrary to his brother's claims that Stalin's regime was actually a theistic regime and that religion is the cause of all conflict.
Overall, a good read, but if I were to recommend an apologetics book to someone, I would send them elsewhere. -
It should be perfectly understood that prior to reading this book, I was already a fan of Peter Hitchens and his poetic bluntness. And this book did not disappoint in the slightest, and was in fact a perfect alternative to his style, while clearly being written in his voice.
The Rage Against God is almost equal parts autobiography and historical, philosophical and theological rebuttals to common atheist attacks and beliefs, all shuffled together. Which may feel disorganized and unconventional, but I think ends up feeling more like an extremely well thought-out, private, and self-reflective conversation.
Being the younger brother of renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens, and converting from atheism himself at the age of 30, Peter Hitchens offers a unique perspective that is both encouraging to Christian believers and—I can only hope—a stumbling block to atheists.
My only complaint is it should've been longer. I know he had more to say. -
Peter Hitchens can write. His prose in this autobiographical journey from atheism to faith is at times elegant, precise, poignant, poetic, mystical and melancholy, and is almost universally exquisite. This book was like candy. Yes, "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly," but it's so refreshing to encounter someone that does it well. Here are a few samples of what I mean.
"It is my belief that passions as strong as his are more likely to be countered by the unexpected force of poetry, which can ambush the human heart at any time."
"It was illustrated with soppy pictures of Christ looking--in C. S. Lewis's potent sneer at stained-glass sentimentality--"like a consumptive girl."
"Unlike Christians, atheists have a high opinion of their own virtue."
"There were other things too. During a short spell at a cathedral choir school (not as a choirboy, since I sing like a donkey) I had experienced the intense beauty of the ancient Anglican chants, spiraling up into chilly stone vaults at Evensong... The prehistoric, mysterious poetry of the Magnificat and the Nunc Dimittis, perhaps a melancholy evening hymn, and the cold, ancient laments and curses of the Psalms, as the unique slow dusk of England gathers outside and inside the echoing, haunted, impossibly old building are extraordinarily potent. If you welcome them, they have an astonishing power to reassure and comfort. If you suspect or mistrust them, they will alarm and repel you like a strong and unwanted magic, something to flee from before it takes hold."
"My own confirmation, by contrast, was a miserable modern-language affair with all the poetic force of a driving test..."
"Utopia can only ever be reached across a sea of blood."
"The delusion of revolutionary progress, and the ruthlessness it justifies, survives any amount of experience."
So yeah, I was fond of this book. But more than just his voice when writing, his organization and progression through his experience and his understanding of the surrounding events is clear and extremely insightful. It is, in a word, a delightful book: it is not often that a book on this type of topic this feels more like a reward than a duty, but this is that rare one, and I highly recommend it. -
Review to follow
-
This book provides a first-hand, eye-opening perspective on how the elimination of religion from the public sphere, and especially the forcible attempt to remove religion from society altogether has been detrimental, if not devastating, to society. Whereas religious persecution by the Church can be and has been tempered over time by conscience and a calling to account of the fundamental call for love of neighbor, attempts to create an atheistic utopia have proven several times over to be a much more ruthless and intolerant form of persecution, tempered only by failure and fueled by the hope of doing it better next time. Hitchens compellingly illustrates the effect on human society of both the relatively peaceful deconstruction of religion in Britain as well as the forcible and bloody attempt to eradicate religion from the minds, hearts, and memories of the people of Russia after WW II. Hitchens's perspective as a journalist and former atheist is both personal and powerful. Very glad I read this book.
-
Peter Hitchens: The Rage Against God
Part response to his brother, Christopher Hitchens, atheism book, this is also Hitchens testimony, an spiritual autobiography, if you like.
Hitchens meshes his own story from childhood "christian" formality, through atheism and Trotskyism, to his regained faith and return to Christianity, to a social commentary on the spiritual decline of Britain. Numerous insights on the spiritual degradation of our nation and culture abound, as well as apt commentary on our post-war nationalism as a kind of pseudo-replacement for Christianity.
This is an unusual apologetic, at once personal, autobiographical, aesthetic and political. It is well written, passionate and sincere.
The new atheists have to answer:
(1). why has the atheistic project of the 20th Century, The Soviet Union, and its copies, always led to tyranny and cultural death?
(2). How can atheism account for moral absolutes and aesthetic values? -
Perhaps if Peter spent more time talking about God, faith, church, and Jesus, and less time on atheism, communism, abortion, sexual liberation, and the 1950s he'd have gotten somewhere. This is a poor, self-indulgent book which harbours all of the worst parts of the postwar American conservativism, but shares little of its merits. Heck, William F Buckley could occasionally say something witty, and had something of an intellectual foundation. Peter's Christian conservativism, is without foundation, it is borne out of youthful misadventure, vague religious experience, and anger at former allies on the Left. I understand that Hitchens now distances himself from this book somewhat, but perhaps he shouldn't have published it in the first place...
-
A bit heavy on English history (but not necessarily in a bad way), extremely thought-provoking, not as detailed about his conversion as I would like, witty and sparkling prose - an overall good read.
-
Two Brothers who set fire to their Bibles in Parochial School (Peter and Christopher Hitchens)...Christopher the Prominent Antitheist (He doesn't just disbelieve in God (Atheism)..he believes (Antitheism) any Religion destroys human freedom, creates wars, and all religion should be replaced with science. Christopher is the author of best seller God is not Great.
Both attended private Christian Schools as children in England together. Both abandoned their faith.
Peter returned to his faith strangly enough at an art museum staring up at the painting of the Last Judgement. (I peered at the naked figures fleeing the pit of hell...I gaped, my mouth actually hanging open. They were me...I did not have a religious experience..but I had a sudden strong sense of religion being a thing of the present.)
From the title I expected a personal account of a highly educated atheist refinding his faith. A good portion of this book was filled with British politics and history of the Church of England. For that I only give it 2 stars.
Christopher died of esophageal cancer in 2011 most likely related to his chain-smoking habit. He died continuing to decry anything from God to circumcision to conservatism. Peter debated Christopher in Grand Rapids in 2008. Sadly, they never got a long and were never able to reconcile despite their religious and philosophical differences. -
I had a chance to hear Peter Hitchens on the radio a few months back and finally picked up the book.
I appreciated how deeply personal it was. I wasn't interested in reading something about how to discuss anti-theism with your anti-theist family/friends. And I liked that P.H. didn't presume to speak for all anti-theists. He speaks for himself, clearly outlining the changes in post-WWII Europe society that he felt influenced his development.
The last portion of the book is a bit less personal in nature and more an answer to some of the top anti-theist claims, including the claim that molestation by a religious figure is less damaging to a child than being exposed to the religion itself.
I plan to recommend it to my family and friends who are active in their faith, whether that is as a Christian, agnostic, atheist or anti-theist. -
Very good! I especially enjoyed his take on connection of atheism and politics. Lots to think about here.
-
Hitchens counters the arguments of 'the new atheists,' including his brother, in this compelling book. Hitchens writes how he moved from being an outspoken Trotskyite Atheist to an orthodox Christian. He spends most of his time arguing how we all got to these state of affairs and then demonstrating the logical conclusions of the new atheists and their argument that raising children to be religious is 'child abuse.'
I highly recommend this book! -
This interesting book was written by a man who was an atheist in his youth, then returned to Christianity. He parallels his experience of becoming an atheist with his country’s move toward secularism. The comparison takes the reader through WWII and forward in history from there. The comparison was well-presented and well-supported.
The book was less personal than I expected, so I had a hard time getting into it. However, it is well-written and an interesting approach. -
Part 1: The decline of Christianity in the west:
- Post-war (1) family brokenness (2) dysphoria of the glorious war. "God was associated in our minds with the tottering, enfeebled, secular authorities of our county, to whom we had bound ourselves at misty, freezing memorial ceremonies each November." He talks about the undying patriotism of the British: Imagine, he says, having the stature of your Vietnam Memorial in every town and village across the country. That's how undyingly patriotic we were -- the worship of Churchill, the boarding schools that raised us to join and die in the navy. This devotion was confused with Christianity. Churchill's funeral, on a steam engine that was brought out of retirement for the ocasion, was a funeral of the British Empire: There would be no more picturesqueness of that sort. A cheap and second-rate modernity was to replace the decrepit magnificence that we had grown used to. Next it was the moral decay of our politicians -- those to whom we looked up to, as a political people: The Profumo Affair, Britian's great sex scandal.
The only country with a comparable cult of heroic death (France surrendered, so they aren't as obvious about their memorials. Germany hides theirs...) is Russia -- like Britain, also clinging on to former greatness. Their Societ War Memorial has a soldier saying, "We were mortal indeed, and few of us survived, but we all carried out our patriotic duty before Holy Mother Russia." (Ironically, words written by a Jewish artist, and we see how the nations treated his people.)
What is being worshiped here is not God -- a counterfeit to the majesty of great churches and their mystery. It's not God, but an attempt to replace God, an attempt that failed: "The wars in which these heroes were asked to die do not, once examined, seem as noble and purse as they did when I first learned about them. And the proper remembering of dead warriors, though right and fitting, is a very different thing from the Christian religion. The Christian church has been powerfully damaged by letting itself be confused with love of country and the making of great wars. Wars -- which can only ever be won by ruthless violence -- are seldom fought for good reasons, even if such reasons are invented for them afterward. Civilized countries become less civilized when they go to war. And they hardly ever have good outcomes. I think it safe to say that the two great victorious wars of the twentieth century did more damage to Christianity in my own country than any other single force. The churches were full before 1914, half-empty after 1919, and three-quarters empty after 1945.
I would add that, by all but destroying British Christianity, these wars may come to destroy the spirit of the country. Those who fought so hard to defend Britain against its material enemies did so at great spiritual cost. The memory of the great slaughter of 1914-18 was carried back into their daily lives by millions who had set out from quiet homes as gentle, innocent, and kind and returned cynical, brutalized, and used to cruelty. Then it happened again, except that the second time, the mass-murder was inflicted on-and directed against-women and children in their homes. Perhaps worse that the deliberate, scientific killing of civilians was the sad, desperate attempt to pretend to ourselves later that it was right and justified... War does terrible harm to civilization, to morals, to families, and to innocence. It tramples on patience, gentleness, charity, constancy, and honesty. How strange that we should make it the heart of a national cult."
Part 2: Soviet Russia as the Fruit of Anti-Theism, and Britain to Soon Follow
- From his travels, he describes the squalor, stink, harshness, incivility, desperation, distrust, corruption. "It was not that they were. coarse and mannerless themselves. It was that they lived in a coarse and mannerless world, against which it was futile for the lone individual to fight... a high moral standard cannot be reached or maintained unless it is generally accepted and understood by an overwhelming number of people."
- Curation, relegation, regulation, and ultimately persecution, of religion. What was always assumed as overtly Christian was marginalized: BBC went from saying on Easter that "it celebrates the Resurrection of Christ," to "Christians celebrate their belief in the resurrection of Christ." (Now they probably dont even say that).
- The Schools made a deal with the devil: In 1945 the church reliquished control of many of its secondary schools to the state (a mistake the Catholics did not make) in return for the promise of a daily act of Christian worship in all schools. A commitment to social welfare at home and liberal anti-colonialism aborad became an acceptable substitute for Christian faith. It is very much so today. And finally, "A new generation of teachers, many of them not themselves Christian, did not wish to obey the law requiring a daily act of Christian worship in state schools... on the grounds of good manners, many teachers and local gov authorities felt unable to continue to behave as if Christianity were the national religion. It is difficult to tell whether this was motivated in all or most cases by a kindly tactfulness, an attempt at tolerance, or a disguised desire to weaken Christianity, which found multiculturalism a convenient excuse."
- Russian schools specifically: "A state that controls the waking lives of the rising generation can in fact erase faith by the use of relentless strength and consistency. And that is what happened."
- Stalin and Kim made human idols of themselves because they believed - as utopian idealists always do - in the ultimate goodness of themselves and the unchallengeable rightness of their decisions. There was no higher power, and so there could be no higher law. If people disagreed with them, it was because those people were in some way defective -- insane, malignant, or mercenary. The rulers could not tolerate actual religion because they could not tolerate any rival authority or any rival source -- or judge-- of goodness, rectitude, and justice. Bela Kum, mimicking Lenin, proclaimed therefore that none of his acts were either moral or immoral. The only test of his state was whether it benefited the Proletariat. Therefore, George Lukacs, Commissar for Culture, 'Communist ethics make it the highest duty to accept the necessity of acting wickedly. This is the greatest sacrifice the revolution asks from us. The conviction of the true Communist is that evil transforms itself into good through the dialectics of historical evolution.'"
- Religion is child-abuse? Please. That is a serious charge, worthy of imprisonment. Perhaps that's what Dawkins and Christopher actually want. It's ridiculous propaganda that poisons the well. We read to the young, show them beautiful things, introduce them to good manners, warn them of dangers. "At a young age, children learn things before even realizing why they matter. It is true that most children are more interested in the universe and the fundamental questions of existence than are adults. So this is the moment at which we try to pass on to them our deepest beliefs, and the moment when they are most likely to receive them. 'Once upon a time' is more effective than 'Thou shalt not,' so we do this most effectively with stories. But if we ourselves believe -- and we are asked by our own children what we believe -- we will tell them, and they will instantly know if we mean it and also know how much it matters to us. They will learn from this that belief is a good thing. We will also try to find schools that at the very least will not undermine the morals and faith of the home. And for this, we are to be labeled abusers of children? This has the stench of totalitarian slander, paving the road to suppression and persecution." Also: "It is ridiculous to pretend that it is a neutral act to inform an infant that the heavens are empty, that the universe is founded on chaos rather than love, and that his grandparents, on dying, have ceased altogether to exist... the new anti-theism is emphatically not just an opinion seeking its place in a plural society. It is a dogmatic tyranny in the making. I can see ho purpose in the suggestion that religion is itself child abuse, apart from an attempt by atheists to create the atmosphere in which religious instruction of children can be regulated and perhaps prevented by law."
- Fear God and Nothing Else. At least you can get to heaven from a North Korean labor camp or torture chamber. You may also be able to arrive in hell from a North Korean palace. And if you believe that, then the Great Leader has no power to control you. "Even unbelievers have to recognize that God, whether he exists or not, predates earthly dictators and tends to survive them." -
Peter Hitchens es el hermano creyente del fallecido Christopher Hitchens. Rage Against God no es una respuesta directa al libro de éste, aunque en ocasiones surgen algunos paralelos, que sacan a relucir el talento de Christopher. La primera mitad de este libro está dedicada a una narración autobiográfica, reconvertida en falacia anecdótica. Peter, un ateo converso, adjudica su escepticismo en partes iguales a la soberbia y a la falta de información, y sugiere que su caso tiene validez universal. En la segunda parte, se limita a criticar las atrocidades llevadas a cabo por regímenes ateos como el nazismo y el stalinismo. Comete quizás el error de suponer que estos crímenes fueron llevados a cabo en nombre de la inexistencia de Dios, e ignora que otros tantos desastres fueron causados por la religión. En todo caso, es un argumentum ad consequentiam. Es decir, incluso si fuera cierto que el ateísmo conduce a la maldad y al caos, esto no nos diría nada acerca de la existencia de Dios. Flojo.
-
This book by Peter Hitchens is probably best understood as a mix of autobiography and a closing statement to the public debate he had with his brother, Christopher. Given his background in journalism, Peter is a very interesting writer to read/listen to, yet at times it feels like this book is going in several different directions, which can be confusing and perhaps weaken his overall argument. Some of the points he makes in this book are: Atheism and anti-theism are not the absence of belief or the absence of a religious type zeal; atheism and anti-theism may perhaps be just as much if not more emotionally appealing as they are rationally appealing; and on its part, Christianity has suffered greatly from its decision to formally link itself to various sides of the 20th century global conflicts.
-
ეს წიგნი Goodreads-ზე აღმოვაჩინე, არც ვიცოდი კრისტოფერ ჰიტჩენსის ძმა თუ ყავდა. საინტერესოა ახალი ათეიზმის ერთ-ერთი მთავარი ფიგურის, მორწმუნე ძმა, თან ასეთი მყვირალა სათაურით. ალბათ თავის ძმასაც უპირსპირდება - ძირითადად ეს იყო ამ წიგნის წაკითხვის მიზეზი.
მოლოდინმა გაამართლა, ეს წიგნი სწორედ ის აღმოჩნდა რასაც ტრადიციულად თეისტები ამბობენ ათეიზმის წინააღმდეგ. არა მარტო თეისტები, არამედ ძველი ქრისტიანობის (და იმპერიალისტური ძველი ბრიტანეთის) ნოსტალგიით შეპყრობილი კონსერვატორები, რომლებსაც სეკულარიზმი და ათეიზმი ქვეყნიერების მტრად ელანდებათ.
პიტერ ჰიტჩენსი ძალიან ბევრს საუბრობს საბჭოთა კავშირზე, ბოლშევიკებზე, ეშინია რომ საზიზღარი კუმუნისტების უღმერთობა მემკვიდრეობით არ გადავიდეს ევროპაში და ბრიტანეთში. (წიგნი 2010 წელს დაწერა, რაღა დროს ბოლშევიკებია) მისი აზრით ღმერთის განდევნა საზოგადოებიდან იწვევს გამონთავისუფლებული ადგილის ტირანიით ჩანაცვლებას. ამის მაგალითად მოყავს სტალინი, მაო ძედუნი და ჩრდ კორეის ლიდერი (სახელი არ მახსოვს :D ) როგორც ბევრი მორწმუნე ისიც კომუნიზმის და საბჭოთა კავშირის მთავარ პრობლემას უღმერთობაში ხედავს, უღმერთობის შედეგი წარმოუდგენია ტოტალიტარიზმი და ყველა დანარჩენი პრობლემა.
პიტერი როგორც ჩანს ვერ აცნობიერებს იმას რომ მორალის არსებობას არ ჭირდება ზებუნებრივი ძალა, ზეციური მამიკო რომელიც აწესებს აბსოლიტურ კარგს და აბსოლიტურ ცუდს. მას ეს ჭირდება იმისთვის რომ იარსებოს. - ტრადიციული ვიწრო თეისტური მსომფხედველობა. თუ არა ზეციური, ზებუნებრივი მამიკო დავიღუპებით. კარგი იქნებოდა პიტერმა დოვკინსის კრიტიკისთვის ამოკითხული პასაჟების გვერდით, ევოლუციური ბიოლოგიიდანაც წაიკითხოს რამე. (სოციობიოლოგიას თუ აღმოაჩენს კარგი იქნება)
ჩემი აზრით პიტერი ძალიან შორსაა მეცნიერებისგან,რელიგიის დასუსტებაში ის თანამედროვე მეცნიერების თამამ პრეტენზიებსაც ადანაშაულებს და ერთ ადგილზე საერთოდ მარცხდება, როცა რწმენას და მეცნიერებას ერთმანეთისგან ვერ არჩევს. ის აკრიტიკებს ფსიქოლოგ ნიკოლას ჰამფრის, იმის გამო რომ ის რელიგიურ რწმენას განიხილავს როგორც პოტენციურ საფრთხეს ბავშვებისთვის, შემდეგ კი დასძენს (ჰამფრი) რომ მეცნიერების სწავლება განსხვავებულია, ეს ვინმეს პირადი რწმენა კი არაა არამედ ბავშვის წახალისება, აღმოაჩინოს შემეცნების ძალა. აქ პიტერი საკუთარ რეპლიკაში დარწმუნებული აღნიშნავს რომ "ნახეთ - ეს მედიდურები, მათი რწმენა, რწმენა არაა და ჩვენი რწმენა რწმენაა?"
წიგნი გაჯერებულია თეისტური ნონსესით და პიტერის ავტობიოგრაფიით, ავტორი აკრიტიკებს თავის ძმას კრისტოფერს, და ასევე ცნობილ ათეისტ რიჩარდ დოვკინსს. მაგრამ ეს კრიტიკა მოკლეა და სუსტი, არ ეხება თანამედროვე ათეისტების ცენტრალურ მტკიცებებს, არამედ უფრო პერიფერიულ საკითხებს. არის თუ არა მცირეწლოვანი ბავშვების რელიგიური ინდოქტრინაცია და სწავლება მათი შეურაცხყოფა და ა.შ.
მეცნიერულ პერსპექტივას მოკლებული კიდევ უფრო საცოდავად გამოიყურება პიტერის მტკიცებები რომ თურმე, ქორწინება, თავდადება, კეთილი საქმის კეთება და სხვა ადამიანისთვის დამახასიათებელი ქმედებები "არაბუნებრივია", ანუ ჩვეულებვრივ ძუძუმწოვრები, ხერხემლიანები ამას არ აკეთებენ, რთული ა��აა იმის მიხვედრა რას გულისხმობს პიტერი. - რადგან ეს ყველაფერი "არაბუნებრივია" ამიტომ ვიღაც ზებუნებრივი ღმერთია ამაზე პასუხისმგებელი.
მოკლედ კრისტოფერის ძმით დაინტერესება არ ღირს. ამ ნონსენსს ნებისმიერი მორწმუნე გეტყვით. საბჭოთა კავშირის ისტორია კი სხვაგან უფრო ვრცლად შეგიძლიათ წაიკითხოთ. -
This is a strange book. I liked it in some ways, but in other ways it's not very good.
First, the good things: he puts the secularization of Europe in a very good context. He basically argues that the melding of religion and the state in Britain, the cult of leaders like Churchill, and the disillusionment of Europeans after the two world wars are the reasons why Christianity has been in such decline. The fact that numerous church leaders pushed England, France, and Germany into WWI, and the horrors experienced there, did tremendous damage. Then, of course, the fact that the allies perpetrated mass murder themselves (of course, the Axis were much more culpable) altered the possibility of people's trust in authorities. Since "religion" and the "establishment" seemed to go hand in hand, it was inevitable that religion would decline so much.
But I'm not as convinced about the axes Hitchens has to grind. His arguments with his brother Christopher hinged mostly on the socialism that the young (atheist) Peter held, seemed to end up being his laments about the descent into barbarism of the Sovient Union, and his laments over the fact that a similar thing could happen to Europe without the restraint of religion.
And of course it is true that religion is a restraining force. But that doesn't mean it's good. Nor has Christendom's restraints always been good (in fact, they've often been downright evil). But Hitchens is right there is a difference between asking for God on your side, and acting like you are God (as Stalin, Mao, and Kim-Jong Il have) - not as much as he thinks, but a difference nonetheless. His main attack seems to be that atheism in its political forms has been utopianism, and utopianism, in his view, leads to the belief that you are absolutely right, because your vision is so good.
The logic of this is not quite ironclad. I mean, the great exponent of utopia in the 20th century, Ernst Bloch, specifically cast it in terms of an unreachable goal that can criticize the present. And of course the Book of Revelation has serious utopian elements. He is right though that the idea that we can BRING about utopia on earth is a problem, because it leads self-deification.
In any case, this is a rambling review, but I think Hitchens' book looses some serious steam, especially when he starts talking about the Soviet Union. These are really not arguments for religion, but against self-glorification. You can be an atheist who does not self-glorify. -
This book is so well-written, it practically reads itself!
The fact that Hitchens is brother to the late, great atheist writer, Christopher Hitchens makes this book worth the read. What a fascinating public debate.
But this book is a great read in its own right. Hitchens writes beautifully, and while his theistic arguments are excellent, I found the content of his reflections on England and Russia to be the real beauty of this work.
The book begins with a discussion England's growing secularism. Hitchens argues this fall from grace followed--and was caused by--World Wars I and II. The details he uses to illustrate the point are poignant, though the pre-war England is a place that a post-war American like me can barely imagine. Hitchens supplies the imagery, however, and makes it easy to understand the loss. He argues that the loss of faith, the "fall," if you will, happened because England (like so many Western nations) always equated Christianity with dying for your country in some nasty war. While applauding the virtue of sacrifice, Hitchens argues that the Church is weakened when she allows herself to be dragged into the service of every war, no matter how right it may appear. He mentions the famous Christmas Eve truce, when soldiers on both sides joined to sing "Silent Night." If both pray to the same God, someone must be in the wrong--and the faith of both nations suffers.
This is an interesting discussion, rooted in Hitchens' own journey away-from and back-to faith. It is an argument I have never before seen in a book on apologetics. Nor have many Christians in the West had the nerve (or the inclination?) to question wars fought in God's name. The recent invasion of Iraq, for example, seemed to have only the thinnest connection to the events of 9/11 and much more to do with a chance to force a regime change... yet Christians were expected to support it without question. Hitchens was not convinced.
The second half of the book examines Soviet Russia as the fulfillment of every atheist's utopian dream. The dream was a nightmare, and Hitchens (who worked there for many years) draws excellent lessons from the failed experiment in Atheistic rule.
This was a fresh work of apologetics, with unique insights into both England and Russia that only Hitchens could provide. (His outsiders' commentary on contemporary American politics and religion was also fascinating.) Great work. -
More memoir than argument, Hitchens (no, the other one) here has given us a very fine little book. How nice to read a memoir by someone who is a writer and, well, can really write. In addition to the good writing, I listened to this on audio and had the pleasure of hearing the author read his own work. In fact it was the most dynamically read audiobook I've come across - with emphatic pauses, and a variety of reading speeds and volumes that was both interesting and sometimes challenging.
Most fascinating were his reflections on the Soviet Union, where he lived as a journalist for some years. He then spent a little time in Somalia in 1992, and here is what he writes as he concludes that passage:
"Together with the experience of Soviet society this venture [in Somalia in 1992] convinced me that my own civilization was infinitely precious and utterly vulnerable and that I was obliged to try to protect it. When you have seen a place from which the whole apparatus of trust, civility and peace has been stripped, you are conscious like never before of the value of these things, and more curious than ever about their origins. Not in wealth, or power, but in the mind of man and in the better angels of his nature."
This book will not be persuasive to the atheist unless blessed doubts have already cracked his armor. It will probably make him upset and dismissive (see other goodreads reviews). I spoke to a young atheist the other day who felt that communism was probably the best option. I asked him how he could say that given the history of the Soviet Union. He said he did not know too much about it. Indeed ! -
This was an eye-opening book. I "really liked it" for a couple of reasons. I have become aware of a recent surge in numbers of self-proclaimed (and angry and demanding) atheists, and concerned about the reasons behind it - this book gives logical and solid reasons for this political/philosophical shift. It is a candid look at religiosity in contemporary England, and therefore a vision of what could/will happen soon in America (political attempts to negate religious rights). It is a wonderfully concise history of attempts at communism/living without God. It exposes the flawed logic of throwing over a God-fearing society. I did not give it 5 stars because Part 3 of the book gets a little bogged down in communism's terminology and examples - and I probably need more background to understand it better.
Here is a line that resonated with me: "In an age of power-worship, the Christian religion has become the principal obstacle to the desire of earthly utopians for absolute power." (p.113)
And, "Without a belief in God and the soul, where is the oath? Without the oath, where is the obligation to fulfill it? Where is the law that even kings must obey? Where is the lifelong fidelity of husband and wife? Where is the safety of the innocent child growing in the womb? Where, in the end, is the safety of any of us from those currently bigger and stronger than we are?" (p. 147) -
Part biography, part musings on the place of Christianity in twentieth-century government and western culture. He has serious criticisms of atheism's mix with socialism and communism in the past century. But in regards to his own turn to religion, or the most common apologetic arguments for Christianity, he talks around the subject. This is not a thorough account of his own conversion experience, or an unbiased exploration of why Christianity is better than atheism. It's one man's reflections on the state of religion in his country. Because he is well spoken, well studied, and has a unique contrast to his brother Christopher Hitchens, this book is still worth the read (I would not say that if it weren't so short). He also briefly touches on Dawkins's writings, like
The God Delusion.
I am interested in reading
The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana. -
One of the best books I've read in a long time. It made reading three whiny atheist books worth it. In a sentence, it is Christopher Hitchens style with the content of a C.S. Lewis. Peter Hitchens often has the same melancholy style of looking at the world's troubles, but he sees what those are with intense clarity and insight. I felt, after I read him, that I had not only heard arguments that hit the heart of atheism, but also like I now knew Britain's history since World War II. It makes me sad, but glad that someone has a head to know what's going on.
It should be required reading for any Christian who doesn't like how politics work in America. This book again shows the British can do things an American never could do. If an American said we need God for politics and not just morality or self-fulfillment (rubbish!), he would immediately be attacked as favoring theocracy. But a nation that turns from God cannot escape. "There is a living God who judges in the earth"
