Customer Reviews

The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

I was attracted to read this book because of my familiarity with Peter Hitchens and his brother Christopher Hitchens. Both have become public intellectuals of varying degree. And both, as it turns out, have books being released this summer. I was excited when I got the opportunity to read this book, so provocatively titled "The Rage Against God."

This book is very much a testimonial (and an apologetic as well) of a man's life lived in the rapidly changing Britain (and West) of the post-WWII ear through today. Hitchens description of the Britain of his youth is accurate in the narrative of a nation that has slowly ossified and changed from what was a person living in Great Britain would have known prior to WWI. The public confidence in British institutions has greatly changed (witness the wrangling over Princess Diana's death by Queen Elizabeth II, for example) The relevance of Christian life in public life that was common-place and expected, whether at Christmas time or Easter was unquestioned. Hitchens describes how these touchstones have rapidly disappeared to the point where public pronouncements of religious faith are mocked and shunned to the extent that expression becomes an oddity. Witness the Church Of England abandoning so much of the liturgy that was known prior to WWII by almost all Brits. Today, even Biblical history is rapidly disappearing from public life.

Hitchens goes on to make three counterpoints of common lodestars of what non-believers argue as reasons for abandoning faith: religious faith causes conflict, moral relativism and atheism in nation/states. Finally, Hitchens goes on to debate the arguments of how the alternative to the "Christian" state, i.e. Marxist/Leninist states (such as the Soviet Union) are inherently and inextricably linked to the idea that a Godless state does not lead to 'excesses.' Of course, knowing the backstory of Peter and his brother, Christopher Hitchens as agnostics/atheists made this part far more compelling.

Frankly, I breezed through this book in just a few hours. Yes, it is short (clocking in at around 200 pages), but it is a very interesting and fascinating take on modern life (many of his observations seem undeniable for better or worse). Though this book may be thought of as a Christian testimonial, it is never preachy or judgmental. Rather, it is fascinating and compelling in illustrating why this particular former Trotskyite (!) was compelled to renounce his atheistic ways and find religion.

I really enjoyed this book, almost unexpectedly because I just didn't know what to expect from this book. But, I found myself thinking about my life in a different way, and indeed, it gave me a new perspective about thinking of how contemporary events are shaped.

I look forward to reading his brother's last book as a counterpoint. Indeed, in the marketplace of ideas about faith on both a personal level and on a communal level, this book is a valuable tool.

Peter Hitchen's book The Rage Against God wasn't what I expected, namely a blow-by-blow critique of atheism and a listing of reasons for the existence of God. Instead, the brother of noted atheist Christopher Hitchens writes an engaging memoir of his personal journey, followed by his appraisal of atheistic regimes and ideologies, along with a reminder of atrocities carried out in the name (alone) of religions that were, at the core, irreligious--and why. I'm reminded of a quote, "When people act contrary to their religion, you blame them, not their religion." Christianity doesn't escape unscathed, but Hitchens is clear to point out that unchristian acts occur when God's moral will is disregarded. A clever quote: "Faith has often led to cruel violence and intolerant persecution...this is not because they are religious, but because Man is not great" (153). I would still like to know why totalitarian governments feel so threatened by religion. In an enlightened age ought not tolerance prevail? (by tolerance, I mean accepting people who hold views you firmly believe are incorrect) The chapter on moral absolutes was helpful, and (another quote not in the book) I recall Dostoyevsky, "If there is no God, anything is permissible." If there is no God, all we're really left with are arbitrary preferences. This has an appeal to those who covet autonomy and freedom from higher authority...yet atheists probably do not want to be labeled amoral. Hitchen's appraisal of atheism made me wonder if an atheist would claim that the world merely has the "appearance" of purpose. Also, the section on religious instruction could have mentioned that most Christians do not "force-feed" the Bible to children. They want kids to be able to think, and not blindly accept religious teaching. His approach won't appeal to everyone (particularly his famous brother), but is a worthy and readable addition to the ongoing debate.

I ordered this book because I wanted to know the back-story of Christopher Hitchens. I've always been intrigued by how such a sharp mind could have such fallacious thinking and conclusions. I was surprised to learn that Christopher has a brother that is an avid believer. "The Rage Against God" was a fascinating glimpse into the lives of the Hitchens family, as well as a easy to read study of atheism and it's historical underpinnings in England.

Hitchens makes the point that atheism is more a result of the spirit of the age than the mask of intellectualism atheists claim. That in-fact the road atheists travel is more of a mental straight jacket that leads them to nihilism. Hitchens strongly documents and reveals the historical path Atheism has taken; that in reality Atheism is religious cult of its own that has its mooring on principles every bit as subjective and faith based as any authentic religion.

Frankly this book is disturbing - making all the more reason to read it. This book is Ecclesiastics writ large; lived once again in our century. Hitchens documents the path Jean-Jacques Rousseau and The Enlightenment takes man. Atheists become militant because they are so unhappy. This book is thoroughly enjoyable and insightful. It is devastating to Christopher's arguments and very useful if you have to debate atheists in any forum. I particularly liked learning why politicians are so keen to eliminate faith and where that takes a nation. Reading this book will give you a behind the curtain look at England (surprising Yanks like me), the Hitchens family, and Atheism.

mainstream media is filled with fears about the US becoming a 'Christian theocracy' whenever a politician or pastor dare advocate prayer in school, there are no shortage of secular columnists warning us that 1933 and hitler are just around the corner.

Any look at the elite of the US - and even more so - Uk - know if that unlikely prospect did occur, it certainly is not coming to come from the elite.

Peter Hitchens book clearly articulates the far more likely threat- of which we have example after example- the suppression of Christianity (for this alone, every atheist who reads this will fly into a fit and mark my review 'not helpful').

Hitchens draw parallels between the behavior of the new atheists and the aggressive secular liberalism and the Soviet Union (and as the negative reviews here don't mention, (because they didn't read the book, only a review in the GUardian or something) French revolution.).If the trend continues where does it lead?

For example, RIchard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens and several other prominent atheists have equated parents teaching their children religion with child abuse. If they really believe that what could be the only logical outcome of their beliefs, should they become more widely accepted among the power elite?

In other parts of the book Hitchens offers his insight on the curious alliance of muslims and the left (an alliance, if brought to the successful end of bringing down the west will not have the outcome the left expects) and why the left's 'anti religion' is really 'anti-Christianity' (or Anti-christ, if you prefer) .

in the french republic it was 'liberty, fraternitie, equality' today its 'diversity, tolerance and sensitivity' - the mask has changed, but the objective remains.

Atheists reading this book should actually be rather happy (that is, if they actually read it) because according to Hitchens, the french/bolbhisik revolution - the utopia here on earth movement - has, after near 200 years of resistance, started to break the back of the Anglosphere- given the results of the early efforts the rest of us should not be so jolly.

** one side note- this book's focus is largely on the greater effects of anti-theism on society- rather than a personal journey (as the subtitle of the book implies 'how atheism lead me to faith- but given that Peter Hitchens has spent his life as a journalist that is not surprising. The first chapters,however do deal with his more personal experiences. They are beautifully written. I do think the US publish should get rid of the subtitle though.

In this important volume Hitchens recounts his early turn toward atheism, and his later turn back to God. In it he also takes on the ongoing atheism of his brother Christopher. Although this is certainly a case of a house divided, it is not a polemical attack on his sibling's unbelief, but a plea for some realism and rationality in this important debate.

The first half of the book recounts his own story, and how he became a devout atheist and Marxist in his teenage years. His story is in part a mirror image of what happened to Britain. From a great nation it has faded into obscurity, with a loss of saving faith and a loss of face-saving.

He tells how his generation largely abandoned religion, preferring instead the supposed liberation of atheism. He mentions how for twenty years he hardly ever met a religious person, and how all his peers shared in his unbelief. He is honest enough to admit that his rage against God was all about the elevation of self and hedonism.

He quotes a character in a Somerset Maugham novel: "He could breathe more freely in a lighter air. He was responsible only to himself for the things he did. Freedom! He was his own master at last." This was the joy of his new-found atheism.

His experience of `freedom' was really antinomianism. Says Hitchens, "There were no more external, absolute rules. The supposed foundation of every ordinance, regulation, law, and maxim ... was a fake." He continues, "I did not have to do anything that I did not want to do, ever again. . . . I could behave as I wished, without fear of eternal consequences."

This `liberation' from moral law was supposed to mean freedom, but as he explains, all he did was move into bondage of self and sin. He went on a bender, indulging in debauched and debased rebellion. Shaking his fist at God meant living like a totally self- absorbed hedonist.

His story is the story of countless post-war Englishmen. A large abandonment of religion was coupled with a wholesale embrace of sensuality, irresponsibility and selfishness. The radical rebellion of the 60s was simply the fruit of this widespread rejection of God, authority and law.

But just as I too was once a part of this counter-culture, and now I look back in shame and despair at what I helped to unleash, so too Hitchens. He recalls his path back to God, and how he now regrets the libertinism and nihilism that his generation inflicted upon a once great nation.

He notes how his peers saw his return to God as incredulous, inexplicable. A person today can embrace any cause and engage in any activity, and we are supposed to celebrate this. But dare to affirm the Christian faith, and all hell breaks loose.

When he was a Trotskyite, celebrating the tyranny of Soviet Communism, he was seen as clever, hip and cool. But now that he realises what an abysmal police state the Marxist vision really was, and how a return to God is our only real hope of freedom and meaning, he is treated as a pariah and outcaste.

And of course his famous brother is one of these voices of misotheistic hatred. Blaming religion for all our ills is a reckless and foolhardy charge to make, but the atheist fundamentalists do not bother with actually making this case with hard evidence.

Indeed, as Peter shows, the atheistic regimes of the last century have been the real sources of death, bloodshed and barbarism. Yet his atheist brother cannot bring himself to see this. Thus Peter spends a number of chapters recounting the horrors of atheistic communism, and the dystopian brave new world that was the Soviet Union.

And he notes that all secular utopians must end up in the same way. By seeking to bring heaven to earth and create the new man, but without the help of the only one who can make this possible, we only end up enslaving ourselves. And that is why the secularists so hate Christianity.

They know it is the one thing that stands in the way of their coercive utopianism. Says Hitchens, "The Christian religion has become the principle obstacle to the desire of earthly utopians for absolute power." Indeed, because he lived in the Soviet Union for several years, he witnessed firsthand the cruelty and ugliness of state-enforced utopianism.

And Hitchens demonstrates how so many atheists are at the same time strident leftists. The dictatorships of last century clearly confirm this, but it continues unabated today. "God is the leftists' chief rival. Christian belief, by subjecting all men to divine authority and by asserting in the words, `My kingdom is not of this world' that the ideal society does not exist in this life, is the most coherent and potent obstacle to secular utopianism."

With the widespread rejection of Christianity, all we have left is the power-hungry Muslims and the power-hungry leftists battling for supremacy. Both reject the message of Jesus as they seek to pursue their power grabs. Indeed, the "Bible angers and frustrates those who believe that the pursuit of a perfect society justifies the quest for absolute power."

Peter is amazed that his brother has not yet grasped that "Utopia can only ever be approached across a sea of blood" and that "Atheist states have a consistent tendency to commit mass murders in the name of the greater good". Indeed, "terror and slaughter are inherent in utopian materialist revolutionary movements".

Hitchens concludes his book with these words: "On this my brother and I agree: that independence of mind is immensely precious, and that we should try to tell the truth in clear English even if we are disliked for doing so."

Peter has certainly done that here, and his atheist detractors will likely unleash their venom and hatred on him for daring to think independently, and for his apostasy from the religion of militant atheism. Well done Peter. We await your brother following suit.

This is not a systematic treatment of the author's issues against atheism, but rather an account of his own struggle in faith and doubt. To that end, it plays well; he's a great writer, and his experiences are compelling, provocative, and timely and relevant to those who understand the gravitas of the era and culture from which Hitchens' experiences emerge. Whether it will convince someone like his brother- whose acrid, aggressive atheism is bound up not in a quest to learn, but in a campaign to 'fix' those who don't think what he does- is difficult to determine. Many of the new-wave atheists are altogether dismissive of personal experience, but I think Hitchens does enough to tie his experiences to the universal struggle, that at least SOME readers will wax reflective about their own conclusions. More useful as a conversation-starter than as an apologetic resource for Christians, but enjoyable and worthwhile.

The Hitchens brothers are a study in contrasts. Christopher, the eldest, is an atheist, man of the Left, and resolute supporter of the War on Terror. Peter, the youngest, is a Christian, man of the Right, and opponent of the same war. The former wrote God Is Not Great. With The Rage Against God, the latter has now published his rebuttal.

The rebuttal unfolds in three parts. Part 1, "A Personal Journey through Atheism," is autobiographical, and for my money, the best part of the book. Born in 1951 on Malta, the son of a British naval officer, Peter was educated in a naval boarding school, steeped in his country's intertwined patriotic traditions and state church. After two world wars, however, that patriotism and religion lost credibility. "As the old regimes, one by one, crumbled and sagged, the churches crumbled and sagged with them." Peter came of age in the dissolution of Empire. Its dissolution was the cultural milieu in which Peter's patriotism and childhood religion dissolved too. At 12, he announced his disbelief. At 15, he burned his Bible. Until he returned to church in 1985, he considered himself a man of the Trotskyist Left, which is what Christopher continues to be.

Why did he return to church? A number of reasons: On a tour of France, he viewed Rogier van der Weyden's 15th-Century polyptych, The Last Judgment, which 500 years after its painting caused Peter to "tremble for the things of which my conscience was afraid." Marriage and fatherhood played a role too. But two years of reporting on the Soviet Union as that empire unwound, as well as journalistic experiences in Mogadishu, convinced him that civilization is a fragile thing and that belief in God helps to contrain humanity's violent tendencies.

Part 2, "Addressing the Three Failed Arguments of Atheism," asks and answers three questions: "Are conflicts fought in the name of religion conflicts about religion?" No. They can be, but they aren't necessarily. Where they are, Peter is critical, writing, "The Christian church has been powerfully damaged by letting itself be confused with love of country and the making of great wars." Second, "Is it possible to determine what is right and what is wrong with God?" No. Atheism admits of no moral absolutes. Indeed, it cannot, for there is no natural explanation of human moral behavior. And finally, "Are atheist states not actually atheist?" Christopher argued that the Soviet Union under Stalin, with its cult of personality and whatnot, was functionally religious. It's a clever argument that is betrayed by a simple fact: "Atheist states have a consistent tendency to commit mass murders in the name of the greater good." Knowing this, Peter concludes: "This suggests that terror and slaughter are inherent in utopian materialist revolutionary movements."

Perhaps feeling that he has not decisively laid this third atheist argument to rest, Peter returns to the question in Part 3, "The League of the Militant Godless" (the name of an actual group in the early years of the Russian Revolution). This part focuses on the campaign against the Christian religion the Soviet Union waged throughout its revolutionary history. If the Soviet state were not militantly godless, why did it engage in such a long-last war against belief from its inception under Lenin? Given that the "Living Church" was willing to make its peace with the Soviets, why did the Soviets persecute the faithful, even consuming "Living Church" priests and bishops once they had served their purpose? Because the Soviets desired absolute control, and as Peter writes in an earlier section of the book: "in an age of power-worship, the Christian religion has become the principal obstacle to the desire of earthly utopians for absolute power." The final chapter of the book, "The Great Debate," notes that the rhetoric of the so-called "New Atheists"--including brother Christopher's rhetoric--is eerily similar to the Soviets', which is obviously worrisome.

In an Epilogue to the book, Peter recounts a debate with Christopher in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The brothers have been at odds since childhood and are more or less estranged now. But other than the occasional barb, they refused to make their debate personal. Indeed, in a touching incident that Peter recounts, Christopher even cooked his brother dinner during a visit at Christopher's Washington D.C. apartment. The scene is bittersweet to read. But no doubt the debate continues.

Peter Hitchens's The Rage Against God is a fascinating account of the world I grew up in--the postwar period in England when the old confidence in traditional authority, imperial power, morals and customs started to fall apart. I am a few years older than Hitchens and when I was at public (private) school, the old ways and beliefs seemed still strong. It was only a few of the more intellectual boys (like me) who were openly atheist. By his time, it seems the old confidence and authority of our elders and teachers was in steeper decline. Hitchens sees the ignominious debacle of the 1956 Anglo-French Suez adventure as a turning point. It shook the self-assurance of our island nation that was never defeated in war. It brought home the decline of empire and all that went with it, including the powerful navy from which Hitchens's father was let go. The shocking public sex scandal at the highest levels of government known as the Profumo Affair (1963) provided evidence of the moral decay accompanying political decline.

So the ground was already prepared for the 1960s, with its unconstrained vision of how we could cast off all tradition, the collective wisdom and experience of past generations, and start from scratch without need of marriage, family, the capitalist state and economy, and especially the established Church of England. The C of E was associated with all things we wanted to overthrow--monarchy, tradition, conservatism (the established Church was sneered at as the Tory Party at prayer), and, of course, moral (especial sexual) restraint.

Hitchens describes well the utopian illusions of that period and their disastrous social consequences. It was a cultural and sexual revolution that was, among other things, a revolt of the young against the prospect of falling into the fate of their parents--an adult world not only of hollow forms and beliefs (if they were truly believed at all) but, materially, a world of suburbs, the paraphernalia of babies and the demands they make on one to be adult and responsible, confining and restraining the autonomous self. (No wonder baby boomer couples had so few children!)

Hitchens is justly harsh about this brave new world of adolescent pride and self-absorption, the sacrifice of the needs of children to the freedoms of adults (a prevalent theme motif of those who still are undermining our most child-friendly institution, marriage). His central topic, however, is militant atheism, the rage of atheists against God.

In Part 2 of the book, Hitchens takes on three arguments circulated by his brother Christopher and other "new atheists." He shows how many conflicts fought in the name of religion are not about religion--for example, no-one in Northern Ireland believes that the Catholics and Protestants were fighting over religious differences about the Eucharist, the issue of "justification," or anything of the sort. He also points to the much higher level of unrestrained violence perpetrated by atheist regimes, from the French revolution to the Bolsheviks, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, and so forth. He argues that a non-relativist morality that goes beyond the Golden Rule depends on an absolute power above human society that is not subject to change at a tyrant's or totalitarian's whim. And he takes on the argument that the atheist states like the former USSR are not really atheist but depend on religious cults like that of Stalin.

The most powerful part of the book is his account of the difference in practice between an atheist state with a cult of the leader and a Christian society, where the command to love God and your neighbor as yourself has penetrated the culture and survives, even if exiguously, in post-Christian societies like England. He shows how militantly (and successfully) the Bolsheviks sought to extirpate all trace of Christianity from Soviet society, aiming especially at children. One of the very first decrees of the Soviet state in 1917 was to forbid the teaching of Christianity in schools and many more repressive measures followed. Tellingly, Hitchens draws vividly on his own experience as a reporter in Russia as well as showing, by way of his experience of complete political and social disintegration in Somalia, how he became convinced that his "own civilization was infinitely precious and utterly vulnerable and that [he] was obliged to try to protect it" (p.98).

Tellingly, Hitchens links this militant atheism of the Stalinists, this rage against God, to the efforts of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to describe religious education as child abuse--a very serious charge, ludicrous as it sounds, that paves the way for more and more anti-Christian measures enforced by an ever more powerful state. For Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, the family and other institutions of civil society, including the churches, temples, and mosques, were a threat to the apotheosis of the state and its leader. All these regimes attacked the churches and the family, seeking either to extirpate them altogether or subordinate them to the state.

Hitchens notes that he, along with Christopher and many others (myself included, but also the philosopher and Catholic Alasdair MacIntyre) were at one time Trotskyists. We were fiercely opposed to Stalinism and the kind of totalitarian state built by Stalin and Mao, and insisted on the fundamental differences between true revolutionary socialism and Stalinism. Hitchens will have none of this. Unlike Christopher and MacIntyre (and me for that matter), he has completely rejected and settled accounts with that tradition, which he says, rests on the self-delusion that things would have turned out differently if Trotsky had won out in the struggle against Stalin. I won't take up the argument here, but simply note that many of us who have abandoned Trotskyism in any form have failed fully to come to terms with it despite its complete incompatibility with current commitments.

Another chord the memoir struck with me comes under the nice subheading, "The Prodigal Son Returns Too Late." He means that the Anglican communion he returned to was not the C of E he had left decades earlier. Even more than the Catholic Church in the West, the C of E had been infected with a liberal, secularizing modernism. Traditional teaching on faith and morals as well as liturgy, architecture, music and ancient practices and forms had been abandoned and the communion was falling into apparently irreversible decline. Hitchens deplores these developments, which include discarding some of the greatest literary treasures of the C of E and the English language--the King James Bible and Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer. But he gives no hint of finding a more orthodox home in the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church, a choice toward which faithful Christians still in the Anglican communion in the UK and North America are surely feeling pushed.

In recent years a new genre of militant atheism has appeared. The `new atheists' no longer adopt the soft touch to religion that masquerades a feigned respect but rather adopts a vehemently hostile attitude to the very notion of the supernatural, and denounces those who still retain a pious faith as being ignorant, delusional or fraudulent. Christopher Hitchens, the British born darling of the American intelligentsia, makes up one of the especially raged filled and grandiosely named `Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse' and his book `God is Not Great' is now part of the anti-theist canon, espousing most of the standard modern vitriol against theism.

Out of this, Christopher's conservative Anglican brother has stepped in to directly rebut the theme of his brother's latest writings, and offer a defence of the Almighty against the most outrageous claims made against Him and his followers.

`The Rage Against God' is not a standard work of apologetics. The first half is primarily autobiographical, with the author recounting his typically non-religious childhood and his descent into hard-line Trotskyism, only to return to the Church of England in later life. Much like C.S. Lewis' `Surprised by Joy', Peter Hitchens makes no claims of dramatic religious experience but gives a delightfully mundane account, albeit one that starts by glancing on a picture of Hell, of his journey to deep and personal faith. Faith is not, he argues, an emotional crutch, a substitute for reason or an ingrained mental prison.

The second half focuses on three of the major points raised by his brother: that religion must necessarily lead to 'religious wars'; that totalitarian atheist regimes were not especially atheist; and that religious education is a form of a child abuse. Each of these is analysed with Peter Hitchen's usual vigour, with his longest and most developed critique being put into the second claim. His personal experience living in the anti-theistic Soviet Union gives the author the ability to describe his own first-hand experience of the horror a nation that actively seeks to annihilate God from society: an aspect of 20th Century blood-drenched history that is shamefully ignored by most contemporary intellectuals.

Overall, Peter Hitchen's has distanced himself from his usually fierce approach as a conservative columnist, and has produced a personal and through-provoking book that should challenge readers to approach the `God Debate' with a rational calm that is all too-lacking in many recent works.

Peter Hitchens The Rage against God is an interesting if uneven book dealing with both his own journey to and from faith and with the arguments of others particularly his Brother in God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything concerning the existence or non existence of God.

Hitchens starts with a bit of history, that of England and his own and how the religious imprint of the society changed. His own departure from faith seems well documented but his return seems to be given short shift. That is odd since it is an important part of the argument. It doesn't prevent this section from being interesting on both a personal and a historical level.

His critique of communism is very solid but again seems out of place. I imagine that it had a lot to do with refuting his brother's defense of it.

The real problem of this book has little to do with the arguments (they are strong), the small stories (they are very interesting) or the history (it is informative). It is the organization of the entire book. It jumps from place to place and it is the failure of that organization that reduces the book to three stars.

A better editor would have easily made this book a winner instead of a slight diversion.