[rating:2]
( Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.)
224 pgs
With the death of virulent atheist, Christopher Hitchens, this book by his brother, who embraces Christian beliefs, is perhaps a timely read. Anyone who wants to be informed of the current spiritual landscape in the Western Hemisphere ought to be at least aware of the disturbingly popular atheist triumvirate of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. These men have taken atheism mainstream and have stepped up the vindictive to entirely new and public levels.
Christopher Hitchens wrote the bestselling, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. He takes a historic approach to his case, surveying Church History to demonstrate that religion, and Christianity in particular, has caused more human suffering than any other single force. Christopher Hitchens’ book was a bestseller and he was a popular guest on talk shows, espousing his condemnation and ridicule of Christianity.
Peter Hitchens, his younger brother, is a British journalist who reported from locations such as Moscow, North Korea, Burma, The Congo, Iran, and China. He readily confesses that he is not a theologian, Bible scholar, or even a philosopher, but a journalist, a former atheist, and the brother of one of the most recognized atheist of our generation. As a result, this book is written in the popular and engaging manner you would expect from an international journalist. He does raise some interesting thoughts and offer some keen observations. I would not view this as a strong apologetics text or a thorough rebuttal of atheists using Church History. Nevertheless, for those wishing to become familiar with some of the issues being debated today, this may be a good introduction.
Should Christians even bother reading the hatred and ridicule being bound into bestselling books by atheists today? Well not everyone will need to be an expert in apologetics. Nevertheless, the “new” atheism that is popular today is being avidly promoted by numerous media outlets, and is being soaked up, especially by the younger generation. It would seem wise to be aware of the angle of attack being taken against Christianity.
Peter Hitchens makes several great observations that I’ll just note. He says: “Unlike Christians, atheists have a high opinion of their own virtue” (25). He argues that, without an ethical source that is above mankind, ethics always boils down to who is most powerful and who ultimately writes history. He notes that in World War One and Two, both sides committed similar atrocities against each other and against civilians. However, the winning side can always claim the side of virtue. He also describes his visit to Mogadishu that had descended into lawlessness. His description of what it looks like when “trust, civility, and peace” is lost is compelling (98). One of the primary weaknesses of atheists is that they have no definitive basis for their ethics, apart from God. Why are they incensed at actions they consider unethical? If we are, as they claim, simply the descendants of monkeys who survived while weaker species died out, why should we not take advantage of the weak? Those who believe in atheistic evolution have a flimsy basis for their morals.
Hitchens relates how observing a painting of the Final Judgment shook him as an atheist and launched his journey back to God (102). He notes: “But I had a sudden, strong sense of religion being a thing of the present day, not imprisoned under thick layers of time. A large catalogue of misdeeds, ranging from the embarrassing to the appalling, relayed themselves rapidly in my head. I had absolutely not doubt that I was among the damned, if there were any damned” (103). It reminds the reader of the power of art to communicate truth. He also describes the gradual eroding of the Church of England’s orthodoxy. He describes how the Book of Common Prayer, used for over 400 years, and filled with references to confession of sin, was slowly set aside by Liberal church leaders to accommodate more enlightened (and less repentant) congregants (108). He also argues that nothing hurt the Church in England any more in the Twentieth Century than did the two world wars, which it won. He argues that it was as the Church attempted to justify and sanctify unjust actions that people became disillusioned with the church.
Hitchens argues that atheists refuse to admit that they have a motive for their belief system, as he does. He readily acknowledges that he does not desire to live in a world with no design or purpose or afterlife. He is pleased that the Christian faith provides answers to all of his deepest needs. Yet he argues that atheists refuse to admit that they have a vested interest in Christianity not being true. For they fundamentally despise the concept that there is a God who expects to be obeyed and who will one day judge those who rebelled against Him (24). If there is no God, then they are free to live as they wish. They simply cannot afford to be wrong about their atheism, regardless of the evidence. He also posits that atheists avoid admitting that theirs is a belief system. They ridicule Christians for believing in God, yet they argue that their worldview is not based on belief but on science (even though they cannot prove that God does not exist, making their viewpoint a belief as well) (155).
Hitchens paints a sobering picture of what a godless society such as the former Soviet Union was like. The “new” atheists argue that if God were removed from society, it would be more tolerant and rational. Yet Hitchens points out that religion-less regimes have been extremely brutal and intolerant. Hitchens shows how atheists view people like Stalin and Mao and Hitler as exceptions. Hitchens points out how Christopher Hitchens tries to claim that the Stalinist Soviet Union was a “Christian” nation because Stalin attended seminary, but refuses to allow it to serve as an example of what a godless nation looks like, because he sees the violent Stalin as an aberration (A true atheist would have been tolerant and enlightened!). Atheists want to have things both ways. Hitchens points out that “utopianism is dangerous precisely because its supporters are so convinced that they themselves are good” (138). He challenges the atheists’ argument that wars in the name of religion have always been, in fact, about religion. For example, Northern Ireland was a battle between Protestants and Catholics. But in reality, it was between native Irish and the usurping English who now controlled their land. Hitchens suggests that more often than not, conflict has arisen out of greed for power, land, and money, more than out of religious differences. He argues that those deeply holding religious faith in Ireland were not generally in favor of the violence. Hitchens also notes that, atheists always harken back to what Christians did in the Crusades or when burning witches in New England as evidence of their violence. Yet he notes: “When did Christians last burn, strangle, or imprison each other for alleged errors of faith? By contrast, those who reject God’s absolute authority, preferring their own, are far more ready to persecute than Christians have been . . .” (154). It is interesting that atheists are still pointing to what Christians did in the Middle Ages as proof of their guilt, while one need not look past this year to find atrocious violence committed by regimes who deny the existence of God.
Hitchens also quotes Richard Dawkins in an extremely revealing statement where he claims that Christian parents should not be allowed the freedom of speech to teach their religious views to their children (207). This is the heart of the danger. Atheists do not want Christians to be public school teachers or nurses for example, if they do not affirm such beliefs as same sex marriage. Atheists expect to enjoy free speech themselves (rights granted to them from Christian-oriented, democratic countries), but they do not believe Christians should have the right to teach their own children their religious beliefs and values. These militant atheists are aggressively working to take away rights and freedoms from Christians. It behooves us to be aware of what they are doing.
This is a specialty book and as such, I have not rated it as high as I might have. It is not a scholarly work of apologetics or history. It is one person’s musings, although from an interesting and often thoughtful perspective. What makes the book appealing is, of course, that the author’s brother was one of the most violent atheists of the age.
If you have not read much in this field, it might be a good start as you try to familiarize yourself with where some of the battle lines are being drawn in the ongoing battle for peoples’ souls.