The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith

Peter Hitchens does a good job of reviewing his own history of being a Christian, then atheist and back to Christianity. He also reviews the effect that atheism has had on various countries in the world such as Russia, England and the USA. He presents a very interesting contrast to his famous atheist brother, Christopher Hitchens. His book is short and an easy read.

Hitchens gives an apologetic for each of three criticisms of Christian theism. To do so, he provides historical and analogous illustrations, and draws upon personal experiences and first hand observations as a foreign correspondent to establish the present dangers of atheism. While his arguments are not vituperative they are passionate and honest and demand a conscientious response. The book inspires reflection on the the state and course of culture, both foreign and domestic, and emphasizes the notion that ideologies have consequencies. It is a read well worth the time.

One of the things which got my attention in the book is the similarities between what Communist Atheists in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century had done ,and what the new Atheism is doing now days

both of them were talking about an utopia which is based on science ,money ,education and human beings as the center of any Government plan

both of them mocked God and Religion , by using media , campuses , and public events . The Soviets were success on destroying religion , even by using horrible methods, yet what happen is they killed the souls of their citizens which made a lot of corruption in the generations to come

the communist failed to bring happiness and heaven on Earth !

Hitchens argue that the new Atheist , whom are using the same propaganda and restoring the old ideas ,will led the west to a similar fate to that which the Russian had taste.

It's so refreshing to see that this work comes from Britain, an arch-secular society.
Peter Hitchens is so valuable, precisely when
one thinks that the era of Chesterton, C.S. Lewis etc has ended in England.
The fine English style of argument permeates this work.

His defense for the faith education is so bold
and presented in a fresh way. As an Englishman, ex-atheist/secular man himself,
he really knows the fallacy of the thought of the new atheist.

Finally, I sincerely appreciate his poignant and very loving tribute
to his brother at the end of the book.

I look forward to read more of his reading.

This book is worth every penny! If we haven't taken notice of the animosity in our gov't and community toward God and Christians then this book should do the trick. The hidden agendas most atheists and liberal sympathizers propose to our lives are not new. The author explains very well the pitfalls that come of throwing out God and/or embracing a Christ-less society as other nations have already done. From these others we can learn and learn we must! There is no invasion, conqueror, or dictator off the shore ready to strike and take, but there is slow erosion from within that will allow such as this to simply walk in and declare victory.
Though he has returned to God his position is more liberal than I had hoped. His views on war and God's part in them was less than encouraging. I do not advocate war but I firmly beleive that God intends and helps men to uphold right and defend the wronged in war.
I was most drawn by an anticipation of the author's tale of his return to a belief in God. In this anticipation I was somewhat disappointed in that he notes the various reasons for his return from an atheist or anti-theist belief but leaves out the moments or milestones which marked the journey. Every journey has a beginning, end, and reasons in between why we took more or less time in the travel. I was looking forward to seeing every waypoint along the way of his changing belief. Instead of a detailed account I feel it was more of a summary.
There is no account of a "conversion" within these pages. No moment is given for a sudden understanding or radical epiphany. He has returned to a belief in God but the question remains and is not answered in these pages whether he has placed his trust in Christ. My one great hope of one who had strayed so far was to read not only that he'd seen the light, but had become a sinner redeemed, trusting Christ the light of the world. Without saying so outright it is my understanding the author has placed such an event between the lines.
May all who find God in this life trust on Christ for life after death.

In my humble opinion I truly appreciate the book, and I am so grateful that Peter Hitchens took the time and courage to write this book.
Being a Christian and amazed how the world is trying to eliminate God from our lives, this book, by explaining at how we got to this point, and how we may prevail, is a great encouragement to me.
I will definitely pass this on to my friends.

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.

I was anxious to read how an atheist, a Hitchens athiest at that returned to Christianity. Instead I had to wade through his thoughts on the British navy, thoughts on Winston Churchill, the collapse of Christianity in England because of the wars, the collapse of Communism,etc....but virutally nothing about how he became a Christian once again other than a driving fear of judgement and his love of architecture and music. It really wasn't anything enlightening that I would say could be put up in a debate with his brother Christopher (though I had hoped there would be). Very disappointing. If you want one man's biography and views of England's history then read this book. But don't bother if you want an intellectual journey of how an atheist became a Christian.
Google Hichens vs Hitchens and you can watch the brothers debate war and God. Much more informative

I'm a Christian and my sister is an atheist so I thought I could relate to this book but for some reason, I just can't get into it. Haven't finished it. Maybe will try again when I have less going on.

I've watched the debates between Peter Hitchens and his brother and I expected a bit more substance from Peter. It seemed as if I was reading an emotional treatise rather than a good argument for the existence of God. Basically, his reasoning is simple; fear and loathing. He is afraid NOT to believe in God; and he loathes the attitudes of those most vocal against belief. Thus the title of the book, "Rage Against God." I was disappointed and happy that I spent less than ten dollars for the Kindle version.

I've watched the debates between Peter Hitchens and his brother and I expected a bit more substance from Peter. It seemed as if I was reading an emotional treatise rather than a good argument for the existence of God. Basically, his reasoning is simple; fear and loathing. He is afraid NOT to believe in God; and he loathes the attitudes of those most vocal against belief. Thus the title of the book, "Rage Against God." I was disappointed and happy that I spent less than ten dollars for the Kindle version.

I expected more from the brother of Christopher Hitchens, who is easily the most intelligent and persuasive of the Four Horsemen. I really wish that Christopher had been the one who converted because much of the content in this book is just embarrassing.

For one thing, don't be fooled by the subtitle. This book does very little to explain why Peter converted. About all he says is that he looked at a painting that showed souls being sent to Hell. He openly admits that part of why he became a Christian was fear. Let me just say that anyone who becomes a Christian for this reason never makes a very good Christian.

Add that onto the fact that he was impressed by the architecture in some historic churches he visited, and you've got the only reasons given for his conversion in the book. The rest of the book consists of a lot of nonsensical far-right rambling, complaints about churches not being extreme enough anymore, and stories of his experiences in the Soviet Union. Supposedly that's supposed to make us realize what atheism does to society, or something like that. It isn't very clear.

On the plus side, the beginning of the book is pretty good. It made it sound like the book would be a more interesting, different than usual kind of apologetics. If that was his intention, maybe the intention of the book makes a little more sense. Doesn't mean I liked it, though.

The most interesting part of the book is the chapter devoted to whether religious wars are really fought in the name of religion. He starts out by pointing to some specific wars that I didn't know much about, and then he shows what the real causes of those wars were. I definitely thought he was onto something...until he got completely off topic and went off on a big anti-liberal rant.

Just so you know who you're dealing with, let me direct you to the debate he had with his brother. If you watch it and really think Peter put up a good fight, then by all means purchase this book. But the fact that he couldn't understand a man's very simple question about contradictions between Christianity and science just made me facepalm. The other embarrassing moment was when he tried to answer Christopher's famous question about what good act a believer could do that an atheist couldn't. You'll have to see it to believe it. As much as I'd like to find a defender of the faith as quick, witty, funny, and charismatic as Christopher Hitchens, it's safe to say that Peter lost that debate.

Despite all that I hate about this book, a surprising number of good quotes can be pulled from it. On the flipside, some cringe-inducing quotes can also be pulled from it pretty easily. I think a 2/5 is all I can give. I wish I could have liked this book more.

*******************************************************************************************************

Key Quotes:

"My book, like all such books, is aimed mainly at myself. All polemical authors wish to persuade themselves above all." p. 10

"I had some good reasons for refusing some of it. My mistake was to dispense with it all, indiscriminately." p. 10

"I have become more certain that we cannot know such a thing in the way that we know anything else." (referring to the existence of God) p. 11

"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." p. 12

"Nobody can say I did not take my new anti-beliefs to their logical conclusions [...]" p. 18

"Those who write where many read, and speak where many listen, had best be careful what they say." p. 21

"It did not then cross my mind that they, like religious apologists, might have any personal reasons for holding to this disbelief." p. 25

"The Christian church has been powerfully damaged by letting itself be confused with love of country and the making of great wars." p. 79

"It is a strange and welcome side-effect of the growing attack on Christianity in British society that I have now completely overcome this. Being Christian is one thing. Fighting for a cause is another." p. 111

"[...] the recent conflict in Northern Ireland, described as being between Protestants and Catholics, was not about the Real Presence of Christ or the validity of the Feast of Corpus Christi or even the authority of the Bishop of Rome. It was a classic tribal war, over the ownership and control of territory, in which the much-decayed faiths of the people involved served as both badge and shorthand for a battle that disgusted the most faithful and enthused the least religious." p. 128

"[...] the partition and expulsions were not brought about by a Hindu victory over Islam, but the result of the campaign among Indian Muslims for a state of their own, a sort of Muslim Israel." p. 130

"And when it comes to the millions of small and tedious good deeds that are needed for a society to function with charity, honesty, and kindness, a shortage of believing Christians will lead to that society's decay." p. 145

"One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind." (Thomas Nagel) p. 150

"I am curious, however, whether there is anyone who is genuinely indifferent as to whether there is a God [...]" (Thomas Nagel) p. 151

"I happen to think that there is an absolute standard of good and evil, so I would have to lament over the broken eggs even if there were an omelet instead of a bloody mess." p. 196

"But 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." p. 205-206

*******************************************************************************************************

FAIL Quotes:

"God is the leftists' chief rival." p. 134

"By putting such socialistic thoughts in the mouth of the despised traitor-to-be Judas, and by stating so baldly the truth known to all conservatives that poverty cannot be eradicated, the Bible angers and frustrates those who believe that the pursuit of a perfect society justifies the quest for absolute power." p. 135

"The atheists cannot honestly disown it, and it is because they know this in their hearts that they panic and babble when confronted with the problem. Nothing else can explain the absurd denials they issue." (referring to Soviet power intending to be the opposite of faith in God) p. 138

"It makes it impossible for Christian churches to operate adoption societies, despite their effectiveness in this task, because it is no longer lawful for them to 'discriminate' against homosexual couples who wish to adopt." p. 162

"[...] the intolerant and puritan secular fundamentalism that gathers around the belief in manmade global warming." p. 169

"[Socialism] failed because it sought to render unto Caesar the things that belong to God." p. 196

While the book is well written and interesting. I don't think it has anything to do with what the title alleged. A majority of the book is basically the author's memoir and the latter portion which finally gets into atheist arguments do not seem to be the regular day to day atheist argument that would be useful for someone questing the existence of God. It's a good book but I reccomend checking it out at a book store first so you know exactly what you are getting before purchasing.

The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens is a book by the brother of leading atheist Christopher Hitchens. In it, he describes his religious upbringing and his turn from the Christian faith to atheism. Instead of the doctrines and dogmas of Christianity, Hitchens latches onto some secular idols. From there he traces his journey from having those idols fail him while finding his way, grudgingly, back to the Christian fold.

With new-found eyes, Hitchens details his attitudes and behaviors while an atheist. He spares no judgment of his former self. His self-criticism is as sharp as was his tongue against anyone who espoused Christian faith.

One of the saddest parts of the book is where he gives his assessment of Christopher ever becoming a Christian. He recalls opportunities to debate his brother and people wanting them to go after each other viciously. However, a few days before, a decision and subsequent time together changed the tone of that debate. While that worked out, Peter gives the reader the reason he believes it unlikely Christopher will ever come to Christ. Note that Christopher Hitchens died in 2011, the year after this manuscript was first published. Christopher's son gave an account to a British journalist that he had indeed held onto his atheism until his last breath.

This book will help readers understand atheists, including those who are the hate-filled and angry at God variety. It will give you hope that God is seeking to save the lost even among the God-deniers. After engaging atheists, Christians may walk away wondering why they should bother. Peter Hitchens is a living, breathing example of why believers shouldn’t give up on their atheist friends and acquaintances.

See this review on my blog for additional links including video of a debate between the brothers, news of Christopher's death, etc.

I suppose I should declare my own bias- like Peter and Christopher Hitchens I was born into a nominally Christian( Anglican) family, drifted away from it in youth and adulthood but unlike Christopher Hitchens( and much like his brother Peter) returned with a vengeance to not the faith of my family but a new( and much more emotionally satisfying) faith- I became a Roman Catholic convert. Peter Hitchen's rubbishing of brother Christopher's facile claim that "religion is a source of violence and conflict"(made in "God Is Not Great") is comprehensive. Atheism (as Christians and other believers including myself) have long noted rests on a fundamental double standard- when religion is believed to be behind an act of violence or terrorism- be it so-called "loyalist" sectarian killings in NI during the "Troubles", (Irish Republicanism is officially non sectarian although a predominantly Catholic phenomenon) 9/11 or the more recent murders of the staff of French satirical magazine "Charlie Hebdo" last month for publishing allegedly "blasphemous" cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, he smugly claims that "you see, religion IS the problem" but when his attentions are drawn to violence and tyranny perpetrated by avowedly atheistical regimes( such as the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, China and Vietnam as well as Nazi Germany) he airily insists that "well, they aren't REALLY atheistical as they permit some religious worship!", ignoring the observation of Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky that the Cheka(the first Soviet secret police agency) and its successor agencies( GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MGB, KGB, FSB) killed more people in one day than the Inquisition did in all the centuries of its existence. If the above mentioned regimes had NOT succeeded in extirpating religious faith in toto, it was NOT due to lack of trying- as a perceptive Bolshevik leader noted as far back as 1925- "religion is like a nail- the harder you hit the deeper it sinks in!"

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 brat.

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. (Along with tired, overused, and incorrect Hitler arguments.)

Again, I expected more from Christopher Hitchens' brother.

Peter Hitchens brilliantly and humbly deconstructs the self-encircling destruction of atheist thought and morality. From a sheer historical perspective, this book is worth reading. Hitchens account of the connection between the church and war and how it has done much harm to trust in organized Christianity is revealing and helpful for those who want to understand the decline of Europe, and soon to be America I'm afraid. Also, of great interest are Hitchens accounts of the arrogance and totalitarianism of 1) marxist governments 2) militant atheists and their allies in the media 3) Increasingly, secular neo-"liberal" governments in the western world. This book should serve as a wake up call. A large majority of the unthinking public has been brainwashed into a new narcissistic and self destructive worldview. I've read several of his brothers books, which I admit are good in their critique of religious excesses and in their wit, but in the end are shallow and vapid.

I will be buying copies of this book to give to other people. Hopefully, "thought that destroys all thought" as GK Chesterton warned, will not have grown so powerfully in our culture that some on the fence will not be open to humbly hearing what this book has to say. Thank you Peter, for writing this powerful book.

The mindset of one who does not believe in the supernatural can seem strange to theists. Arguments against God seem to fall into widely divergent categories, none of which make sense to those with a scriptural worldview. Certain atheists have rejected the concept of a deity on a purely emotional level, allowing some past hurt or unanswered prayer to shape their view of reality. Others will dismiss the divine with what they perceive to be logical arguments and solid reasoning skills. Then there are some who simply hate the idea of an authority above them to whom an answer for actions will one day belong. It seems that no two atheists are the same, yet there is a common purpose they all share. Despite variant foundations, those who desire freedom from religion are united in their hope for a man-made utopia. They believe in the goodness of humanity and therefore fiercely fight against the idea of an absolute truth to which all people must bend a knee. Within his book, The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith, author Peter Hitchens gives an insider's look at this worldview while at the same time exposing its dangerous ideas and empty results.

Peter Hitchens is perhaps best known as the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens, a well regarded voice in the atheistic community. Growing up in the same household, both boys managed to arrive at similar positions of disbelief, but in time Peter Hitchens came back to faith in God. Within this work he gives a testimonial to the journey that led him to such a position. Although beginning in childhood, the majority of the book's content focuses on a disillusionment the author felt while serving as a journalist in Communist Russia. Seeing the way atheism had been put into practice and the brutality that erupted from a purely secular government, disturbing thoughts appeared and doubts arose. In essence, the emptiness of atheism led him to re-examine the word of God. After recounting his rejection of atheism, the remainder of the book seeks to explain the philosophical underpinnings of both a theistic and atheistic worldview.

It is clear that Peter Hitchens is well-versed in the use of language and can write in compelling prose filled with clever and witty commentary. As a journalist, such a high level of writing is to be expected and makes the book an engaging read. As a whole, the work provokes thought concerning the consequences of ideas, while at the same time giving insight into the inner workings of an atheistic mind in turmoil. However, the book does not deal so much with a return to Christ as it does a return to church of England. There is much that speaks to a sense of nostalgia and the passing of an age and little in regard to a robust explanation of Christianity's reasonableness. In closing, there is much to recommend about this title, but unfortunately, the sum of the parts does not come together into a greater whole.

Peter Hitchens should have hired someone else to be the reader for the c d. Of course, he is intelligent and well educated - unfortunately, he keeps telling his audience that he is -(boring.) His elocution is sadly lacking - to the point of being difficult to understand; his voice drifts and though I have excellent hearing I cannot make out all the words. He totally lacks humility; in fact, he is quite pompous. However, I do believe the book might be a good one.

Hitchens’ insightful logical analysis and beautiful writing style make for deeply enjoyable reading. He takes the reader on a fascinating journey through his teen age rebellion against God and authority and on to his return to the stability, peace, and security of a relationship with God. During his years as a journalist in the Soviet Union he saw the moral decline that results when God is banished. The atheistic political experiment birthed and sustained by prison camps, torture, and an unending river of blood largely succeeded in removing religion from the minds of the people. I doubt that it was as conclusive as Peter appears to think it was. Too many, like Stalin’s daughter, have come to belief out of an almost complete vacuum of religious ignorance. Iron curtains cannot impede the movement and drawing power of God’s Holy Spirit.

Hitchens critiques several objections, essentially moral objections, from the vocal atheists like his brother Christopher (especially chapters 9, 10, and 11). His arguments are difficult to refute though I can think of some possible responses. I think the best answers to such responses would involve the following considerations:

Dostoevsky’s dictum, “If there is no immortality, all things are lawful,” unrelentingly played out in a society where religion with its grounding morality was systematically erased. Glib atheistic pronouncements that people should do what is right simply because it is right and for no prudential reasons (reasons of benefit to the agent) fall stillborn when applied to real societies and real political systems. Imagine we could go back in time to talk with Stalin. Ask him why he committed such horrendous evils. Tell him he shouldn’t have murdered millions of innocent people because it was simply morally wrong, and how do you think he would respond? With no justice to face from a righteous God, why not do anything and everything he had the power to do? He would simply laugh in the moral atheist’s face. But give him reason to think he will someday face a just God and he would be far less likely to freely indulge his megalomanic desires. Indeed, give people reason to believe that a just and loving God, our source and creator, became a man and gave himself for them by dying an excruciating death to bring them back to God and remove the evil that binds them, and they will follow that God through hell itself to have him. This motivation to obey God, no matter what the cost, is the strongest grounding for morality a culture may have. It is also the most invincible of enemies to totalitarian regimes who demand absolute and self-sacrificial obedience for themselves.

I’m not speaking of religion in general. Atheist apologists tend to lump all religions together, point out the bad in some, and generalize that all are the same. The Aztec religion, which required the torture and sacrifice of thousands of people a year, is very different from the teachings of Jesus to love and do good for all people, including one’s enemies. Do this, he said, and they will know you are my followers. It is this kind of core moral teaching that can provide the ethical grounding for a society that will lead to its greatest benefit and well being. The kind of ethical grounding the Aztec religion provided made its civilization likely the cruelest on earth. Yes, societies with Christian based ethical systems have created horrors like the pograms and the Inquisition. But they have done so only because evil leaders had the power to create laws and dictates which contradict those ethical foundations. It is much easier to inculcate societies with evil when those societies lack such ethical foundations and it is much harder to stop such evils from growing. The Soviet eradication of religion shows, as Hitchens says, how they could move so rapidly from a “thought-police state to . . . a gangster state, with an interlude of chaos in between” (142).

Hitchen’s book is not a strong Christian apologetic as some may have hoped for. He makes it clear in his introduction that he has come to believe that reason cannot lead us to know that God does or does not exist as it leads us to “know anything else, and so [we] must choose whether to believe or not.” While I do not entirely agree, I think that in order that we may be able to freely choose, the evidence must not be too strong either way (though it must be sufficiently strong that any reasonable, unprejudiced person would believe). I agree with him that we must freely choose, for it is most important to God to know what we will choose. For Hitchens it took the demise of his trust in politics and ambition plus the contemplation of death, morality, and deep human relationships to lead him to finally reaffirm his old faith.

The epilogue, written before Christopher’s death, is a sad but hopeful account of these two brothers finally coming to some mutual acceptance after so many years of intermittent division and hostilities. Peter has prodded me on to resist my own temptations to despise those who oppose my Christian world view. Atheists will less likely read or appreciate Peter’s appeal of mutual acceptance. But then perhaps they will. For Peter did not ostensively appeal to his readers to accept and love their opponents and rivals. It is our knowledge that all of this was written while Christopher was still alive and that we are reading it now while he is gone that overwhelms us with a deep sadness and motivates us to lay down our arms of intolerance. It draws us to mutual acceptance of each other as persons. The ideas will always be at war so long as we live on this earth. And so it should be. But that does not mean that we cannot accept, forgive, and even love those whose minds and thoughts are so alien to our own.

"Even unbelievers have to recognize that God, whether He exists or not, predates earthly dictators and tends to survive them. God's laws and Christian morals do the same, survive. If God is not dethroned and his laws revoked, he represents and important rival to the despot's authority, living in millions of hearts. If he cannot be driven out of hearts, total control by the state is impossible."

-Peter Hitchens

Very fascinating book. Peter, as a foreign correspondent who has lived all over the globe, evaluates the cultures of various countries who have decidedly chosen to live without a Christian religious structure. He describes the failures of societies and the path towards, in some cases, ultimate destruction as dictators seek to replace God with their own utopian fantasies that place them as the "God-like" figure.

He also critiques current western societies and how the language and focus of the New Atheists are eerily similar to the same words echoed by Josef Stalin, Leon Trotsky, and Vladimir Lenin, who sought to eradicate religion in the 1920's.

If you are looking for an autobiography of his own coming to faith from atheism, it's very limited. Nor does he choose to take a lot of personal shots at his famous atheist brother Christopher Hitchens. He does question Christopher's beliefs and speaks where he and him differ in opinion. But there is no dueling of sharp words and he is content at focusing the direction of the book towards society evaluation rather than romanticizing over the public's interest to see him go toe to toe with Christopher.

He also is not an apologist for the Christian faith that is seeking to define what Christians believe in or his own set of defined beliefs. More or less, what his points are, are often to the readers discernment as his arguments come from more from the self-evidence of failed socialistic systems that have rendered God mute.

Highly recommend for those interested in history, sociology, and Christianity through the lens of a global perspective.

Atheism in the United Kingdom has undergone its own cultural transformation in recent years. The `new atheists' no longer adopt a feigned respect to religion but now adopt a vehemently hostile attitude to the very notion of the supernatural, denouncing those who have faith as being ignorant, delusional or fraudulent. Christopher Hitchens, the late British born darling of the American intelligentsia, made up one of the especially raged filled and grandiosely named `Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse'. His book `God is Not Great' is now part of the anti-theist canon.

Witnessing this, and objecting to the shallow reasoning employed by the new atheists, Christopher's conservative Anglican brother has stepped in to the battle to directly rebut his own brother and offer a defence of the Almighty against the most outrageous claims made against Him and those who believe in Him. 'The Rage Against God' is not a standard work of apologetics. The first half is primarily autobiographical, with Peter Hitchens recounting a typical childhood, in which his Christianity was little more than a cultural convention, his adolescent descent into hard-line Trotskyism, and his eventual return to the Church of England as a serious believer in later life. Much like C.S. Lewis' `Surprised by Joy', Peter Hitchens makes no claims of dramatic religious experience but gives a reassuringly mundane account of his journey towards a 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 leads to 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 Hitchens' 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. His weakest area is his argument that religious wars are generally fought over secular issues cloaked in religious terminology. While this is certainly true in many conflicts, the rise of militant Islam makes it impossible for any religious apologist to deny that violence can flow directly out of religious faith. Here I think Peter overly downplays the explicit religious significance of contemporary violence. On this point Christopher Hitchens was correct. Where Christopher was wrong was to use militant Islam as proof that all religion leads to irrational minds prone to barbarism. Religious faith does not necessarily lead to religious violence no more than an ideology necessarily leads to political violence. The issue is the religion and what it demands; a point often lost on the political Left when they try to equate American evangelicals with Islamic militants.

Peter’s column in the Mail on Sunday has given him a fierce reputation as a fire and brimstone preacher. Whether this is fair or not, this book does have a noticeably different tone from that found in his column. We find here a personal and through-provoking account that should challenge readers to approach the `God Debate' with a rational calm that is all too-lacking in many recent works.

This is a very well written and thoroughly absorbing book, at once an honest personal testimony and a superb essay on some rather grand ideas and significant subjects. The author's insights into the post WWII England in which he and his atheist brother grew up are eye-opening, profound, and depressing. Mr. Hitchens tells us why he has "been out of step with his generation" for virtually his entire life. He takes us through his thoughts and his experiences, and relates how he came to his conclusions about life, in a clear and persuasive way. We see here the individual and the world he has lived in in absolutely clear terms. The individual changed his mind about the fundamental questions of life, concluding that one "must choose to believe or not." His replies to, and tenderness toward, his brother, are powerful and touching. His personal observations about life in godless societies are equally powerful. This is a terrific personal memoir, a poignant response to his brother, and a formidable marshalling of arguments about fundamental questions.

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.

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 Rage Against God' is a memoir written by the younger brother of the late famous atheist, Christopher Hitchens. The author of this book, Christopher Hitchens, is a former atheist who became a Christian after years spent as an atheist, communist, etc.

It is somewhat interesting in that it documents a lot of the progression of secularization of Great Britain over the last few decades. For those who have followed Christopher Hitchens writings over the years, this also provides some background regarding him.

I had thought that this might be more about the reasons for Mr. Hitchens' conversion to Christianity. There was some of that, but it is really pretty minor.

This may be of some interest to those who are familiar with Christopher's work.

Peter Hitchens, an atheist who has returned to faith, gives a personal response to his brother Christopher's aggressive anti-Christian zealotry.

The introduction was enticing, succinctly articulating some of my own responses to public engagement with high-profile atheists, both in terms of content:
"...I intend to address the fundamental failures of three atheistic arguments. Namely, that conflicts fought in the name of religion are always about religion; that it is ultimately possible to know with confidence what is right and what is wrong without acknowledging the existence of God; and that atheist states are not actually atheist..."
and, more importantly (because content, in practise, is often incidental), the (at times mutual) utter vitriol and contempt directed at anyone with the audacity to hold a different view:
"... The difficulties of the anti-theists begin when they try to engage with anyone who does not agree with them, when their reaction is often a frustrated rage that the rest of us are so stupid..."

To return to the content issue, sure, it's embarrassing how transparently glib fallacies are popularly trotted out as intelligent attack on ignorant theism (e.g. Theists flew planes into the World Trade Center: therefore theism is responsible for all such atrocities, and if there was no theism, there would be no such atrocities). It's equally embarrassing when such stupidity is countered with equal stupidity (Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler were atheists: therefore atheism is responsible for any large scale dictatorial murder, and if there were no atheists, there would be no such atrocities). Before I had a chance to get to this review I had mused on including a bunch of equally absurd statements along the lines of:

· Knowing whether someone is a theist/atheist will indicate anything about their relative honesty, intelligence or goodwill
· Theism can be judged on any action of any medieval European legislation
· Atheism can be judged on any action of any 20th Century communist dictator

This came to mind because, despite Peter Hitchins' (essentially validated) claim that he would not "...seek to thunder as [his brother Christopher] thunders, or to answer fury with fury or scorn with scorn. I do not loath atheists, as Christopher claims to loath believers...", I did feel like he fell into engaging in a foolish argument. I can see why in his first and last content arguments above that he would find it hard not to: his experience living as a journalist in Soviet Moscow, for example, understandably saw him bridle at pronouncements his brother has made to distance atheism from that regime: here was an area that someone claiming to value empirical evidence over fanatical belief would surely have to defer to someone with greater specific experience and knowledge. I can't fault Hitchens' logic or examples, and maybe they were of use to people more influenced by such specifics, but I felt there was a dead aspect to this. Sure we could kick around whether the Crusaders were really `Christian' (were they making any attempt to follow the teachings of Christ), or whether Hitler actually had some type of belief; whether `the troubles' in Ireland were tribal rather then religious, or fascists merely replace historical religions with a state one. Each side could try to build a larger list of criminals that held the other side's views. But I think it's wiser to simply admit that atheism and theism both denote a huge range of characters: you might as well try to build a correlation between culpability/virtue and blood type.

Hitchens surprised me by how much of the book was more sociological theory, from a personal perspective, than the more measured argument in the second part (only 40 pages of the over 200). As a Christian myself (ooh, what a giveaway), I wonder how much my version of Christianity is shared with his, as much of it seemed to be more caught up with a yearning for `the good old days', pining for many of the trappings (such as King James' English) as opposed to the essence (I hope Hitchens does realise that Jesus never said a single `thee' or `thou'). If faith focuses primarily on forms, I'm has happy as a Dawkins to see it die. However the spirit of the epilogue gave me a much stronger impression that I did have the same Lord as Peter Hitchens, as he describes a recent public debate organised between himself and his brother.
"...When I attacked his book against God, some people seemed almost to hope that our personal public squabble would begin again. No doubt they would have been pleased or entertained if we had pelted each other with slime in Grand Rapids. But despite one or two low blows exchanged in the heat of the moment, I do not think we did much to satisfy them. I hope not. At the end I concluded that, while the audience perhaps had not noticed, we had ended the evening on better terms than either of us might have expected. This was - and remains - more important to me than the debate itself..."
Now that's the good stuff. That's Christlike - a guy who often just skipped the debate because it didn't matter to him. He didn't need or want to score points. If it's worth having faith this will ultimately be shown by the way the Christian debater has far more genuine concern for the person who attacks them, verbally or otherwise, than for whether or not they win the contest. That's what's distinctive, and, I suppose, the deal breaker for me: mere Darwinism offers nothing as absurd (or Divine) as the principle of loving one's enemy. And as such the only versions of atheism I've had offered to me miss the most precious and essential thing about being human: morality. The joke is I know Christians who have every theoretical reason to be loving, considerate and charitable - who can be entirely selfish and even cruel, and atheists who, as I understand it, have no theoretical basis for doing anything except improving their own chances for survival and reproduction, yet manage to be devastatingly kind and virtuous.

I hope more of us realise there is something far more important than the argument. I'm hardly the only one to think so, or even to say so. Check out, for example, David Wong's excellent cracked.com article, "10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On" (the store won't let me put in the link, just google the title).

"Why do the nations rage" asks the Psalmist (2:1). Against whom are they so filled with fury? Mankind displays a fundamental hatred towards the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The nations rage because they seek to usurp him; drag him through the streets as though conquered; and leave him to a gruesome death.

Sometimes the militant become the adherent. Christopher Hitchens is well known as a militant atheist. He believes that there is no God. But, what makes him militant is his resolve to demonstrate the corruption of religion and the hope of atheism. You may have already known that. But, you may not be aware the Christopher has a brother, Peter. Peter is a Christian.

Peter Hitchens has written a book describing his proverbial prodigality - his rejection of Christianity and subsequent return. Hitchens is a professional journalist. He's a man who knows how to write well. His book The Rage against God is well written and easy to read. It may not be the kind of book you expect. He describes his journey but not in the typical, bear-all, American manner you might expect. He is thoroughly British and maintains his scruples. It was not the book I expected. The book I found was better than that.

The Rage against God is an exploration of history and ideas. It is a profound reminder of the power of ideas to shape history by shaping lives. He was a product of the pessimistic, post-WWII British childhood. It is the grace of God which delivers us from the age in which we find ourselves. It was God's grace which delivered Peter Hitchens from the desperate, hopeless world in which he lived and moved for so long. Through exploration of history (some personal, some not) and ideas he shows that he came to see Atheism as a hatred toward God - specifically Christianity.

Rage robs a man of his distinctive trait. A man so filled with fury loses his ability to think or reason. Rage-filled men are the werewolves of our day. So filled with bloodthirsty urges they lose a right view of themselves. Our therapeutic age is quick to diagnose "rage-a-holics" and even quicker to prescribe antidotes. Could it be that the rage destroying so many homes and lives is really just the manifestation of a deeper, more concealed, socially acceptable rage? The Rage against God.

Note: In keeping with the regulations of the Federal Trade Commission I would like to state that I have received the aforementioned title as compensation for my review. I was not required to provide a positive review. The opinions and ideas expressed here are my own.

Peter Hitchens will likely sell a lot of copies of this book because of his brother, famed atheist Christopher Hitchens (I'll be honest, that's why I snagged a copy). Fortunately, this book stands well on its own.

Peter uses autobiography and argument to make this point: Societies founded on atheism fail spectacularly. Having lived as a journalist in the Soviet Union, he witnessed the results of Lennin's failed enforced-atheism. Upon returning to England, he was shocked to see the culture he was raised in degenerating in similar fashion.

A major pillar of radical atheism is the premise that religion causes suffering. This book undermines that pillar and actually proposes the opposite. Most wars fought in the name of religion are not really religious, but ethnic wars with religious labels. The worst suffering is found in atheistic societies.

I'd like to believe his argument but there's one big hole unaccounted for. He nowhere accounts for the role that government style has to play in the situation. Can he really say that theistic societies are more civil than atheistic ones, or is it simply the case that democratically governed societies are more civil than communist-run states?

My last quibble is the way this book was marketed. The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith is not the main point of this book. A more accurate title would be The Rage Against God: Why Societies Founded on Atheism Fail. He really said very little about how his atheism led him to faith.

While I didn't agree with all of his ideas, the overall argument of the book has certainly forced me think. What more can you ask for in a book?

Disclaimer: This review copy was provided free of charge by Zondervan.

The first half of this book is brief history of post WWII England's Christian de-evolution. The auther sets up his metaphysical discussion (the last half the book) By explaining what he feels are the reasons Christianity and faith suffered a cultural rebellion in the years following the second world war. Being that the author is himself British, this story focuses mainly on the culture of Britain. The actual writing is very proper and detailed, meaning it is not what most people would consider to be "light reading."

For the second half of the book, Hitchens takes care to point out exactly how and why the Christian faith, while practiced by flawed humans; remains the only source for a decent and civilized world. The author directs his book to comparing Christian worldview to that of "Anti-theism." Using specific historic examples as well as logic, Hitchens brilliantly guides the reader through the fatal flaws of the modern anti-theistic worldview. He explains why in his view, anti-theists are threatened and have such an animosity towards Christianity.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS
Toward the end of the book the author frequetly thrusts his brother's thoughts and comments into his argument. Appearently the brother is an avouwed athiest who has written numerous books. I couldnt help but feel that this sounded a little of family fuedish after awhile. What I think is also a positive point.. the last few chapters take time drawing a parallel between the atrocities and failures of communist Russia and the logical conclusion of modern anti-theism. This is a facinating point that had not fully occured to me before. I do think a reader will be enlightened by this point.

I did find the title to be somewhat misleading. Hitchens actually spends comparably little time discussing his personal journey from athiest to Christian. The four star is not a knock against the book itself. Earlier I mentioned that this is written with a focus on English History. Thus I do feel this might have a bit more meaning for an English reader an American. However this book is filled with important knowledge and gems that will only enhance your brain.

Part memoir, part apologetic, part indictment against the New Atheism, Peter Hitchens' The Rage Against God is a unique and interesting tale of how atheism ultimately led one man to faith. A tale in three parts, it first dives into the author's history, then addresses three atheistic arguments, and concludes with an indictment against "The League of the Militant Godless." Now many people could write a novel such as this, I'm sure, but few would have either the professional or personal credentials this author has. As a journalist, he has lived and worked in countries where the state religion of atheism affected every detail of life; and in his personal life, he is the brother of infamous antitheist Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens' own personal history his quite interesting, as he gives us some unique cultural insights into what was going on in Britain during the time of his childhood. His journalistic background helps him trace the history of secularism well, and serves as a warning to a United States fast following Britain's heels.

Hitchens continues his narrative by asking three questions. "Are conflicts in the name of religion conflicts about religion?" Countering the arguments of the antitheist who see religion's existence as a source of conflict, he details that while the answer is sometimes yes, that is not always the case. He concludes that war is ultimately fought as a power struggle for material gain, not spiritual. "Is it possible to determine what is right and what is wrong without God?" Hitchens answers no, positing that an absolute moral code must transcend society and outlining in detail the antitheist's failure to uphold a moral standard. Last question was "Are Atheist states not actually Atheist?" Here Hitchens counters the atheist counterargument that atheist states are really based on religious principles.

In the end, Hitchens' gives us an interesting personal story from a journalist's perspective. Considering that part of the hook was that Christopher Hitchens, a militant antitheist, is Peter's brother, I expected a bit more interplay with Christopher's ideas and writings. The epilogue sort of explains why he shies away from that, and while I certainly respect those reasons, such an avoidance was not the impression I'd gotten from the back cover, which contrasts the two brothers. Overall, this book is most beneficial for its look into the decline of Christianity in Britain in the post-WWII era. - 3.5 stars

Ritualistic religion with no depth of meaning that equated patriotism with God led to Peter Hitchens to become an atheist. In post World War II Britan, as traditions were being questioned, Hitchens bought into the materialistic mindset more and more. His encounter with a Christian message in an art Museum in France pricked his heart with the reality of the "Last Judgment" and he began to doubt the certainty of his doubts.

As a journalist, Hitchens spent time in Russia, experiencing first hand the consequences of a nation that is planned by athetistic materialists. The contractions are ubiquitous. A rainstorm illustrates the total lack of trust among the populace. He noted when it started to rain, drivers would pull over and install their windshield wipers, which had been put away so they wouldn't be stolen. A society build theoretically on equality for all was rigidly class-based. The wealthy took advantage of their subordinates constantly.

What makes the matter worse, is that "enlightened" (blind) intellectuals of the day when Communism was emerging wrote only of the positive asepcts of social planning when describing it to readers in the West. Secularize Christmas, marginalize the Christian religion, portray clergymen as corrupt. What the secularitst did in Russia is sadly being done in the United States in the early 21st century and the very-predictable consequences are set to recur. An odd twist that took place in that evil regime was the the murderous materialists turned on each other--murdering their own.

The title of this book intrigued me enough to take it off the shelf at the book store. What's this, Christopher Hitchens brother wrote it? I was off to the till to buy it upon reading the first two sentences from Chapter one, "I set fire to my Bible on the playing fields of my Cambridge boarding school one bright, windy spring afternoon in 1967. I was 15 years old." Sold.

England is known as the country with the most confirmed atheists proportionally in the world. She has given to us recently, two of the most outspoken authors against God in the last ten years, Peter's brother, who wrote, "god is not Great," and of course the biology professor Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion). I wanted to know what it was that had such a strong negative influence to God and religion on that generation from a country with such a rich Christian history. These evangelistic anti theists have a healthy number of like minded thinkers in the Western world, my older siblings counted among this group. Born in the same decade also non religious and currently closed minded to the God of the Bible.

I would say chapters 3 to 6 of the 14 chapters of this book almost ground the read to a stop, but it picks up from there and Peter gave me some awesome new points for discussion in the closing chapters. This isn't just a ride through the dark period of the soul, and then crossing over the hump of doubt the author experienced because normally, teen agers are rebellious by nature. Then we find the roller coaster returning to the station where it all started with a sigh of relief. Back into the "light" of a "religious" childhood. No, this is a tour De force from the "other" Hitchens who obviously comes from the same stock, both definitely game.

Peter as a journalist did some traveling. He spent some years in Moscow as a matter of course. Seeing first hand what 70 years of state fed atheistic teaching accomplished in Russia brought home to Hitchens the alternative dramatically.

No one should be made to feel intolerant for having an exclusive worldview when in truth it is not pluralism when you have to exchange your "tradition" for someone else "exclusive tradition" that rejects your "exclusiveness." Like the charitable, virtuous, self sacrificing, "meek shall inherit the earth" teachings of Jesus Christ was simply the atheism rising up out of the man. Rubbish, Peter watched it happen and trips abroad shocked him back to the implications.

The good news is we have books like this from the boy who burned his Bible at age 15 and upon serious reflection, circled back to the man who debated his brother publicly on the subject of God. (Grand Rapids Michigan April 3 2008). Incidentally Peter writes on that night, courtesy and respect ruled the day for the two brothers when people thought they came to see the fireworks of what might develop into a travelling fair. No, money is not the motivator for either, the evidence for that is in the depth of the discussion.

Peter has a gift and uses it to give you solid intellectual reasons to believe. Exactly what some may be after.

Peter Hitchens said so many things so well that I found myself highlighting many passages to quote them later when I want to sound erudite. I did not agree with him on every point (mostly some political points), but certainly more than I agree with his brother Christopher. (The book did give me a better appreciation of where the late Christopher Hitchens was coming from.) I wish that his brother could have made a similar journey of faith. It is amazing to see two very intelligent men from the same starting point and with the same facts reach very different conclusions. I highly recommend this book.

Peter Hitchens makes a powerful argument that pure reason will construct a functional moral system by pointing out inherent contradictions within atheism and moral relativism. He does it with all of the skill of his better-known brother and with much less self-indulgent bombast. In fact, Peter Hitchens proves himself an excellent writer and story teller. I was not familiar with his previous work, although he has strong credentials, but this was impressive. The Rage Against God is part polemic, part autobiography, part inspirational. It could easily serve as a contemporary "Confessions" by Augustine and is the best, by far, of any such book I have read. It more accessible than "Confessions" and, frankly, more interesting.

I highly recommend this book as a response to moral relativism for the simple fact that it can serve as a legitimate step in the discourse between those who believe there are no revealed moral truths and those who think there are. This book is not preachy and does not require religious belief to give its arguments power. Rather, it is a response by a prior agnostic to the failings of atheism and similar ideologies that lead him back to faith. As such, it is a valuable criticism of those ideologies that their adherents need to address (if only to improve and strengthen their beliefs) and that opponents will find reassuring, perhaps inspirational.

Peter Hitchens is the brother of the well-known journalist and now promoter of the "new atheism," Christopher Hitchens. Their life-long rivalry, and apparent dislike of each other, underlies the drama of Peter Hitchens's reply to his brother's attack on religious faith as expressed in Christopher's book "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." Peter's book is part "spiritual journey" and pointed refutation of popular atheist claims and indictments of religious (specifically Christian) faith.

This book should, and hopefully will, become an enduring classic of such stature as is enjoyed by writings of C.S. Lewis (e.g. Surprised By Joy).

The general "tone" of Hitchens's book is melancholy, sometimes deeply so. The author sadly laments the deceptions and corruption of the human condition, and clearly regrets his years of over-confident skepticism. There is much sorrow in Peter's soul, even now in his "found" years. Because of his own past attraction to socialist utopianism, he is especially powerful in revealing the failings, indeed the delusions, of Soviet communism that so enraptured the liberal intelligentsia of the west (and which still does, even in the allegedly "post-communist" era). He sees the worship of the State as the logical focus of Hope for the atheist mind, and heaps scorn upon such humanist "ideals" as the Perfection of Man. From his own experience of living in the Soviet Union, he offers painful, heart-breaking reflections on the disasters for personal, family, and social life wrought by the atheist regime's campaign against God and the very possibility of Christian faith in that country's history.

Hitchens writes about desecrated societies with extraordinary power, a power rooted in personal experience. His description of Mogadishu, Somalia, stopped me in my tracks and became the occasion for my own quietly shocked meditation on society and civilization. The moral descent possible to humanity is strikingly presented through a contrast he draws between the Somalia he witnessed in December 1992 with what it had been but a few short years before. Looking at some old pictures of Mogadishu revealed a contrast of worlds. "Where I had seen mud, gangs, and wreckage, there were Italian-style pavement cafes, smart cars in orderly lines, a white-gloved policeman directing the traffic, well-dressed and prosperous people passing by, even a telephone box, and of course, modern shops and civilized-looking hotels. This was the familiar world that I was used to, and in a short time it had become the miserable desert in which I had rightly feared for my life.." And the change had not taken all that long.

Together with his experience of Soviet society, Hitchens becomes convinced "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 as 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."

Other experiences illuminate the author's trail back to the God question and his own embrace of Christian faith. Two works of art play a key role in his interpretation of his own journey and what he sees as the tragedy of modern Christianity in his native Britain.

Upon viewing a Rogier van der Weyden painting of the Last Judgment, he was drawn to the depiction of naked, damned souls. "Still scoffing, I peered at the naked figures fleeing toward the pit of hell, out of my usual faintly morbid interest in the alleged terrors of damnation. But this time I gaped, my mouth actually hanging open. These people did not appear remote or from the ancient past; they were my own generation. . . . They were me and the people I knew." Standing in front of Van der Weyden's great altarpiece, Hitchens "trembled for the things of which my conscience was afraid (and is afraid). Fear is good for us and helps us to escape from great dangers. Those who do not feel it are in permanent peril because they cannot see the risks that lie at their feet."

The other painting discussed by Hitchens is the unusual interpretation of The Prodigal Son, by Thomas Hart Benton, viewed in the National Gallery in Washington, D.C. In contrast to the Bible's own story, Benton's prodigal returns to a devastated homestead, a desolation caused in large measure by his own absence, self-absorption, greed and wastefulness. Hitchens ties this heavy theme into his own laments about the theological, intellectual, and moral decline of England's Christianity and that nation's consequent descent into incivility and moral chaos. Hitchens, the prodigal who had so "petulantly stomped" away from the church, now must ask himself: "Where had I been when I was needed?"

In the book's latter half, Hitchens takes on three popular accusations brought against religious faith, and addresses the issues of conflicts fought in the name of religion, skepticism concerning moral absolutes, and the attempts to protect modern atheist states from criticism of their crimes by claiming that they were really "religious" (albeit secular). Here is where the author powerfully derides utopian intellectuals and their romance with totalitarian, nightmare societies such as the former Soviet Union, and warns of the creeping increase of totalitarian premises in the modern west, most specifically in England and America.

Peter Hitchens's book ends with a reflection on his long time feud with his brother, Christopher, and the aftermath of a public debate held between them in 2008 in Grand Rapids. I do not readily feel chills running down my spine or get misty-eyed from reading books (or much else, I'm afraid), but I did here. I will not give it away, but if you read this book, do not dare go there until you have properly read all of the preceding.

I recommend this book to anyone trying to understand, really understand, the roots of the atheist movement. The book is structured very linear, in that, Peter tells his story from childhood to the present. The meat of the book really hits late in the book, but persevere because his closing points are POWERFUL given the historical vantage point he builds. It is not an easy read. So don't pick it up if you are looking for a quaint little explanation. Read the book if you seek a deeper answer and perspective on anit-god agendas and where they come from. Excellent book Peter - thank you for your humble account and offering on this raging topic.

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.

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 puts out a wonderful book about his early life, rebellion and subsequent return to the Christian faith as well as a Christian defense in this book of 220 pages. Some reviewers of this book were expecting a knock-down dragged out written battle excoriating his brother Christopher. There is some of that toward the end of the book along with some refutation of Dawkins, but most of the tome goes into the fact that the Christian Church has been under attack for some time in England and the USA.

Hitchens traces the departure of people from the faith back to the mass carnage that occurred in World War I where millions went to their deaths and the survivors brought back harrowing memories and lost their faith. Subsequent wars such as World War II put further pressure on the church in terms of its taking a stand against the frightful occurrences in the two wars. That it blessed both sides of the 1914-1918 conflict served to cause grave damage to its reputation.

Hitchens also makes statements that the USSR was the first nation to systematically exterminate the church and replace it with state worship. He warns that the rise of the Politically Correct movement in the West with its scorning and mocking of the faith does not bode well for the Church. Hitchens clearly states that he is not a theologian and thus there is no substantial scriptural defense of the Faith. This book is simply a testimony of the goodness that God has show to him and his family and a warning to the Church of the harm that might come upon it in the future.

I just finished reading "The Rage Against God" by Peter Hitchens. My older son recently purchased two copies of the book from the store as well as one copy of Christopher's book titled "God Is Not Great."

I very much enjoyed reading Peter's book as he comes across as refreshingly honest. For example on page 11 he writes "I harbor no ambitions to mount a comprehensive rebuttal of the arguments of such prominent atheists as Professor Richard Dawkins, author of `The God Delusion', or my brother, Christopher." Also, in the Acknowledgements on page 220, Peter makes it quite clear that he does not consider himself a theologian or philosopher or, even an intellectual for that matter. But, to read some of the negative reviews on this book, it seems that some are implying that they have somewhere seen (or heard) that Peter has made some great, grandiose and self-aggrandizing proclamation about himself being the "one who brings all the answers to the questions of men." To put it in street "The atheists are putting forth a bogus pretext in their reviews that Peter has claimed to be something, when in reality he has not." This is typical of atheists as it was the same when I used to debate the communists in college. In their own words "This is being intellectually dishonest."

I have a question for you atheists out there, if you dare to answer. In chapter 10, Peter brings up the issue of "Where does the concept of right vs wrong come from, if not from God." In view of this question, I want to quote from another book that I recently read (and purchased from the store) titled "The Reason For God" by Timothy Keller. On page 159 Keller asks "If there is no God, then there is no way to say any one action is `moral' and another `immoral' but only `I like this.' If that is the case, who gets the right to put their subjective, arbitrary moral feelings into law?"

Second question is from a recent comment by Stephen Hawking taken from a Reuters News article dated Sept 02, 2010 in which Hawking responds rhetorically to the question "Why do we exist" and he explains that we exist because of the "law of gravity" and that "gravity" created the universe from nothing. So, my question to you atheists out there is this: "If the universe was created by the force of gravity, then where did gravity come from?"

Finally, it seems that we are hearing a lot from American atheists who are living lives of "privilege" and who are enjoying the freedoms of our society but yet, at the same time sympathizing with belief systems that are diametrically opposed to the very freedoms and standard of living that the atheists are enjoying. When reading the smug, condescending tone of your negative critiques on the store, one gets the feeling that you guys think you are the only people in the world who can read, and that you need to think for the rest of us. But, at the same time you avoid debating the actual issues. To listen to your logic, it goes like this: "If you don't agree with us, and become an atheist yourself, then you are ignorant and not worth talking to." So, it doesn't look good for our society and the future of civil discourse. "Did I say `good?'" "Oh, I'm sorry, according to the atheists, there is no such thing as `good.'"

I doubt anyone can ever be argued into faith, but perhaps it is possible to persuade someone to open a closed mind just a crack. I am a believer, but was a devout atheist until 40, so I relate to the author and his epic journey. I, too, have enjoyed the privilege of treveling the globe and gaining a broad perspective on the human condition. This book, better than any I've seen (and I read a lot), captures the reasons why faith is more SENSIBLE than atheism. My summary would be: at very young knowledge, faith in God seems reasonable because life is inexplicable; at mature knowledge, faith seems primitive because we know so much we think we can explain everything without God; at true wisdom, we regain respect for faith because we see the reality of man's limitations and capacity for depravity--we admit our extraordinary arrogance in writing off God. Peter Hitchens shows examples how this has played out in the modern world. His case is compelling for those willing to think it through, but that's just the problem isn't it? People who already believe they know everything aren't honestly searching for truth...at least this book is there for those willing to listen.

Peter Hitchens writes an articulate account of his own spiritual journey from religion to atheism and to faith. His book includes writing that describes the decline of the church in England and Europe, the dangers of encroaching Islam and secularism, and spends much time on the realities of atheistic regimes of communism. Hitchens writes what he knows which is the ironically unctuous attitude that so many "intellectuals" take toward believers in Jesus Christ. Hitchens possessed such a disdain for faith himself until he had to accept that reality that life without God is a miserable and evil existence and that those who claim faith in the progressive goodness of humanity are deceived and self-serving.

Hitchens turned to Christianity but has found it difficult to find the traditional orthodox faith of the Church of England. He laments that so many, even among priests, have rejected the penitent faith of the church Fathers in favor of an ambiguous humanism. He identifies this as a result of secularism and the misguided "virtue" of tolerance and virus of pluralism.

Hitchens reserves his strongest writing for his descriptions of life under communism. He illustrates that the very nature of government is self-serving for those in charge and condemns populations to a common miserable experience characterized by hopelessness, paranoia, stress and darkness. He emphasizes that such governments seek to replace God and conscience in people's lives and become an oppressive tyrant.

This is an eye-opening and enlightening book that is relevant to our times. It seems to belabor the latter point above at times but does drive the point home which might be neccessary to disabuse readers of any naive hopes that our governments are our last best hope. Hitchens' book shows that our best hope is in the Christian faith that has stood the test of time and has the historical effectives of goodness in spite of its critics.

I Would put 0 stars if i could. What an ignorant bashing book. I would've expected more from someone related to Christopher. This is an embarrassment and you Peter should be ashamed of yourself. You do not understand atheism. Your view of fear is absoloutely ridiculous. I struggled to keep reading this rant. Really? You were driven to sin because of a lack of religion. What an insult to humanity. I know of no atheist who went to a life of violence after leaving Christianity or other faiths. Do not buy this book please. Do not encourage this sort of nonsense. Anyone who likes this book clearly only understands one world view, the one they were brought up in while ignoring all others.

Hitchens blows away the modern church of disbelief. He also points out how Christianity had been subverted by the military industrial complex. The alternative is not to shake your fist at The Man but to see it for what it is and resist from within.

This book has one selling point: The fact that the author is a Christian and the brother of the world famous atheist/anti-theist Christopher Hitchens. Peter Hitchens says he used to be an atheist too. Mainly, it seems, because he wanted to be a rebel at the age of twelve. Now he is a Christian and he longs for the good old days of his childhood, when the UK wasn't so secular and the Church of England wasn't so modern. In the second half of the book, Hitchens claims to address "three failedd arguments of atheism" but instead spends the rest of the book writing about the evils of Communism in the Soviet Union, because he claims most ahteists are leftists and, if we were to believe Hitchens, would support the totalitarian state atheism of the Soviet Union. News flash: Many atheists are not communists or even leftists. Case in point: Ayn Rand.

There were some interesting parts in the book but they were few and far between. Mostly, it seems Hitchens is trying to cash in on his more famous brother. And, in the end, the book never did did explain "how atheism led me to faith" as the subtitle says, or even why he became a Chistian at all (he even says in the book that the story of his conversion is too personal to tell to strangers. Well, then maybe he shouldn't write a book about it).

Compelling reading.

Hard not to think of the family dynamics that created these two disparate views between these two very articulate brothers. Some of which is touched on in this provocative book. Between the two brothers, there is a very modern portrait of modern man's dilemma in thinking about the nature of reality, religion and science.

After all, nothing but math can ever really be proved. Sometimes ignorance and ambiguity are the foundations of belief. Perhaps embracing the mystery and acknowledging that everything cannot be know is liberating and the first step to a profound faith -- make that Faith.

Recommended.

I was greatly looking forward to this book, because if the author's capacities were even remotely in the range of his brother's, then, given their diametrically opposed opinions it would be an exciting read. Well it was. If anyone is looking for a cogent, expressive, realistic and persuasive account of the disruptive and destructive effects of aggressive atheism on a society then this is the book for you. The horrifying observations, evidence and personal experience which Peter outlines would convince the most skeptical reader that belief in God (justified or not) does at least limit evil and promote good in a modern society. The case that atheism dehumanised Soviet society is clearly established. After they have read this book, those who wish to lay the world's violence and evils at the door of religion should recognise that they are unable to give any examples of atheist regimes which, having disposed of the deceit of religion, have been able to establish a society from which evils have been eliminated. Both atheism and theism in the hands of Government seem equally evil to me.

But on another level the book disappointed me. Peter's faith seems to be a flight from the despair, materialism and emptiness of a "godless" world. The cure... put "God" back in. But what kind of God? Peter's "God" is very Anglican. Not the modern version, but the genuine English version of Cranmer's Prayer Book and the King James Version (which he should be calling the Authorised Version. It is Americans who call it the KJV since, as an American said to me "No one authorizes anything for us"). He has very good reasons for doing this, but it should not be assumed that this book does anything but prove the negative (its not "religion" that's dangerous for the modern world but "atheism"). Peter, however, fails to prove that this God is "real" only "useful". As has always been, and shall always be, to give up the "search for meaning" and the "experience of transcendence" that religion provides on the grounds that all is meaningless leads to humans becoming inhumane. At least is has up to now.

This short book is a response by the noted right-wing columnist to a handful of atheist titles that have recently graced the best-seller lists. Part polemic, part autobiography, it is a confession of sorts in which the author repents of his God-rejecting adolescence distinguished, if that's the right word, by various misdemeanours including criminal trespass, near-fatal abuse of a motorcycle and, in an exhibitionistic fit of juvenile pique, burning a Bible on the school playing field. Actually, a veil is drawn over much of his youth when he was attracted to atheism and what he now sees as the wrong sort of politics. As to his reasons for writing his `confession' Hitchens says that, like all polemicists, he is seeking largely to persuade himself while hoping that others may empathise and take moral instruction. He is also a bit concerned about brother Christopher's atheism although, touchingly, the book ends on a scene of fraternal reconciliation with both of them agreeing to differ.

Disillusionment with the powers that be and their moral standards would come with mature reflection on the Suez crisis and the Profumo scandal. Meanwhile, his affectionately described `naval' schooldays and his upbringing in a religion-free household formed the backdrop to his `atheist' awakening. In these early chapters Hitchens nostalgically evokes a post-war, black and grey Britain of sooty government buildings and landscapes strewn with war debris, inhabited by sartorially correct people of elegant diction. The contempt in which he once held 1950s suburbia and all it stood for is regretted, as is the passing of Britain's mighty Empire symbolized by flag-bedecked battleships whose final port of call would be, alas, the knacker's yard. There is a similarly elegiac appraisal of steam locomotives, another feature of a vanishing world. All this rather veers towards caricature, I think, but it is Hitchens' idea of civilization as we knew it before rock n' roll cast its baleful, satanic shadow.

`Is it possible to determine what is right or what is wrong without God?', inquires one of Hitchens' chapter headings. Those of us who are not of the converted he is preaching to will be somewhat abashed at the question even being asked and are unlikely to be persuaded by the answers he attempts. A non-human, absolute overarching moral code is posited as more reliable, or valid, than the `Golden Rule' for simply doing as you would be done by. I think one other the store reviewer has noted that, coming down to earth, what we are talking about here is simply psychological projection. As a non-Christian I share Hitchens' dislike of the patriotic cult of death and the victor's rewriting of history to sanitise bloody conflicts. Clearly you do not have to be an atheist to condone uncivilized behaviour while thinking yourself good. Those of a devout religious disposition have always shown themselves quite capable of that and still do, George W.Bush and Tony Blair being two grisly illustrations of the fact.

When discussing Soviet Russia under Stalin - an `atheist' state - he delivers a coruscating disquisition on the human potential for mass stupidity and untrammelled evil, and Sidney and Beatrice Webb's despicable apologetics are given short shrift. Admittedly Christianity also has an embarrassing history of persecution but that was long ago, Hitchens argues. Generally its followers have learned the lessons of its blood-spattered past and behave much better now, while nearer our own time it has been the turn of Godless, authoritarian regimes to commit atrocities on a similar scale. This is because when religion is extinguished it follows that compassion and the social conscience will be also. However, as his brother makes clear in his `God Is Not Great' polemic this is too simplistic. To give just two examples, the Vatican's 1929 treaty with Mussolini made Catholicism the only recognised religion in Italy, and a few years later the world would see the unholy alliance of Spain's Catholic Church with the butcher Franco. In fact, Peter Hitchens quotes from his brother's book to contest the latter's claim that Stalinism's personality cult was to all intents and purposes a religion, but I do not see that the point is refuted and am reminded of Koestler's `Darkness At Noon' where the old Bolshevik Rubashov , nearing his end in the show trials, draws a rather similar parallel when debating with his interrogator. In `The Rage Against God' Hitchens adduces several examples to show that, let us be absolutely clear, `atheism is a licence for ruthlessness, and appeals to the ruthless'. I began reading his book with the intention of giving it a five-star rating, but statements like that are apt to put me in a less charitable frame of mind.

The point about Soviet-style communism is pursued further lest it be thought that his critique of Stalin's `ruthless atheism' is a mere history lesson with no relevance to the modern world. Today Stalinism is alive and well in North Korea, but whereas few would defend that particular hell-hole Cuba gets rather a better press despite its use of `torture and arbitrary imprisonment'. Hitchens is not wrong. In recent years Cuba has been the scene of repeated and systematic torture - in the Guantanamo enclave where America has impudently maintained a foothold ever since 1903 and over which Castro has no control.

In one chapter describing his rediscovery of faith is the disquieting mention of an execution he once witnessed in Dallas, Texas. Perhaps I am just a naïve atheist not possessed of the moral insight appropriate to these matters but it has always seemed to me decidedly un-Christian to sanction state murder, `obscene, brutal and disgusting' in the words of William S. Burroughs (not, I imagine, a favourite author of Hitchens') and which Tolstoy also expressed his loathing of in no uncertain terms more than a century ago. Hitchens states that he was left `in some turmoil' after the event. Maybe it was at least an honest determination on his part to confront the squalid, unvarnished reality of what he advocates. I would have liked further elaboration but there is none. Instead there follow several paragraphs about a painting which had special significance for him in his quest to re-discover God, a change of subject perhaps pleasant and soothing enough to draw the attention of some of his readers away from the morbidity just touched upon. Personally I find the effect chilling.

Readers of his weekly `Mail On Sunday' column will be familiar with his views on climate change, nuclear disarmament, abortion, homosexuality and other issues, all of which are recycled here in snatches with a characteristic virulence of expression hinting at indignation in the event of anybody disagreeing. So the precocious Bible incinerator of former days has morphed into its complete opposite, the strength of conviction undiminished but channelled towards very different ends. In the final analysis I am unable to take Hitchens' diatribe as seriously as it is intended. Still, at just 160 pages it is a juicy and provocative little read and the accounts of his time spent in the Soviet Union and Somalia are short examples of his foreign reporting for which he was recently awarded the Orwell Prize, an accolade I actually think well-merited. And that, coming from an unreconstructed left-leaning atheist rock fan with an abhorrence of the death penalty and much else that Hitchens favours, I daresay is no small compliment.

Peter Hitchens knows that theism is rational as well as the only immutable source for moral absolutes. Additionally he understands that the rational proofs for theism have not "persuaded anyone who didn't want to be convinced in the first place." Men have rational presuppositions and ethical preferences and these are what compel men to affirm or deny theism. Hitchens adds: "What I'm interested in is the motives people have for belief -- and unbelief. Hence the title: The Rage Against God."

Rational pre-commitments guide the theist and the non-theist to their worldview forasmuch as Hitchens explains "the modish Rage against God (and the snobbish contempt for believers which generally accompanies it) among people who think highly of themselves, and often scornfully of others" is in fact irrational and destructive. Theism is morally and rationally necessary for a thriving individual and culture as it is the bulwark for stability.

In "The Rage Against God," Peter Hitchens, brother of well-known pugnacious atheist Christopher Hitchens, discusses:

- His individual trials and rational inquisitiveness that brought him to the point where he burned his Bible at school as he turned to atheism in his youth
- His personal passage from non-theism to Christian theism
- His interesting and eye-opening experience as a journalist in the atheistic USSR
- The loss of the membership and vitality within church in the UK and much of Europe.

Commended by radio host Hugh Hewitt and World Magazine.
Marvin Olasky opines that the "The Rage Against God" is "a thoughtful memoir plus a critique of the views of his brother, Christopher."

Herein is a fascinating page-turner that offers autobiographical accounts of Hitchens' own experience with communism, Atheism, and modern European life. Hitchens provides a potent and alluring account of a life of unbelief that turned to Christianity a discovered rational consistency and moral truths in God.
------
See the New Book that proves the existence of God using moral absolutes by Mike Robinson:
There Are Moral Absolutes: How to Be Absolutely Sure That Christianity Alone Supplies
------
or additionally see the dynamic new apologetic book:
"The Necessary Existence of God: The Proof of Christianity Through Presuppositional Apologetics" ASIN #:1419620355

This book is not a difficult read. It is not laden with the type of scientific arguments or legalese that is often favored by most atheists but is rather firmly rooted in relationship and observation (the former being the focus of God's revelation in the Bible; the latter all that is needed to see how poorly human society does without a focus on God's will). Hitchens experiences, both in his past and in his observations during the fall of the Soviet state, form a bedrock foundation for his views. From there he laments the passing of the cultural and social strengths evident in growing up in a nation rooted in Christian ideals and beliefs--strengths which, in spite of the lack of direct violence, are none-the-less disappearing in a more subtle revolution against the Church. His regular lament throughout the book is the failure of any attempt by humanity to replace God with a human representation--whether that is the state, the leader of the state (or institution) or something else. The loss of Christianity inevitably results in a loss of "...charity, honesty, and kindness" in society.

Overall, the book is thoughtfull and challenging without being antagonistic and obnoxious. It outlines very clearly the dangers our societies face from the "anti-theist" movements within them as well as how disingenious, intolerant and "repellently slippery" the arguments they use are. Well worth the read and highly recommended.

I really enjoyed this book on a recent trip to Morocco. As someone who had spent time in the former Soviet Union, I really appreciated Hitchens' description of how dreary life is when drained of spirituality. The anecdote about exploding Soviet TV sets will stick in my mind for a long time.

I have Hitchens' brother's memoir and I have read Christopher Hitchen's famous book against God, so it was with great interest that I picked up Peter's book. I must confess that even now I am not sure what I expected from this book. I did expect a memoir, which this book is. I did not expect a theological discourse on religion and its affairs in England nor did I expect a political discourse on communism, which I must say is rather confusing because it seems to be disjointed and unrelated to the rest of the book. I love the storytelling and the adventures Hitchens went on as a journalist and personal tidbits he shared about his faith. But his political views are rather confusing. Maybe because it jumps from subject to subject and without a lot of details to back it up.

This is definitely a memoir that I am glad that I picked up to read. I just wish it was better edited as it jumped all over the place. I love the historical tidbits, the personal tidbits, the insightful commentary on the state of the church in England, the job tidbits and all the antedotes he shared. However, the way this book was written makes me confused as to what he is really trying to say. Like I mentioned earlier, it jumped from subject to subject without introduction and it is rather bewildering to read about the lack of Christianity in England to different politics in different parts of the world.

Hitchens does write a convincing book on why atheism really led him to faith. It provided food for thought for this reader.

5/20/10

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 book changed the way I think about culture, religion, history, and Christianity.

Reading about America (here and there) and Russia (lots) and England (some too) through the eyes of a young boy, then young man changed the way I saw the stories myself. Beyond that, recognizing that "religion" and faith have profound effects on the nation was something I guess I had ignored. Until now. I feel like I've lost a friend, gained some maturity, and I miss some of my naivete.

Yeah, it's a good book. You should read it.

This book is excellent both as an examination of issues and facts which do speak to the validity (and outcomes) of beliefs and also excellent as an education in Britain's past and in the recent history and culture of several parts of the globe (both Anglo and non-Anglo). If you enjoy learning and if you enjoy carefully chosen prose--and if you are fair enough to give this man a hearing before rushing to decry--then read this book. It will give you much to chew on. Excellent.

This really offers good insight on what it means to be given "eyes to see and ears to hear." The stark dicotomy between the world views of two brothers gives readers a fascinating muse. You may also consider Christopher Hitchens and Doug Wilsons dvd, "Collision." Two men that have such different world views, but have many similarities too. COLLISION: Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson

more than half of The Rage Against God is an account of peter hitchens' coming of age in the late 50s during england's recovery from world war II, and the changes in western society and the british empire during the 60s: the attractions of socialism, communist revolutions and the fall away from christianity.

hitchens argues of the dangers to a free society brought on by the decline of christianity, focusing on stalin's russia and the continued purge of christianity after his death in 1953.

in the second section of his book he refutes three arguments of atheism.

in the final section of the book, he discusses the atheistic claim, suggested by his brother, that joseph stalin's soviet union was a religious state. hitchens begins by taking on the book, Soviet Communism: A New Civilization? by sidney and beatrice webb, and ends with an appeal to christopher hitchens, not for a personal transformation, but for an understanding that acknowledges the right of christianity to exist.

When I first came across The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens, I also looked at the subtitle: How Atheism Led Me to Faith. As inquisitive as this reviewer may be, this automatically attracted my curiosity. Alas, there's much more to this book than what the cover title would have even the most naive people believe.

One of the things which Hitchens wrote that struck a nerve with me was how the unholy alliance between the church and national patriotism in the face of fighting wars on another country's turf has ultimately led to the weakening of the church in corresponding nations as a whole. The fact that a majority of American churches gave a wholesale endorsement to George W Bush and his war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan brought back some chilling reminders of what happened in Britain during World War I and in Germany in the days leading up to World War II. It is one thing when a nation invades another and the people are called upon to defend their own land and ask for God to help protect them. It is another when an invading country looks to God for success on the battlefield thousands of miles away, and the natives begin to think, "This is how Christians really are." If anything, it destroys any serious opportunity for missionaries to work with indigenous peoples, and Iraq and Afghanistan are proving this to be true (as was the sentiment with the Indians when it came to the British Raj).

Hitchens illustrates that in spite of all the utopian ideals that Marxism and Communism portrayed, nothing could be further from the truth. Aside from the text itself, it was Marx who said that "religion is the opium of the masses" and Marx made it quite clear that religion needed to be extinguished from society as a whole. With that said, given everything that Hitchens observed about his time in the Soviet Union and explained in the text, the destruction that came upon Soviet society (and other subsequent Communist countries) with the abolishment of religion (unless there was a serious national crisis like Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union) only served to bring not freedom but tyranny upon the people. (Ask any Russian pastor about this: they'll tell you all about it.) Even with the collapse of Communism in Russia, many Russians have remained skeptical of Christianity and religion in general. The lawlessness that still perpetuates itself in that country thanks to the removal of God during the Communist regime is clear evidence that it will take a very long time for Russia to recover from this (if ever).

What I found really refreshing about this book was that it was not written from a quasi-naive American perspective with all of the misleading anthropocentric theology wrapped in flag-waving patriotism. This was written by a Brit who has lived through a Britain that has largely abandoned God (and who had played a part in it for a time) and is now paying a terrible price for her abandonment, and who is justly concerned that America is heading down that path as well.

What I have found disappointing is that the one-star reviews all seemed incredulously dismissive of Hitchens' observations without any concrete reasons why they gave it the rating that they did. It was as if the self-professed radical atheists did not really care what a former atheist had to say on the matter. They just know that he was expressing his Christian convictions, and that was all they needed to downplay the book. That was incredibly disappointing to say the least.

To those who say that they were wondering how atheism could bring him back to faith and coupled with how much he was being nostalgic about the good old days of the Church of England while supposedly not getting to the point of why he renounced his atheism, you all are missing the point. It is because of the atheism and the tyranny associated with it that he observed that reminded him of what happens when nations kick out God and instead the State (and/or the tyrant in chief) becomes the "Savior".

In closing, I leave the reader with this: "Blessed is that nation, whose God is the Lord." (Psalm 33:12 1599 Geneva Bible)

This book has been recommended to me by a number of friends and pastors. After reading it, the only conclusion I can draw is that none of them must have read it themselves.

Hitchens does not make any compelling arguments for his renewed belief in Christianity. He rambles far from the topic of interest as he discusses whether or not religion in general is good for society. The entire exercise is futile because it has no bearing on whether or not religion, specifically Christianity, is true.

The portion of the book in which I was most interested, and was led by the subtitle to believe would be discussed at length, is the topic of Hitchen's "re-conversion" to Christian faith. Instead, the issue is dealt with in a few paragraphs where Hitchens describes seeing a painting of the "Last Judgement" and being scared back to faith. Hitchens himself points out that this is neither a good argument or compelling reason.

Throughout the entirety of the book, I was left wanting more, much more.

I'm four chapters into this book and already Peter has proved himself to be every bit as brilliant and provocative a writer as his older brother Christopher. Of course the two are diametrically opposed on almost every subject, and neither can be labeled consistently conservative or liberal (seemingly, they jump back and forth to avoid agreement with one another).

"The Rage Against God" is a hard book to categorize, but it is not a hard book to read. It's a sprawling retrospective, choosing to cover events and ideas throughout Hitchens' life that illustrate his main point: Human are made to worship the creator God, and when they culturally worship a counterfeit, civilizations begin to collapse. Highly recommended.

There are many interesting subjects and themes joined in this book. These include how the brother of infamous atheist Christopher Hitchens turned from atheism to faith, the role world history played in this process and personal observations on faith.

There are some poignant points made in the book, however it is written so mundanely it is hard to stay interested. If you don't mind textbook reading with a bit of humor thrown in, there are important observations to be explored.

I appreciate this book if only because it was about time that someone come up with a balance for all the much-hyped "new atheist" books out there right now. It's funny if a bit too perfect that it just so happens this guy's brothers is one of the new atheist kings. However, I found the book to be a disappointingly dry read.

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.

At the end of his book, Peter Hitchens states "I am neither a theologian nor even a Bible scholar." This is quite true, and it is also painfully obvious to anyone with even a smattering of knowledge of English history that he is no historian either, especially in matters of Christian history in England.

Hitchens does a tremendous job of exposing the anti-Christian mindset of the Communist and Masonic 20th century, especially in discussing the intellectual rationale for the deaths of well over 100 million people in the Socialist utopias that sprung up in the last century, beginning with the Russian Socialists. His understanding of the arguments and rationales of these people, along with his dismantling of their arguments is almost flawless. He exposes them for what they are: sociopathic and psychopathic irrationalities based on the desire of fallen mankind to be ruled over by no higher authority than man himself. To the Socialist mind, it is reprehensible that we must bow down to that Higher Power, that God Who, in His omnipotence, not only created all things, but has the very right to tell those of us whom He created how we are to run our lives.

Part Two is especially good because Hitchens addresses three common arguments/objections of Socialist/athiests to the Christian faith and does a good job of it. He also shows in the book how it is not religion itself that is opposed by the modern atheist, but rather a religion which is not that of the state being "god." A religion which honors One Who is other than mankind and to Whom we owe our allegiance.

Yet for all the good this book has, there is a serious flaw in it, and that flaw is Hitchens' treating the Church of England as if it is the Church which our Lord established upon the Apostles and as if it were, prior to the turn of the 20th century, a pristine and flawless expression of Christianity rather than the cruel and sadistic beast of Protestantism that wantonly murdered Catholics in England during the Reformation centuries. Mr. Hitchens needs either a serious lesson in Christian history or he needs to do what he admonishes Socialist/atheists to do: stop whitewashing and ignoring the vile historic failure of English Protestantism, no matter how noble sounding the language of the English church at worship. He somehow has failed to admit that in England, Catholic lands were confiscated at the whim of greedy officials, Catholic priests hounded, imprisoned, and sent to the most horrible deaths imaginable for simply practicing their faith -- all of these things being the very excesses of Socialism which he roundly decries in his book.

He also makes round about mocking of the miracles of the Church, which is not unusual given that he is a member of a heretical sect of Protestantism which knows nothing of true miracles. Protestanism is plagued with false prophets and charlatans who strut and parade across the stages of their little kingdoms, pretending to heal people as they mutter gibberish and sweat. It was almost painfully easy for James Randi to publically expose these rascals for the money grubbing charlatans that they were. Yet Hitchens will nonetheless have none of the Catholic Church if one reads correctly what he has written. His Anglicanism is an old comfortable friend to which he has returned.

Despite this, this book does a great service to those with eyes to see and ears to hear, for the very same persecutions which took place in Russia against Christianity are now taking in America. Barrack Obama is a scoundrel, but he is a clever scoundrel. Knowing that America is far too fearfully armed for the implementation of violent Socialism as once took place in Mother Russia, he has instead followed their lead by imposing draconian and evil laws against Christian institutions so as to tax them out of existence. This was what happened in Russia and it is happening again in America. I fear that we are on the verge of seeing the persecutions of blood begin once again and can only pray for the grace of God that I might be faithful to the end, whatever that may be.

This is overall a pretty good book, although lacking in some areas. I would suggest reading it, if for no other reason than to understand the thinking of the noisy and immoral Socialists of our day and what they are up to.

After reading some of the other reviews, I have to agree that Hitchens really does not give good philosophical or metaphysical reasons for his conversion back to Anglicanism. He simply got disgusted with Socialism, with its vileness and failures, and had the intellectual honesty to admit that it has been a colossal failure and an exercise in terror on mankind. And he also saw that there was a certain structure, decency, and goodness even in Protestantism (one wonders if he would have seen that reading about English Protestants murdering Catholics a la Socialism, of which fact he seems blissfully ignorant).

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.

At the end of his book, Peter Hitchens states "I am neither a theologian nor even a Bible scholar." This is quite true, and it is also painfully obvious to anyone with even a smattering of knowledge of English history that he is no historian either, especially in matters of Christian history in England.

Hitchens does a tremendous job of exposing the anti-Christian mindset of the Communist and Masonic 20th century, especially in discussing the intellectual rationale for the deaths of well over 100 million people in the Socialist utopias that sprung up in the last century, beginning with the Russian Socialists. His understanding of the arguments and rationales of these people, along with his dismantling of their arguments is almost flawless. He exposes them for what they are: sociopathic and psychopathic irrationalities based on the desire of fallen mankind to be ruled over by no higher authority than man himself. To the Socialist mind, it is reprehensible that we must bow down to that Higher Power, that God Who, in His omnipotence, not only created all things, but has the very right to tell those of us whom He created how we are to run our lives.

Part Two is especially good because Hitchens addresses three common arguments/objections of Socialist/athiests to the Christian faith and does a good job of it. He also shows in the book how it is not religion itself that is opposed by the modern atheist, but rather a religion which is not that of the state being "god." A religion which honors One Who is other than mankind and to Whom we owe our allegiance.

Yet for all the good this book has, there is a serious flaw in it, and that flaw is Hitchens' treating the Church of England as if it is the Church which our Lord established upon the Apostles and as if it were, prior to the turn of the 20th century, a pristine and flawless expression of Christianity rather than the cruel and sadistic beast of Protestantism that wantonly murdered Catholics in England during the Reformation centuries. Mr. Hitchens needs either a serious lesson in Christian history or he needs to do what he admonishes Socialist/atheists to do: stop whitewashing and ignoring the vile historic failure of English Protestantism, no matter how noble sounding the language of the English church at worship. He somehow has failed to admit that in England, Catholic lands were confiscated at the whim of greedy officials, Catholic priests hounded, imprisoned, and sent to the most horrible deaths imaginable for simply practicing their faith -- all of these things being the very excesses of Socialism which he roundly decries in his book.

He also makes round about mocking of the miracles of the Church, which is not unusual given that he is a member of a heretical sect of Protestantism which knows nothing of true miracles. Protestanism is plagued with false prophets and charlatans who strut and parade across the stages of their little kingdoms, pretending to heal people as they mutter gibberish and sweat. It was almost painfully easy for James Randi to publically expose these rascals for the money grubbing charlatans that they were. Yet Hitchens will nonetheless have none of the Catholic Church if one reads correctly what he has written. His Anglicanism is an old comfortable friend to which he has returned.

Despite this, this book does a great service to those with eyes to see and ears to hear, for the very same persecutions which took place in Russia against Christianity are now taking in America. Barrack Obama is a scoundrel, but he is a clever scoundrel. Knowing that America is far too fearfully armed for the implementation of violent Socialism as once took place in Mother Russia, he has instead followed their lead by imposing draconian and evil laws against Christian institutions so as to tax them out of existence. This was what happened in Russia and it is happening again in America. I fear that we are on the verge of seeing the persecutions of blood begin once again and can only pray for the grace of God that I might be faithful to the end, whatever that may be.

This is overall a pretty good book, although lacking in some areas. I would suggest reading it, if for no other reason than to understand the thinking of the noisy and immoral Socialists of our day and what they are up to.

After reading some of the other reviews, I have to agree that Hitchens really does not give good philosophical or metaphysical reasons for his conversion back to Anglicanism. He simply got disgusted with Socialism, with its vileness and failures, and had the intellectual honesty to admit that it has been a colossal failure and an exercise in terror on mankind. And he also saw that there was a certain structure, decency, and goodness even in Protestantism (one wonders if he would have seen that reading about English Protestants murdering Catholics a la Socialism, of which fact he seems blissfully ignorant).

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.

I picked up a hardback copy of this book off the discount table of a local book store. I am familiar with the writings and appearances of Christopher Hitchens, but I did not know he had a brother until I chanced on the book. While I agree with much of what Christopher Hitchens had to say, I do find him a bit tedious at times in his love of arguing about anything. On the other side of this coin, I felt Peter Hitchens was unduely influenced by his affairs with communism. He seems to feel that the only choices in life are communism or Christianity and Christianity is better. The world is larger than that. After a youth as a non-believer, he embraces Christianity because Christianity is good. I could believe in pink unicorns because pink unicorns are good. What is real, and what is myth? Personally, I think "real" is good. About anything else, I don't know. Peter feels we need Christianity in order to be good. I am reminded that someone once said, "Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. It takes religion to get good people to do bad things." I have no axe to grind against those who believe. I would not try to convince them otherwise. I have many close friends who are quite religious and have a literal belief in every word of the bible (and yes, I did read the thing in my youth.) It is not clear that Peter has this literal belief. He just thinks Christianity is "good," and that it is being picked on unjustifiably. A quotation from his book " Most of the people who would have apologized for Stalin in his day have now found other causes - the cultural and sexual revolution, campaigns to tax the Western poor to provide money for Africa's rich, and above all, the intolerant and puritan secular fundamentalism that gathers around the belief in manmade global warming." Clearly Peter finds belief superior to observable facts (the evidence for global warming.) Peter Hitchens is a journalist, and he writes well enough. His book is a quick read, and the time spent is worthwhile to gain an understanding of his point of view. True believers will love the book. For those who lean more toward Christopher's side, I think it a worthwhile read to gain insight into the two brothers and follow the reasoning behind a different point of view. I can't give it more than two stars because I find it to be well-written nonsense. Still, I wouldn't discourage you from reading it.

Here is the main point I took away from this book: America has the infrastructure necessary for a socialist regime of Soviet proportions! We have the state controlled, God hating educational system, useful for brainwashing Christianity out of our children. We have the state controlled, non-Christian welfare system, useful for making a large portion of our society willingly dependent on the state. The government has a monopoly on education and charity and we Christians have just let it happen. We have given our responsibilities over to the state and if we don't repent we should not be surprised to arrive at the same destination as the USSR. I knew our country was on a bad road before reading this book, but it would now appear as if we are further down the hellish path than I thought. This book is a great wake up call!

The subtitle, "how athesim led me to faith", gave the promise that the author had discovered some great revelation. Unfortunately, the closest he came to making any sort of revelation was to establish that Stalin's Russian Communism was atheistic and evil and not good for humanity. His conclusion, therefore, is that the opposite of that sort of society would represent truth and would include belief in God and an adherence to Christianity. To prove the existence of God by saying it is the opposite of evil is not a very convincing argument. He laments what he calls the secularism emerging in Christian nations. Undoubtedly he would like to return to 19th century England where workers worked seven days a week with half a day off to go to church on Sunday.

Hitchens own particular Christian beliefs are hateful and intolerant, and are painful to read. His accusations of other beliefs could well be used against his own. He will hardly convince any Atheists to believe in a religion, and he may well convince many Christians to become Atheists.

This book was a complete let-down. I expected a deep engagement with his brother's arguments against God and how Peter's atheism led him to faith. Instead I got a rambling historical analysis that left me bored and wondering where the author was going to such an extent I couldn't be bothered reading past the first few chapters.

On page 220 Hitchens admits to being a newspaper writer unqualified to write a diligent treatise or expose. With only an adolescent theological education Hitchens attempts to cash-in on his brother's notoriety by refuting some of atheism's tenants. He fails to make a strong case. The first half of the book is autobiographical rather than a search for truth.

On page 147 he extolls the virtues of oaths without knowing that Jesus prohibited them in His sermon on the mount.

Part 3 recounts what Hitchens learned about Russia while there. Not much refutation of atheism.

I was looking for good ways to evangelize atheists and did not find it.

I read Christopher Hitchens book `God is Not Great' and although his arguments were rock solid his sometimes intemperate tone dropped my the store review down to four stars. In `The Rage Against God', his brother Peter offers his own apologist rebuttal. For about two pages I thought that this would be a decent read. For just a sliver of a moment Peter came across as a toned down counter to Christopher's firebrand atheisms. My next thought was that he was just a passive aggressive with a condescending tone regarding atheism but by the end the book descended into a nonsensical rant about the evils of atheism. Early on the author wrote, "I tend to sympathize with them (atheists). I too have been angry with opponents who require me to re-examine opinions. I had embraced more through passion than through reason." Now maybe Britain is far different in its treatment of religion than the U.S. but like most children I was indoctrinated from an early age into the Christian faith. The predominant, accepted belief was and remains Christianity which meant that for me to re-examine opinions would have meant questioning religious doctrine. And the Christian doctrine was that faith takes precedence over reason hence the low belief in evolution in the United States. Over and over in the book Hitchens attacks atheisms with arguments which would be more appropriately directed at religious faith. In psychology that's called projecting.

According to Hitchens he dabbled in atheism as a youth which naturally lead to him reject all rules, live a life of sin (rather mild sin) and become a complete jerk. In his mind atheism is simply arrogant, youthful rebellion (and in his case that might be true). I would answer that by saying atheism is nothing more than the lack of a belief in a higher power but Hitchens has prepared an answer saying, "This blatant truth, that we hold opinions because we wish to, and reject them because we wish to, is so obvious that it is too seldom mentioned". Wow. So atheists hold a lack of belief in God by choice. I assume that means that Hitchens lacks a belief in the Easter Bunny by choice and could believe in it if he so chose. Hitchens even adds that atheists non belief in God is as much an act of faith as Christians belief in a redeeming Christ but again by that logic Hitchens non belief in the Easter Bunny or faeries or unicorns are acts of faith. He actually writes, "I believe in God and the Christian religion at least partly because it suits me to do so" I find that thinking bizarre. Hitchens continuously goes on about what an ass he was as an atheist as if atheism and anti-social behavior were somehow intrinsically linked but I would argue that he was more of an a-hole than an atheist. By Hitchens' logic atheists should stand out like sore thumbs in society as troublemaking misanthropes and yet from my experience I am generally surprised when someone mentions that they are an atheist.

Hitchens offers up a horrible defense of Catholic sexual abuse saying that the same detractors that hit the church for it's condemnation of homosexuals are now hitting them for not sufficiently punishing child abusers who often sexually abuse young boys. Hitchens also brings up the fact that state owned homes undoubtedly also have incidents of sexual abuse but no one calls for there closure. Over and over again he misses the point. Homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same thing even if the perpetrator and victim are the same sex which means that there is no contradiction in defending gays while at the same time condemning pedophiles. Also, it wasn't the child abuse that most enraged the public it was the cover-up in the Catholic Church that seems to continue to this day. In fact the Catholic Church is often complicit in enabling pedophiles. These kinds of arguments Hitchens employs show him to be either woefully ignorant or completely disingenuous. You can decide which.

Hitchens' is a self described conservative and one of their defining features tends to be a pining for days gone by but I have to say that the author really takes it to a hilarious level. In describing post war Britain he writes, "It was somber and rather uplifting to live in this noble austerity. The predominant colors of urban Britain at the time were black and gray, under gray skies. For me, it has never been so beautiful since." Ah, war torn Britain, how I miss thee. He also longs for the days when children knew more about death than about sex or swear words. About his grandfather he writes, "I feel that fierce old man's scorn for the modern world coursing through my veins". Peter Hitchens is like the living embodiment of dreary. He's a man sized cold wet drizzle looking fondly on gray, overcast days and funerals. The entire book is about a man who somehow became trapped in a certain stage of his life and just seems to want to go back and play with the "bicycles and toys" of his youth. To drink the tea and eat the éclairs and cream horns he enjoyed as a child. I get the sense that this was a tragic cry for understanding that the world of his childhood was the greatest world of all and it's all been taken away. Atheists aren't his enemies; his enemy is time and change. If only the world could be frozen in amber forever. Hitchens longs for the days before the noises of traffic and rock and roll when he could hop on the "Atlantic Coast Express" and zip around at 80 mph. He seems completely ignorant of the fact that somewhere out there was a fuming old Brit shaking his fist at the bloody new contraption belching out smoke as it zipped around the once pristine trackless British landscape.

Peter Hitchens driving motivation in life seems to be a response to fear. Hitchens is afraid of change, afraid of multiculturalism, afraid of sociology, afraid of rock and roll, afraid of science, afraid of homosexuals; he supposedly became an atheist out of fear of being different and according to the author returned to Christianity out of fear of damnation. Hitchens logic is that fear is what protects us but fear can also blind us and cause us to act irrationally. His fear of atheists causes him to lash out with a wild, undignified fury. His basic MO is to create an atheist straw man and beat it mercilessly telling the reader exactly what the thoughts and motivations behind all atheists. He spends most of one chapter attacking a book by Sydney and Beatrice Webb that somewhat defends Communist Russia but the book was published in the 1930's and Hitchens acts as if this is somehow relevant today as a picture of atheist thinking. Two people from 80 years ago who may or may not have been atheists are a representation of atheists. Hitchens also claims that athiests "WANT there to be no God" which is a gross misrepresentation of most atheists. His whole portrayal of atheists throughout is to demonize them and then he has the gall to plead with atheists to just let Christians be. I wonder if he goes out at night and kicks bums while yelling at them to leave him alone. Throughout the book Hitchens paints with broad brush strokes. I had to laugh when he described the rudeness on Moscow's subway's saying, "This was a civilized European city, not Africa but at such moments it was hard to tell the difference apart from the temperature" because naturally all Afrikaners are rude and pushy.

This is an absolutely terrible book that only gets worse the further you read. Hitchens seems oblivious to his own ridiculousness as when he says, "Unlike Christians, atheists have a high opinion of their own virtue" I like when he wrote, ""Perhaps if I had been taught science with a little less confidence and told that these claims were open to argument, I might have been more interested in it" It's funny because he would never hold Christianity to this standard. Occasionally he lets loose a nonsensical tired as when he blames the suicide of British weapons inspector David Kelly on "secular intolerance". Hitchens is infantile, paranoid, rude and basically a horrible representative of Christianity. He never even defends Christianity besides to say that society is better when filled with Christians. The truth or falsity of the existence of God seems irrelevant to Hitchens and faith seems to be a good form of population control. I recommend taking a big pass on this one unless you are a far right Conservative Christian who hates all things liberal in which case I couldn't care less what you spend your money on.

Peter Hitchens claims on the cover of this book that atheism led him to faith. By his own account, this is simply false. What led him to religion was his frustration with the way England was changing, and a nostalgia for what he believed to be timeless and apolitical values. Hitchens' "faith" seems to be a childlike delight in Christmas carol services, choral evensong, and stained glass. There's nothing wrong with appreciating and enjoying these experiences: believers and unbelievers alike do so. (In the latter camp, count Richard Dawkins and myself. I have no idea whether the author's more famous - and accomplished - brother enjoys the soaring notes of Kings College choir.) But it's a flimsy basis for metaphysics.

Half the book was about the author lamenting the passing of "good old Christian England". It's very easy to see one's childhood through rose-tinted glasses. The second part seemed like lesson in soviet history and implying that atheism is bound to lead to something like the Soviet Union. All in all very disappointed in the lack of a good "defense" of God.

Peter Hitchens shows himself at all times to be a reactionary, forever running away from or towards fears, fads and fancies. It seems that none of the major life decisions that he describes were founded in reason or intellect but only ever in emotion. this would be fine if this were a autobiography but it is supposed to be a rebuttle to his brother's work. Just dreadful, his time and effort are not worth yours.

I'm a big fan of Christopher's and thought this would be a refreshing counterpoint. Unfortunately, Peter does not have the voice (or any voice for that matter) to make a compelling argument against atheism. I found myself skipping ahead searching for something of substance. You would think growing up with an opponent like Christopher would have honed Peter's skills yet he seems to embody the stereotype his brother so meticulously picks apart. I see this book as a wandering memoir that does nothing to establish Peter as a distinctive or relevant voice in defense of god. Pass.

How foolish I was to read this book.

I thought somebody with a last name of Hitchens might have something compelling to say about Christianity that might forcefully rebut the rather nasty, but extremely well-argued, attack on religion by his brother Christopher Hitchens.

Instead all we get in this insignificant pamphlet are lots of self-congratulatory (and rarely supported) declarations by a second-tier journalist to explain a semi-faith in God worn on the author's sleeve that was triggered (not until his thirties when he finally got around to ending his self-described and embellished career as a "revolutionary" who, if you can believe it, actually thinks he risked it all by selling silly little left-wing papers to other self-referential and self-aggrandizing post-graduate ideologues) by seeing some painting in France whilst on holiday of God kicking Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden (apparently, although Peter Hitchens was was lucky enough during his admittedly lazy undergraduate years to become superficially knowledgeable about Trotsky, he never heard about that expulsion from the garden thing until almost middle age) and thinks that the Anglican 1662 Book of Common Prayer (replete with vestigial condemnations of sinful Catholics and deluded reform protestants) is a wonderful "revolutionary Manifesto" for England's Christians (apparently in his view there are no Catholics or Presbyterians in the UK or, if there are, to hell with such damnable reprobates).

There's a plethora of excellent reasons for this thing to be ranked #1,682,632 on the the store books chart and to receive virtually no reviews from anybody other than proto-Christian claques content with Hitchens' opportunistic cheerleading.

Silly me, I actually spent money on this thing.

So I sayeth unto all of you that may read my words,let my rant go forth throughout the land about this unremarkable little drivel from the much lesser Hitchens (poor Peter apparently still carries the weight of a big chip on his shoulder that so many years ago Oxford, for manifestly good reasons, wouldn't let him join his brother there) and let my monetary sacrifice and the lessons learned from it save you from falling into the same unfortunate trap of paying money for, or even wasting 30 seconds perusing the table of contents of, this book.

P.S. I know this review sounds (and probably is) way too snarky, but I actually believe Peter Hitchens (I doubt anybody else will even bother to check his book out at this point) deserves it for producing this book to shamelessly trade on his brother's justifiable fame as a ruthless and accomplished polemicist.

P.P.S. Pax Vobiscum.