[Some thoughts on Peter Hitchens' The Rage Against God (and some great quotes) from Mark Thompson's blog.]
I have been reading an immensely interesting book in the last couple of weeks. It is by Peter Hitchens, British journalist, author, broadcaster and brother of celebrated ‘new atheist’ Christopher Hitchens.
Conspiracy theories sell books and DVDs. Anti-Christians love to dig up dung the church dealt with long ago, dung that didn’t stick, and reheat it. They present it as steaming hot, something freshly exposed that the church has previously succeeded in hiding away, for consumption by moderns desperate for reasons to ignore the Law of God. James Howells writes:
“…texts and history and science are regarded as great friends of the vast majority of us in Christianity, not perilous foes to be feared and silenced.
Many atheists think it is their void-given right to make disrespectful, insulting or condescending remarks about religion. One I have heard a number of times is a common atheist response to “Your atheism is a religion”: If religion were a hair colour, then I am bald.
Foul-mouthed sometime comedienne Janeane Garofalo recently commented that the Bible was a “work of fiction” for a “child-like audience.” The problem with moderns, including most modern evangelical Christians, is that they think the Bible is primitive. Hah! They’re like a man from the industrial revolution classifying a printed circuit board as a pretty (if eccentric) Mayan artifact. Providentially, the Bible is easier to understand than a circuit board.[1] It was designed for discipleship, so we need to be taught how to read it.
.
“This book is a gem. Through letters of advice from A.F. Christian, an enthusiastic convert to the cause of the new atheists, Mary Eberstadt deftly exposes the flaws in their views. Using the lingo of pop culture to hilarious effect, she offers a scathing satire of their question-begging arguments and shows with great wit that they are not just wrongheaded but downright laughable. Yet this spirited defense of Christian faith is also a poignant commentary on what it means to be human.”
– Fr. Peter Ryan, SJ, Professor of Moral Theology, Mt. St. Mary’s Seminary
Re The Wrath of Love, Michael Micklow commented:
(Correction - not Michael Shover - Michael got his Michael’s crossed)
“The prophet did not have to remind God, so much as he had to remind himself of the love of God, and to see God’s judgment as the wrath of love.”
What about the dangerous yet successful Mosaic paradigm in Exodus 32:7-14? In this section, the prophet is able to approach, contest and sway God’s wrath (vv. 11-13). In response to Moses’ challenge, the text tells us, “and the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people” (v. 14)…
… And what was the cornerstone of his defense? — the appeal to memory (v. 13). Moses cites the exodus event, and he further appeals to the covenant established with Abraham.
We are establishing the colonies of heaven here, now. When we die, we get the privilege of visiting the heavenly motherland, which is quite different from moving there permanently. After this brief visit, the Lord will bring us back here for the final and great transformation of the colonists (and the colonies). In short, our time in heaven is the intermediate state. It is not the case that our time here is the intermediate state. There is an old folk song that says, “This world is not my home, I’m just passing through.” This captures the mistake almost perfectly. But as the saints gather in heaven—which is the real intermediate state—the growing question is, “When do we get to go back home?” And so this means that heaven is the place that we are just passing through.
— Doug Wilson, Heaven Misplaced, p. 24.
Last night I watched a 2007 debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox on 5 of Dawkins’ theses from his book The God Delusion. Lennox (who recently visited Australia to speak at the Easter Convention here in Katoomba) was delightful and made some strong statements. Dawkins was, to me, surprisingly earnest. But I did see in Dawkins’ responses to Lennox support for the observations of David Bently Hart that I read in a recent post by Justin Taylor. The new atheists are not the same as the old atheists:
From God, the Christian Socialist and the Mad Monk by Chris Uhlmann
It might irk many to hear it but Judaeo-Christian morality is a foundation stone of Western democracy and, before we pull it out, perhaps we should ponder its strengths as well as its weaknesses. Because the West still hasn’t found an answer to the questions Friedrich Nietzsche’s fool posed in 1882.
Nietzsche wrote of the lunatic “who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the marketplace and cried incessantly, ‘I seek God! I seek God!’ As many of those who do not believe in God were standing around, just then he provoked much laughter.
“Why did he get lost?” said one. “Did he lose his way like a child?” said another. “Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone away on a voyage? Or emigrated?
“Thus they yelled and laughed.
“The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his glances.
An 8 minute interview with Peter Hitchens. Thanks to Tim Nichols.
Peter Hitchens Author Interview–The Rage Against God from Gorilla Poet Productions on Vimeo.
