Part autobiography, part socio-historical commentary, part polemic, Peter Hitchen's The Rage Against God isn't quite what I was expecting. In some ways it was better. I enjoyed the first third of the book, being a take on British society I haven't read before (not difficult because I haven't read much about it, anyway) - that was a 3 star read. However, about half way through I started wondering where it was going and was inclined to give it only 2 stars. The ending more than made up for that, hence it's 4 star rating - I really liked this book.

The first part deals a little with Hitchens' personal journey, but more with the background social landscape in post-war Britain, and it's religious decline, that shaped, or perhaps made space for, his Atheist and Trotskyist ideology. Interestingly, Hitchens Atheism wasn't a rebellion against his parents as he was brought up in a non-religious home, although with a Naval officer as a father, the family was part of the British establishment.

In this first part he also talks about his journey to faith. Obviously a private man, most of the details of his personal life are quite obscured. In regard to his movement to faith, he talks about time spent in the USSR just before it's collapse, which showed him the results of a thoroughly Atheist philosophy; a short stint in Mogadishu, which demonstrated the fragility of civilisation; the birth of his son, which often softens even hard people; and something of an epiphany when examining a religious painting in France.

The second section deals with three arguments put forward by Atheists: that most conflicts are fought in the name of religion; that we don't need the concept of god to determine morality; and that Atheist states aren't actually Atheist. In dealing with these he doesn't deny or defend that there has been evil perpetrated by religious people and in the name of religion, but usually these have gone against the teachings and values of Christianity, or religion religion has been co-opted to a cause. Think Northern Ireland in regard to the first. The second and third are covered in his critique of Communism and Nazi-ism (the latter which he considers pagan rather than Atheist, I think rightly).

As a former Communist sympathiser and journalist who worked in the USSR for a period of time, he is well qualified to critique Communism, it's Western sympathisers, and Atheism. He deals with this matter more fully in the final section, but suffice it to say his conclusion is that the evils of communism are the inevitable result of building a foundation on Atheism.

He spends a good deal of time on this matter because one of the arguments Atheists try to put forward is religion is the root of all evil in society, get rid of it and the world will be a better place. History would say otherwise and Hitchens debunks this facile argument.

Part of his critique is laid at the feet of the Western elitist left who, from the safety of a free and stable society, could (and still do) blithely ignore the evil excesses of the Soviet era, or blame them on a failed implementation, rather than a failed philosophy, in spite of the fact that, historically, wherever anti-theist philosophy is planted, evil reigns - the USSR, the French Revolution, The Chinese Cultural Revolution, Cambodia's killing fields, the list goes on. All have resulted in the justification and perpetration of evil, and are bound to do so without a higher moral force guiding them.

As an aside, in my youth it was somewhat trendy for young Christians to identify with so-called 'Christian Communism', an oxymoron if ever there was one, just as today it is trendy for some Christians to identify with the Greens (the party and associated ideological movement), even though they are fundamentally anti-Christian. Hitchens doesn't deal with this directly, but I think he would be scathing of any such attempt to marry faith and an anti-theist ideology like communism.

At 200 pages this isn't a long or difficult read, nor is it an in depth rebuttal of Atheism or defence of Christianity. I almost finished it in a day. Not having a background in Soviet history or politics I had to hit Wikipedia a few times and found some detail hard to follow, but that did not detract from the overall thrust of the book. I highly recommend this book, particularly to Christians, and indeed, anyone who loves freedom. Faith and freedom are both under assault, and this book has given me a bit more perspective and confidence in defending both.