Wanted to get your thoughts on this book. I didn’t really like it, but I felt like being kind and gave it 2 stars, since anything was better than Eagleton’s book (how can anybody like that trash?). Here’s the review I wrote for Amazon:
Russia seems to have ruined atheism for Peter. Peter writes of the horrors he saw when he lived in Soviet Russia and how despite said horrors, certain atheistic elitists in the West still saw fit to apologize for and defend that country. There are other aspects of his case against the New Atheists, but this is his main argument, and it is one which disappoints for the reason the argument that atheism is inherently linked to Stalinism always fails in debates with New Atheists like Christopher – atheism isn’t a sufficient condition for dictator-worshipping. In fact, Peter is honest enough to include – near the end of the volume – a quote from Bertrand Russell about how scared he was of not just religion, but the sort of certainties he’d seen in Russia too. This quote seemed to me to refute Peter’s entire case; New Atheists are arguing for exactly the sort of skepticism Russell promoted, not the willy-nilly acceptance of every group which proudly proclaims it is not religious.
I should not be unkind to Peter’s arguments by only noting how weak his main one is. I should note that Peter has a stronger attack on the New Atheists for saying religious education is as bad as (and it is implied by Dawkins, probably worse than) the grave and legally actionable sin of child sexual abuse. Even here though, he is not particularly articulate in making his own case, ridiculously comparing homosexuality among the younger generation to child abuse.
A good part of this volume is dedicated to discussing Peter’s personal journey. Having almost nothing in common with Peter, I found his narrative to be an emotionally compelling one. He waxes nostalgia about the past while candidly sharing some of his less-glorious moments as a young atheistic Trotskyite. He discusses how he, like so many others of his generation, realized at a young age how the Bible’s myths seemed to be based off of myths of other cultures. He never explains how he reconciles that with being a Christian, but he describes his appreciation of old Christian prayers with a devout passion.
Peter converted away from atheism because of what he saw in Russia. He decided that he really like Christianity due to a painting. These are emotional responses, not logical ones. This book is emotionally compelling, but does not manage to logically refute the arguments of the New Atheists. Christopher has surely won this debate.