A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism

good read

Everyone should read this BOOK!!!

Yes, Hitler's regime was not enthusiastically religious AND it was hardly atheistic either. Hitler made a lackluster attempt to conscript the Protestant and Catholic churches as allies of Nazi policy and German imperialism. He ranted against the godless Bolsheviks, he had the motto “Gott mit uns” (i.e., God with us) engraved on the belt buckles of his German soldiers, and he decreed that a woman’s place was “Kirche, Küche, und Kinder” (i.e., church, chow, and children). In his speeches and in his manifesto Mein Kampf, Hitler spoke about God (der Gott), the Creator (der Schöpfer), and Providence (die Vorsehung) as much as the typical Republican politician in the United States. The following quotations from Mein Kampf (1925, 1927) in the James Murphy translation (1939) are merely a representative sample of Hitler’s God-talk:"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord." (Volume I, Chapter 2: Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna)"By neglecting the problem of preserving the racial foundations of our national life, the old Empire [i.e., the German Empire under Kaiser Wilhelm II] abrogated the sole right which entitles a people to live on this planet. Nations that make mongrels of their people, or allow their people to be turned into mongrels, sin against the Will of Eternal Providence. And thus their overthrow at the hands of a stronger opponent cannot be looked upon as a wrong but, on the contrary, as a restoration of justice. If a people refuses to guard and uphold the qualities with which it has been endowed by Nature and which have their roots in the racial blood, then such a people has no right to complain over the loss of its earthly existence." (Volume I, Chapter 11: Race and People)"The two Christian denominations [i.e., the Roman Catholics in Southern Germany and Austria versus the “Evangelicals” or Lutheran Protestants in Northern Germany] look on with indifference at the profanation and destruction of a noble and unique creature [i.e., the German or “Aryan” nation] who was given to the world as a gift of God's grace. For the future of the world, however, it does not matter which of the two triumphs over the other, the Catholic or the Protestant. But it does matter whether Aryan humanity survives or perishes. And yet the two Christian denominations are not contending against the destroyer of Aryan humanity but are trying to destroy one another. Everybody who has the right kind of feeling for his country is solemnly bound, each within his own denomination, to see to it that he is not constantly talking about the Will of God merely from the lips but that in actual fact he fulfils the Will of God and does not allow God's handiwork to be debased. For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will." (Volume II, Chapter 10: The Mask of Federalism)"Then, from the child's story-book to the last newspaper in the country, and every theatre and cinema, every pillar where placards are posted and every free space on the hoardings [i.e., billboards] should be utilized in the service of this one great mission, until the fainthearted cry, 'Lord, deliver us,' which our patriotic associations send up to Heaven today would be transformed into an ardent prayer: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the hour comes. Be just, as Thou hast always been just. Judge now if we deserve our freedom. Lord, bless our struggle.'" (Volume II, Chapter 13: The German Post-War Policy of Alliances.)

Frederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias (born 1946) is an Indian-born, Canadian-American Christian apologist. He has written many books such as  Who Made God?: And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith , Why Jesus?: Rediscovering His Truth in an Age of Mass Marketed Spirituality , Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message , etc.[NOTE: This review pertains to the 206-page 1990 edition.]He wrote in the Introduction, "I have tried to dispel the assumed power of logical arguments for atheism within a framework of argumentation. My purpose has been to clear the bushes so we can take a direct look at the counterperspective of Christ. Those who prefer to read at a level of felt need may find some of the arguments to be weightier than they would desire. My hope is that they would stay with the argument until my illustrations capture the idea. Others, who love the process of dialogue, might wish the arguments were weightier than they are. My hope is that they will not fall into the trap of intellctualism and forget the splendor and power of simplicity. We are neither just brains floating around nor just hearts bouncing about." (Pg. 3-4)He argues, "By definition, atheism is the doctrine of belief that there is no God. It is an affirmation of God's nonexistence... Postulating the nonexistence of God, atheism immediately commits the blunder of an absolute negation, which is self-contradictory. For, to sustain the belief that there is no God, it has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantatmount to saying, 'I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge.'" (Pg. 30)He notes that "In his famous debate in 1948 [reprinted in  The Existence of God  with the philosopher Frederick Copleston, Bertrand Russell revealed his philosophical Achilles heel on morality... Copleston asked Russell on what basis he differentiated between right and wrong, and Russell answered that he did so on the same basis that he differentiated between yellow and blue. Copleston challenged the analogy because colors, he said, were differentiated on the basis of seeing. How does one differentiate between good and bad? And Russell replied that he did so on the basis of his feelings. Copleston was very gracious, for had he wanted to draw philosophical blood, he could have decimated Russell's argument. In some cultures they love their neighbors, in others they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Would Russell have had a preference?" (Pg. 55)He concludes, "The difference and the choice become crystal clear: either a person yields his heart and will to the rulership of God or he chooses to retain complete autonomy, irrespective of the consequences. God has revealed Himself in this world and in His Word. Man sees within himself a battlefield: there is that within him that tugs toward autonomy and manifests his depravity and that within him that points him to God, in whose image he was made. He must choose, for to live with the contradiction tears him apart." (Pg. 166)Zacharias's books are justly popular, as his clear writing style in this book exemplify.

Ravi Zacharias, popular author and speaker, wrote this book in 1990. It was (I believe) his first book and some areas in the book are rough around the edges. All in all, however, he does a fine job in connecting many ideas of the 1800's and early twentieth century and the moral collaspe they have caused in Western culture.Ravi's strength and weakness in the book is his dealings with thoughts of Nietzsche. The strength is in showing how Nietzche's ideals, on a popular level, influnced "the death of God" movement and the Holocaust. The weakness is that other noted athiests could have been given more "time." This would have caused a bigger book, but the knowledge would aid Theists greatly.Ravi does addreses existential subjects which is his forte and I do wish he had reminded the reader that an existential claim does not make a truth claim. After that however, the book excells. This review is to balance critquie of this book against other reviewers, some of whom have not read the text with "open eyes"; it must be noted that Ravi does deal with some of the top atheists. Nietzche, Sarte and Bertrand Russell are classic atheists who have laid much of the ground work of modern "secularists."Ravi has a great command of these thinker's positions and ideals. He effectively dismantles them. Further, Marx's ideals are atheistic and the atrocities of Communism and Nazism are logical outworkings of atheism. In Atheism, man is the measure of all things; it must be asked, "what man?" Lastly, the reviewer below distorts much of Ravi's argument. For example, Ravi does not claim Darwin was an atheist (p.33). This is a book written in a popular laymen style and thus is much needed.

Ravi Zacharias was the best speaker I ever heard. When he spoke to 20,000 teens at Urbana '93 you could hear a pin drop.

Having read all the one-star comments on this book after reading "A shattered visage" for myself, it was interesting to notice that the reviewers used mainly polemic to disregard the work of Zacharias. The only guy who was able to produce a bit of a longer review did not even take the trouble to write out "Christianity" (so much to objectivity) and furthermore committed exactly the same blunder of which he accuses the author, namely to attack a certain worldview without supporting his assumptions. Yet, this is certainly not the case with Zacharias. The contents of his book is highly persuasive and well-structured as he deals with the four great questions of human existence in the first and God as the treasure of life's pursuits in the second part. Brilliantly written and highly convincing in my view, which is moreover shown by the simple fact that all the other reviewers did not attack the author on any factual level, but merely on a subjective and polemical one. But, as someone once noticed: there is a BIG difference between "disliking something" and "having good reasons for disagreeing with someone or something". The first part of this quote seems to be very true in terms of the one-star reviews.The last decade has shown that Zacharias is a well-respected and highly-asked speaker at many high-schools and universities all over the world - on which topics? Exactly on those topics he is speaking about in this very book!Highly recommendable to anyone and therefore five stars out of five!