Is Christianity Good for the World? [Hardcover]

Christopher Hitchens (Author), Douglas Wilson (Author), Jonah Goldberg (Foreword)

Book Description

Publication Date: September 2, 2008

The gloves come off in this electric exchange, originally hosted by Christianity Today, as leading atheist Christopher Hitchens (author of God Is Not Great) and Christian apologist Douglas Wilson (author of Letter from a Christian Citizen) go head-to-head on this divisive question. The result is entertaining and provocative—a glimpse into the ongoing debate.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"This is a joyful book. Both men clearly love the subject, love wrestling with it and each other, and do so with an evident—and expressed—sense of gratitude. Whatever side of the debate you align yourself with, my guess is that you find that as refreshing as I do, given how joyless so much of the discourse on both sides of this debate tends to be." --Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism (from the foreword)

"Put two contrarians together and shake well." --Christianity Today

"Christopher Hitchens, one of the world's great polemicists—he's taken on Mother Teresa and Kissinger—emerges as the latest, and most eloquently effective, religious debunker." --Martin Levin, The Globe and Mail

About the Author

Christopher Hitchens is a popular journalist and the author of several books, including God Is Not Great. A regular contributor to Vanity Fair, The Atlantic Monthly, and Slate, Hitchens has also appeared on The Daily Show, Charlie Rose, and C-Span's Washington Journal. He was named one of the world's "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect. Currently, Hitchens resides in Washington, D.C.

Douglas Wilson is a pastor of Christ Church (Moscow, Idaho) and a Senior Fellow at New Saint Andrews College. A prolific writer, he is the author of Letter from a Christian Citizen, Reforming Marriage, and Heaven Misplaced: Christ's Kingdom on Earth, among others. He and his wife Nancy have three children and a myriad grandkids.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 72 pages
• Publisher: Canon Press (September 2, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1591280532
• ISBN-13: 978-1591280538
• Product Dimensions: 8.1 x 5.1 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 7.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (40 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #44,200 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

56 of 65 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A classic in the making..., September 6, 2008

By 

A. J. Bennett (San Francisco, CA USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Is Christianity Good for the World? (Hardcover)

Hitchens' reputation as an intellectual giant precedes him and shines throughout this intense yet civil exchange. Wilson, a lesser known intellectual of a different vein, hangs tough and arguably pokes a significant hole in Hitchens' logic.

Indeed, what struck me most about this book was the degree of civility that both Hitchens and Wilson demonstrate in an age old debate that has otherwise been outright divisive. A must read for this reason alone...SOOOOO REFRESHING!!!

Atheists and Christians alike (and everyone in between) will undoubtedly appreciate this most entertaining, short (61-page) exchange between Hitchens and Wilson. I plan on buying many more copies for family and friends to continue the debate!

60 of 79 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars "An Important Debate", September 27, 2008

By 

Stanley H. Nemeth (Garden Grove, CA United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Is Christianity Good for the World? (Hardcover)

This book reproduces an insightful and spirited recent debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson over what Dostoevsky called the Eternal Questions: What is the real nature of the universe in which we find ourselves? What are the ultimate bases of reason and ethics? Are there any ultimate sanctions governing human behavior? Though Hitchens is always worth reading for his quick wit and frequently surprising arguments, unfortunately in this debate he does not come off at his best. While graciously conceding that Hitchens has clean hands, Wilson wielding a very fine knife shows that Hitchens, sad to say, doesn't have any hands to begin with.

Hitchens is of the view that the universe is the accidental consequence of swirling particles, claiming that his reason has led him to this conclusion. Wilson, in the style of C.S.Lewis, points out that if the world outside Hitchen's head is given over wholly to such irrational chemical processes, the world inside Hitchens' head can be no differently composed, and that what Hitchens refers to as "rational argument" has been "arbitrarily dubbed" so.

Similarly, if there are no ultimate, objective standards in ethics, then despite Hitchens rhetorical maneuverings, what follows is what Dostoevsky's Ivan pointed out long ago: there is no "good" or "bad for "everything's permitted." Hitchens' "fulminations" against assorted zealots are, as a result, also merely arbitrary.

To dispute the necessity of a God behind the Big Bang, Hitchens, with unusual complacency, rests his case on the principle called Ockham's Razor, the argument that it's bad logic to multiply entities. The problem here is that Ockham's Razor is at best a rule of thumb, never a guarantee of a royal road to truth in any particular case.

On the other side, the weakest part of Wilson's case, in my view, is his failure to address the idea that the necessity for ultimate sanctions does not lead to the existence of a particular God, much less the God of Christianity. His arguments in the present debate end, in fact, at a considerable distance from either conclusion, though Wilson seems unaware of this shortcoming.

Both men agree that it's possible in behavior for a person to be a righteous, ethical atheist. What is missing in their presentation here, however, is what can be found in Shakespeare's addition to the ending of the pagan story of King Lear. It will be remembered that the character of Cordelia is so ethically fine that Elizabethans would have dubbed her a "natural Christian." She is murdered, almost gratuitously, at play's end, and her distraught father cradles her broken body in his arms, a pieta whose meaning has yet to make any sense in the world of brutal men. The play's argument, I'd claim, supports Hitchens in his view that one can be a fine person without a Redeemer God yet on the scene. It also supports Wilson in his sense that ethics are not enough to make life bearable, since very often "the virtuous miscarry and the wicked prosper." If there is no Redeemer - though ways can be found to hedge on this - ultimately there is no Justice, and in Paul's words "we are the most miserable of creatures." Human life becomes mere history, filled with bad luck but lacking any meaningful, tragic dimension. How much interest one has in the need of a Redeemer rests finally on how much poignancy one senses in existence.

54 of 73 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Okay, Let's Not Pretend..., July 23, 2009

By 

William H. Kelsey "seeker of truth" (the planet of Vulcan) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Is Christianity Good for the World? (Hardcover)

That this (or any other book debating religion, for that matter) is going to change people's minds. The audience for this book will be one of two groups: the Hitchophiles (which includes myself) who will read a toothpaste ad if Hitchens wrote it, and the Christians who want to see the "First Cause" and "Watchmaker" arguments in print yet again. As a devoted fan of Hitch I have to say that I was underwhelmed by this debate. As others have mentioned, Hitch was not his usual cutting edge eviscerating self and the question in the title of the book ("Is Christianity Good For the World") is never properly answered by either party. Instead, the debate came down to a discussion on where do morals come from and whether anything can be considered good or evil by secular standards.
To save you some time (and perhaps money), here's how it went: Hitchens argued that our sense of right and wrong is innate and is evolving as our species and societies have evolved. To which Wilson presents his (inane) philosophy which goes far beyond Dostoevsky's "Without God, all things are permissible" to his own childish "Without God, all things are equal". In other words, if you don't buy the tale that a son of a Jewish virgin and the Creator of the Universe died for your sins and all those who do not accept him will be tortured for eternity, then feeding a hungry child and beating that same child to death should be morally the same to you. Disgusting, feeble, and stupid argument, if I may say so. I wish Hitch would had called him out on this and several other points. He should had said "Of course morality has evolved! Just a century ago, child labour was a part of the lives of all but the elite. Now, thankfully, in the Western world our children are not seen as slave labour. But why is this so? Where in the Bible does it condemn forcing your child into work or physically abusing him if he refuses? Indeed, the Bible defends the right of the parent to beat his children, sell them into slavery (including prostitution),and to even kill them for disobedience. Ask the opinion of any CYS official if this is good parenting and see if our sense of morality has evolved".
Also, we come to the "meaning of life". In Wilson's view, anyone not trying to grovel his way out of hell might as well just stay in bed or end it now, his life has no meaning. How dare he! It is up to every person, religious and secular alike, to devise his own raison d'etre. For those of us who are parents that meaning is often our children; for others it might be their jobs, music, or travels, but that meaning is important to the individual and not for others to condemn. No one meaning is for everyone. Even something as important as Doctors Without Borders cannot be the life's goal of every individual, so why should religion (and specifically Christianity) be offered as the only thing which can give life any meaning or depth?
The fact is, and Wilson continued to evade, the Bible is full of outright abuses against humanity which demand us to push aside our innate sense of morality and embrace a totalitarian system of rewards and punishments based on a myth which has as much evidence to support it as the deities of the Norsemen or the Greeks. Hitchens was far too civil with this gent who was not fit to polish his shoes and for those of us who salivate over every word from Hitch this debate will come as a disappointment. For a true, full bodied taste of Hitch, check out "god is not Great" for the argument which he should had presented. For an even deeper rational for atheism, read Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian". Skip this unless (like me) you need to read everything Hitchens.