Customer Reviews

Is Christianity Good for the World?

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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!

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.

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.

When America's most influential conservative thinker (and Catholic) William F. Buckley died early this year (2/27/08) my sense of loss centered on this one thought: When Bill Buckley's "Firing Line" disappeared from television (almost a decade ago) we lost perhaps the greatest `give-and-take' (liberal/conservative debates) ever to grace our TV screens.

Buckley's record-setting program ("longest-running TV show with just one host,") treated us to the very best in debates. (How could it not, with a guest list that ranged from Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, to Clare Boothe Luce and Henry Kissinger, Muhammad Ali, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, William Kuntsler, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Louis Auchincloss, Tom Wolfe and Allen Ginsburg (and a host of other 'bright lights').

Most of Bill's shows were `political' . . . but my all-time favorite featured a former atheistic journalist (turned Catholic) Malcolm Muggeridge -- a program that, (like this book) is at the heart of the perennial subject most worth debating . . . the "existence of God."

When I mentioned this book this morning at breakfast, my wife said: "Christopher Hitchens IS an intelligent man, isn't he?" And I thought (to myself, but didn't say out loud) that, "I've heard better, historical `apologetics for atheism' than those advanced in this book!"

What I said (out loud) though, was: "Yes, he IS (smart) and - for that reason -- you'll really enjoy the `point/counterpoint' from the "Christian apologist" here, Douglas Wilson. [I'm certain Bill Buckley would have enjoyed 'hosting' this one!]

Anyway, it would take a better mind than mine to recapitulate in fewer words, Mr. Wilson (who writes with a C.S. Lewis 'economy-of-style') in his brilliant reflections on Mr. Hitchens' best arguments. May I share a couple of favorites: See if they don't `speak' to your heart and mind (and life experience):

---------

"Your first point (is) that the Christian faith cannot credit itself for all that `Love your neighbor' stuff -- not to mention the Golden Rule, and that the reason for this is that such moral precepts have been self-evident to everybody throughout history who wanted to have a stable society.

"You then move on to the second point, which contains the idea that the teachings of Christianity are `incredibly immoral.' Apparently, basic morality is NOT all that self-evident. So my first question is: Which way do you want to argue this? Do all human societies have a grasp of basic morality, or has religion `poisoned EVERYTHING'?"

"The second thing to observe in this regard is that Christians actually do not claim that the gospel has made the world better by bringing us turbo-charged ethical information. There have been ethical advances that are due to the propagation of the faith . . . but that is not `where the action is.' Christians believe - as C. S. Lewis argued in THE ABOLITION OF MAN - that non-believers do understand the basics of morality.

"Paul the apostle refers to the Gentiles, who did not have the law but who nevertheless knew by nature some of the tenets of the law (Rom. 2:14). But the world is not made better because people can understand the ways in which they are being bad . . .

"It has to be made better by `Good News' - we must receive the gift of forgiveness, and the resultant ability to live more in conformity to a standard we already knew (but were necessarily failing to meet.

"The gospel makes the world better through (that) Good News, not through guilt trips or good advice."

[And in a final point made by Douglas Wilson to Christopher Hitchens]

"You make a great deal out of your individualism and your right to be left alone: Given your atheism, what account are you able to give that would require us to respect the individual?

"How does this individualism of yours flow from the premises of atheism?

"Why should anyone in the outside world respect the details of your thought life any more than they respect the internal churnings of any other given `chemical reaction'? If there is a distinction, could you show how the premises (starting assumptions) of your atheism might produce such a distinction?

-----

I'm delighted that our Canadian edition (published by our largest publishing house, McClelland & Stewart) includes an astute, fun-to-read 'Forward' by Jonah Goldberg --- my favorite alumnus of Billy Buckley's "National Review" magazine (too young, alas, ever to have appeared on "Firing Line").

Mark Blackburn
Winnipeg Canada

This small book is a "must get". What you will read are two complete opposite world-views that are clashing. The format is limited, but I think you will get what both Hitchens and Wilson are saying easily enough...then again I, personally, don't think Mr. Hitchens got what Rev. Wilson was saying. Like most atheists he (Hitchens) can not answer the "why" of his morality or how to move across the bridge from "is" to "ought". Then again, you will have to read this great book and decide for yourself who you think is right. I, un-apologetically (pun intended), believe that Rev. Wilson is a very good apologist for the Christian faith and that he reveals "why" he does not have to apologize for his beliefs or faith (not that Mr Hitchens believes he has to either).

After reading this book if you are frustrated that neither went far enough I suggest you read their other books - especially Wilson's more detailed answer to Hitchens' book ("God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything") in his small book entitled "God Is: How Christianity Explains Everything" That, too, is must reading!

I gave this book 5 stars because of Hitchens who is always on target, and because, once again, the christian argument is always the same weak dialogue in the end. It is never a debate, is it? It is always the christians having a direct line to God. They know what God wants, etc. We are sinners and we need to be saved. If I hear that one more time! It is the 21st century, get with it. I think Hitchens did a superb job always intelligent and sophisticated dialogue. I do not feel that Wilson truly understands evolution at all... or is it that it would blow religion right out of the water if he tried to understand/study it. Evolution is a fact. There is an overwhelming amount of proof that we do not need christianity to be moral or good. Genetics, evolutionary biology and neurophysiology are offering more proof everyday through research/evidence. There is no evidence for God. I agree with Hitchens that christianity is not good for the world. History has proven that. If I could just go about my life being a happy, peaceful atheist, and religion would stay out of my face and not affect our lives, our freedom, it would be great. But we have to keep discussing it. We have to get involved, be steadfast in preventing it from infringing on people's rights according to the First Amendment, and maintaining a free society, separation of Church and State. It is truly a serious issue and we need (not Jesus), but Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett (to name a few of the greats)to save us.

With an introduction by Johan Goldberg (author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning ), this 67 page book consists of six rounds in a debate over "Is Christianity Good?"

Since the book has used the term "round" to describe the turns that each authors take, I will follow that lead and treat the book like a boxing match.

In this corner, we have the political conservative, political commentator and well-known atheist author of such books as God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, undoubtedly the smartest man in the room in whatever room he wanders in to ...Christopher Hitchens.

In the other corner, we have pastor, college instructor and author of such books as God Is. How Christianity Explains Everything and Letter from a Christian Citizen ....Douglas Wilson.

Round One

Hitchens steps out first with a barrage of attacks on Christianity in general, none of them addressing the thesis (Is Christianity Good for the World?) head on, but clearly intended to give his opponent too many topics to deal with so that his response will be confused. His arguments include the following: Christianity did not create the idea "Love thy Neighbor" - all societies teach this basic morality anyway, the 10 Commandments introduced no new legal thoughts and the Good Samaritan in the parable was not Christian so even one of Christianity's most precious stories has no grounding in Christian behavior -the Samaritan was not Christian. He also attacks the idea that Moses or Jesus actually lived, and if they did it would not matter since God himself is immoral for ordering "genocide, slavery, genital mutilation, and other horrors." (p. 23) Christianity also needs to take responsibility for the good and the bad in its history.

Wilson responds with a logic question - if all societies teach this basic morality, and all societies have religions and religion is bad than are societies basically moral or not? Secondly, he notes that Christianity was not another delivery of "new and improved law" (p. 26) so Hitchens' arguments about morality are largely beside the point. Wilson makes a point that is especially weak in this first round but will apply later on - why should Hitchens care about the actions of the past? His strongest argument is his ending argument, although not completely framed: "Given your atheism, what account are you able to give that would require us to respect the individual?" (p. 29) This is a reference, I suppose, to the idea of God-given rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence.

Results: Round One - Hitchens gets it on points

Round Two

Hitchens barely comes out of his corner to fight - only two pages and his best argument is that the atheist helps his fellow man out of "mutual interest and sympathy"(p. 32) while the religious person does it out of fear of punishment or desire for reward. (personal note: Hitchens shows a misunderstanding of Christian teaching with this argument)

Wilson has a two page response but he brings up his best argument - Christianity creates a fixed standard with which one can judge behavior, thus making hypocrisy possible. Atheism has no fixed standard, so Wilson asks: "Is there such a thing as atheist hypocrisy?" (p.34)

Results: Wilson wins on points

Round Three

Hitchens repeats arguments from the first round, takes offense at a verse from Psalms that Wilson did not mention, mis-quotes the parable of the Samaritan, compares Czarist Russia (with its Orthodox Church support) as being hardly any better than Stalinist Russia and points out that societies free from direct religious control are generally better off than theocracies. He does not answer Wilson's direct questions from last round

Wilson corrects Hitchens' translation from Psalms and explains the point of the Parable of the Samaritan. Wilson also notes that Hitchens keeps saying that all societies know the 10 commandments (at least the human to human parts such as not killing and stealing despite the fact we have a history full of exactly that sort of stuff in every society throughout history - "the problem is that ancient man didn't know that, and modern man still doesn't know it." (p.39) Wilson asks if "atheism provides any rational basis for rational condemnation when others" do "vile things," while Christiany does (p.40). He expounds on that point for two pages in his best argument in the debate.

Results: Wilson knock Hitchens to the canvas

Round four

Hitchens stays off topic and goes into a barrage of attacks on religion in general (Islam in particular on p. 45). He points out, again, that other religions and cultures have created some of the same ideas as Christianity. He begins to address Wilson's argument about atheism and behavior standards in his last line of the argument with a nice (but too lengthy to fully quote here) line about using religion as your standard "is a degradation of our right and duty to choose for ourselves." (p.46)

Wilson returns to his arguments from round three and defuses Hitchens' last argument. He drifts off into a bit of evangelism but mostly he sticks to his best argument.

Results: Wilson on points

Round Five

Hitchens concedes that he was incorrect about the Parable of the Samaritan and then pouts, "It's not a very impressive parable to begin with." (p. 51) Hitchens finally stirs to life and brings up the problem of evil and the argument that Christianity tells "us we are created sicj and then ordered to be well." (p. 54) He goes after Wilson's evangelism from the previous round. This is Hitchens' best round.

Wilson comes back strong with arguments about Hitchens' logic. He argues that Hitchens claims that people do the right thing but also "have an innate predisposition to both good and wicked behavior." (p. 55) Wilson wants to know the basis for even calling behaviors good or wicked. Page 55 is Wilson's single best page. The rest of the round is not nearly as impressive, except for the last line: "the two fundamental points of true atheism. One: There is no God. Two: I hate Him." (p. 58)

Results: split decision on this round. The best for both

Round Six

Hitchens finally answers Wilson's question with a question (why is Christianity the standard of behavior?) and an answer - morality has evolved over time. The standard of right and wrong is what we have come to by learning and experience. "Religion...has made many morally normal people assent to appalling cruelties." (p. 62)

Wilson responds, "If our morality evolved, then that means our morality changes...and that means everything we consider to be 'moral' is really up for grabs" (p. 63-4) There is no fixed standard for anything. Wilson finally gets to deliver the punch that he'd been lining up since the first round.

Results: this round goes to Wilson.

I've got 1 round as a tie, 1 for Hitchens, 4 for Wilson.

Get the book for yourself and see if you agree with my assessment.

This book is a debate between an avowed Christian and an avowed atheist. It is short and compact and will give one the primary arguments for each position. I am not sure every Christian would argue like Wilson, but they should.

Wilson exposes the fact the Hitchens does not have a foundation for saying what should or should not be done. Hitchens makes moral claims throughout the book, but in the end he cannot point to where those moral claims come from. He consistently appeals to evolution as the reason people are good, even saying that morality evolved. Wilson demolishes this by noting that Hitchens is "not wroth over the fact that clams do not have legs yet." Why should we call a sociopath evil simply because he has not evolved morally to the place the rest of us are? I would add that how do we know the sociopath is not the next step in evolution? Maybe in the end we will all kill for what we want. Hitchens cannot tell us the way things should be, but only the way things are. Here is a fatal error and one he cannot correct without repentance.

I think the debate shows the clear foundational differences between Christianity and atheism. Wilson, while maybe not Hitchens intellectual superior, does know the Gospel and the Scriptures. This gives him wisdom and mirth throughout the exchange. It is hard to come away feeling that atheism is a real threat to the faith.

Finally, the Christian story is the better story. I believe Christianity to be true for many reasons, but one reason is that the story it tells is true to life. Wilson brings this to bear in a paragraph on page 57. Here he mentions numerous things that bring gladness and joy to the human heart. Hitchens claims that these things also bring him joy, but reading him it is hard to see how. Not only are his arguments weak, but he is, after all, just the lastest in a long line of evolving animals that will soon be extinct. It is hard to find much glory in that.

An excellent, short book, which will give Christians and atheist much to think about.

I like this book because it is a short presentation of two clashing viewpoints. It is a very good place to start for anyone who is reaching for what is true. There are plenty of books out there which are one viewpoint or the other. Since the book is brief, and the positions sincerely presented, I give it five stars.

Douglas Wilson is committed to an approach in apologetics known as presuppositionalism. Rather than debate individual points of evidence, he would seek to look at what his opponent is presupposing in order to come to his conclusions. Wilson thinks that Hitchens, as an atheist, has no ground of certitude for making any moral claims, or any claims of knowledge. Wilson would argue that an atheist is borrowing the presuppositions of Christianity in order to make his or her point.

Hitchens argues more directly, challenging Wilson by the use of evidence. For example, science has shown that humans have evolved. Therefore, humans have been around for at least 100,000 years. For most of those years, humankind suffered tremendously while God did nothing to alleviate that suffering. Hitchens is very fond of Ockham's razor as a way to explain things. Why not look at the most immediate and plausible explanation as to why things happen? Don't invent fanciful supernatural explanations, which are no explanations at all. Similarly, don't invent fanciful theological/philosophical systems like presuppositionalism, which it can be argued is a concession that Christianity can't meet the challenge of evidence. Rather than argue the issue on the basis of evidence, the presuppositionalist insists on presupposing the supernatural religious motifs of scripture, namely, the self-sufficient God, the creation of the universe, the fall of humankind, etc. Again, Hitchens would argue, these are religious assertions, not evidence.

In conclusion, this is a nice short introduction to the debate between atheism and theism.

I found this debate to be somewhat disappointing ... both men spoke at their own strawmen instead of listening to each other and responding meaningfully ... a lot of wasted polemic and a bit of vitriol on both sides and in the end Wilson could do no better than to turn his last exchange into a classic altar call. I have to say that Hitch let me down. I really feel that had I had the opportunity to participate I would have been able to direct a much more effective argument to answer and counterpoint Wilson ... that is the benefit of having been on both sides of the fence and also because I listened to what Wilson was saying. But I did learn something or rather, something I realized for quite a while became especially real: People believe what they want to - what they need to.

Like Dale McGowan said in his wonderful book: Parenting Beyond Belief - "Too many nonbelievers shake their heads contemptuously at the very idea of religious belief, failing to recognize religion for what it is - an understandable response to the human condition... If the religious impulse seems completely incomprehensible to you ... you don't fully grasp the human condition". At the same time too many believers, convinced of their own standing, close their ears to true and valid criticism and deprive themselves of an opportunity to grow and in many cases, grow up