Is Christianity Good for the World? (Hardcover)

by Christopher Hitchens (Author), Douglas Wilson (Author), Jonah Goldberg (Foreword)
Key Phrases: Old Testament, Good Samaritan, Golden Rule

Editorial Reviews

Review
"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

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

"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)

Review
“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

“Put two contrarians together and shake well.”
–Christianity Today --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

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: 4.4 out of 5 stars See all reviews (20 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #86,960 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

30 of 33 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)

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!

19 of 20 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The Clash of World-views: Or My God Is Better Than Your's, September 13, 2008

By	George Crocker - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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!

39 of 46 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 (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

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.