In the Spring of 2007, Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson began debating the question, "Is Christianity Good for the World?" Soon after that, they published a book. Then in 2008, they traveled around together for a series of debates at colleges, book signings, and public appearances, drawing large crowds of people everywhere they went. A lively debate between Hitchens, an atheist and journalist, and Wilson, a pastor and author, is what the viewer will see in the new DVD documentary, Collision. What makes this documentary more interesting than most is that it contains behind-the-scenes footage of what happened when the crowds of people were not around. This allows the viewer to see the debaters genuinely discuss and ponder the atheistic and theological implications of their differing beliefs and worldviews. Despite which side a viewer may be on, they will get an ample amount of rhetoric from both parties right from the get go.

When an atheist and a theist discuss the origin of moral goodness, you can almost always expect a debate. Hitchens, who does not consider himself an atheist, but rather an anti-theist, believes that man can know right and wrong, good and evil, without a god telling him which is which. Thus, Hitchens believes that man has innate moral goodness and that "religion gets its morality from humans, it's a feedback loop." Wilson on the other hand, believes that moral goodness and a moral law come from God and reasons that "there is a difference between knowing the difference between good and evil, and being able to give an accounting of it. My challenge is not that he [Hitchens] doesn't know right and wrong, he does. But how can he account for it, given an evolutionary time and chance universe?
When it comes to understanding the Bible, most viewers will expect Wilson to have an edge in this area, and he does. As a pastor and theologian, Wilson clears up quite a few misconceptions that Hitchens has regarding certain biblical accounts. Wilson explains them in context with background information that Hitchens is unaware of. Hitchens seems to have no problem with Wilson doing so and actually seems to appreciate the insight. One example of this is when Hitchens is intrigued with Wilson's explanation of the Good Samaritan parable in the Bible. After Wilson gives Hitchens the background information of the Jews and Samaritans during that time period and the context of the situation, Hitchens admits that he has never heard it fully explained before. Hitchens says that the parable was never taught to him to be anything more than "be nice to people." Wilson explains, "That's because incidentally, there's an invariable tendency in Sunday school lessons to veer towards moralism,"and thus, the true meaning of the different parables in the Bible is missed.

It has been said, debate a question, and then make statements to support your answer to the question. This is exactly what Hitchens and Wilson do when asked if Christianity is good for the world. Hitchens, unsurprisingly, says it is not. Hitchens believes that "the teachings of Christianity are immoral, the central one being the most immoral of all, the one of vicarious redemption, that you can throw your sins on someone else." Hitchens does not agree with Wilson's worldview and says that if there was a god, we would all be living under a "totalitarian system." Despite Hitchens' disagreement with Wilson, he does support a few of the Ten Commandments, namely, do not murder, do not steal, and do not lie. However, he cannot understand why a god would, "create us sick and then command us to do good." Wilson believes there is an underlying issue. Wilson says that "he [Hitchens] sees God as a tyrant; I see God as a Father." Wilson wittingly asks Hitchens "by what standard is substitutionary atonement immoral?" Hitchens cannot name one. Wilson does think that Christianity is good for the world. He believes that it is "objectively true, objectively beautiful, and objectively good." A great point that Wilson makes is when he brings up the title of Hitchens' most popular book, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and then asks Hitchens, "If religion poisons everything, and do not murder, do not steal, and do not lie are 'innate in human beings', then why didn't religion mess those things up?"

In conclusion, this debate documentary is excellent. It is not only interesting to see Hitchens and Wilson debate such an important question, but the overall quality, editing, and continuity of the film are superb. Wilson does a tremendous job answering some of the "hard" questions that are aimed at Christians, and Hitchens is humorous, likable, and may very well become your favorite atheist.

Collision is a powerful documentary that highlights two of the smartest men alive going head to head in a fierce debate. It is aptly titled Collision to describe the lives of these two men that are opposed clashing, and this film captures the sparks between them for our edification and entertainment. There are things that I really enjoyed about this documentary as a Christian, and some that I did not.

First of all, the debate and the debaters are both top notch. Though I have not read anything by Hitchens yet, Wilson is one of my favorite authors and he does not disappoint here. It is clear that both Hitchens and Wilson possess copiousness, to borrow a term from the film, and they draw on a wide variety of sources to make their points. This in itself was very refreshing. Neither party uses straw men or cheap debate techniques to prove their point. From an objective viewpoint apart from the subject matter, the debate itself is inspiring - rational, composed, thoughtful argumentation does still exist.

I also enjoyed Wilson's candor. His answer for the top reason he is a Christian is absolutely honest and truthful, but we rarely hear other Christians make the same confession. There should be no embarrassment that the main reason you are a Christian is because you came from a Christian family that raised you in the way of the Lord. Indeed, the Bible instructs us to raise our children like this. Most Christians are embarrassed to admit that they did not embrace Christianity after a careful study of every major religion and concluded that it was the best way. I affirm Wilson's honesty and integrity and confess that the same is true for me. I have since "tested the faith" and found it absolutely true, and like Wilson can point to clear, rational arguments for its validity above all other religions. But that's not why I am a Christian. I am a Christian because God saved me, period. All the rational argument in the world will fall on deaf ears unless God moves. Powerful, needed words from an accomplished Christian speaker.

Another part of the movie that I enjoyed, to my own surprise, was Christopher Hitchens. He is an atheist, in fact he goes so far as to say that he is an anti-theist, but he is a likable one. Extremely intelligent and well read and a brilliant debater. It is hard to imagine someone presenting stronger opposition to Christianity than he does, and yet he ultimately, tragically fails. His arguments are crushed by his own rationalism, yet he dogmatically holds to them, reminiscent of a fundamentalist clinging to his own beliefs. Yet, he is also honest and more open-minded towards Christianity than I expected. Three times in the movie, he responds to Wilson's arguments with a fresh look at Christianity. He even states that it is rare that he comes up against a new idea in a debate, but Wilson manages to bring up new ideas three times at least. The pair of them are a great match for each other, and the movie showcases both of them admirably.

There were also a couple of things that I thought the film could have done better. First, the production value and editing were uneven throughout the film - some of it was done really well, some was amateurish. Still the best documentary I have seen of its type, but could have been better. Secondly, almost all arguments for Christianity were defensive rather than offensive. While that was the nature of the debate because it arose from Hitchens' attack, it still would have been nice to see Wilson present positive arguments for Christianity.

One thing that I gained from watching this besides a better understanding of the arguments themselves is a desire for "copiousness." Wilson defines it as being well read across a broad spectrum, something you prepare for your entire life. Watching these two men debate made me realize how far behind I am on the copiousness scale and I am anxious to catch up.

This documentary is recommended for anyone who has more than a passing interest on either side of this debate. It is well done, very fair, and guaranteed to be worth your time at least once through, if not multiple times.

I was taking a bit of a risk ordering a DVD that supposedly contained a debate that hasn't already been covered in Hitchens', Harris' or Dawkins' books. $15 is a pretty steep price for something that can more than likely be seen in any one of Hitchens' innumerable Youtube videos. But I ordered it because I am a fan of Hitchens' work, and I have an increasing interest in Douglas Wilson's published responses to critics of Christian theology.

So here I am, fifteen dollars in the hole, and how did it work in my favor? Well, I certainly don't regret it. And I don't feel like I merely broke even. So that's something.

What I loved about this film was that it presented the opportunity to see Christopher Hitchens debate someone who seems to truly understand his religion. Douglas Wilson is one of the very few people that I've seen in debate who knows were to draw the line of fact and fiction in the bible. He does not take everything at face value, and often knows the deeper meaning behind certain parts of scripture. For instance, his explanation that the Parable of the Good Samaritan isn't a mere morality tale was enlightening and, well, something I'd never before considered.

Hitchens is his usual, sharp, articulate and cogent self. Able to argue nearly any claim postulated by dogmatic apologists without a second's delay. He rarely, if ever, finds himself backed into a corner without a word to say about it.

When the two are together, it's all very fine. The two of them are able to participate in back and forth arguments with ease, and neither of them ever seem to get completely hung up on specific topics. They're very dynamic together, and when they debate the atmosphere becomes very electrically-charged at times.

In combination with the pair's interaction, the subject of their debates, their respective intelligence, their exchanges are absolutely marvelous to watch. I enjoyed it thoroughly, and have a new-found respect for Wilson. I plan on buying one of his books as soon as I can manage.

The real problem of this documentary is not the subject matter or the debaters themselves, but rather the directing and editing. I was fantastically annoyed by the insane cuts, extreme camera angles, and amateur effects added to this film. Everything from grayscale to film grain effects are added as if to jazz it all up. As if the filmmaker thought that people just weren't going to be entertained enough by the debates.

Picture a professional and respectful debate filmed like a motocross race.

It shouldn't be about entertainment here. Not when it comes to theological debates, that is. So you can just throw that right out the window. People are looking for different points of view in a professional forum, and they don't need hip hop or hard rock music playing in the background to be more connected to this display.

The most preposterous moment in the whole film was near the end, where Hitchens and Wilson depart a plane, and the scene is filmed like one of the thousands of rap music videos circulating out there. Slow motion. Black and white. Hip hop music playing in the background. Modern editing. It was absolutely absurd. It was as if the creators had no real respect for the subject matter. The director and editor should never be allowed near a studio ever again. Never. Ever.

[[ASIN:B001MFNB5I Religulous]] is one of my most favorite films on the subject. It brought forth some serious, debatable questions, but at the same time...it was comedy. Since then, I've been praying (hehe) for someone like Hitchens to make something of similar scope. In the case of COLLISION, a better director, and at least another half-hour's worth of coverage of the debates (90 minutes is hardly time for anything. Not when most of it's filled with random montages.) could have made this a very important documentary, instead of just a passable one.

Pick this up if you're a fan of Hitchens or Wilson, or if you want to see a few debate points that haven't had much coverage lately. Other than that, you're probably better off hitting up Youtube.

This is not a watch it once kind of a flick. I showed it to a group of friends last night and although they were enthralled, to a person they said they'd need to watch it again. At times the "Blair Witch" feel made the argumentation difficult to follow. The format is clearly not your garden variety lectern styled stuffy debate. It's funny, exhilarating, challenging and thought provoking. "Is Christianity Good for the World?" Well, that's the question Christopher Hitchens (atheist) and Douglas Wilson (Christian pastor) attempted to answer.

The reasoning on both sides, anti-theist and Christian, was riveting and the music presentation was captivating. As a Christian, I must admit that I was extremely impressed with Hitchens. He was witty, thoughtful, at times self-effacing and often powerfully direct. He pulled no punches and his take no prisoners style should be an abrupt wake-up call to the Christian community. This man was on his game and has apparently had his way with Muslims, Jews and Christians. I'd venture to say that few Christians would survive the Hitchens' assault...but then again he's rather freakish in that his IQ is off the charts, he's got an incredible command of the English language and his reasoning skills were brilliantly startling.

Wilson was Hitchens' intellectual equal and was clearly not shaken by Hitchens' well-placed attacks on Christianity. On numerous occasions Wilson hammered home the theme that Hitchens had co-opted the Christian moral worldview, since he could not account for the origin of his own morality.

One particularly poignant moment where I felt that Wilson became super-energized and more forceful, came at the halfway point when Hitchens did the old tried and true "Jesus predicted he'd return in the lifetime of his disciples. He didn't do it and therefore he's a false prophet, not God and thus Christianity is a bankrupt religion"... Wilson said rather emphatically something to the effect of "Jesus was speaking about the destruction of Jerusalem not the end of the space/time universe. He simply wasn't." Wilson went on to explain his preterist eschatological position that few Christians are even aware of. This was one of the few points where Hitchens seemed unprepared and for a season, silenced.

At any rate, I believe the producers created a very well-balanced movie. Both atheists and Christians may think their view was victorious. Some Amazon reviewers have offered slightly negative critiques because in their mind "Collision" didn't solve anything. That's true. But that was the point. Serious arguments were presented on both sides, giving the watcher the chance to hone and refine their particular worldview. The debate should not be considered an end in itself but the starting point for serious inquiry. It has been my belief that too many Christians shy away from these kinds of tough questions. That must stop.

I admit my bias in saying the following. Christians can take the best shots Hitchens, Dawkins and other atheists can land. However, they need not be lazy or unprepared. If they don't bring their "A" game they will not meet their challengers.

I found this video very confusing to say the least. Not because of the protagonists, as they are superb, but for technical reasons. I have read Hitchens book "God is not great" and admire his savvy about the topic of non-believing. Everyone should read Hitchen's take on religion for enlightenment if not for amusement and I told you so opportunities. Douglas Wilson is new to me. He has a first rate mind but is somewhat suffering from compulsiveness and rambling incoherent arguments. I kept asking myself, "What did he say? How's that again?" Because of the poor editing I suppose, there are numerous non sequiturs on camera from both men that are very distracting. This video has a lot going for it but it is a mess as far as editing, POV, sound, unfocused and jerky camera work. This was a great opportunity to hear two heavyweights debate "whither God" but the film editors royally screwed it up by constantly changing venues, topics, camera angles, and inserting grainy black and white shots over pristine color. There are long establishing shots with a rap or hip hop song blaring about something or the other in the background that further alienate the viewer's attention. Having said that, there are great moments in the film of revelations and a fair amount of gallows humor. Hitchen's is a brilliant speaker but more than meets his match with Wilson, the bibliophile that never met a quotation he didn't like. However, the funniest quote in the film came from Hitchen's who says at one point, "Nietzsche said 'God is dead,' and Freud said 'God is dad'." (See the film). I felt like the film was really a long commercial for their collaborative book on the topic of Christianity, as it's mentioned many times throughout the documentary, but maybe not. In the end, Hitchen's makes an astounding revelation about his own philosophy which was quite compelling. Wilson, unfortunately, does not concede an iota towards Hitchen's thoughtful arguments which in my opinion outweigh the triteness of Wilson's unwavering faith. All this goes to show as Carl Sagan has written that once the mind has convinced itself of a fact or idea (such as God) there is hardly any way the mind can be persuaded differently...so here we have two good examples of a conversation of the deaf. It was worth the nine bucks I paid to view it but I wish the editing had been more coherent. I will not buy their book now.

This is a documentary about a book tour. The book being toured was (presumably) yet another (yawn!) "does God exist" debate between thinkers on completely opposite poles of the question. An understandable initial reaction to such a concept (this was my first thought) would be: "Whoopie . . . snore . . . zzzz . . . are there any classic GI Joe re-runs on?" For some reason, an uncanny, cerebral mood took me, and I decided to watch the trailers and clips of the show online. These online previews made the show look, surprisingly, interesting. So, I bought the full copy and watched it via Amazon's very cool new on demand video feature. Before the first 5 minutes had passed, I was riveted--glued to my seat, as they say. It was not the typical kind of riveted/glued-to-one's-chair-ness caused by some big Hollywood action or suspense productions (those are becoming rarer by the moment); instead it was an intellectually and even emotionally riveting experience. I have no idea how the makers of this film managed to make it not just interesting but enthralling. But, in my opinion, they did. The production quality is very good (it is an independently produced documentary, after all, not a James Cameron film), but more importantly the story is compelling. What made the show interesting was not so much the persuasiveness or skill of the arguments (even though I found the ideas and arguments to be very interesting--these were certainly not the run-of-the-mill atheist/theist debate lines), but how interesting and different both of these men appear to be, and how, in spite their vast differences and ideological conflicts on so many levels, they still clearly develop a friendship and, albeit grudging perhaps, respect for each other. It was like a modern, real-life re-enactment of Chesterton's "The Ball and the Cross" (only without the sword-play). Well done and well worth watching a time or three and sharing with friends of whatever religious/philosophical background. By the end of the show, you cannot tell whether the filmmaker favored one side or the other.

First, I do believe that this is the first time I've ever seen an apologetics movie that has the opponents at so many, and at such a variety of venues. They go from a school sponsored debate, to a bar, to a restaurant, to a taxi cab, to a helicopter, etc. etc. Yes, I do agree that the producers and directors were trying a little too hard to be "hip" with their format and music choices (see the reviews on Amazon) but I don't think this detracted from the overall meaningfulness of the movie. While there were many critical issues raised that sparked discussions amongst my students, I found the most interesting and I daresay compelling undercurrent of the whole film was the respectful relationship that developed between the two men. It reassured to me that there are some atheists and christians that can actually disagree civally.

While Wilson comes from a different apologetic perspective of my own (he's a presuppositionalist- where I'd take a more classical approach), I think he did a great job clarifying his position and an even better job dismantling Hitchens' objections. The pairing could not have been better. They continually played off of each others arguments, often times with a humorous and even playful interactions that spawned giggles from the audience. Of course, not all of their dialogue was amusing, but all of it was definitely intriguing.

I would highly recommend this movie to anyone with one warning: If you are planning on showing this to a church or youth group- be forewarned that there are a couple of minor expletives. (Oh my!) The one used by the pastor started an interesting discussion in my class on the propriety of language in apologetics debates, and when, if ever, is there an appropriate time to use this sort of exclamation point.

I give it an easy 4.5 out of 5 stars. (The .5 off was because a few arguments were offered by one party- but the other party was never given the chance to answer. )

My only problem with this film, which is otherwise very interesting and well made, is the opposite of what most other people have said. Most reviews have complained that the film is more about the men and their personal lives, and that not enough actual debate was shown. I disagree. The film showed quite a bit of the actual debates. What I wanted to see more of were the informal conversations at lunch, dinner, or in the limo after the debate. There were only a few tantalizing snippets of this.

There was one scene of the two men eating lunch in New York, laughing hystarically while quoting P.G. Wodehouse lines from memory. There was another conversation over lunch in a Pub (again, extremely short). And lastly there was a brief snippet of conversation during a limo ride.

To me, each of these moments was far more interesting than the formal debates themselves. You can see the full Westminster Seminary debate video on Youtube, and you can buy the debate book, "Is Christianity Good For The World?", so you don't need this documentary to get the debates. This film was about a clash of men, of personalities, more than it was about a clash of ideas. Unfortunately, this was expressed mainly with interviews of each of the two men about themselves and their opinion of the other, individually rather than together. This was the big missed opportunity, in my opinion. Hearing Hitchens talk about his opinion of Wilson was nice, but it was no substitute for seeing the two men sitting chatting over a pint.