If you have never witnessed this debate live or on paper, this would be quite a good place to start. It's not terribly long, and is a perfectly good demonstration of how this debate often goes.

It's helpful to remember the original audience was a Christian publication when reading this, because Douglas Wilson uses specific theological language when he gets to the crux of his point, which was a bit disappointing. Christopher Hitchens, on the other hand, makes his point in language calculated to reach everyman, regardles of how much theological training a person has had. As a result, I think the reader ends up unavoidably biased toward one or the other based on his own level of theological education.

The most amusing and perhaps mind-opening part of the entire book was the introductory words by Douglas Wilson, where he eloquently expresses toward Christopher Hitchens exactly my feelings about Ann Coulter.

This isn't the world's best book on this topic - but it's extraordinarily interesting and does that without being long enough to get horribly tiresome or irritating. It's worthwhile. I'd be very happy if a lot of people read it. ( )

{LTER review}

This was always going to be a difficult one to review, given my partisan stance, but I'm going to declare the debate a draw, and a bit of a disappointing bout.

The challenge laid down by Douglas Wilson was a prize fight to determine 'Is Christianity Good for the World?'. With the gauntlet picked up by Christopher Hitchens (presumably chosen for his drawing power, and his inability to steer clear of a rigged contest) a six round contest was set in place.

Hitchens is first out of his corner, and unleashes a series of knock-out blows. Wilson ducks and dives; bobs and weaves. Next round, Hitchens bounds out of his corner with an unstoppable attack; Wilson feints and parries.

It's at about this stage where you start to think: knock-out? unstoppable? why don't those words seem appropriate? Well, basically it's because Hitchens is swinging at air, while Wilson is bashing away at his booted shins, or perhaps they're in totally separate matches. Wilson is certainly out of his intellectual depth, but then again Hitchens is thinking that he's fighting a match against the whole of religion, whereas Wilson is pretty determined that the gauntlet he threw down related to the New Testament only.

Eventually the opponents climb into the same ring, and pick a new debating topic: morality. This is more like it - a much more focused target that both parties seem a lot more comfortable with, and which better suits the constraints of the format.

Personally, I think morality is such an individual thing that it is impossible to have a debate about, if the object of the debate is to reach any sort of resolution. Wilson thinks morality derives from a book; Hitchens thinks it evolved. Irrelevant. Individual morality doesn't mean much until ethical standards are agreed - being the codified amalgam of a whole bunch of individual moralities that are thrown into the melting pot and stirred around until most people are too fed up to argue about them any more. At that point, individuals lose the ability to impose their own standards on the society in which they live, and shape up or ship out. Well, I was always going to come down on the side of Hitchens, and the proposal of morals that have evolved, when put up against those that were written down a couple of centuries after the person who is supposed to have set them in stone died, is a no-brainer.

Hitchens' prose is overblown (and I think he lacked judgement in entering the contest), and Wilson writes at about the standard of a fifteen year-old. The case as proposed was not seriously debated. It was a reasonably enjoyable knock-about, but there are no earth-shattering conclusions. Match drawn. ( )

This is an excellent book. I reviewed it for Discerning Reader: http://www.discerningreader.com/revie...

Is Christianity Good for the World? is a book that any Christian can confidently give to a an atheist friend, or to somebody struggling with their own faith in light of atheism. This is so for a variety of reasons. First, if one is to look for a “winner” in the debate, rest assured that the Christian “wins.” There is no moment, from a Christian perspective, where the reader will wince and think, “Whoa! Wilson really blew it there!” The reasons for this judgment will become apparent as one reads the rest of this review. Second, and related to the first, the gospel is clearly presented so that there can be no misunderstanding that through the cross of Christ alone a person can be reconciled to God. This should give every Christian pause to rejoice and pray that Hitchens and non-Christian readers would believe on Christ and be saved. Third, the interchange between the atheist and the Christian is highly entertaining. Both Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson are brilliant writers who have a knack for getting to their point using satire, irony, wit and other such literary devices. Readers who enjoy this kind of exchange will grin their way through most of the book. Fourth, it is mercifully short and easy to read. Many walk away from university auditoriums after a debate over the existence of God scratching their heads thinking, “What was that all about?” Not so with this book. Coming in at sixty-one pages with wide margins, a student who is heavy-laden with homework will not have to take too much time away from study to finish the debate. Technical jargon rarely appears, thus making it accessible to the layperson. And the entertainment value will keep one from putting it down until every page is turned.

Christopher Hitchens, the atheist, is well known in popular western culture, particularly in Britain (where he is from) and the United States. This is especially so since the publication of his recent book God is Not Great where he argues that all forms of religion are essentially bad for the progress of the human race and society. Hitchens is no stranger to intense Christianity vs. atheism debates – one only has to think of his regular bouts with Dinesh D’Souza to see that Hitchens is accustomed to pugilism of this sort. Personally, this reviewer finds Hitchens to be the most dynamic and interesting of the so-called “Four Horsemen” of the so-called “New Atheism” that includes Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins. There is a sense with Hitchens that one could come away from a conversation over coffee with him actually liking the guy in spite of his blistering, sarcastic attacks on the Christian faith.

Douglas Wilson, the Christian, is less well known as Hitchens in popular culture, but no less dynamic. In fact, the Hitchens/Wilson pairing could not have been better. Although he has not sold as many books as Hitchens, Wilson is a prolific writer who addresses a wide variety of topics from family, theology, history, education, worship and philosophy. He is the pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, the founder of the Association for Classical Christian Schools, a key leader in the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches and editor of Credenda/Agenda a webzine and print magazine devoted to Reformed theology. Wilson is no backwoods fundamentalist when it comes to understanding and appropriating culture (note the reference to Wodehouse on page 19), nor is he one who thoughtlessly drinks it in without regard to his Christian faith. A staunch Calvinist, Wilson appropriates the method of apologetics founded by Cornelius Van Til and honed by Greg Bahnsen in essentially proving that Hitchens and the atheism that he represents renders the world unintelligible. Like Hitchens, Wilson comes across as a likable guy. Both of their personalities endear the reader making the book personable and personal.

The nature of this debate circles around morality. This is seen in the interrogative proposition under dispute: “Is Christianity good for the world?” The morality of Christianity is a relevant point of discussion because that is one of the dominant themes of Hitchens’ anti-Christian writings. In fact, Hitchens argues in his introduction, “Although Christianity is often credited (or credits itself) with spreading moral precepts such as ‘Love thy neighbor,’ I know of no evidence that such precepts derive from Christianity” (15). He goes on to say, “Many of the teachings of Christianity are, as well as being incredible and mythical, immoral” (16). In fact, “[I]f Christianity was going to save us by its teachings, it would have had to perform better by now” (17). Hitchens believes that the first step Christianity needs to make is to humbly admit that it does not stand on moral high ground and that religion is simply “man-made” (18). What is interesting is that Hitchens seems to inadvertently give up the ghost early on: “I cannot, of course, prove that there is no supervising deity who invigilates my every moment and who will pursue me even after I am dead…But nor has any theologian ever demonstrated the contrary” (18). It is the opinion of this reviewer that at least one has: Douglas Wilson, who like many other theologians argues that the contrary is impossible.

The main thrust of Wilson’s response to Hitchens is, “Given atheism who cares?” How, from an atheistic perspective, can the words ought or should have meaning? What standard does Hitchens (or any atheist for that matter) appeal to in order to make sense of morality (or anything else)? In his introduction Wilson writes, “My argument does not focus so much as a challenge to what Christopher Hitchens wants to reject (God) as what he still desires to keep regardless. He has chopped down the tree and yet still wants the fruit to be there at harvest” (12-13). Wilson points out that Hitchens essentially removes the foundation for ethical value and then still wants to make moral pronouncements. Without the objective standard of the biblical worldview, Hitchens’ value statements are arbitrary and irrational. In response to Hitchens’ discussion of the genocides of the Old Testament, Wilson says, “Should the propagators of these ‘horrors’ have cared? There is no God, right? Because there is no God, this means that—you know—genocides just happen, like earthquakes and eclipses. It is all matter in motion, and these things happen” (21). The rest of the book keeps coming back to this main point—something that Hitchens either misses or ignores. Wilson shows that Hitchens’ belief that ethics comes from human solidarity (29), that it is innate (38, 46) and that it evolved (53) is essentially a non-answer. What standard does human solidarity appeal to in order for ethical laws to be universal or how is innate law authoritative (see pages 35, 42, 49, 57-58)? For Hitchens to answer the question, “Is Christianity good for the world?” in the negative, he has to essentially affirm what he denies. In other words, he has to presuppose the existence of God in order to deny the existence of God. As the conversation progresses Wilson becomes like a broken record constantly asking Hitchens to give an account for morality, sentence structure, respect for the individual and the like. For as good a writer that Hitchens is, it is surprising that he is not as good a reader. One wonders whether Wilson was amused by this or found it terribly frustrating; judging from the following quote, he probably found it amusing:

After this many installments, I now feel comfortable in asserting that I have posed this question to you from every point of the compass and have not yet received anything that approaches the semblance of an answer. On this question I am tempted to quote Wyatt Earp from the film Tombstone—“You gonna do something or just stand there and bleed?”—but I think I’ll pass (49).



Hitchens thinks that Wilson evades the challenges brought to the Christian faith. However, even a cursory read reveals that it is Hitchens who evades the challenges brought to his atheistic faith. Wilson asks, “When another atheist makes different ethical choices than you do (as Stalin and Mao certainly did), is there an overarching common standard for all atheists that you are obeying and which they are not obeying? If so, what is that standard and what book did it come from?” (27-28).

Throughout the argument Wilson argues negatively that atheism cannot make sense of the world, let alone argue that anything can be considered “good” for it. But he also posits his argument positively: “The Christian faith is good for the world because it provides the fixed standard which atheism cannot provide and because it provides forgiveness for sins, which atheism cannot provide either” (28). The need for forgiveness of sins is demonstrated by Hitchens’ evasion of Wilson’s point, which is ultimately an evasion of God (Rom. 1:21). Wilson calls for “intellectual repentance” (27), which can only occur if one believes the gospel. Poignantly, Wilson explains the nature of the gospel and applies it specifically to the life of Hitchens in the last two pages of the book.

Is Christianity Good for the World? is an excellent book. It is a delight to read and it does the job of demonstrating that the atheistic worldview, consistently held, destroys ethics – along with knowledge and reality. Buy this book in mass quantities and give copies to your friends, Christian or not. It will serve to build the faith of the believer, and by God’s grace will promote faith in the non-believer.

I was ultimately disappointed with this book. I liked the premise of a dialogue, and it mostly worked well. My disappointment stems from mostly from the fact that while my personal beliefs are closest to Christopher Hitchens, I think he failed when pressed by Mr. Wilson arguments and instead stuck to his shiny, clever talking points. He gave too much ground to the believer by refusing to engage him fully. Mr. Wilson ultimately failed in swaying my opinion either, but proving the miraculous is perhaps too much to expect of an earthly writer.

Mr. Wilson repeatedly hangs his rhetorical hat on the supposed impossibility of deriving an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. Thus, believers argue without God there can be no morality but only hedonistic individualism. This is false. Even if it were true that religion is the only source to regulate human behavior, however, this line of argument does nothing to advance Mr. Wilson argument or answer the question of the book’s title. It does nothing to force one to choose one religion over another.
David Hume in A Treatise of Human Nature first cautioned against making normative claims based on descriptive statements, or that we at least acknowledge the fact when it occurs. In fact, after Darwin gave an alternate empirical explanation of our existence, many would argue that descriptive statements are all we have left.

It is quite possible to answer Mr. Wilson’s questions. For example, in Human Nature After Darwin Janet Richards gives a text full. Marc Hauser's Moral Minds is a recent rigorous attempt at calming Wilson’s fears. It is quite possible to imagine a Rawlsian method of morality with no fixed principles or players that will yield moral results. Morality is not synonymous with one religion or any religion at all, but nonetheless usually runs through human affairs everywhere, all the time. This naturally leads one to seek earthly answers and ignore celestial claims of authority from believers of the innumerable deities that are supposed to be regulating our affairs. At this late date, Christianity and Mr. Wilson fail to deliver any unifying moral principles, but only muddy the water of humans understanding their own behavior. ( )

This slim volume (all of 61 pages) consists of a back-and-forth debate between noted atheist author Christopher Hitchens and Christian apologist Douglas Wilson on the subject of the book's title question. It's an interesting read, if only because both authors are eloquent, even witty, and neither is the least afraid of being provocative. I'm particularly impressed by Wilson, even though I am emphatically not on his side in this particular debate. The questions he raises on the subject of atheist morality are not new, but they are well-framed and, in my opinion, quite legitimately challenging.

Ultimately, though, as entertaining and occasionally thought-provoking as I found this debate, it isn't terribly satisfying, and not simply because they don't actually reach an answer to the question of whether or not Christianity is good for the world. Much of the time, they seem to be talking directly past each other, and Hitchens, having agreed to the exchange, seems strangely and sometimes frustratingly uninterested in debating Wilson or answering his often very specific questions.

On balance, I'd call it worthwhile, though not essential, reading for those interested in the theism vs. atheism clash of worldviews, from either end of the debate. ( )