Is Christianity Good for the World? (2009)

To be brief here I will refrain from any attempt to analyse this debate in any detail, I will simply state that I was somewhat disappointed. Coming from the antitheist side myself it will come as no surprise to find that I agree with Hitchens in this debate, yet I was more than prepared to be convinced to the contrary. But I wasn't; I found Wilson's argument not only weak but downright silly at times, with his persistent (yet erroneous) claim that Hitchens was dodging his question quickly becoming rather irritating. That said, and in order to provide a little 'balance' to my review, Hitchens must also be criticised for a very un-Hitchens-like fault: holding back! He could so easily have pounced at more that one point, but for some reason unknown to me he chose not to.

In summary this is certainly not the best 'Religion vs. Atheism' debate I have either read or seen; I am not familiar with Wilson's debating history but as far as Hitchens is concerned, a quick search on YouTube will offer a selection of many far superior encounters. This may not satisfy the ardent bibliophile but unfortunately, so far as Hitchens is concerned, there are few other options available.

A disappointing debate between a christian and an atheist. Douglas Wilson provides an easy target for the scatching with of Hitchens's poison pen, and Hitchens disappoints. He writes as though phoning it in, with a lot less of his usual wit and style, and fails to address a number of the obvious holes in his opponent's argument. Overall, there are many better debates on the topic. ( )

This book is an interesting read but it lacks a few things. From Hitchens' arguments he doesn't seem to have the correct experiences to be arguing against Wilson. Wilson seems to have a better grasp of Hitchens' views and experiences. Wilson is fully immersed in both Christianity and atheism from a Christian's view. Wilson seems overly concerned with finding a line that everyone must toe. The idea that having a fixed line which everyone can be measured against is in itself a problem. It isn't a good argument for if Christianity is good for the world or not. He is just arguing why it is easy to decide if you are a Christian or living to God's word. In this he is assuming that since God said he is good that God must be good for the world.

Hitchens seems more concerned with why Christianity is bad, where at first that idea seems to be in line with the point of the book. The problem with that idea is that just because something itself is bad, that doesn't mean its outcome isn't good. I wonder if Hitchens' should have spent more time reading Wilson's arguments and his published work? It almost seems like Hitchens hit reply as soon as he got Wilson's reply without first spending enough time concerned with what Wilson's argument was. WIlson seems like he chose his words much more carefully and spent more time fulling trying to answer Hitchens and giving him a run for his money.

Overall I would say this book at least deserves a read but it seems like it needs some revision to make the arguments better. I like the laid back feeling from this book but that makes it not as good of a debate. By good I mean an enjoyable read which makes me see the points and better understand their counter arguments. This book kinda feels like a conversation with run-on sentences and random derailed train of thoughts. I do as always enjoy reading about two people who have a wealth of knowledge and try to use a debate to compare that knowledge. ( )

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. ( )