Is Christianity Good for the World?

This is a great book and only takes about 1.5 hours or less to read. It offers a balanced-kind-argument from both sides of atheism. I thought that both Hitchens and Wilson made good points. Wilson has some amazing quotes in this gem! It is a must read if you care about apologetics or if you are into atheism.

Fabulous book. It's cheap, a quick read, and intelligent. And seriously, $9 isn't a huge risk so if you're curious just go ahead and get it.

I want to assert I have not read this small book. Howver, I have read the fairly astute reviews.

One should observe literary psychological-rhetorical stances in support of Christianity, wilfull self-delusion that is self-intentional. Vulgus vult decipi---decipiatur ! [Latin, "The common people like to be deceived---deceived let them be."] The vile, vulgar herd need a patina of delusion in their self-consciousness to hide their animality from themsleves. Otherwise, it is obvious we are just a damn 'troop of monkeys' running around with nuclear bombs.

The false thesis here is that it requires a vulgar notion of *god to keep us from total naughtiness. This delicious piece of false information datum in the brain should be viewed as a virus.

We need *god so we can kill one another, over-populate our world to self-extinction, and, most importantly, 'lie, cheat and steal' from each other. There is no other functional purpose for *god!

Theoretical atheism is required for present human survival.

The false religious claims asserted in these reviews by Wilson's side of the debate [actually there is no debate, since the notion of *god is nonsense] are not only foolish ideas, but also dangerous ideas. "Repentence" and "redemption" are sexual perversities of an unhealthy mind!

Pay attention to Nature!


Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin
Cecilia, Louisiana
[See my other pertinent reviews on Atheism]

"I wish you guys would continue debating a little bit longer."

That's what I told Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson a couple of days ago. Neither one responded to me, which is reasonable since I was sitting in a room by myself. I had just finished reading "Is Christianity Good For The World?", which is a debate between Hitchens and Wilson that originally appeared in "Christianity Today", a Christian magazine.

"Is Christianity Good For The World" is a short book, 67 pages, it was too short for me, I wish it would have been longer. But, again, no one's listening to me.

I liked the topic, the value Christianity has or, from Hitchens' perspective, doesn't have in the world. Since Christianity is the largest and, arguably, most influential religion in the world, with adherents numbering in the billions, the topic is worthwhile.

I thought the debate format was an interesting treatment of the subject.

And the two debaters were excellent. On the anti-Christian side is writer, journalist, atheist, irascible public intellectual, the-always-interesting, Christopher Hitchens.

Defending the Christian position is pastor and really smart guy, Douglas Wilson. (My apologies to Wilson. I ran out of fun, descriptive words like "irascible" in my introduction of Hitchens.)

Both Wilson and Hitchens are witty, intelligent, well read, and capable intellectual defenders of their beliefs.

I admit that I'm biased, but I felt that Wilson made the stronger argument. When I refer to the "stronger argument", it's not just that I felt Wilson won the debate, but that his arguments were more convincing. And, interestingly, Wilson made some strong points that went unanswered by Hitchens.

Part of what makes Wilson's success in the debate commendable is the fact that Hitchens is such a clever and witty writer that sometimes I suspect he wins support for his position just because he's so entertaining.

A good, quick, fun, interesting book.

Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL

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.