Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
November 24, 2009
Free Newsletters:
RSS Feeds | Audio | Twitter

Home > 2007 > June (Web-only)Christianity Today, June (Web-only), 2007  |   |  
"Is Christianity Good for the World?"
The conclusion of the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson.




ADVERTISEMENT

Turning from this to the surprising amount of virtue that can be found in humans, I again choose not to confect a mystery where none exists. Leaving ordinary sins to one side—I do not steal other people's property, for example, and hope for a reciprocal restraint on their part, and do not pardon such offenses when they occur—I could mention something that is particular to our discussion. Every now and then, in argument, I find myself glib enough to make a cheap point or a point that might evoke instant applause from an audience. But I am always aware of doing so, or if you like of the temptation to do so, and I strive (not always with success) to resist the tactic, and rather dislike myself when I give in to it. Why do I do this? Socrates called this restraint the daemon: an inner voice that helps us toward self-criticism. Many later thinkers have defined it in discrepant ways, but a definition is something short of an understanding.

I am content to regard it as indefinable, which is where we part company. My own inclination is to regard it as a human faculty without which we could not have—I shan't say "evolved" yet again—made the smallest progress as homo sapiens. You believe that I owe this inner prompting to the divine, and you further assert that a heavenly intervention made in the last two thousand years of human history (a microsecond of evolutionary time) is the seal on the deal. You will have to excuse me when I say that I think such a belief is, as well as incredible, immoral. It makes right action dependent on a highly improbable wager on the supernatural. To state the case in another way, it suggests that without celestial sanction, you yourself would be unrestrained in your appetites and careless of other people. Awful though many of your opinions are to me, I decline to believe that you would, if you lost your faith, become base and self-centered. It is, rather, religion that has made many morally normal people assent to appalling cruelties, including the mutilation of children's genitalia, the institution of slavery, the revulsion from female sexuality, and many other crimes from which an average infidel would, without any heavenly prompting, turn away. Ask yourself this question. Can you name one moral action, or moral utterance, performed or spoken by a believer that could not have been performed or spoken by an atheist? My email is available to any reader who is willing to accept this challenge.

I like your joke about the reduction of mirth to a spasm (there was a solemn critic of P.G. Wodehouse who defined the smile in terms of "naso-labial" contractions), but I think you let yourself down a bit with your Hallmark conclusion. I dare say that I could add to the list of joys and even include one or two subjects which Christianity and other religions have made difficult to discuss in public. However, I shall select my own recent investigation of my DNA, which can now be sequenced and analyzed. I was perfectly happy with the "revelation" of my own kinship with other species and quite overwhelmed by the skill and precision of those who allowed me to do it. A lot of wit and beauty and intelligence had to go into the confirmation of my status as an evolved animal, just as a great deal of dullness and stupidity is required for the continuing denial of it.

I think we shall do better if we do not resist evidence that may at first sight appear unwelcome or unsettling, just as we shall do better if we refuse conclusions for which there is no evidence at all.

share this pageshare this page



E-mail this pageWrite CTPrint this articlePost a comment





  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

[Reader Reviews]
Average User Rating: 

Displaying 1 - 3 of 64 comments.See all comments
Mike   Posted: June 14, 2007 1:23 PM
A wonderful debate, thank you CT. Mythsmasher, your black and white, either-or challenge is both simplistic and terribly uninformed. Fundamentalist Chistianity is riddled with contradictions and does not reflect a much richer and more ancient theological tradition. The Scriptures were written over a long time by a faith community. Much is literal and non-negotiable, and much is historically conditioned and different in meaning for the original audience than for later generations. It is the wisdom of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit that discerns this over the centuries.

Anonymous   Posted: June 14, 2007 11:38 AM
Mr. Hitchens, I recently read your debate with Douglas Wilson on www.christianitytoday.com, and that means (as you would assume) I am an evangelical Christian myself, though only 18 years of age. In the article you did make many good points, but the overall question was if Christianity was good for the world, and in the final article you made a challenge, which was “Can you name one moral action, or moral utterance, performed or spoken by a believer that could not have been performed or spoken by an atheist?” I would very much like to take you up on this challenge. In the third paragraph of your response, you admitted that you have no idea what it is like to be a sociopath or a psychopath, but that you do not wish to coexist with them because it risks you and your family’s lives. So I will challenge you on that point. Wilson said he would reach out to them, and to be fair, you said the exact opposite. But, whose fault is it from an Atheists viewpoint that such a person has

Morality simply stated   Posted: June 14, 2007 10:53 AM
"Right" and "wrong" are really unhelpful and confusing words, which imply absolutism. "Morality" is simply the agreed preferred societal norms of a group of people. The prevailing norm is determined by the historical "winner" (like history itself). However, for a people and its norms to be a "winner," their norms must make for a more successful society. The norms are revised (evolve is a loaded term here) over time to correct "failures" in the society. Those strategies that build up society (via the success of the underlying communities & individuals) we tend to call "good" or "right." Those that damage the society in some way we call "bad" or "wrong." "Competing" societies are successful but have developed different strategies. Our society fought to preserve our approach in WWII; we are doing so again today with Islam. We can't be so arrogant to assume we will win b/c we're on the side of God's ultimate good; so also says the enemy. All such claims are always incorrect.

The allotted time for commenting has ended.

sponsors 








[Browse More Christianity Today]

Search






















Search by Name
Or use Advanced Search to search by program, region, cost, affiliation, enrollment, more!

Search by:





Books & Culture
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Leadership Journal
Men of Integrity
Outcomes
Kyria.com
Your Church
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com