Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
May 13, 2008
Free E-mail Newsletters:
RSS Feed | More Feeds | RSS Help

Home > 2007 > May (Web-only)Christianity Today, May (Web-only), 2007  |   |  
"Is Christianity Good for the World?"
Part 2 of the ongoing debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson.



ADVERTISEMENT

Theologian Douglas Wilson and atheist Christopher Hitchens, authors whose books are already part of a larger debate on whether religion is pernicious, agreed to discuss their views on whether Christianity itself has benefited the world. Below is their exchange, one in a series that will appear on our website over the course of this month.



Douglas Wilson is author of Letter from a Christian Citizen, senior fellow of theology at New Saint Andrews College, and minister at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. He is also the editor of Credenda/Agenda magazine and has written (among other things) Reforming Marriage and A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking. His Blog and Mablog site inevitably makes for provocative reading.

Christopher Hitchens wrote, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Twelve Books). Hitchens is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair and a visiting professor of liberal studies at the New School. He is the author of numerous books, Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man," Letters To a Young Contrarian, and Why Orwell Matters. He was named, to his own amusement, number five on a list of the "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

From: Christopher Hitchens
To: Douglas Wilson
Subject: Is Christianity Good for the World?

This is mildly amusing casuistry which—aside from its recommendation of Wodehouse—contains nothing that distinguishes it from Islam or Hinduism or indeed humanism. Were I a Christian, I would be highly unsettled by the huge number of concessions that Wilson makes. Since I am not a Christian, I mutter a mild "thank you" for his admission that morality has nothing at all to do with the supernatural. My book argues that religious belief has now become purely optional and cannot be mandated by anything revealed or anything divine. It is one among an infinite number of private "faiths," which do not disturb me in the least as long as its adherents agree to leave me alone.

Since Wilson does not even attempt to persuade me that Christ died for my sins (and can yet vicariously forgive them) or that I am the object of a divine design or that any of the events described in the two Testaments actually occurred or that extreme penalties will attend any disagreement with his view, I am happy to leave our disagreement exactly where it is: as one of the decreasingly interesting disputes between those who cling so tentatively to man-made "Holy Writ" and those who have no need to consult such texts in pursuit of truth or beauty or an ethical life. The existence or otherwise of an indifferent cosmos (the overwhelmingly probable state of the case) would no more reduce our mutual human obligations than would the quite weird theory of a celestial dictatorship,whether Aztec or Muslim or (as you seem to insist) Christian. The sole difference is that we would be acting out of obligation toward others out of mutual interest and sympathy but without the impulse of terrifying punishment or selfish reward. Some of us can handle this thought and some, evidently, cannot. I have a slight suspicion as to which is more moral.

On a recent visit to Arkansas, I ran into a huge billboard near the Little Rock airport which simply said "JESUS." This struck me as saying too much as well as too little, and I had almost forgotten it until Wilson's evasions brought it back to mind.

— Christopher Hitchens





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 177 comments.See all comments
Kyle   Posted: May 11, 2007 10:45 AM
I personally think both of them are doing a poor job. It seems they are stuck on morality, which i have to agree with Hitchens. What about the wonderful things Christianity has done for past education, and the terrible things it is doing to our present education (in America at least)? Or the other topics they could be covering. I also don't understand why Wilson is argueing with an athiest about the importance of forgivness of sin, who is going to forgive your sins if there is no god? Even if there is a god, how do you make the case that it is important? Also why must an objective moral standard be better than a subjective one? Sure there will always be people who have their own subjective radical moral or ethical philosophy, but that is both with and without religion. A subjective moral standard can change with the times, as the current moral standard has. I know both of these men are far more educated on these topics, so i would like to see them put that education to use.

Lee   Posted: May 10, 2007 7:13 PM
Matt asks: "Anyways, a big claim here is that one set of relative morals has no 'authority' to condemn someone who doesn't hold them. This is not true, as there is nothing stopping a moral relativist from condemning Stalin." Matt, the argument is not that atheists (or other moral relativists) cannot condemn Stalin; the argument is, why ought Stalin to listen? Why ought Stalin to heed? *Ought* Stalin to heed? Where is that written? Your set of relativist morals may hold that man ought not to commit mass murder, while Stalin's relativist morals held that he was ushering in a brave new world of economic equality, and (as he informed Lady Astor, or so I recall) "to make an omelet, you have to break eggs." Why is Stalin obliged to give up his morals for yours?

ARodofIron   Posted: May 10, 2007 9:32 PM
1) Hitchens is the only one being evasive for not responding to any question so far. 2) If Wilson's remarks apply to any other faith or not is NOT within the scope of this debate. This is about atheism vs. Christianity. If Hitchens wants to go off and convert to Islam, and then come back to debate, that's fine; but he needs to state that up front so that Wilson may alter his argumentation in that regard. The mere mention of other religions is just an attempt to lift smokescreens at this point. 3) "...those who have no need to consult such texts in pursuit of truth or beauty or an ethical life." Well that's very cute to say, but the plain fact is that he still fails to show how a group of floating molecules can begin to produce or even recognize truth, or what is the necessary sequence of chemical reactions that causes that something be worth deemed moral or beautiful. If not, then he needs to admit that his "pursuit" is merely a blind and ignorantly hopeful one.

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
Christian History & Biography
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Ignite Your Faith
Leadership Journal
Marriage Partnership
Men of Integrity
Today's Christian
Today's Christian Woman
Your Church
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com