"Is Christianity Good for the World?" | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > May (Web-only)

Christianity Today, May (Web-only), 2007 |

"Is Christianity Good for the World?"

Part 3 of the ongoing debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson.

posted 5/15/2007 07:42AM

4 of 4

You say in passing that ethical imperatives are "derived from innate human solidarity." A host of difficult questions immediately arise, which is perhaps why atheists are generally so coy about trying to answer this question. Derived by whom? Is this derivation authoritative? Do the rest of us ever get to vote on which derivations represent true, innate human solidarity? Do we ever get to vote on the authorized derivers? On what basis is innate human solidarity authoritative? If someone rejects innate human solidarity, are they being evil, or are they just a mutation in the inevitable changes that the evolutionary process requires? What is the precise nature of human solidarity? What is easier to read, the book of Romans or innate human solidarity? Are there different denominations that read the book of innate human solidarity differently? Which one is right? Who says?

And last, does innate human solidarity believe in God?

Back to Hitchens' response

Back to Wilson's response

Related Elsewhere:

Hitchens' God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man," Letters To a Young Contrarian, and Why Orwell Matters; and Wilson's Letter from a Christian Citizen, Reforming Marriage, and A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking are available from Amazon.com and other retailers.

Wilson's Blog and Mablog has posts in response to God is Not Great, as well as other topics.

Hitchensweb.com has links to Hitchens' online articles.

Stan Guthrie commented in CT Liveblog about Christian-athiest debates.

Hitchens debated Al Sharpton on May 7.

Books & Culture articles about Hitchens and Wilson include:

Can You Reason with Christians? | A response to Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation. (May 7, 2007)

Christopher Hitchens Explains It All for You | Move over, Sam Harris; another atheist wants the pulpit. (Books & Culture, April 30, 2007)

Book of the Week: Strange Bedfellows | Christopher Hitchens and Christopher Caldwell collaborate on a collection of political writing. Has the millennium arrived unnoticed? (Books & Culture, January 27, 2003)

Uncompromising Positions | Hitchens and Orwell (Books & Culture, November 1, 2002)

Mr. Wilson's Bookshelf | "Wayfaring Stranger" (Books & Culture, November 17, 2006)

first page |

4 of 4

share this page

May (Web-only) 2007, Vol. 51

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment

Reader Reviews are below

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 orders

2-for-1 Gifts!

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Displaying 1 - 3 of 76 comments.

See all comments

armadillo

Posted: May 25, 2007 4:07 AM


If belief in God strengthens my morals, then I should believe. That seems to be a popular argument here. Now...substitute "the invisible unicorn" for God. Suddenly, the idea seems ludicrous. Why? Because SOME of us find it difficult to take on an absurd belief just because it might make us nicer and the world safer. In fact, such an approach to life is, by many definitions, immoral...it's a lie.

Ken	Posted: May 25, 2007 12:42 AM

"If we are not transcendent, why should I give a fig about him, why should I care at all?" Use your imagination...there are plenty of possible answers that don't depend on some unproven, immaterial essence that occupies your body. A Buddhist might care because he has tamed his ego to the extent that he simply has a clear understanding that other folks aren't utterly separate entities that we're free to use and abuse. An existentialist will say he cares because he chooses to care. A biologist might say that a good chunk of morality is either ingrained. A game theorist might say it emerges when intelligent creatures debate how to allocate resources and mates. And on and on. The above views don't necessarily result in belief in an absolute, universal morality that wafts in the air...but maybe that's just the way it is.

DrZaius

Posted: May 24, 2007 5:50 PM


From my vantage point, Wilson is too humble when he states he may be Hitchens's intellectually inferior. Hitchens continually avoided all the difficlut questions. He seems somewhat lightweight to me in terms of his thniking depth. Of course I believe in God, so I may be biased, but I've given much thought about this over the years being scientifically and mathematically trained.

The allotted time for commenting has ended.