All Comments for: "Is Christianity Good for the World?" | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > May (Web-only)

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

"Is Christianity Good for the World?"

Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson debate.

posted 5/08/2007 09:17AM

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 ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 110 comments.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Show All

Konstantin

Posted: May 22, 2007 1:10 AM

Lee, you have failed to answer Jessie's question. Christian consensus on the creeds has nothing to do with moral. What is moral about believing that Jesus is both human and divine, or that he was born of a virgin? Creeds are matters of dogma, not morality. Having said that, I would like you to consider the human cost of achieving the doctrinal conformity which seems so remarkable to you. Throughout the centuries, thousands upon thousands of "heretics" were executed by the Church (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) to achieve this conformity. Just read the history books about the murderous actions of the revered Protestant reformers toward those who disagreed with them on inconsequential matters of theology. You will be amazed at their cruelty. So my point is that theological conformity that you claim as your proof of a "moral standard" within Christianity is itself the result of extremely immoral acts on the part of Christian leaders. End of sermon.

Request to Hitchens

Posted: May 21, 2007 9:18 PM

Hitchens, please tell us, since you won't tell Wilson, why your evolved innate conscience carries any objective weight. And then tell us why it is has any ethical jurisdiction over anyone else's innate conscience. And then address this irony: As a naturalist, the best you can say is that supernaturalist religion is not natural, not the proper result of matter in motion, not what evolution was supposed to produce. And yet supernaturalist religion has happened. Chemicals in motion have given birth to an almost universal belief in deity and afterlife among humans. So how would you go about arguing against the innateness of belief in deity when it is, well, so seemingly innate? Why do you get to pick and choose which innatenesses are the correct innatenesses? To make it more specific, why is my own innate conviction to believe in God not authoritative for you, while your convictions are for me? We know why *you* don't like Xianity, but you're supposed to convince others (see debate title).

Ken Barber

Posted: May 20, 2007 3:37 PM

I do not concur that Christopher has taken on "heavyweights", although I love his fearless denunciation of the 'straw man' of religious humanism which champions an eternally offended God Who tortures the work of His Own creation - especially those He made in His image! I look forward to the day when Christopher, along with all of mankind, including me, will fully discover that we so easily 'strain at gnats and swallow camels" - and that God, and His Christ, is great. The wine will flow (and maybe grace will allow for us to enjoy a glass or two of Johnnie Walker, I speak as a man). What a good laugh shall be enjoyed by all as we cheerfully lose our own sense of self-importance and bathe in the Light of He Who holds us all so dearly. I was not permitted to submit this without choosing 'a star rating' so I selected 5 stars in the knowledge that He shall make all things beautiful in His time.

NW	Posted: May 19, 2007 4:38 PM

Edward - You lack Philosophical and Theoretical scope. Such nonsense could only come from a 10th grader. Hitchens did so much dodging and committed so many contradictions that he should have actually have his degrees taken off of his walls. Susan - You misinterpreted Wilson. He's saying that there are people who claim to be Christian and simply aren't. J - You fail to state how we amount to "anything" at all. I don't think I could force such a large amount of irrational, ill-conceived bashing into such a small space as you have even if I put four days of work into it. Wilson points out the logcal fallacies which lie within Atheism and Nihilism. Apparently, this was too much for you to grasp.

Richard Ball

Posted: May 18, 2007 7:20 PM


If the forest burns down, is God then "totally absent"?

a fixed match

Posted: May 18, 2007 9:48 AM


I like how this "debate" is set up. Hitchens writes something, and it isn't posted until Wilson has finished writing his response to it- thereby ensuring that the christian point of view always has the last word. Ha, ha, ha...

Ninja

Posted: May 18, 2007 9:05 AM


jjj: If I remember correctly, Athiest define morality as that which is universally considered to be good. Since Christians, or everyone at that time, considered slavery to be O.K., would that make slavery right for that time period.

Anonymous

Posted: May 18, 2007 12:26 AM


Christianity is a mythology. Period. Just like Santa or Zeus.

Mark	Posted: May 17, 2007 9:47 PM

Bill:It's unfortunate you couldn't answer my question about seeking God and worshiping Him. It sounds like you have an answer that is dependent upon what kind of God He is, but then you failed to clue us in to those conditional answers. So, let me help: if God is evil, you wouldn't seek Him or worship Him; if, on the other hand, God is good and perfect, you would seek after Him and worship Him. Am I correct? Or, would you not worship Him regardless of the "kind of God" He is? Your statement that you "probably have no business knowing" about origins seems to indicate you don't care. Would you care if someone was pulling all of the money out of your checking account every time you put money in there? I'll bet you would. But the origins of life and the universe, they are pretty trivial matters aren't they? You do give your devotion to at least one thing, Bill. You give it to your money. Why won't you give your devotion to something greater?

Boz	Posted: May 17, 2007 1:30 AM

"Though it is not strictly relevant to the ethical dimension, I would further say that neither the fable of Moses nor the wildly discrepant Gospel accounts of Jesus of Nazareth may claim the virtue of being historically true."To the preceding quote,I respond.Who is one to say that anything the writers of the New Testament wrote was just a fable.This is short sighted to say the least.The writers give names,dates ,places and far more facts one needs to know if the writings were there for one's reading enjoyment.As archeology has proved and will continue to show, is that nothing from the New Testament has been proven factually wrong.It is a biography from eyewitness accounts written shortly after the event transpired.If we are to believe accounts of other historical figures,some written hundreds of years after the facts,what makes these biogaphy(s) any less believable.

prcaldude

Posted: May 16, 2007 11:15 AM

"This argument is completely circular and manipulative. Good Job." So is Hitchens' argument, as Wilson is about to prove. All arguments are ultimately circular: they all begin with an inherent presupposition that is just assumed. They same is true for Hitchens' with his atheism. His problem is that he can't be a logically consistent atheist and make any moral claims. Nice try with the circular argument bit though. It never ceases to amaze me how the blinded atheists are by the plank in their own eyes.

ReidCharlesB

Posted: May 16, 2007 3:18 AM

Nothing new! Hitchens, like other atheists, attempted to overwhelm Christianity with Philosophy and logic without offering any proof, and so he failed. For instance, His arguments were already based on presumptions when he said that "Since religion drew its first breath when the species lived in utter ignorance and considerable fear..." To me, this terribly limits his openness to the idea that the "species" belief is "considerably debatable too. How then can the discussion proceed to any noteworthy direction? As Douglas Wilson pointed out, "Which way do you want to argue this?" Hitchens cited many points of argument but, directionless while offerring no proof at all. To me, this suggests that the ground of atheism he is standing on is shrinking fast when confronted with godly truths. I offer this advice to Hitchens, read history books including those created by men of God...from the Holy Bible.

Edward in Canada

Posted: May 15, 2007 1:02 PM

i believe in God. i do not believe in religions. they are simply a device where some men control the lives of others for their own dominence. thats all. but Mr. Wilsons response to Mr. Hichens, was poorly written, confusing, and lacked critical thought. i think if you go into a forest, God is totally present, so i do not believe in atheism. But i recognize that Mr. Hitchens is a brilliant man. he certainly "won" that mini debate.

vince porter

Posted: May 15, 2007 12:00 AM

the religion industry is too big, with too many vested interests, to be put aside by reason. So, otherwise bright people will continue to support it and promote it just as tobacco executives will promote smoking while refusing to look the truth in the face. There is nothing about religion that demands libraries of books. It is all semantics, and has not advanced anywhere beyond "I believe" in the last four thousand years. Oh, the words have gotten bigger and more complex, but the understandings remain juvenile. It is just bull masquerading as deep thinking.

Kris Wright

Posted: May 14, 2007 11:32 PM

You write, "We cannot ever accept that our deepest presuppositions are incorrect; this is true of Christians, atheists, and all other humans." Now this... is objectively false. I can accept that my deepest presuppositions are incorrect. Just show me some evidence that evolution is false and if it stands up to inquiry and falsification then I'll accept my presupposition as incorrect. You strike at the difference between a religious mind and a scientific one. A religious mind can barely, and often not at all, "accept that its deepest presuppositions are incorrect." Whereas, this is the bases of science. As a scientist I assume everything claimed is false and look for ways to prove it so. As a religious person you take everything in the Bible and believe it of pure faith unable and/or unwilling to seek falsehoods within it (you just assume what you can not know, then 'moral' authority and say I'm going to hell for not making the same logical leap).

apologia

Posted: May 14, 2007 7:43 PM


Kris: Is it true that you believe morality to be a personal and or social contstruct, and therefore it is what one believes it is, and so what one believes about morality is his own business?

Dr. David Reagan

Posted: May 14, 2007 3:39 PM


Such a waste of time!

rv	Posted: May 14, 2007 2:52 PM

"Atheism explains nothing" - were you told to believe that atheism has answers that other myth-based beliefs don't? How does that weaken reasonable, reality-based critical thinking? A lot of us who don't believe in the Easter Bunny, Alah, gods in general or other 2000+ year old ideas at some point to have to give up trying to have an intelligent debate with believers. After reading some of Douglas' points, I don't see why Hitchens would bother responding - it is all so wonderfully convenient - Douglas has an answer for everything. Should be interesting to see if Douglas' show such lenience and convenience with ALL religions. But kudos to him for his parents having born him into the one true religion. Now that really is convenience. I have do give Hitchens a lot of credit for simply keeping a straight face when dealing with "interpreters/believers".

EBM	Posted: May 14, 2007 2:37 PM

If this is the same Douglas Wilson who 1) along with Steven Wilkins, wrote a defense of Southern slavery as "not all that bad"; 2) plaigirized passages from other historical works in that same defense; 3) is a well-known Reconstructionist/dominionist who approves of non-chattel or "nice" slavery (see the approving references of some posters to Bahnsen); and 4) having raped single women marry their attackers in accordance with the Mosaic Code -- then Hitchens is arguing, not with a "heavyweight," but with a scoundrel. That's too bad, because, as a Catholic, I think Hitchens is quite brilliantly wrong, and that someone credible needs to engage him, not a plaigirizing lover of slaveholders.

karl L

Posted: May 14, 2007 1:30 PM

I can only respond that, as a passionate atheist who came to it by way of a fierce quest for knowledge and the true historical/factual underpinnings of the Christian myths, that Wilson ought to try stirring his own theological soup and see what irreconcilable facts and "mysteries" come to the surface! For, as one who has traveled this painful road of seeing through the fabrications of religions, and finding-much to my complete surprise-the true joy of life after the ascension of my own inner voice and intellect, I can attest that the atheist mind is indeed, in almost EVERY case I am personally familiar with, the result of a mind's being stirred and refusing to be controlled by fear! I will admit that many atheists, including myself, have been overly zealous in decrying any positive aspect of religious indoctrination which may or may not exist, but it is usually in response, I assure you, to the increased overzealousness of proselytizing Christians and their obnoxious self-righteousness

Michel

Posted: May 14, 2007 12:06 PM

Hitchens is a non-theist, or atheist, but as never stated that he does not believe in something outside of humanity (he speaks of the expanding universe and scientific discovery with reverence). He simply does not believe in Theism, or in man-made religion. I hate it when theologians state that ethics contradict, and are incompatible with non-theism. The claim that disbelief in the teaching of instituted religions in some way condones rape, genocide, etc. is naive. I believe that inherent in man is some kind of basic respect and empathy for life (this inherent nature can be explained biologically and therefore does not rely on theism). There is no way of getting around the fact that if bible is inspired by god, and the bible condones crimes against humanity, installing hierarchies of gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation, 'god' is surely not the loving kind of god Christians claim he is, nor is he the kind of creator one would wish to spend eternity with.

Anonymous

Posted: May 13, 2007 9:52 PM


"Christian slaveholders used the Bible to justify themselves, and they did so rightly. " No, chattel slavery is not supported by scripture. I guess you know more than the monks and scholars who devote their lives to the Bible and disagree with you?

David Madden

Posted: May 13, 2007 8:16 PM

Any refutation of the idea that God exists will have greater standing if one can prove some other primal cause for man's existence. As to origins, Hitchens seems to declare that between God and nothing, he chooses, via free will, nothing. Too much of what he says, eloquently and with wit, makes him sound like the eternal sophomore who recites all the easy arguments or mere sarcasms [Latin: to tear flesh] in a tone of the hysterical discovery of the obvious. As an agnostic for 50 years who returned to Christ a decade ago in a lasting fit of faith, I recognize the line of thought like a line of cocaine. He (and I bak then and most agnostics and atheists) are like the fundamentalist Christians: he takes everything in the Bible and in Christian thinking literally. My own belief is that Faith is the only fact; all else is metaphor. Agreeing with him about the crimes of Christians and organized religion (and that the Old Testament dilutes the New) doesn't diminish my transcendent Faith.

Former christian

Posted: May 13, 2007 7:16 PM

Atheism is good for the world. Look at the European countries with the highest percentage of Atheists in their population (for example - Sweden, Norway, Denmark) and you will find these countries have a lower crime rate, lower rates of teen-age pregnancies and a higher rate of charitable contributions per capita. Look at countries with the highest percentage of christians (for example - the United States of America) and you will find just the opposite - higher crime rates, greater rates of teen-age pregnacies and a lower rate of charitable contributions per capita.

aluvian

Posted: May 13, 2007 5:26 PM

Excellent try by Wilson on debate, FUNDY atheists parrot all the time too using "STRAW MAN STRAW MAN" when theists are debating with them. also superjer your rant on life eternal is besides the point Wilson was making. With no God as an objective base for morality. ppl will do beneficent and evil things with nothing to distinguish them as good or evil, since morality has no basis anymore. and no its not ok to murder Christians purely for pragmatic reasons (they go to heaven, it works!) but for the atheist maybe it does because of pragmatic reasons (the less superstitous idiots, the more rational the world would be!) Also a final thought Atheist also are wishful thinkers Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: "I WANT this world not to have a god, because it frees me to erotomania and political beliefs" nuff said.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment